[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 36 KB, 550x402, sartre-et-camus1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4666221 No.4666221 [Reply] [Original]

So, who's better /lit/? Jean-Paul Sartre or Albert Camus?

>> No.4666223

>>4666221
merleau ponty

>> No.4666224

>>4666221
camus can do
but satre
is smart-re

>> No.4666241

bump

>> No.4666254

Michel Foucault

>> No.4666274 [SPOILER] 
File: 24 KB, 373x475, Heidegger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4666274

>>4666221
Neither. It is, tragically, the Meister aus Deutschland.

>> No.4666312

bump 2

>> No.4666328

>>4666221
Diogenes obviously.

>> No.4666437

bump 3

>> No.4666896

scooby-doo can doo-doo
but jimmy carter
is smarter

>> No.4666900

>>4666224
That's not how you pronounce his name.

>> No.4667486
File: 26 KB, 309x488, camus 001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4667486

Absurdism beats Existentialism, so

>> No.4667496

>>4666328
Diogenes didn't write shit.

>> No.4667522

>>4667486

I thought absurdism was just a perspective within existentialism. Or am I just being a total überpleb?

>> No.4667532

>>4667522
No.

>> No.4667597

>>4667522
Yes.

>> No.4667607

>>4667522

Maybe.

>> No.4667634

>>4667532
>>4667597
>>4667607
k

>> No.4667665

>>4667532
>>4667597
>>4667607
welcome to /lit/, ladies and gentlemen

>> No.4667695
File: 102 KB, 856x1172, Thomas_Carlyle_lm[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4667695

>>4666221
Neither, none and nunnadat.

>> No.4668444

bump 4

>> No.4668453

Camus is way better, sartre is a bloated drugged out egotist. But they both suck, grow up, are you 14? Because that's when I stopped reading angsty bullshit

>> No.4668460

>>4667665
samefag

>> No.4668462

>>4668453
>angsty bullshit

You obviously dont read past news-sites and preferred social media.

>> No.4668468

>>4668453
If you want to read existentialism read Notes from Underground, one of dostoyevskys 2 good books, and Nietzsche, Heidegger is a waste of time unless you have an incredible amount of time on your hands, same with Kant, if you want Absurdism read Kafka

>> No.4668480

>>4668468
Nietzsche, Kant and Heidegger are only for those with academic interest and are fairly well read in philosophy.

Sartre, Dosto, Kafka and Camus are accessible and should be read by anyone.

>> No.4668483

>>4668480
Agreed except for Nietzsche, he's pretty accessible

>> No.4668490

>>4666221
Shitty absurdist vs Shitty marxist.
Whoever wins, the people lose.

>> No.4668493

>>4668480
That and I think, Dosto isn't worth the time, The Stranger sucks so only read it so you can say you have, what should you read by Sartre? Nothing, If you're a sadist read Being and Nothingness, if you want to hate him as much as I do read Existentialism as a Humanism, if you're fucking lazy read Nausea, Kafka is the only one worth reading all his shit. If you want Russian literature read Gogol, if you're reading for philosophy then just read philosophy, don't waste your time with proselytizing literature. Read for the words

>> No.4668502

>>4668483
His beautiful writing is, but to truly comprehend his ideas, you have to know the ideas he critiques. I guess that's just as true for the others, though.

>> No.4668520

>>4667522
Absurdism is the realist variant of existentialist optimism. You might say within or alongside but neither prevents us from comparing merits of each

>> No.4668541

>>4666221
Camus

>> No.4668868

>>4666221
I've only read The Extranger and I though it was good.

Is /lit/ being contrarian about Sartre or is he worth it?

>> No.4668997

>>4668868

Sartre's great; read Nausea. It's perfect if you're an edgemeister like me.