/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>1589

What more to absurdism is there, aside from the notion that "life is absurd"? It doesn't strike me as much of a statement, and at best a colour of nihilism, not a step up from it. At worst it is an attempt at denying nihilism while clinging on to a semblence of, for lack of a bettwe word, positivity.

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the literary archetype of the "humourist", who is defined as a person beyond nihilism, as someone who profoundly realises the futility of existence and, in order to cope with it, detaches himself from it and, from a distance, laughs at it. It's not a novel thought, but it's not a very interesting one either. It strikes me as realisation and the subsequent denial of realisation. You can call it sophisticated if you like, but if that's the crux of absurdism then I don't think I've missed much.

If you think I'm doing it injustice, I'd appreciate a quick crash course though.

>>1628

I'm actually quite fond of Camus myself, from a literary standpoint in particular. He expresses notions very eloquently and with fitting imagery, as I see in the passages you've quoted too. I particularly like the line

>you give me the choice between a description that is sure but that teaches me nothing and hypotheses that claim to teach men but that are not sure.

Even so (and this is one of the difficulties I have with getting into existentialist philosophy) it is little more than the exemplification of a specific notion that reminds of nihilism and makes me consider absurdism as something of a reconnotation or coping-mechanism thereof. Hence the question; aside from that notion, what more is there to it? Or is it the gist of it that there IS nothing more to it? Philosophy as realisation of actuality, if you will?

If so, I find it to be an appropriate but unfortunately uninteresting philosophy.

>>1628

Those lines are the ones that resonated with me the most, good to see that I am not the only one. Whenever I read a scientific article about anything new I think of those lines. Any truth claim just seems ridiculous to me, it all sounds like poetry to me, beautiful poetry though.

Though I do share the sentiment that absurdism is not constructive or an answer to anything. Yet it is the only thing that ever made enough sense to me.

>>1589

The only interesting philosophical question is suicide in an absurdist view, if one is given to following Greek-like philosophers and acting in accordance with beliefs. Should we face the absurd? Should we strike out with vigor and revolt against the inherent paradox that is living?

In my view, I am too much of a skeptic to kill myself, or even if I had judged suicide to be the correct act, I would have doubts to whether I had judged correctly, or if my judgement might change. Maybe its that I care that I do not look like a fool after death, or like someone who killed themselves without cause. But I question even that selfish desire as well, so again, my skepticism keeps me from suicide. It also makes me quietist, a charge levied at Camus.

It's sad and absurd that a car crash took him.

>>1589

>absurdism

>being this black and white about the world

oohbo3y

>>1795

>shitpost the post

What do you think you are adding to the discussion by telling us this? That your intelligence is unmatched, that you are better than everybody?

If it's so easy to refute then argue, don't just shitpost constantly to no effect.

Are there any pitfalls to this philosophy? The only reason I'm curious about it this video clip from Star Trek, tbh I think Existentialism is more rewarding.

why do absurtists claim that human deeds to understand reality are futile?

>>1626

>It doesn't strike me as much of a statement, and at best a colour of nihilism

Not possible. If life is absurd, this suggests there is a non-absurd version of existence. If so, nihilism is false. If such a version of existence meta-exists, then it's entirely possible that it could be instantiated.

>>1628

>I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world.

"Through science I can see things, but not, for all that, see things." At best, Camus is attempting to talk about something else. He's asked the scientist the wrong question, and blaming the scientist for providing an unsatisfying answer to the question he wanted to ask, but didn't.

>>1641

>Any truth claim just seems ridiculous to me

Paradox. Not a real sentence, instead your misunderstanding of grammar.

"It is true [ridiculous] that all truth claims are ridiculous."

>>1647

>The only interesting philosophical question is suicide in an absurdist view

>Should we strike out with vigor and revolt against the inherent paradox that is living?

Shallow. The question of suicide is this: if we reproduce only for the sake of reproducing, wouldn't it also be completely valid to stop reproducing for the sake of not reproducing? Isn't non-existence at least as good as existence?

If we can't not-reproduce for the sake of not-reproducing, doesn't that imply that reproducing for the sake of reproducing must also be missing something important? In which case, taking the first statement for granted, we've found out way out of Absurdism. The universe does have a purpose, the question is merely finding and knowing it.

But, if we can not-reproduce for its own sake, it's clear that reproduction has no value. Which means non-reproduction also has no value. One of the major questions of our time is, "What is value? If we think we've found some, how do we check?" Few if any philosophers spend more time addressing this question than studiously avoiding its mention.