Maybe, but I think it may also be possible they mean the same thing but from different perspectives or maybe whether you are willing to cross some line like dying or killing for a cause. There was a disagreement around 100 years ago when WW2 ended between philosophers Sartre and Camus about how to be free and whether violence and murder can be justified for political goals. Camus supported the French in WW2 but did not support political violence outside of war, in The Rebel he rejects revolutionary violence as it undermines/betrays yourself and is utopian and absolutist. Sartre thought violence could be justified for the right cause like communism to build and maintain a system for justice and freedom until it was obvious the tankies had taken over during the revolution reaction in Hungary. Sartre became an apologist for Soviet revolutionary violence until '56 and Camus was an advocate for nonviolent rebellion. I don’t know what the answer is or if there is one.
whotookkarl@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Maybe, but I think it may also be possible they mean the same thing but from different perspectives or maybe whether you are willing to cross some line like dying or killing for a cause. There was a disagreement around 100 years ago when WW2 ended between philosophers Sartre and Camus about how to be free and whether violence and murder can be justified for political goals. Camus supported the French in WW2 but did not support political violence outside of war, in The Rebel he rejects revolutionary violence as it undermines/betrays yourself and is utopian and absolutist. Sartre thought violence could be justified for the right cause like communism to build and maintain a system for justice and freedom until it was obvious the tankies had taken over during the revolution reaction in Hungary. Sartre became an apologist for Soviet revolutionary violence until '56 and Camus was an advocate for nonviolent rebellion. I don’t know what the answer is or if there is one.