Features

cba1067950 · #76

Yes and I totally agree but isn't that a logical outlook on life? I may be mixing logic and rationality or there may be some variation in ideals or something. I don't know...

I only ask because someone told me of a quote a while back stating that the only way to refute logic is to use logic which made sense to me.

The One and Only... · #77

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

1) Death renders our earthly strivings insignificant. (Camus' theory)

How so? As long as our goal was to enjoy our life, the earthly strivings which benefitted us were not insignificant.

Futhermore, how does Camus know what happens to us after death?

Quote:

2) In the grand cosmic sense, our lives and strivings are insignificant already, yet we take them quite seriously. The discrepancy creates an absurd situation. (Nagel's theory)

A far better case can be made to show how looking at the grand scheme of things in such a manner is itself absurd - for, after all, what does it matter to us?

Even Kant's test of morality could defeat that objection.

Quote:

And what "set end" is that, praytell?

That would be relative to each person, would it not?

This is why we have so many problems in our world. Some think equality should be the end. Others feel that freedom should be the end. Some think that our own pleasure should be the end. Yet, none of these can be proven logically.

Tell me, what is your definition of logic, anyway?

Brandon · #78

Quote:

Originally Posted by cba1067950

Yes and I totally agree but isn't that a logical outlook on life? I may be mixing logic and rationality or there may be some variation in ideals or something. I don't know...

I only ask because someone told me of a quote a while back stating that the only way to refute logic is to use logic which made sense to me.

I suppose you're right. I apologize for getting off-track in this thread, and I've been talking out of my ass a few times.

I guess what I've been trying to say is.. don't count on a life of strict, cold, rational behavior to give you a feeling of meaning or happiness. Reason is important, yes, but you shouldn't be logical to the point of absurdity. The nonrational elements of ourselves are usually the most enjoyable: our passions, our senses of humor, etc. They enrich our lives.

It's okay to be goofy. It's okay to give concessions to the instincts. We should use reason to temper our passions--to keep them from becoming destructive--rather than trying to eliminate them completely. That's not exactly a new idea, but it often becomes lost amidst all of our modern intellecutalizing.

EDIT: Oh, and OAO? We're done here. I just don't want to keep arguing with you, because lord knows you can go on forever.

The One and Only... · #79

And you called my beliefs similar to Nietzche's...

Brandon · #80

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

And you called my beliefs similar to Nietzche's...

What the hell do you mean by that, anyway? I called them similar to Rand's, who was influenced by Nietzsche. But that was when I assumed you were an objectivist.

Miss Modular · #81

Not to interrupt the spat that's going on, but for you Existentialist enthusiasts out there:

What existential essay/book/what have you (best) explains the idea of "The Void"?

Brandon · #82

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Modular

Not to interrupt the spat that's going on, but for you Existentialist enthusiasts out there:

What existential essay/book/what have you (best) explains the idea of "The Void"?

If you're willing to read Sartre's massive Being and Nothingness, it does a good job of explaining "the void."

Brandon · #83

I'd like to address something here in regard to Camus.

Nagel criticizes his work on a very narrow basis, assuming that the negation of death was his only rationale for calling life "absurd." Nagel then goes on to say that the discrepancy between the subjective importance we place on life clashes with the objective unimportance of it. The thing is? Camus never denied that this was so. He called life absurd on many levels, the most basic of which being that...

Man is a rational being who desires unity and meaning from a universe that is passive, silent, and elusive.

He dealt with the idea of death's negation primarily in The Myth of Sisyphus because it was a reflection on suicide. Some philosophers of the day were taking suicide to be a "solution" to the absurd, when Camus claimed it was just the logical opposite--it was acceptance at the extreme.

Camus was not a systematic philosopher inent on being "right"--he was much more concerned with finding a mindset by which someone could live a fulfilling life without despair. He writes to those who have already rejected divinity and accepted the Absurd as a rule of life.

theapportioner · #84

Anyhoo, looks like noone is offering any more suggestions so we might as well go ahead and pick a book. Nietszche seems like the popular choice, and I'm down with that. I could also go for some Logical Positivism stuff, but if more people want Nietszche then we can hold that as the 2nd book. As for what to read specifically, anything that's not too obscure is fine by me. My prefs are for "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Genealogy of Morals" but I'm pretty open, and if someone's read these two and would like to read something else, that's cool.

How about we set a date, maybe Feb 7 or so? Obviously, if you want to chime in before then of course you can.

The One and Only... · #85

And so, the onward march toward flavor-of-the-month nihilism within the intelligentsia continues...

theapportioner · #86

Well, someone's gotta counter all the so-called science economics bullshit that's being thrown around these days...

Brandon · #87

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

And so, the onward march toward flavor-of-the-month nihilism within the intelligentsia continues...

Seriously, fuck off. You don't have to do the book club if you don't want to, fatty.

theapportioner · #88

Ppl still interested? Gimme an 'aye' is y'are. Might as well pick a book out to start things off - Nietszche's "Beyond Good and Evil". Due by Feb. 15. How does that sound????

Helm · #89

Yes. I'm interested. Okay, let's with the overrated mad romantic . I'll download an english version of the book (my greek might create problems with quoting) and give it a second look.

The One and Only... · #90

A question for Camus:

If there are no values, what is the value in revolt?

Triad-Brother Choi · #91

Quote:

Originally Posted by theapportioner

Nietszche's "Beyond Good and Evil"

Is this the right text? I'm just asking because I don't want to spend the next fourteen days failing to comprehend the wrong book.

Brandon · #92

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

A question for Camus:

If there are no values, what is the value in revolt?

He only claimed that there were no objective values, twit. When he praises revolt, it's intended to be nothing more than one man's theory on how to effectively counter despair in the face of the Absurd.

Oh, and you can read Beyond Good and Evil for free online here.

The One and Only... · #93

Then why does he critique other people's values?

Brandon · #94

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

Then why does he critique other people's values?

He's writing from a purely subjective standpoint and he acknowledges his own bias. Also, he's writing to a very narrow audience: those who, like him, are atheistic and refuse to make a leap of faith into the mystical. You can't read Camus as an objective, systematic philosopher who approaches problems as a "right or wrong" proposition.

The intentions of his writings are to:

A) find a way out of nihilism and despair
B) affirm human life in the here and now
C) deal with the Absurd without resorting to spirituality or attempting to "transcend" it

The One and Only... · #95

I've read some Camus, and he seems to affirm that revolt has an objective meaning from the way he writes. He does not say that "I think revolt...", he says "Revolt...". Get what I'm saying?

Triad-Brother Choi · #96

Nice wordplay.

But if you actually understood what Brandon is trying to tell you, you'd realise that Camus has a very specific audience in mind for his writing, & that in this case "I think revolt..." & "Revolt..." are the same.

Brandon · #97

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

I've read some Camus, and he seems to affirm that revolt has an objective meaning from the way he writes. He does not say that "I think revolt...", he says "Revolt...". Get what I'm saying?

He writes that way for practical purposes only after he's forewarned against the bias in his introductions. Have you actually read the primary sources? In the Myth of Sisyphus:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camus

But it is useful at the same time to note that the absurd, hitherto taken as a conclusion, is considered in this essay as the starting-point. In this sense it may be said that there is something provisional in my commentary: one cannot prejudge the position it entails. There will be found here merely the description, in the pure state, of an intellectual malady. No metaphysic, no belief is involved in it for the moment. These are the limits and the only bias of this book. Certain personal experiences urge me to make this clear.

And as Triad and I pointed out, he's not writing to everyone.

Perndog · #98

Any debatable statement with a definite subject ("Revolt...") is interpreted as a statement of opinion ("I think revolt...") so we use definite subjects to save space and add clarity. The first thing an English professor will tell you to do is to drop the words "I think" from your essays. You should be taking that class in a few years now.