One of the topics most addressed during the 1950s was existentialism, and with it the authors Jean Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. The pages of the supplement show the influence of this philosophical current and the relevance it had for Latin American thinkers at the time. The texts varied in their approach to the themes, since some sought to defend the validity and clarify the basic concepts of existentialism, while others disseminated the texts and the novelties that were published year after year. On the other hand, a group of texts related existentialist ideas with other authors of literature and human sciences.

For example, in his text « Situación actual del Existencialismo -¿se está produciendo un viraje », Francis Jeanson defended existentialism from what he considered at the time to be a series of unreflective statements and opinions, especially with regard to pessimism and absurdity. The author considered that existentialism could not offer solutions to the moral problems of the time, but that it appealed to the effort of authenticity in the face of every situation, that is, the adoption of a practical attitude that would allow the realization of the human in the world[1].

Meanwhile, in the academies of philosophy there was the impression that existentialist philosophy was overshadowing other currents such as those of the neo-Kantians, neo-positivists, Marxists and Thomists. This was stated by Mariano Picón Salas in an article that recounted the development of the philosophy colloquium held in Mexico around 1950, with the participation of the Frenchman Jean Wahl. According to the author’s opinion, the conclusions of that meeting raised the need for a universally intelligible and valid moral system, which was hardly possible due to the absence of a « treatise on ethics »[2].

For his part, Eduardo Caballero Calderón, in his article « Génesis de una tendencia, el existencialismo francés », explained how existentialist literature had emerged in a post-war scenario, with the collapse of nationalist myths and the moral and social dissolution of Europe. Moreover, such a current had been embraced by young people who found themselves between the dilemma of communism or nihilism. Caballero Calderón stated that an existentialism had also emerged in Latin America, although inspired by different reasons and a different historical situation[3].

Sartre was also presented in the columns of the supplement as a committed intellectual who, despite being branded as a defender of bourgeois individual freedom, was also committed to the social problems of the time, such as the fate of the blacks in the United States, the independence of Algeria, the Hungarian revolution, among others. Likewise, certain articles highlighted Sartre’s conflictive relationship with communism and expressed that the thinker’s efforts to transform and create self-criticism of the communist party were in doubt[4].

Rafael Sanchez Guerra wrote his article « Sartre and the Vienna Congress” on the Peoples’ Congress for Peace, held in Vienna with a strong pro-Soviet influence. There he attacked the French writer for his participation in this type of events with communist sympathizers who had previously branded him as « reactionary, fascist and of being at the service of American imperialism ». This meant the loss of the writer’s freedom and, at the same time, a contradiction with the ideas that appeared in his book The Dirty Hands, where the character was assassinated by fanatics of his own party when confronted between « being » and « should be »[5].

Also on this subject, Luis de Zulueta explained in his article « Un marxismo inhumano. Sartre’s confessions » how the existentialist author had initiated a series of reflections concerning the crisis of communism published in the magazine he edited called Tiempos Modernos. According to de Zuleta, the writing of this essay is spontaneous and written in the form of confessions, since it relates to a certain extent Sartre’s experience of communism and his perception of it. Nevertheless, for the author, this essay aspired to revive Marxism:

enriching it with the modern advances of the sciences, and not precisely of the physical sciences but those that the Germans call sciences of the spirit and in Spanish we used to call moral sciences. He wants to introduce into the sphere of Marxism sociology and psychoanalysis, two branches of current research which the Soviet orthodoxy regards with suspicious animosity[6].

On the other hand, several reviews were written about premieres of Sartre and Camus and their presentations in different theaters of Paris. This is the case of the premiere of Diablo y el buen Dios presented at the Théatre Antoine in Paris and about which Maurice Duval presented his review in the supplement. In his review the author wrote:

Such is, roughly speaking, the latest production of the great existentialist writer, Jean Paul Sartre, who already attracted with « Les Mouches » the wrath of the authorities during the years of the German occupation and who assailed with « Les Mains Sales » the hatred of the Communists, has aroused with this his new piece the most acervate criticisms of the Catholics. But even the official writers of French Catholicism, while condemning the work as to its tendency and moral content, recognize in it undeniable merit. On the other hand, they reproach it for its excessive slowness of pace and, to a certain extent, its lack of truly human warmth[7].

Also on the premiere of El Diablo y el buen Dios, Mauriac in his review made interesting analyses on the atheism of the French existentialist author, affirming that Sartre’s God was the god of the philosophers, that is, a god that functions as an argument to justify a philosophical system and that, therefore, does not exist. In this regard, he states: “that God that Sartre’s new hero ridiculously seeks in the looms of the theater demanding from Him a sign of power, it is within us that he is found and the only sign he offers us is that of the man erect, head raised and face illuminated by an inner light”[8].

In 1951, a particular article also appeared discussing the adaptation of the play Les mains sales to the cinema. The opinion of the author of the article was quite critical, since in the first place it was not necessary since the play was popular in Parisian theaters. Secondly, certain dialogues had been cut in the adaptation, which meant that the contents of the play were reduced in terms of intrigue, losing dramatic force and intensity. The author stated “and this excellent dramatic work, in which we are presented with the serious and interesting problem of the destiny of man in the midst of the vicissitudes of a revolution, is reduced, in the film version, to the limited proportions of a chronicle of political events. This is to be regretted »[9].

Around 1959, Francisco Norden reviewed the premiere of Sartre’s Les sequestres D’altona, after having remained for four years without activity in theaters. This article also included some of Sartre’s opinions in some interviews, in particular one in which the philosopher explained his predilection for the theater to transmit his ideas, since while books and novels speak in a low voice, drama and comedy must raise their voices, which makes it easier for the author to be heard. This review delves into some descriptions of the staging of the play: « The scenery is in poor taste. It is in fact the huge hall of a sad old manor house in Altona, a suburb of Hamburg; to create the reality also requires a little imagination »[10].

On the other hand, quite a few articles also discussed the figure of Albert Camus within the existentialist current and especially paid attention to the origins of the thinker and his relationship with the metropolis. This is the case of Aviles Ramirez, who affirmed that an author like Camus needed a city like Paris to guarantee his editorial triumph and the circulation of his plays. The relationship of his work with Constantine and the Algeria of his childhood made his writings appealing to the Parisian audience, and had brought him fame in the literary circle. However, although Camus’ name was constantly discussed on the stage, the author compared him to the intimidating figure of Sartre[11].

In 1957, when the Algerian-born writer won the Nobel Prize for literature, many articles were written about his life and literary career. The article by Ramón Sender is noteworthy, which comments on the Spanish origins of Camus and relates that Camus was a surname that figured in the academic pomp and circumstance of Madrid’s liberalism. This article said: « Camus speaks Spanish. He has heard it at home before perhaps French. It is not strange that he translated « La Devoción de la Cruz » because of the parallel of the autos sacramentales with the modern poetic theater and specifically with the philosophical tendency and the taste for symbols »[12].

An article by Ballester-Gonzalvo described the Algerian writer as an uncompromising and tormented moralist, but at the same time a serious and pure artist. For the author of the article, Camus’ work enjoyed the recognition of the public and academics in Stockholm because of its spiritual and human message, a message that fitted in with a post-war society in full moral decay. In this 1957 article, the attempts to separate Camus from the existentialist current of which Sartre was the greatest exponent were evident: « It was easy to see, from very early on, that the substantial ideas of the two had nothing in common, on the contrary, they diverged and even excluded each other. The public quarrel that separated them in 1952 was the consequence of this »[13].

Finally, due to his sudden death, several articles were dedicated to Camus and his work. It was said that the writer had managed to be the witness and conscience of his time, which meant having understood the crucial period that Europe was going through. It was said that the literary dimensions of his work and the scope of his thought had yet to be studied, which would come once the shock of his disappearance had passed and it would be discovered whether his figure would really succeed in renewing the French literature of his time[14].

Debate on humanism in Colombia

On April 22, 1951, Restrepo Millán opened a great debate on humanism in Colombia that would occupy different writers of the Sunday supplement. The question posed by Restrepo was: what was the humanist tradition in Colombia? This article was part of a series that the director of the supplement, Jaime Posada, had requested from certain authors with the aim of clarifying whether the country could be called the South American Athens, as it had been doing, or whether, on the contrary, the country was suffering a collapse of its intellectual environment.

In principle, Restrepo Millán argued that the New Kingdom of Granada had been in contact with humanism since its very foundation. According to him, Gonzalo Jiménez de Quesada and Juan de Castellanos were the ones who brought history, metrics, criticism, oratory and developed the universality of this knowledge within the context of the region during the colonial period. Later on, the fathers of the country would be heirs of this humanist current and the 19th century would witness the development of letters and humanities with excellent representatives.

However, in his opinion, his time was experiencing a decline of humanists. This situation was due in principle to the problems that arose within the faculties of philosophy in which the contents lacked order and in which the graduates did not know what to do with their education. Likewise, Restrepo Millán believed that the problem was referred to the secondary schools. « Because the secondary school is the one that gives the level of the general average culture of the people and forms its environment and imprints and gives it orientation; because the structuring, the methodology, all the few activities of those secondary studies, remained upside down in the dust of the most venerable routine »[15].

In response to this first article, Antonio Panesso related humanism to freedom and affirmed that beyond learning extensive quotations in Greek and Latin, humanism in Colombia had been related to rebellious men, almost always persecuted, who enjoyed a cultural breadth and a particular attitude towards knowledge. For Téllez, the last thirty years before 1945 meant a renovation of the cultural organizations under liberalism, from which the Ministry of Education also emerged. In this environment, institutes of high culture emerged and European professors were brought to the universities. In addition, primary and secondary teaching methods were renewed. He concluded his article by indicating that this process was coming to an end because these reforms and these organizations were branded as communist.

For his part, Hernando Téllez coincided in his vision of the history of humanism in Colombia with Restrepo Millán, however, he considered that humanism had never been a tradition in the country or a category that identified the national spirit. « Humanism appears as an isolated expression in a few spirits, in a few exceptional intelligences. But from this a humanistic tradition for our stammering culture cannot be correctly deduced »[16]. According to Téllez, although there were eminent cultivated men like Caro or Cuervo, there were also several million illiterates in Colombia. The author’s criticism was not that the whole country should have the cultural level of the most remarkable humanists, but rather that humanism should be a transversal projection to all social spheres. The author’s conclusion defended an equivalence between economic and cultural, and therefore humanistic, development, for which, in his opinion, a synchrony between these aspects was necessary.

In response, in a later publication, Restrepo Millán gave several reasons why humanism could hardly penetrate all layers of Colombian society. In the first place, he alluded to the various tropical diseases, the hostile climates, and the lack of seasons to create physiological rhythms, as well as to cultivate and guarantee food. Secondly, he pointed to colonial legacies in customs, social criteria and racial problems, all of which had left the nation in a minority of age. Finally, Restrepo Millán affirmed that the humanist tradition of a country could not be denied just because the entire population was not literate, since this meant ignoring the Italian humanist tradition, for example, because in Sicily there were still people who only had access to elementary school[17].

In a short text, the editor of the supplement Jaime Posada returned to some points of Restrepo Millán’s answer to criticize the illiteracy of the country at that time. He affirmed that as long as the indices of spiritual colonialism, yellow fever, malnutrition or illiteracy continued, it would be difficult to achieve a society with minimum conditions of culture and a philosophy of life in accordance with a humanistic tradition[18]. While, for Armando Solano, even if in his opinion Colombia was the most literate country in America due to its long literary tradition, the illiteracy of the time was an urgent debate and reducing it was an immediate task[19].

Other writers of the supplement considered that a debate on the validity of humanism in the country was a sign of the need for the humanities and this heralded its rebirth in the country. In the case of Luis de Zuleta, the problem revolved around the growing positivism and pragmatism that had displaced philosophy and the arts for the world of technology and machinery. However, the author explained that in different universities around the world the humanities were becoming mandatory to have a degree in any discipline, a situation that was also happening in Colombia: 

Also in Colombia the renewal of humanistic studies has been the characteristic note of these last three or four years. There is still the example of the Universidad de los Andes. Similar courses exist in other centers of higher education. They are perhaps still initial trials whose methods should be discussed and perfected. But the road is open. It is possible that I am deceived by an invincible background of optimism, but I believe that in Colombia as in the whole world, it is possible to perceive the first signs of a renaissance of the humanities[20].

Franz Von Hildebrand, a European professor who lived in Colombia, also joined the debate on humanism. In his opinion, in Colombia there was a humanistic tradition transmitted by the Spaniards and the millenary culture of Latinity. Likewise, he affirmed that humanism was represented in the spiritual environment and in the topics of interest to the common people. However, his view was more critical of the university teaching system and he claimed a certain superficiality, with a lot of information, but with a lack of critical assimilation of the content[21].

Gilbert Mackeret, British ambassador to Colombia, also joined the debate and sought to resolve the antagonism that some articles in the supplement had so far presented between science and the humanities. In his view, science was an extension of culture and humanism; however, the problem was the specialization that was experienced in different areas of knowledge. In a word, the progress of research in each discipline had made specialized knowledge necessary at the expense of general culture. The idea put forward by the author was that science should be accompanied by humanistic knowledge in order not to fall into the realm of slavery, especially in a post-war era such as the one they were facing[22].

The article that closed the year 1951 was written by Morales Padilla who, instead of responding to his interlocutors, made a presentation of the book Historia del humanismo by the Peruvian writer Jorge Llosa, thus presenting the debate in a different way. His starting point was to indicate that in the debate, the majority of the speakers proposed an equivalence between humanism and « the love of books ». While from Llosa’s philosophical postulates considered that « Humanism has been and will be the human ambition for all entities, real and ideal, to have their meaning and value not in themselves but for the benefit of man »[23]. With this approach, the Peruvian author postulated a Humanist State, where all economic, political and metaphysical doctrines would be at the service of a « whole » which would be the human being.

Other articles were also published which sought to expose the lives of contemporary humanists. This was the case of Baldomero Sanín Cano, Alfonso Reyes and Gilbert Murray. The first article was a synthesis of the book El humanismo y el progreso del hombre, written by Baldomero Sanín Cano, which also showed the academic career of the great Colombian scholar and essayist[24]. The second article presented Reyes’ work and its impact on Mexican and Latin American thought during the first half of the 20th century[25]. Finally, on the death of the Oxford professor and specialist in Hellenic studies, Gilbert Murray, the article commented on his contributions to the discipline and his relations with intellectuals of the time such as Toynbee and Bertrand Russell[26].

On Latin America

The most numerous articles on this subject were the profiles of thinkers and philosophers, some with a long trajectory in Latin American thought and others who had just begun their intellectual ramblings. This was the case of the article published on the Peruvian philosopher José Russo Delgado, about whom it was said that he was on a par with the best thinkers of America such as Romero, Frondizi and Zea. At the time Russo still had little knowledge outside Peru, however, his thought was framed in ontology and he was a serious philologist who worked on different pre-Socratic thinkers and on the thought of Nietzsche. According to the author of the article, Russo was a thinker far from the intellectual aristocracy and was in opposition to the official philosophical discourses[27].

A text was also written about Ramón de Zubiría’s biographical and intellectual journey, the accident that left him unable to walk for a while, his training at John Hopkins University and his return to Colombia to found a faculty of philosophy and literature in Cartagena. In that article, de Zubiría made an analysis of North American philosophy, about which he said that, although its main current was pragmatism by the hand of Dewey, it was also the study of the history of ideas that represented great importance by the hand of thinkers such as Lovejoy and Cohen. On the idea of a Latin American philosophy, he concluded that there was still no system to explain the world and man, however, there were thinkers of enormous philosophical value such as Martí, Francisco Sánchez or Carlos Arturo Torres. About Colombia, he believed that the greatest figure of the national philosophical movement was Luis Lopez de Mesa and that his work had been able to overcome language barriers[28].

José Raimundo Sojo also introduced the Spanish philosopher García Bacca, who had left his country after the fall of the Spanish Republic. About his work, the article described his interest in describing the works of Venezuelan colonial theologians, with the objective of making a compendium of Venezuelan philosophy during the XVII and XVIII centuries. When asked about the existence of a Latin American philosophy, he answered: « America has imported all kinds of philosophies: Thomism, neo-Kantianism, positivism, existentialism, historicism, and like everything imported -machine or idea- it requires a phase of accommodation and a long experience to see if it takes hold or not ». However, in his opinion, there was still no genuine philosophy, since for there to be a philosophy corresponding to the problems of the region, several centuries were still required, as was the case from Aristotle to Saint Thomas or from the Renaissance to Kant[29].

Many biographies were written about Baldomero Sanín Cano, who was highlighted for his humanism, his vast knowledge of grammar, literature, politics, history and philosophy. Likewise, it was shown how his thought sought to go beyond national boundaries and this was evidenced first in the handling of about ten languages and secondly in the introduction of thinkers from different countries through his criticism, which disseminated universal thought in the country. His figure was not only representative in the country’s thinking, but he was also the teacher of several thinkers and influenced many such as José Asunción Silva, precursor of modernism in Colombia, and the important thinker Guillermo Valencia[30].

Another article presented an interview that the thinker Jaime Jaramillo had conducted with the European writer Ernesto Grassi, thanks to the invitation made by the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. There, he was questioned about the Hispanic American culture to which he answered that there was an American philosophy that was in contact with the traces of the archaic civilizations of the region, which constituted a field of speculation for philosophy, since modern man was constituted as an antithesis of such traces. On this point, he affirmed that his research on the problems of American philosophizing was expanded in his book The World and its Absence, which had been the fruit of classes he had given in Chile and of his interest in the work of Spanish philosophers who had been working with the Fondo de Cultura Económico of Mexico[31].

The interview with the Ecuadorian writer Jorge Icaza also spoke of this relationship between modern man, the indigenous communities and their influence on Hispano-American thought. In his opinion, in countries such as Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, Paraguay and Venezuela, man was essentially one despite their regional or racial diversities. However, the problems of the world, such as anguish, varied according to social circumstances, therefore, it was necessary to objectify regionally each variation of human problems[32].

Later on, Jesús de Galíndez showed a particular situation surrounding Hispano-American studies, namely, the various studies on the region that were being carried out in North America. The event held at the Hispanic House of Columbia University dedicated to commenting on publications that, despite not being strictly philosophical, gave an account of the historical, political, economic and cultural situations that the territory was going through and that triggered its currents of thought. Certainly, this type of research showed an incipient form of the history of ideas that was the first attempt to rescue Latin American thought[33].

In another article by Mariano Picón Salas, there was a review and at the same time, an analysis of the book published by the North American historian Harold Davis entitled History of the Americas. In it, different topics that at the time were occupying Latin American philosophers and that at the same time served as a basis for postulating the idea of a Latin American philosophy were taken up again, namely, the problems of miscegenation, the relationship between geography and culture, the enlightened heritage of the fathers of the fatherland, among others. Certainly, the virtue of this article within the debate on Latin America is to point out the historical, sociological and economic currents that allowed giving a context to the universalist issues on Latin American thought. In addition, it provides a glimpse of something that had already been presented in other articles on the interest that academics from North America and Europe offered to Hispanic America to understand modern societies[34].

In particular on philosophy in Colombia Jaime Jaramillo Uribe wrote a series of articles that wondered about the existence of a philosophical tradition in the country. At first he referred to the influence of Benthamism in the Colombian thought of the 19th century and the treatise on morality written by Ezequiel Rojas with the influence of sensualist ideas, which had repercussions in the radical Colombian republic. He also alluded to the constitutional reforms of José María Samper based on the French physiocrats of the 18th century and the agnostic and evolutionist philosophy of Spencer. Or the positivist conceptions of Camacho Roldán with respect to the ideas of « laissez-faire » and free economic enterprise. For Jaramillo, of all the thinkers of the late nineteenth century in Colombia, Miguel Antonio Caro was the one who had a more solid philosophical formation. Although he did not write on this subject in the same way as on philology or poetry, he did write several texts combating relativism in logic and ethics, as well as the psychologism of authors such as Edmund Husserl, Max Scheler and Nicolas Hartman[35]

For Jaramillo Uribe, this history of ideas shows a philosophical vision with which the leaders and intellectuals assumed the historical context of the country, that is, a vision of the state, morality and economy that should correspond to a systematic and integrated conception. However, the author questioned the disappearance of such an intellectual environment and the abandonment of a philosophical vision within the social, political and educational structure of the country that had led to a cold technification of such fields. The need then arose to return to a philosophical stance that was capable of creating a new conceptual field in the country, but approaching the work of the philosopher in a different way:

It is not by losing himself in the world of the everyday and the banal that the philosopher fulfills his duty, but by doing philosophy. Surely the creative spirit needs communication, it is forged in communication and in dialogue with the philosophical thought of the past and in communication with his peers. Among other things, only philosophy gives us the awareness of such communication and its importance for the fertility of the spirit.[36]

The philosopher Leopoldo Zea also wrote different articles in the Supplement on Hispanoamerica, in which he first delimited the concept of America as an object of study, that is, focusing on its cultural and historical features. Likewise, he raised the problem of humanism as one of the particular features to understand the history and future of the subcontinent[37]. He also suggested that Latin American philosophy was an attempt to understand the idea that had historically been formed about Latin America. Along this path, the approaches of thinkers such as Francisco Romero, Alberto Zum Falde, Arturo Ardao, Joao Cruz Costa, Guillermo Francovich, Germán Arciniegas, Mariano Picón-Salas, Alfonso Reyes, Jose Vasconcelos, among others, were developed. All of them forerunners of the continent’s own philosophy and initiators of the history of Latin American philosophical ideas[38].

Several of the Supplement’s articles reviewed the events of philosophy congresses in which the debate on philosophy in Latin America was the central axis of the discussion. In this sense, Mariano Picón Salas presented the conclusions of the Congress of Philosophy held in Mexico, which brought together thinkers from Europe and the United States. The participation of specialists on Spanish America such as Cornelius Krusé and Filmer Stuart Cuckow Northrop was noteworthy. There the question revolved around the acceptance of the tradition of Hispanic American culture and the clash that was generated with North American studies, which according to the author, fell into positivism and saw in Latin American humanism signs of vagueness and imprecision by not understanding the diverse cultural influences of the region. In this regard, he stated that:

Starting almost exclusively from the natural sciences and mathematics, American philosophical thought seeks the object of knowledge, hiding the anthropological concern. If, through these methods, life tends to be almost mechanized and the emotional and irrational factors that condition all existence are cautiously avoided, the tragic surrender to destiny and the values that flow from it seem more constant in the Hispano-American soul[39].

Another Congress commented on in the pages of the Supplement was the Congress of Catholic Thought in Medellin, where philosophical ideas concerning religion and social doctrines postulated by Catholicism were debated. According to the author of the article, the most interesting and brilliant debates took place on socio-economic and philosophical issues concerning Christian intellectuals. Certainly, this kind of discussion is striking because the second half of the 20th century in Latin America was permeated by Catholic social thought, hand in hand with liberation theology and various intellectuals who confronted the Latin American dictatorships[40].

In an interview, Leopoldo Zea commented on the conclusions of the Washington Congress of Philosophy he had attended, which dealt with the freedoms of contemporary man and his relationship with science, to make it an instrument in favor of welfare and not a weapon of self-destruction. Likewise, the rights of man were addressed as a condition to guarantee the spiritual and social progress of humankind. He also announced that in the VI Interamerican Congress of Philosophy to be held in Buenos Aires in which topics such as Marxism, humanism and the relationship of both currents with Christianity would be addressed. In the same interview, he commented on the relationship between European philosophy and the philosophy that was emerging in Latin America and said that thanks to existentialism and Marxism, the discussion had focused on concrete realities of human existence far from idealism, which allowed wondering about the particularity of the Latin American reality[41].

[1] Jeanson, Francis. (1950). “Situación actual del Existencialismo -¿se está produciendo un viraje?”

[2] Picón Salas, Mariano. (1950). “En el congreso de filosofía. Discusión sobre el existencialismo”

[3] Caballero Calderón, Eduardo. « Génesis de una tendencia, el existencialismo francés » (1953).

[4] Dominique, R. G. (1957).“El intelectual y los problemas de nuestros días. Las responsabilidades de Jean Paul Sartre”

[5] Sanchéz Guerra, Rafael. (1953). « Sartre y el Congreso de Viena ».

[6] De Zulueta, (1957). « Un marxismo inhumano. Sartre’s confessions » . Original : “enriqueciéndolo con los modernos avances de las ciencias, y no precisamente de las ciencias físicas sino aquellas que los alemanes llaman ciencias del espíritu y en castellano solíamos llamar ciencias morales. Quiere introducir en el ámbito del marxismo la sociología y el psicoanálisis, dos ramas de la investigación actual que la ortodoxia soviética mira con recelosa animadversión”

[7] Duval, M. (1951). Original: Tal es, a grandes rasgos, la última producción del gran escritor existencialista, Jean Paul Sartre, que ya atrajo con “Les Mouches” las iras de las autoridades durante los años de la ocupación alemana y que asaltó con “Les Mains Sales” el odio de los comunistas, ha suscitado con esta su nueva pieza las más acervas críticas de los católicos. Pero hasta los mismos escritores oficiales del catolicismo francés, aún condenando la obra en cuanto a su tendencia y su contenido moral, reconocen en ella mérito innegables. En cambio, le reprochan su excesiva lentitud de ritmo y en cierto modo la falta de calor realmente humano.

[8] Mauriac, F. (1951). Con motivo de un estreno. Sartre, el ateo providencial “Ese Dios que el nuevo héroe de Sartre busca ridículamente en los telares del teatro exigiendo de Él un signo de poder, es dentro de nosotros donde se encuentra y el único signo que nos ofrece es el del hombre erguido, levantada la cabeza y con el rostro iluminado por una luz interior”

[9] Duval, M. (1951). “Actualidad cinematográfica de Sartre”. “Y esa excelente obra dramática, en la que se nos presenta el problema, grave y lleno de interés, del destino del hombre en medio de los avatares de una revolución, queda reducida, en la versión cinematográfica, a las limitadas proporciones de una crónica de sucesos de tipo político. Lo que no deja de ser digno de lamentar”.

[10] Norden, F. (1959). “’Les sequestres D’altona’ de J. P. Sartre”. “El decorado es de un pésimo gusto. Se trata en efecto del sobre e inmenso salón de una triste y vieja casona señorial en Altona, suburbio de Hamburgo; para crear la realidad también se necesita un poco de imaginación”

[11] Aviles Ramirez, E. (1951). “El autor de “La Peste” Albert Camus y el Existencialismo”.

[12] Sender, R. (1957). “Los libros y los días. Camus y la difícil inocencia”. Original “Camus habla español. Lo ha oído en su hogar antes tal vez que el francés. No es raro que tradujera “La Devoción de la Cruz” por el paralelo de los autos sacramentales con el teatro poético moderno y concretamente con la tendencia filosófica y el gusto por los símbolos”.

[13] Ballestero-Gozalvo, J. (1957). “El premio Nobel 1957. Albert Camus, Moralista atormentado”. Original: “Fácil era de advertir, desde muy pronto, que las ideas sustanciales por uno y otro no tenían nada de común, antes al contrario que divergían y hasta se excluían. La querella pública que les separó en 1952fue la consecuencia de ello”

[14] Arango, D. (1960). “Camus”.

[15] Restrepo Millán, J. (1951) “Qué hay de nuestra famosa tradición humanista?”. Original: “porque la escuela secundaria es la que da el nivel de la cultura media general de un pueblo y forma su ambiente y le imprime y le imprime orientación; porque la estructuración, la metodología, todas las pocas actividades de aquellos estudios secundarios, permanecieron de cabeza entre el polvo de la más venerable rutina”.

[16] Téllez, H. (1951) “¿Pero hay tradición humanística?”. Original: “El humanismo aparece como expresión aislada en unos cuantos espíritus, en unas pocas inteligencias excepcionales. Pero de ello no puede deducirse correctamente una tradición humanística para nuestra balbuceante cultura.”

[17] Restrepo Millán, J. (1951). “Respuesta a Hernando Téllez. Humanidades para el Vulgo”

[18] Posada, J. (1951). “Humanistas y analfabetos”.

[19] Solano, A. (1951). “El espíritu de la raza. Humanismo y alfabetismo”.

[20] De Zulueta, L. (1951). “Los clásicos son modernos. Renacimiento de las humanidades”. Original: “También en Colombia la renovación de los estudios humanísticos ha sido la nota característica de estos tres o cuatro años últimos. Aún está el ejemplo de la Universidad de los Andes. Cursos análogos existen en otros centros de enseñanza superior. Son quizás todavía ensayos iniciales cuyos métodos cabría discutir y perfeccionar. Más el camino está abierto. Es posible que me engañe un fondo invencible de optimismo, pero creo que en Colombia como en el mundo entero, cabe percibir las primeras señales de un renacimiento de las humanidades”.

[21] Sojo, J. (1951). “Sí hay tradición humanística”.

[22] Mackeret, G. (1951). “Las ciencias y las humanidades”

[23] Morales Pradilla, P. (1951). “Compás de espera. Capítulos sobre el humanismo”- Original: “el Humanismo ha sido y será la ambición humana porque todas entidades, reales e ideales, tengan su sentido y su valor no en sí mismas sino en beneficio del hombre”.

[24] Arciniega, R. (1955). El humanismo y el progreso del hombre.

[25] Picón Salas, M. (1955) “Alfonso Reyes, « Varón Humanísimo ».

[26]. Haya de la Torres, V. (1957). “Gilbert Murray. Remembranzas de un Gran Humanista”.

[27] Sánchez, L. (1950). “Un profesor peruano. Algo sobre filosofía americana”

[28] Sojo, J. (1953). “El humanista Ramón de Zubiría. Ideas sobre la cultura”.

[29] Sojo, J. (1953). “El catedrático García Bacca. Rumbos de la filosofía”. Original: “América ha importado toda clase de filosofías: el tomismo, el neokantismo, el positivismo, el existencialismo, el historicismo, y como todo lo importado –máquina o idea- exige fase de acomodamiento y una larga experiencia para ver si agarra o no”

[30] Rodríguez, Rafael. (1954). “Baldomero Sanín Cano, maestro de generaciones”. Gil Jaramillo, L. (1954). “Baldomero Sanín Cano, el gran abuelo”. Ardura, E. (1954). “Patriarcas vivos, Sanín Cano”. Lozano y Lozano, J. (1957). “Sanín y Nieto Caballero”. Betancur, B. (1957) “Dos valores de América. Sanín Cano y Nieto Caballero”. Vidales, L. (1960). “Un escritor al servicio del hombre. Recordando a Sanín Cano”.

[31] No Author. (1952) “Ernesto Grassi en Bogotá. Importancia cultural de Hispanoamérica”

[32] No Author. (1953). “El Nuevo Humanismo Americano”.

[33] De Galindez, J. (1953). “Sobre Hispanoamérica”.

[34] Picón Salas, M. (1953). “Las Américas en su historia”.

[35] Jaramillo Uribe, J. (1953). “La filosofía en Colombia”.

[36] Jaramillo Uribe, J. (1953). Obligaciones del pensamiento. La filosofía en Colombia. Original: No es perdiéndose en el mundo de lo cotidiano y lo banal como el filósofo cumple con su deber sino haciendo filosofía. A buen seguro que el espíritu creador necesita comunicación, se forja en la comunicación y en el diálogo con el pensamiento filosófico del pasado y en comunicación con sus semejantes. Entre otras cosas, solo la filosofía nos brinda la conciencia de tal comunicación y de su importancia para la fertilidad del espíritu.

[37] Zea, L. (1958). “América, Cuál América?”.

[38] Zea, L. (1959).“Pensamiento y Expresión en nuestros pueblos. América como idea”

[39] Picón Salas, M. (1950). “Diferencias Americanas”. Original: Partiendo casi exclusivamente de las ciencias naturales y de la matemática, el pensamiento filosófico norteamericano busca el objeto del conocer,

[40] Arango Ferrer, J. (1959) Al margen de un “Congreso. El filósofo, el Asceta y el Místico”

[41] Mendoza de Vanegas, G. (1957).“Figuras del pensamiento mexicano. Reportaje con Leopoldo Zea”.