Throughout the late nineteenth to mid twentieth century there was a pot of thoughts and beliefs brewing mostly in the Europe. These thoughts were unlike others we’ve seen before, these existential thoughts were driven by many philosophers, two of which are very similar in their beliefs.Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus were two existential philosophers from Europe in the early to mid-nineteenth century. Camus and Sartre were very similar in their beliefs of Religion, Reason, Predestination, and Violence. Camus and Sartre were also both very high regarded existentialists and had other philosophers build off of their pieces of work. Both being authors that arose through both of the World Wars had similar ideals that there was no such thing as a living God, or any supernatural figure. Humans were responsible for their own actions as well as realizing that once you hit death, there is nothing to be done after that. There is no afterlife according to these two philosophers. The two also believed that, as far as reason goes, the world is unreasonable and that you are responsible for creating your own path, and that whatever you decide is what you end up doing. With the two philosophers rising and writing through the World War era, they both believed that society was based off of violence and that society would not be able to thrive unless there was some sort of violence. Both didn’t favor violence, they just accepted the fact that oppositions would always rule and that violence is always the answer to most of the worlds questions. The one thing that the two master philosophers did not agree on, like most humans, was politics. Sartre went in and out of communist and socialist parties and believed in them for most of his adult life, living in Germany and France. Sartre wanted to believe in economic freedom of an individual but accepted the fact that the oppositions would carry the power, and back the socialist and communist fronts that were heading in the 1930s and 1940s. Camus on the other hand accepted the fact that revolutions would be impossible and didn’t want the economic freedom of the individual because it was unnecessary to believe in something that wasn’t going to happen. Camus was very focused on what was reasonable to the world, and didn’t bother wasting his time on what was unreasonable or far-fetched.