|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jackie asked:
|
|
In what ways are Camus and Heidegger different?
|
|
============
|
|
Heidegger was much older than Camus, and he died in his bed, whereas Camus died when his car
crashed into a tree. It is supposed that he had epileptic tendencies and suffered an attack just as he
was driving.
|
|
Also Heidegger was a German, whereas Camus was a Frenchman. This means they wrote their
books in different languages, and although Camus was deeply influenced by Heidegger, he was very
selective in what he took from his older contemporary. For example, one of Camus' ideas, which he
followed through in a book entitled The Myth of Sisyphus,is that the ultimate philosophical principle is
suicide, i.e. whether we can justify, once we have realised the logical absurdity of living a human life,
that we do not make an end of it. I'm not aware of Heidegger's response, but I think he might have
shaken his head in disbelief at such naivety.
|
|
Camus, of course, also wrote plays and novels. Heidegger never wrote anything other than
philosophy books and papers. That's probably why Camus got a Nobel prize and Heidegger did not.
In this context it might interest you that Bertrand Russell also got his Nobel for literature, not
philosophy. Now you know at least what's important in the world of Messrs Nobel & Co.
|
|
I could go on for a while yet, but in the end there is no substitute to actually saying 'hello' to Camus
and Heidegger. The book is just referred to is less than 200 pages and not very difficult (if you can
read the arts column in your weekend newspaper, then you can read Camus). Heidegger is difficult,
true enough: but you could make a start by reading his 50-page 'Letter on Humanism' and that would
give you a very good perspective on what Heidegger is all about. Then you would be very well placed
to figure out the difference in their philosophies, and it would save you wading through at least the
same number of pages in the secondary literature, which of course can't answer that question any
better than doing what I have just recommended.
|
|
Jürgen Lawrenz
|
|
Sydney.
|
|