Mid-century existentialists disputed whether political disagreement can coexist with friendship

Evidence

Sartre, Beauvoir, Camus and Koestler had previously become good friends, debating political topics in high spirits during convivial, drunken evenings. During one of their wild nights out at an émigré Russian nightclub around 1946, the question of friendship and political commitment came up. Could you be friends with someone if you disagreed with them politically? Camus said you could. Koestler said no: ‘Impossible! Impossible!’ In a sentimental buzz of vodka, Beauvoir took Camus’ side: ‘It is possible; and we are the proof of it at this very moment, since, despite all our dissensions, we are so happy to be together.’ — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 780

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Direct confrontation between philosophers can leave both parties puzzled and affronted — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 279; Friendship’s collapse reduced shared perception of objects to political stalemate — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 785; Systemic realism and active political commitment can coexist rather than exclude each other (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Friendship’s collapse reduced shared perception of objects to political stalemate #exemplifies (0.83) — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café, 785
• Systemic realism and active political commitment can coexist rather than exclude each other #corroborates (0.75)
• Existential therapy accepts rather than argues against the reality of isolation #exemplifies (0.72) — Sheldon Solomon, Jeff Greenberg, Tom Pyszczynski, The Worm at the Core, 752