Customer Reviews

Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Not only does this book contain the original articles that comprise one of the great intellectual debates of the last century, it also has very helpful contextual commentary by the editors.

One can substitute terrorism for Stalinism and the debate is, if you will forgive the cliche, as current as the headlines. But it most certainly is not at all like the sound bite debates of Cross Fire. Great breath and depth in the arguments of the participants - anguished arguments about the relationships between means and ends, justice and freedom; and finally personal responsibility.

Camus corectly sees Stalinism, read terrorism, an an unmitigated evil. Yet, he sought to live as neither victim nor executioner. That caused him no end of grief, especially as he confronted the Algerian situation. Nevertheless his arguments call to mind the views of the Polish and Czech dissidents in the 80s. An anti-politics, a living "as if" one were free. No crusade to eliminate evil from the earth, no war; rather a third way.

Sartre on the other hand saw Stalinism as an understandable, even necessary, response to the injustice inflicted on the wretched of the earth. His understanding of human nature, dare one use that term in discussing Sartre, was such that chioce was required in all circumstances. By this time, in Sartre's thinking, no third way was possible. If the choice is between victim or executioner, he would choose executioner.

Sartre is correct, one must choose. Camus is correct, there is a third way. Enter the debate if you dare. There is no easy exit.