Why does every Camus thread on /lit/ immediately devolve into shitposting?
>*puffs cig*>"Is raising a daugher the ultimate cuckoldry? I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for other men."
>>24785083Kinda absurd, right? *stares at camera*
>>24785083>the only serious question in life is whether to suicide.>I rebel therefore I am.This guy wants a serious fucking answer? Trying to figure out how to classify Camus is already a headache. If you call him something there are multiple arguments that he wasn't it. >he was definitely an existentialist. If you have to ask then you know why.Serious answer. Camus thought making the breakthrough to Le Absurd wasn't an endpoint for his thought but rather a beginning. Once you realize this it's hard to think he isn't the premier philosophical shitposter.
>>24785126>I rebel therefore I am.I will not defend that one. Maybe it sounded less cringe in French.>Camus thought making the breakthrough to Le Absurd wasn't an endpoint for his thought but rather a beginning.Source?
>>24785126Actually he does talk hypothetically about a philosophical system based on the absurd ("if one even is possible") in The Rebel. Though idk if that counts as proof that he wanted to develop one.
>>24785083"ehrrmm, why does every camus thread immediately turn into shitposting? he's ackshually a good writer"
>>24785083
>>24785127>>24785130I don't remember his exact order but he did to his credit game this out. There will never be any philosophical truths to provide what you're truly looking for, even if you stumble upon one the rest of the world will always be uncaring. He even thought that it didn't matter whether you went with random chance or predetermination, neither side has produced anything but contradictions. Even if you reach a theoretical limit you still have to have a practical basis, etc. So if you follow Camus then he is basically tossing his Le Absurdist condition onto you to deal with. He's also of the opinion it may not matter how much you rebel against it since he thought suicide was meaningless. If you try to communicate this to anyone else in order to start a meaning wave then all you do it transfer the condition so you're not going to start a new philosophical way of life but really just tell someone rebellion might be futile beyond exploring contradictions and maybe offering you some happiness. Even if you had the perfect notion then you still have to deal with permanent philosophical ambiguity. >outcomes>most people won't make it to this point>most that do won't be able to surmount all the hurdles>for those that do there might be an admission that it won't matter if they clear all the hurdles>for most who clear all of them the result is a highly vetted existential thinker, the primary reason Camus was unable to avoid the term. Think legitimate authenticity, ability to create value, define life purpose on individual terms, etc.>for the few who clear all of them but recognize all facets of his argument there is just a paradox that if solved could destroy all previous philosophical speculation but solving it might not do much for you and no one has accomplished it in a lifetime. >there are no transfers. >Good Luck champ, Le Absurd awaits!
>>24785194So what you're basically saying is you have no source for that claim? I've seen some people suggest he would have likely hit the world with a final "complete" philosophical work had he lived, since he died so relatively young, but that is all speculation.>for the few who clear all of them but recognize all facets of his argument there is just a paradox that if solved could destroy all previous philosophical speculation but solving it might not do much for you and no one has accomplished it in a lifetime.One of the basic premises is that it's unsolvable. And it would be a paradox more for science to solve rather than philosophy. But Camus is saying it can never happen, no matter how hard we push. And can you say he's wrong? Our understanding of the universe can keep increasing without end, it will never be complete. The veil of mystery will simply shift further. We will never "understand" everything. We are limited beings dealing with infinities.
>No, I am not an existentialist. (I clearly am)>No, I am not a philosopher. (I clearly am)>No, I do not have an ideology. (I clearly have one)What the fuck was his problem?
name √11 threads that don't immediately devolve into shitposting i dare you
