I finally get Camus.
>>24711096Is this any better than Myth of Sisyphus or some of his other essay collections?From what I have read of him his philosophy feels shallow and somehow not really complete. 'Life has no meaning, but we must rebel and life with purpose' or some shit. How tf does he wonna do that?
>>24711456>Is this any better than Myth of Sisyphus or some of his other essay collections?It's different in focus. This book is like 30% literary analysis, 30% historical hot takes, 30% seething about Marxism and 10% Camus' own political ideology and metaphysics. >From what I have read of him his philosophy feels shallow and somehow not really completeIt also felt incomplete to me, but I do think that he elaborates enough upon it within this book to make it coherent.>'Life has no meaning, but we must rebel and life with purpose' or some shit. How tf does he wonna do that?It's kinda hard to summarise in a post.Camus, as it turns out, does in fact believe in principles but these are relative and transient principles derived from the realities of human life (which is the only existential basis to derive values out of to him) not from abstract concepts like history or from mysticism. Beauty, justice, honor. He appeals to these a lot, to beauty especially which he refers to as the "only transcendent principle, if there is any", the one that affirms life. He refers to art, to fictional characters which we envy not necessarily because the worlds they dwell within contain less suffering than ours but because their suffering has meaning and purpose: there is an overarching creative intent behind it (that of the author). We crave that purpose. We want our lives to make sense. But we cannot have that in real life, there is no creator, no will, no intent here in our universe, except for... Us. We cannot alter reality, but we can rebel against its meaninglessness by applying that same impetus behind artistic creation onto the real world. In this sense "stylize" our lives. Make them make sense. In this endeavour we are in a constant struggle against the state of the universe which attempts to stop us from doing this, but simply by attempting to do it we affirm our existence. That is the Myth of Sisyphus, it's Camus applying this idea in order to ascribe beauty to human struggle. It's not entirely a rational thing to do, but then again, Camus did not believe humans are entirely rational creatures.
>Life is an impulse that endlessly pursues its form without ever finding it.-Camus
>>24711571Nietzsche wrote this 5 decades earlier minus the leftist faggotry, what a hack.
>>24711746Camus has a whole chapter on Nietzsche in this book. He is very opposed to total affirmation.
>>24711571Thanks for that answer. Didn't expect such detailed one. >Beauty, justice, honorSo he pulls principles out of thin air again? I understand the beauty as a decent cope against the absurd. But how justice and honor? Its probably something like 'its important for living together so we need it to confront the absurd together'. The problem I always had with him is that he pulls values out of nothing. Life is absurd and has no meaning, but we must revolt against the absurd, because... (Still haven't found his reasoning for this). Reading some of his speeches, I got the feeling that he creates these values for the purpose of his political career. Few people would listen to someone that goes around talking about how noting makes sense. >crave art because their suffering has meaning and purposeActually an interesting thought.>It's not entirely a rational thing to do, but then again, Camus did not believe humans are entirely rational creatures.And that is kind of a problem with his philosophy. At this point it just sounds like some stoicism bros: 'I know that the logos and the soft determinism don't make any sense. But Not believing in that is sad. So I just believe in it'.
He has a gamer moment near the end of the book where he proclaims the superiority of the Mediterranean race (which the French are a part of) over Germanics, Slavs and Jews, for producing superior thought. Big /int/ shitpost vibes.
>>24711867Thank you for your insight. But I can't help to ask in your critique of camus, where would you get objective values?
>>24711867>So he pulls principles out of thin air again?He refers to them as "living virtues", or principles, because they are derived from human life. This is in contrast to Jacobin virtues which are eternal, unchanging laws of the universe. These "living" principles of his exist as a result of human nature (which Camus also refers to) and only as long as humans act on them. So justice for example came into existence in the first instance of a human feeling he was unfairly wronged by another and acting on it. The spirit of rebellion comes from humans individually, and then collectively, coming to assign value to their own lives and therefore also imposing a limit against transgressions on life.
>>24711934I don't understand what you mean. I didn't insinuate that he thought there were objective values. If you mean if I think there are objective values, then no. I don't think there are objective values. Life is meaningless and all you can do is suicide, suffer under it or do your best to become some sort of epicurean. >>24711945Interesting. These 'living' virtues are probably subjective, because they are based on the human experience (which is individual). But would these really count as 'virtues' then? De Sades 'virtue' coming from his human experience was basically 'If you are strong enough to rape someone, there is no reason not to. Might is right.' To another, f.e. christian person, this would be more of a vice. So wouldn't it ultimately just be subjective values every person is living by and as long as he is living by these he is rebelling against the absurd? If the value is suicide, would that be rebellion? I may have some logical error or some complete misunderstanding somewhere. Sorry, I am tired as fuck. What did Camus say about suicide (physical one, not the philosophical one) is this book? Is it still 'giving up', if it is not for a higher purpose? So is he still against it?
Has anyone read his book The Fall, La Chute? Only one of his I've read, and I never see it mentioned here. Found it very bleak and claustrophobic, as it was clearly supposed to be.
>These 'living' virtues are probably subjectiveHe calls them relative and transient iirc, they are the result of his own brand of thought. But there are obviously values adopted by other individuals, by other groups, by societies whose foundations are more or less justified to Camus depending on how closely they match his own.>De SadeThere's a whole chapter analysing him. Sade represents for Camus the "extreme consequences of rebellious logic when it forgets its origins". But there are not many De Sades in the world so I think you can in fact hedge on human nature being a thing.>What did Camus say about suicidePic related.
>>24713062Meant for >>24712057Early morning posting is a bitch
>>24711456Camus starts from the premise that no religion or abstract philosophical system can provide the purpose we naturally crave and proceeds from there. I think it feels shallow and incomplete because most people interested in philosophy are expecting some kind of systematization.I think we need to read Camus as an expression of a particular kind of post-war cynicism towards traditional philosophy. These people dealt directly with the rise of Nazism and also had to observe Stalinist atrocities from afar. It's not unrelated that Adorno and Horkheimer were criticizing Enlightenment philosophy for this very thing. We see a similar current in Karl Popper's critique of Plato. All these writers are expressions of a particular Western zeitgeist which Camus also captures but differs in that he problematizes systematization itself, not just particular approaches or persons. It's telling that Camus doesn't actually argue for this position because it was so widespread a feeling at the time that he simply didn't need to do so. Everybody sort of 'got' it. But for those of us well after the fact, it certainly feels like something is missing. In that sense, it's perhaps better to regard Camus as a novelist first and as a philosopher second.
>In fact, in the contest between Shakespeare and the shoemaker, it is not the shoemaker who maligns Shakespeare or beauty. On the contrary, it is the man who continues to read Shakespeare and does not choose to make shoes, which he could never make if it comes to that.Another Camusian banger, attacking Marxists.
Camus was also really fascinated by the Cathars. >Hellenism, in association with Christianity, then produces the admirable efflorescence of the Albigensian heresy. But with the Inquisition and its subsequent destruction, the Church again parts company with the world and with beauty, and gives back to history its pre-eminence over nature.
>>24711096Camus was such a hack, it's hilarious.
>>24716505What makes you say that?
>>24716522it came with his french genes
