What does Veeky Forums think of camus?

milquetoast existentialist

the cernovich of philosophy

You lack the ability to understand the 'simplistic' style of his prose. All camus it's about not what it's written but what it's not said. The apparent two-dimensions-characters it's saying something about his view of the world... Get a grip on existencialism, bro. It sucks, but you must know about what you are talking about.

i wasn't talking about his prose, although it is as simplistic as what the novel presents

The 'simplistic' character construction is the same. You may believe that existencialism as a whole is simplistic (which I somewhat agree), but the book itself it's a really good exponent of the author views.

To express the life emptied of meaning you need that kind of novel. It's like seeing Waiting for Godot and saying it's boring, of course it is but that's the whole purpose.

fair

The Fall was breddy gud so I read the Stranger and didn't finish . 6/10 might read more

I get it hes a meme but he is one of my favorite authors. Yeah the stranger is a meme but his other works (particularely the fall and the rebel) are far better.

One thing i love about Camus is that he as a person lived his philosophy. Was he perfect? No. But compared to some authors his personal life stands out as a reflection of the philosophy of life his works seem to support.

>but the stranger was a boring simplistic book
Does a book need to be layered with purple prose, dense academic references and hundreds of pages to present simple ideas? I enjoy simplicity

besides anyone who thinks that Camus was too simple clearly has not read The Fall. Unlike Sartre, Camus presented a complex tangle of ideas while also being coherent and relatable. And even in his "academic" works (the rebel, myth of sisyphus) Camus didnt need a 500+ page rambling assortment of pages to present coherent ideas that draw from the history of literature and philosphers (again, unlike Sartre. Being in Time was the most abysmal "look at how big my academic dick is" work).

Ill add more to this:

I compare Sartre and Camus because they are quite similar in their ideas and both on the existentialist train (despite Camus denying his attachment to the existentialist movement [possibly because he despised Sartre? We will never know]).

Im drawing superficial parallels,
but they are valuable nonetheless. Sartre was ugly while Camus was elegant in numerous different ways: their physical appearance, their writing and their personal lives, to name a few.

Sartre attempted to write simplistic works (see Nausea) but it simply does not compare to the Stranger. Nausea is a dry, slogging work that presents an unrelatable and depressing individual, while the Stranger presents a relatable, even desirable figure: that of Mersault. (Of course the whole point of the Stranger is to show that even Mersault was not immune to the sort of destructive ignorant immoral decisions that many of us think we can never possibly find ourselves doing).
Camus was far better at writing fiction, imo, and if you accept this distinction you see why Camus has the upper hand when it comes to communicating ideas.

Academic works must refer to the world that others have created, ideas that others have used, in order to make sense of the world. But a fictional work can efficiently communicate complicated ideas while being entertaining (unless youre the sort of masochist who likes to read dense academic verbiage, repulsive leagues of esoteric "higher knowledge", one is reminded of reading Hegel).

It is in Camus' simplicity that we find beauty. The Fall, while being complex and requiring multiple read throughs, no doubt is a masterful work that presents the heart of existentialism while also being a fun read.

>tl;dr: fuck sartre, hop on camus' dick and prosper

>All camus it's about not what it's written but what it's not said.
What's not been said thus far is that your grammar is fucking atrocious.

Did you read it in French?

Sartre is much better than you think.

Cntd:

To illuminate the character of Camus, someone posted a doc the other day on the Fall:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQCsSuj3LgA

The doc mentions Camus cheating on his wife. In this regard the Fall can be seen as a personal monologue on Camus' guilt. In the doc the friend mentions Camus felt (im paraphrasing) he should never have married her. He made a mistake, and he felt the guilt that his actions caused.

To me this shows the true nature of Camus. He made mistakes like we all do. But Camus accepted full responsibility for the pain and suffering he caused.

On a more positive note during WW2 Camus was the editor for Resistance, a French publication that attacked the German regime for its immoral invasion and crimes against not only France but the world (mind you this was in a time when many of the French cowishly bowed to their new German overlords).

Explain yourself

I am
I admit i have only read Nausea and Being and Nothingness. Excuse my lack of reading Sartre. Like i said i am making superficial comparisons, and certainly Sartre is a respectable philosopher in his own right, especially compared to other parasites.

I totally accept his general premise that we are condemned to be free. It is the path he takes to present his ideas that i am critical of.

I don't have much to explain, Sartre and Camus are both good writers. I think you should read some of Sartre's theater before passing judgment.

Also, have some pity for the man, please. He was literally a 5'0, fish-eyed and fish-mouthed man and he still managed something pretty impressive.

Read No Exit followed by The Flies and see if your opinion stays the same. The ending of The Flies might be one of the most heroic passage in literature, especially if you consider existentialism as a backdrop.

Will do i appreciate your insight

aeon.co/ideas/how-camus-and-sartre-split-up-over-the-question-of-how-to-be-free

Saw this the other day, curious what other people think of it. I have always favored Camus, but Sartre's plays are great. Wasn't impressed by Being and Nothingness or Critique of Dialectical Reasoning.

I am This article was a great read. I agree with you that Camus is more favorable but we are splitting hairs when we compare Camus to Sartre (a split which is necessary, as we both see).

To me Camus and Sartre understood that allowing the individual as much freedom as possible is mandatory. But their means of achieving that differed. To Sartre, revolution, a necessary tenant of communism, had to occur. To Camus, we can create this change without (too much) violence.

To make it clear i generally agree with Camus. I feel that the Marxian notion of revolution is overrated, but the overall notion of legally "living together" is incredibly useful.

I am not intending to incite a political war on these two authors. They both paved the way for a global discussion on the intentions of liberalism/libertarianism of governments worldwide, whether they intended to or not.

It seems to me that the Sartreian view, namely, we must do what is necessary to achieve true liberalismm or die, is too black/white. Our lives are far more complicated (specific issues often have seemingly infinite potential solutions) and even when we feel that one solution is better for everyone, we can be very wrong.

Respond to whatever of this, i know i wrote a lot

good poasts

>What's not been said thus far is that your grammar is fucking atrocious.
Sorry for being a beaner..

Of course it is. All of Camus's writing is simple by design. He was trying to get a philosophical point across more than he was trying to convey a complex idea or narrative.

He's taught as an intro to existentialism to high schoolers specifically because its so easy to understand. Nothing wrong with that, his writing is good for what it is.

To add to my own post, people think its lmao2deep4me because that cringey ass you know cites him as the pinnacle of philosophy specifically because thats the most philosophy he's read. Be glad you're not that guy.

Like most intro tier lit, he's a great introduction. Conveying the simple core behind ideas that get much more complex with analysis is a respectable skill. That's why Camus is highly regarded.

the lack of ability i was talking about it was about this. You can't understand the genius of Camus writing if you don't understand what he was attempting. Saying it's bad because it's simple is dumb, that's the whole point.

I think that Camus can do, but Sartre is smartre.

>what does Veeky Forums think of camus?

you will grow out of him relatively quickly if you're a decent reader.

just do your homework and skip him m8.

did he write The Stranger?

stop shitposting and get back to reading the stranger, scrub

i read The Myth of Sisyphus in college. but I forget what it was about. something about a big rock and a mountain? You have to endure life no matter how pointless/painful it is? am i getting this right?

Kek.