Fantastic video! Maybe, you want to pin your own comment, so people see it, as you took your time to write it down ;)

@@Feds_the_Freds Ah thanks for letting me know Marco I didn't realise this one wasn't pinned

@TheLivingPhilosophy I definitely liked and agreed with your emotional preference for Camus... but do also equally believe that Sartre 'got things done' (intellectually) in an epoch when attempting to get things done (by others) required 'steely' philosophical commitment to the fight against facism! Hoohar! Camus' idealism was the foundation for his absurdism and very sadly cut short by his early death! However, his profound greatness can still be found in his published work whereas Sartre's remains somewhat dampened by his intellectual vanity! The fact that Camus was also an excellent goalkeeper probably sways the competition for me personally... although reading 'The Stranger' was also just as remarkable! Highly recommended reading for those who haven't! Excellent video... much thanks! Crack on!

The deepest darkness that was not contained in Satre that was loosely connected to rationality and conscience in reasonings, was eaten up with the stubborn pride of being correct in everything that led to the decay of deep philosophical relationship with Camus, thus the acidic discourses between them to the severance of a friendship of two different philosophies. Keyword, 'contain darkness' is crucial for those intellectuals that is not bound to morality or rationalism. This is reasons why Dostevsky are disgusted with intellectuals. JamesWhiskey

Todays intellectuals are disconnected from real life? Do you have any examples?

@@MrRational59 Some examples include Science, Religion, Woke culture, Cancel culture, BLM, LGBTQ, mgtow and feminism. These examples are meaningful and harmless until individuals associate them to what is "correct", heroism or justice. "You are too proud blindly marching forward with your zealous cause that you don't realize you leave a turbulence to ruin those that are and are not involved to pick up the pieces. It makes the people with good intentions look bad and crass. It ruins privileges for them and omits their problems creating a cycle of hatred and retaliation."

@@MrRational59 are you really that blind?

​@Kova-ow2en That's not a response

I can help. Take the greens party of Australia. They are willing to vote down any slightly progressive legislation in the senate in favour of “not progressive enough”. This garners favour from the intellectual middle/lower class for the purpose of spite toward the wealthy, even if it means leaving the most needy/vulnerable in their current disposition. This allows them to maintain their increasing voting base among young impressionable intellectuals empowered suburban mums, all the while stifling any pragmatism that offers help to the poorest from the centre left.

He was also a certified gigachad. That man's life was absolutely amazing

Exactly my sentiments.

Violence of the violently oppressed and the violence against those oppressed are quite different, even when you don't view it favorably, it is reactionary to side with the police hammering in on protestors (for example).

@@theyabib3323 I agree that there are times when the use of violence is neccesary but it should never be the first option. Violence should be used only when all other avenues have been exhausted. Even if it seems right to use violence against the oppressor and can be tempting to enact vengeance against an oppressive force using violence when there are still other avenues to explore only serves strengthen propaganda against a cause. Should open revolution against an oppressor become the only option then that road should be followed but not before things such as reform have been tried.

​@@skakried7673 I disagree, kind of. I think that violence is justified as a response to active violence, not acted out by one group of the 'radical intellegensia', and properly organized, but popular protest as a means of expressing popular discontent with the current order.

Thanks Steven that's high praise I really appreciate the kind words it's comments like this that put a dumpload of fuel in the engine and are the reason I'm still doing this so thank you

Word.

is ur pfp chopin

@@dreuvasdevil9395 it is. Supposedly it's a portrait by Delacroix, housed in Mallorca.

Amen to that .

Thank you! Yeah it was a deep rabbit hole exploring the topic but it was great to see how their relationship went and what they thought of each other's philosophy

Here we are again, friend

Thank you!!

engaging would have been a better word

Wow! You met Camus! That's awesome he's someone that's had such an impact on my life - being my initiator into philosophy - that I'd just love to sit down for an hour and have an espresso with the man

@@TheLivingPhilosophy lol... We study Camus early in highschool in France, while Sartre is more introduced to students in arts & letters classes specialities... The man of the people, for the people vs the social elitist ?! Sorry for the shortcuts and thank you for your dedication it was a great video definitely will watch some more ✌️

​@@TheLivingPhilosophyCamus died 63 years ago so it is indeed miraculous that this person met him 45 years ago lol

@@JuxJacy Quotes.

@ Yes I understood but the person I was replying to thought he actually met Camus.

Political disputes NEVER age well, problem is those who are a part of those disputes never live to the day to see how intellectually petty it is.

@@wisherofsnowdays if you think "women should have rights" is an extremist position I guess you are right about that

@@wisherofsnowdays Enlightened centrism from what I've seen just now browsing through their subreddit mainly makes fun of people who believe both sides are right and each of their points of view should be taken seriously. Camus was not a centrist . He was a socialist and a noted leftist who supported unions. He had disagreements with the bourgeoisie left and the methods of tyrants who co-opted leftist ideologies yes. But at the end of the day Camus politics was that of the left.

HaHa, yeah i think its actually very simple. Lets try to not be ideologues.

@@yaw1492I hate how people have tried to take his criticisms of the USSR as a sign that he was opposed to left-wing politics. People do the same thing with Orwell and it’s incredibly disingenuous.

That's a delight to hear Paul glad you enjoyed it so much!

beautifully said!

You can definitely find more than simply b & n by Sartre in a used bookstore & Of course Camus has aged better (in the west at least) as he was ultimately an idealist who redefined his own version of idealism under a banner of ‘the absurd’, and who, among other things, disagreed openly with totalitarian and tyrannical governments and systems, a very popular blanket sentiment agreed upon in the west (even while some of his actual actions in life contradicted these beliefs) and, importantly, Camus was and is better known as a novelist than a philosophical writer, and we all know that in our current and very anti intellectual world, any good novelist will always be better known to a degree than a writer whose body of work is defined (as Sartre’s is) more by works which are less explicitly entertainment and more interested in overtly communicating ideas which are often difficult to express let alone understand in the reading of them. Camus writing entertainment which disguises his own philosophical and ideological manifestos was more accessible and by their nature more easily interpretable (even if their interpretation is as varied) but that doesn’t mean that Sartre’s work isn’t found scuffed up, marked in and notated or that he didn’t also write novels which essentially did the same thing. Those novels are only lesser known, if they are, because of what is now considered to be a greater importance lying in his denser, harder to read books, which Camus never even attempted. Personally, I’ve been able to take in things from both writers but I disagree with your premise that ‘the people have spoken’. ‘The people’ have a harder time digesting one’s work over the other, which does not necessarily form a preference. Not to mention, whose to say that Camus even did this by design or whether or not his more simplistic approach and it’s supposedly larger readership, is not just a fated accident and a byproduct of his inability to write something as large in scope of thought ? If Camus is more widely known or read it is because he is more easy to read (and misunderstood) and his writing is more about what any one reader sees in it than what any of his actual points were (at least by comparison). Sartre was controlling of his inner narrative and so endlessly afraid of being misunderstood that his works are often denser to the point of being pedantic but if he’s considered lesser, it’s only because he was more cynical and less willing to fall into an idealism that he knew would never really come to fruition. Camus has a spark of hope in his work that Sartre’s never did which is more attractive because we all want a reason to hope. Camus attempted to connect with humanity while Sartre attempted to explain it’s nature for better and worse. But this hypothetical posited certainly isn’t because Camus was a better writer or even necessarily because his ideas were in any way superior (as this comment seems to imply).

Appeal to popularity? Pathetic. Just because he's unpopular says nothing about the substance of his writing or his arguments. The fact that you decided to write an entire paragraph about it says everything about you, and nothing about him.

Thanks for sharing. Albert Camus is my favorite Philosopher. I've been reading his works and discovering more about myself in the process.

@Mutiny960 that was a bit „acid way of talking“, but I think you are right. Whoever was „right“ or „wrong“ should not be dictated by how THIS society reads their books.

Couldn't agree more. Camus' moral clarity was sorely needed back then and in these radical, extreme times as well.

I don't think we can say one is superior to the other. Camus' morality fits with my own. We can't understate Satre's contributions, even if we don't agree with his ideology.

What has puzzled me for a long time - and still does - is the fact that such different writers, with opposite views about "socialism" - the rebel and the revolutionary - were both awarded the Nobel Prize!

​@@gremblebeanYes we can. They are different and by definition, one must have better, or more applicable views than the other. Saying otherwise is a cop-out.

Who do you find unlikable, the politicians or voter base?

Ah really? That's awesome I've a lot of gratitude for that guy and a lot of appreciation for his work. Glad you're enjoying the channel Andrew welcome aboard!

Haha yeah the Sartre is an obscure classic! I agree that Camus is a much more grounded sort of figure thinking into the real concrete world implications of philosophy. Glad you're enjoying the video and welcome aboard! Hope you'll enjoy the collab on Sunday!

regarding revolution, I think Pete Townshend said it best " meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

That's actually a very good way of explaining how Camus aimed at approaching the same issues that Sartre did. I think Sartre established new ground with his thoughts, the notion that a person could give their own life meaning was certainly a massive leap forward in the modern philosophical outlook of your average reader and thinker. It was invaluable and required, but Sartre took that idea and expanded on it by explaining how the formation of subjective meaning was itself a form of rebellion against the cruel indifference of the universe. I never took Camus works to claim that meaning itself could not or should not be created. His forms of philosophical suicide did not encompass Sartre's philosophical conclusions. It simply refined Sartre's idea surrounding "bad faith". Instead, I think Camus sought to refine Sartre's ideas into a more digestible format while also elaborating on his own ideas surrounding rebellion, suicide and life.

Yeah y'know what you are right. While some of his political thoughts are a bit off for me his existentialism and his actual philosophy are quite interesting I think it's just the way he handled the Camus situation and some of his political evaluations tainted the cup for me a little

@@TheLivingPhilosophy Agreed, I learned of Satre as a person after I read Being and Nothingness and it definitely altered my love of his writings. However, I still feel that his work holds a lot of merit especially in regards to bad faith and it's relationship with sincerity.

@@IrrationalConsumer totally agree and at some point I do want to dig down into them on the channel. There's a lot of baby in the bathwater

​@@TheLivingPhilosophyIt's hard to be credible when you're obsessed with injustice and you're an apologist for Stalin.

Thanks Kenneth!

I really appreciate this input. It's a part of the story I wasn't aware of so thank you. Definitely requires further understanding

Thanks Kevin!

Same

Well to be honest I wrote so many different scripts for this video exploring different aspects that I think I could quite easily do that I'll add that to the list!

Noted!

@@TheLivingPhilosophy This video felt so jam packed with context that I am missing but am eager to check out. Admittedly I haven't seen the rest of your channel so I'll have to check out the rest of your content. I came after I saw your post from the philosophy subreddit btw.

@@johnnyray9107 Yeah there was so much that I had to pare out it could really have gone on for over an hour but tried to constrain it to the topic and avoid all the juicy contextual tangents. Welcome to the channel hopefully you'll find a few more gems lying around here!

Thanks a million Tom!

His references are linked in the description. I think all of Camus’ books are accessible relative to other philosophy, so I would just go in chronological order.

I actually just finished a book called The Genesis of Modernity and one third of it was about Weber. First proper encounter with him and I can tell you I am excited to dive deeper and start talkign about him. Not sure when I'll get around to it but he's definitely on my radar

Thank you very much!

My pleasure John!

Thanks DW! Hopefully someday they will get it!

You say that it's a necessary part but remember the American Revolution came before the French one and there was no Robespierre there however I'll allow that this was a small and new nation. With a nation with deeply entrenched "interests" revolution may be necessary. And to be honest I'm not anti-revolution as a principle. I think the French Revolution was a necessary step in the evolution of European culture. It's more the authoritarian Bolshevik strain that I question. All those benefits that you speak of were fruits of the French Revolution but I see very few that the Soviet revolution has brought about. So I don't think you can simple say that all revolution is good and is a step to progress. I think there are times that it ends up being a net positive and it had the potential to do so in Russia but I don't believe that it did and Sartre came to agree in his later years. You could turn to China if you wanted to make a stronger case and this is what Sartre did in his later years and indeed I think China looking at it now compared with its pre-Revolution there's an argument to be made for greater goods though certainly it had its terrors along the way and even still it is the boogeyman of the West. To my mind it's neither one nor the other; it's both. You can't just launch a revolution at every little speedbump; you have to look to reform. But then there are times in history when revolution and war can cleanse the ground (the Destroyer archetype being the flip side of the coin of the Creator archetype - Heraclitus's war is the father of all things) so that something new can emerge. It's a reset of the game but hopefully without extinguishing the torch of the old one completely as happened in the bronze age collapse or to a lesser extent with the fall of rome. In facing the horrors at any point in history I do not think you can say that revolution is a guaranteed boon. When you launch a revolution you are rolling the dice. You are saying the old way is so horrendously miserable that we will play some roulette. For countries with a large middle class this risk becomes less and less appealing. Squeeze the middle class back to the poverty line and this may change but regardless I think the perspective of revolution as a panacea is naive at best.

@@TheLivingPhilosophy I didn't mean to imply that all revolutions are good (or progressive), not at all. I also agree with you in the fact that, depending on the case they can be carried out in more peaceful ways (I like the try of Allende for example). But, in my opinion both bolshevik and french revolutions were extremely violent but progressive and with huge impact (for the better - see Piketty for example, very far from suspicious of Bolshevism) in the world and to a large extent in the countries themselves. Now what I did mean is that sometimes eventhough revolutions are a dice, they are a necessary step at some historical stages (in each country's concrete case). I like the ideals of Camus, I just think it's the easy way to condemn all violence. We live in a sad and violent world, we cannot either aspire to change it in a perfectly peaceful way. This said, I also dislike profoundly the authoritarian Bolshevik strain: I just think Camus's stance would have made him condemn also violence from, say CNT in Spain (which I fully support from an ideological pov maybe not strategical). Btw, I liked the ref to Heraclitus :) , Have a nice day!

​@@miretov6740 This is really interesting. I have heard and would agree with the broad positive consequences and the historical necessity of the French Revolution to move things forward but I haven't heard much of an argument for the same with the Bolshevik revolution. Is there literature on this or could you develop the point further because it's novel to me and I'd love to hear it. I can imagine how someone might make the case for Mao given China's rising hegemony but I just can't fathom it with the Bolshevik. Camus would be in agreement with the point. Camus wasn't totally anti-revolution as far as I know. His stances on the Hungarian revolution show that he was an advocate for violent revolution at times. For him I think with Algeria he saw a much more nuanced situation because you had the pieds noirs who were neither French nor natively Algerian (it would be akin to suggesting that the Scottish-descended unionists leave Ireland because they are not Irish for long enough something which is absurd after hundreds of years). On the other hand the Hungarian situation was more clean cut - it was a recent oppressor and clearly worth fighting back against. Not sure if this changes the slant of the situation at all but I appreciate the quality comment!

@@TheLivingPhilosophy In that case I nuance my oppinion on camus views (maybe distorted due to a debate I saw between badiou and a french intellectual follower of camuis). Regarding the impact of october revolution, there are I believe 3 kinds of positive impacts: international revolutionary push (1), international reformist push (2) and national advances (3). There are also two phases: the revolution in itself (a), and its heir the soviet union (b). 1a was spectacular and was relatively close to bring to its knees great parts of western europe, if anything it helped establish the 8h workweek in spain (in a revolutionary strike), it developped workers councils in the north of turin, german/hungarian revolutions etc... Thanks to that pressure to the ruling classes reforms (2a) were introduced at incredible speed (compared to 1870-1914) see on that some interviews of piketty where he gives very significant examples (regarding taxation in france for example). On the national side 3a nationalities and cultures were for the first time respected, women, workers, minorities rights were granted to a point (going way past the most advanced countries) in the most progressive constitution of the time (we have to also keep in mind the reality of things was awful due to civil war with foreign aid etc etc).

After the failure of the bolshevik rev in Europe, the situation in russia was dire and many advances started being taken down mainly due to geopolitical issues. It is the time of the total loss of rights... Stalin etc etc. On the other side unparalleled economic development thanks to the advantage of centrally planned industrial economies, constitution of 1936 expands furhter worker rights etc... Now 2nd world war the ussr does huge unparalleled efforts to defeat nazism (another good point of the ussr). Now taking a look more generally to the post-stalin era ussr. (1b) helps and gives material aid to revolutionary national liberation movements throughout the 3rd world accelerating decolonization by huge amounts and decreasing western imperial powers. (2b) thanks to the victory of (communist) partisans in europe (France, Yugoslavia etc...) (and their participation in writing new constitutions etc..) and to soviet political presence huge working class power (very progressive constitutions and welfare policies including bank and factories nationalizations etc...), its the golden age of socialdemocracy (the new one) in western countries. Now (3b) the best working conditions ever achieved in history (as to what I know), first time in modern history to end homelessness, hunger, unemployment, everyone is granted a place in society to live, healthcare free education, human development through sports, culture reading etc... It is especially interesting to read about the end of the soviet union (economical and social indicators) to truly realise what they lost (it is heartbreaking), a good synthesis is given in Parenti's Blackshirts and reds but really it's available anywhere on the internet (Piketty also develops the topic). Along this line, the victory of the capitalist class with the fall of the soviet union was seen in the complete demise of the workers movement (even the political left in general) the neoliberal hegemony that was able to implant itself (couldn't have worked in revolutionary or near revolutionary situations) etc etc... Now regarding more fantasy-like reasoning, Soviet Union had a privileged situation to deal with the climate and ressources crisis since it had a more rational economical system that could take into account extra-economic factors (if only they had had the balls to implement OGAS and push for a truly democratic economy) but anyways bureacracy was the cancer of socialist states and now we are all fucked and we have to rebuild everything from the ashes. In conclusion it is impossible to know how the world would look without the bolsh rev so it's kind of a bit absurd to measure its real impact on the world, I am only pointing in some directions.

Thank you so much Sergio! I love the comparison with Occam's razor!

I don't see how anyone could call Sarte a materialist. He believes in absolute free will which is practically incompatible with materialism

@@noah5291 that is a complete mischaracterisation of sartre's view on freedom. Sartre believed in absolute freedom to choose one's own ends not absolute freedom to achieve them.

There are socialists who aren't Utopian?

Thanks a million! Glad you enjoyed it!

I find it horrifying that French people would side so much with Sartre. Goes to show that true humanism is a scarcity even after the lessons history left us with and that ideology is so predominant.

Haha thanks mosaic! The support and love is much appreciated!

Ah I'm delighted to hear you're enjoying the channel. The source of that line wasn't actually from a letter as it turns out but from an interview between Sartre and John Gerassi. It seems they did a series of recorded interviews. Here's the source from the book that I got it from: See Sartre interviewed by John Gerassi (Interview No. 25, 5 May 1972, GEN MSS 441, box 2 F.24. John Gerassi Collection of Jean-Paul Sartre General Collection of Rare Books and Manuscripts, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University).

@@TheLivingPhilosophy You, sir, are really kind, and have officially become my favourite youtuber. Thank you so much for your reply and the information!

Ah much appreciated Julian thanks for those kind words!

LORD Jesus

Ah thanks Netto! Your opinion is much appreciated!

My pleasure Jay thanks for watching!

Delighted to hear it thanks Swati!

Haha that is very high praise indeed thank you for that

Hahaha I dunno about you but I'm definitely a poser or at least one (or a few) of my subpersonalities are for sure! Nothing wrong with a bit of poserism as long as it's in a nice container in a corner of the psyche and not dominating the whole thing. All this posturing aside thank you for the kind words I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Just look at that photo of Camus in that Bogart-esque attitude. That's my EXACT definition of what a poser is. But Camus is also an example that even posers can produce great literature. "Authenticity" means nothing in that world of literature.

Haha thanks a million! And also condolences on the uni professors 😬

Thank you that's a delight to hear

Thanks a million Todd! That means a lot!

Agreed Cara!

Thanks Zachary!

Haha great stuff Lucario keep on clicking on the good stuff!