Why haven't you read this yet?

Why haven't you read this yet?

Other urls found in this thread:

jonescollegeprep.org/ourpages/auto/2014/3/26/47780661/Absurdism_ Existentialism_ Nihilism.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_operator
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because I'm not a primitive Semitic goat herder...?

primitive Semitic goat herders couldn't read bud

>"What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?"

Is this the power of cuckness?

I did
it's good

I have, its my favorite

This. Read it. If anyone has read Pascal here, you can find some of the strongest thing he said in an even more pure, crystallized form.

I have.
"Boo hoo hoo," now in Biblical form!
Read Camus, you mongoloid,

go fuck yourself

>Read Camus, you mongoloid,

I have. What now?

get dunked on

Now, you now why crying over the world being no more than "vanity and vexation" is pointless.

how's highschool, user?

I've read the entire Bible multiple times.
That's not what Ecclesiastes is saying. Did you not read it?
Jews weren't fucking Gnostics.

Oh, so philosophy is pointless?

Millions of high schoolers have read "Solomon has a Sad" and actually think it's not an outmoded view of the world.
Book of Job is 1000x better

>I've read the entire Bible multiple times.

And what have you learned from it? Was it wroth the effort?

>Book of Job is 1000x better
hell no
Ecclesiastes >= Revelation > Genesis > Kings (i & ii) > Daniel > Job

Ecclesiastes isn't sad. Did you only read half of it?
I genuinely believe people that are not genuinely Christian or Jewish have nothing to gain from reading the Bible.

You have no cultural relation to it besides centuries of misinterpretations from pompous aristocrats, and lack the capacity to actually read it. It may as well be in an alien language.

In relation to one's existence, yes for the most part.

Sure did. Love the part where it says that man should toil pointlessly and get drunk to hide from the misery. What a great world view. 2:24-26.

Ecclesiastes > Genesis > Matthew

These are the big 3 imo

>Sure did. Love the part where it says that man should toil pointlessly and get drunk to hide from the misery. What a great world view. 2:24-26.
That's not what it's saying. Your citation is invalid, because it ignores the context of the rest of the book.

I can take that, but the Gospels are so overread for me that its hard for me to enjoy them.

>To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Your own citation refutes your point

>Sure did. Love the part where it says that man should toil pointlessly and get drunk to hide from the misery. What a great world view. 2:24-26.

Ecclesiastes is canon because nowhere does the Christian worldview deny the misery or hopelessness of the world. And I would say any worldview that does is not serious.

The notion of salvation is only sensical if there is turmoil to overcome, to transform suffering into joy.

you seem to forget the fact that vanity in life is depicted as opposed to the paith of God. Did you forget it was the bible when you read it?

Camus is nothing compared to Ecclesiastes, especially given the wider narrative in which the latter is situated. That's the difference between a secular and divinely inspired author. Existentialism is already passé, but the insights of Ecclesiastes, which in some measure the existentialists merely hollowly appropriated shorn of their context, are still as relevant as they ever were.

Camus' final conclusion is that meaning both doesn't exist and springs from the brow of mankind, and that only through the power of our own delusions can it be put to our use.

>Your own citation refutes your point
No it doesn't.
>This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
It doesn't matter who has wealth, whether God takes it from sinner or not, because, as a later chapter posits:
>Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. (9:10)
All being vanity and vexation

>All being vanity and vexation

If you have not found god.

>To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness

>Camus
>Existentialism
wrong.

>Camus' final conclusion is that meaning both doesn't exist and springs from the brow of mankind, and that only through the power of our own delusions can it be put to our use.
You didn't read through Myth of Sisyphus, did you. It has nothing to do with delusion, only lucid thought and the rebellion against the logical leaps your describing.

>this is what happens when atheists try to interpret scripture
ebin

Camus 'rebels' against nothing but reality – the idea is to accept that one is in hell and call it heaven. Then we can all be heroes – in the books we write and the daydreams we have.

>To the person who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness
In life. Remember, this is Old Testament--
everlasting redemption is not yet a thing. Hence why all is vanity and vexation in the context of Ecclesiastes and why the very sentence in the verse you're citing states that those gifts are vain.
>This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

>the idea is to accept that one is in hell and call it heaven.
Maybe you misheard me, I said Camus, not Milton's Satan. Absurdism has nothing to do with what you're saying.

So you didn't learn anything?

(cont) Unless you're implying that the dread that the Absurd inspires is hell. Camus moreso seems to imply that it isn't heaven as much as it is clairvoyant anxiety, which is better than a deluded sense of paradise.

I did, you might not.That's why you were asking, right?

not him but camus has nothing really substantial to propose - no grounding, a mere esthetism of revolt acknowledging its own vanity (indeed splendid but doesn't solve anything, and doesn't try either)

One of the most relevant works a man can read. Which is actually exactly what it was meant to be when Solomon wrote it.
I read it often enough to keep it on my mind. I also lowkey pretend I'm one of the sons it's addressed to.

You realize Sisyphus is dead and in the underworld? Note, 'dead,' while Camus enjoins us to live.

>one must imagine Sisyphus happy

We must imagine, because it is not so.

it solves the dilemma of whether life can be valuable in an inherently meaningless world, and whether there's a connection between suicide and accepting such meaningless.

No it doesn't. For one, he presupposes life is meaningless.
>if there is no god, then X is true, so life sux

>dead
but not so, because Sisyphus exists, and enjoys that existence, which is a form of life that cannot end (just not an earthly one). So in his toiling, he has everlasting lucidity of his situation. Hence his victory.

>We must imagine, because it is not so.
Not in the context Camus presents.

>For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that silent pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

>For one, he presupposes life is meaningless.
No, he doesn't. He acknowledges that there are no demonstrable proofs of there being an INHERENT meaning to life, and in the face of this uncertainty, there is no reason to delude oneself in the absence of such proofs. This is no presupposition--it's a refutation of baseless claims and dealing with the uncertainty left in their wake.

>whether life can be valuable in an inherently meaningless world
well it sure as shit isn't. I see more than camus in life, and I do believe in a meaning in the world - inaccessible but that can still be felt. Camus just subverted nihilism via esthetism, to me. Once again, not enough to justify life.

>>For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that silent pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

---

>humans create meaning
>so you can make your life worthwhile just by imagining it is

nice

>proofs
That's already presupposing a fucking order to the universe, which implies meaning, you dope.
Logic requires universal meaning to be valid. Oh look, Camus admits there is meaning but was too stupid and French to realize that.

I'm gonna fuck your bitch. I'm saucy irl come fight me #trump

>well it sure as shit isn't.
how so?
>I see more than camus in life
you probably don't, he won the fucking Nobel
>I do believe in a meaning in the world
So did he, just not an inherent one
>inaccessible but that can still be felt
This is a logical leap
>Camus just subverted nihilism via esthetism, to me
This is wrong, objectively speaking. it has more to do with building on Existentialism than it does with nihilism

>humans create meaning
that passage has nothing to do with meaning. It has everything to do with living with clairvoyance and integrity. Once again, you missed the point.

>Logic requires universal meaning to be valid.
No it doesn't. Truths can be demonstrated in this life without there being an inherent meaning to existence.

My 'bitch' is 17 you burger, I hope you have a cyanide tablet for when the FBI break down your door and demand that you spread your ass so they can search for hidden CP fist-first.
>No it doesn't. Truths can be demonstrated in this life without there being an inherent meaning to existence.
Wrong. You're avoiding the conclusions of his claims because they upset you dearly.

17 is legal in all but 10 states. Not defending burger idiocy, but you sound like an uninformed dolt when you say this.

>>well it sure as shit isn't.
>how so?
As soon as you refute any inherent meaning in life, it's nihilism. You may find it beautiful, call it absurdism, justify it by mentionning nietzsche / kirilov (although both of them are really good counter-examples to anything camus tried), it's still worth shit. No meaning.

>Wrong. You're avoiding the conclusions of his claims because they upset you dearly.
Wrong, your point has nothing to do with his conclusions. In fact he even addresses your very point (which you'd know if you bothered reading it before trying to negate it).

>I want to know whether I can live with what I know and with that alone. I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not therefore negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up.

>As soon as you refute any inherent meaning in life, it's nihilism.
confirmed for not knowing what nihilism is, and for dealing in absolutes.
Here, this might help you out a bit, my man
jonescollegeprep.org/ourpages/auto/2014/3/26/47780661/Absurdism_ Existentialism_ Nihilism.pdf

I'm joking, if you couldn;t tell.
He doesn't actually address it though, he avoids the conclusions just as you do.

The premise of your joke is stupid, which renders it unfunny.

t. Rupert Pupkin

The conclusion of there being no inherent meaning to life has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of logic and demonstrable truths.

>The first is the proposition, as Camus described, that life's absence of meaning seems to remove any reason for living. Camus answers this with methods of living with the absurd: through coping or through revolt

"lol idk man just revolt"
>not nihilist
I cut out the next justification involving "muh true freedom"

So you're distancing yourself from your earlier arguments and making a joke instead. Looks like you've reached the point where you can't defend your claims anymore.

>"lol idk man just revolt"
>revolt against what?
>nothing

o wait but don't tell me – it's revolt against the absurd because life is INHERENTLY absurd, lmao

just saying it is pure, blend nihilism. With a pretty mask, but that's it, really.

Yes it does, truth implies meaning and universal logic implies meaning. Stop avoiding consequences. Isn't this sort of avoidant behavior something Camus wrote in opposition to?

again, the lack of an inherent meaning has nothing to do with the nihilistic concept of nothing existing.

Well, you're objectively wrong, as any reasonable person who grasps the premis of his thesis would understand.

>universal logic implies meaning
Can you prove that statement you're relying so heavily upon? Remember, meaning and consequence are two different things, so when I ask you what is implied by 2+2, the answer isn't "the meaning of that equation is 4." 4 is the consequence. And consequences can exist without a purpose (or meaning).

Not the other user, but this "truth and universal logic imply meaning" only seems to work if you believe in one or the other (truth and/or universal logic), and that's a pretty naive position to take

>again, the lack of an inherent meaning has nothing to do with the nihilistic concept of nothing existing.
gotta justify yourself on this one. It seems to me that the natural conclusion to lack of inherent meaning is acknowledging the artificiality of everything being distinguished, thought or made

>proof
Autism

The presence of communication implies meaning and is contingent on logic.
This includes symbolic communication, or any other sort of communication, including any statement (not just systematic statements) on existence, because those imply a degree of order.
He admits that they exist, both of them.
Logic is only logic when it is universal.

>It seems to me that the natural conclusion to lack of inherent meaning is acknowledging the artificiality of everything being distinguished, thought or made
That would involve a few logical leaps. Given that every single answer of life's meaning relies on faith based principals, we can assume a logical uncertainty in the meaning of life. And yet we can both see and type on our devices of choice, thus proving that we can distinguish the forms of our computers. We are thinking in order to communicate, and making sentences. Logically we can conclude that the uncertainty of life's meaning hasn't prevented us from distinguishing, thinking and making.

>The presence of communication implies meaning and is contingent on logic.
You're missing the point. There are still meanings, which we've just demonstrated by analyzing each others arguments for their ***meanings***. But again, the meaning of life is uncertain. Camus believes there's no point making a logical leap to assume this meaning, but that doesn't negate other meanings in life. (Hence why this isn't nihilism).
>those imply a degree of order.
Yes. Not to be confused with meaning.

second part for

>none of this is meaning because accepting inherent meaning destroys my ideology

This argument is disingenuous, it's equivalent to saying "logic only works in situations where logic can be applied," which it must by definition. You're passing off a tautology as an explanation. Also, logic can't be precisely applied to emotional scenarios, e.g. why Billy Bob Thornton has a phobia of antique furniture. You could contrive some "reason" for the phobia, but to explain it to him would be an utter failure. Logic breaks against the power of a phobia.

Believe me, if I just accidentally proved a meaning to life, I would have just been awarded the nobel peace prize. It doesn't.

But perhaps you can show me how you can derive a meaning behind the mere existence of forms and an understanding of logical principals.

Thanjs for the laugh, anons. The level of pretention on display here is priceless.

that's literally the point of poetry (which is what you should look to for meaning)

I'm using one example of inherent meaning, because you accent logic and truth.
It does. Get over yourself. You've redefined meaning, which itself implies meaning.

If it's really a matter of saying " we're unsure of inherent meaning in life " I don't see how Camus is different from any skepticism, therefore have any need to create anything called "absurdism".

But I don't "accept" (if that's what you meant) logic or truth as things above or apart from me, as you seem to. Logic is not "universal," neither is "truth," they are ideas that I subject to my purposes. There is no "inherent" meaning -- as if anything could have meaning to me without me being there to grasp it

>that's literally the point of poetry (which is what you should look to for meaning)
Poetry is man mande--any meaning derived from it is not inherent to the world. But that's fine.

>It does. Get over yourself. You've redefined meaning, which itself implies meaning.
No I haven't. But now that I've pointed out the difference between consequence and meaning, it appears you can't grasp the distinction.
You clearly have no more points to defend.

Logic do not work with meaning at the first place, actually — this is the reason why it is called «formal»: because, obviously, logic is all about the correct ways to get from the antecendece to the consequent, despite the meaning of both.

For example, we can form meaningless linguistic syllogism which still will be logically correct:
Every sjsjsj is eyeyey
Juju is sjsjsj
Juju is eyeyey

Is it correct in terms of logic? Yes it is.
Does it have any apparent meaning? No, it does not.

Because that's not his thesis, it is the symptom of modern society that he's addressing in his thesis. How about you read the fucking thing instead of making assumptions about it.

That's still meaning. You and the frog have fallen for the subjective/objective divide nonsense.
>does it have apparent meaning
Yes it does, you are just redefining meaning. You are giving it too much gravity.

Could you show me your definition? It may be broader than mine.

What? There isn't "meaning" as you use the word i.e. to connote its own eminence. There is no meaning that is either generally subjective or generally objective, there is only the meaning that *I* give to the world, which I can change or destroy at my whim. The existentialist concept of "subject dependent meaning" is as worthless to me as the Christian notion of a "meaning" that depends on God.

>you are just redefining meaning
The irony is that you're redefining the meaning of "meaning" in order to hold on to your argument. Though it will be clear to any reasonable person looking at these posts that you're either willfully deluding yourself or just flat out incapable of understanding how consequence and meaning are entirely different concepts

I'm not redefining it at all, stop projecting you absolute child.
I've said that meaning is a consequence of truth and logic, not that the consequence of truth and logic are meaning. They are implications which are accepted in making any truth statement, logical statement, or employing truth or logic.

A = B B = A
Does this sentence make sense to you?
I mean,
>I've said that meaning is a consequence of truth and logic, not that the consequence of truth and logic are meaning
Sounds fuck up a bit.

>A = B B = A
>(A = B) (B = A)
>(same boolean result) (same boolean result)
That when comparing the comparisons of the same two variables but in different positions, we can assume that the first comparison's boolean result will be less than, greater or equal to the other comparison's boolean result.
:^)

ECCLESIASTES!!

I truly have to admit — nice sophistics ya have got over there, pal. Nonetheless, do not see any boolean results here, so that was kinda pointless.
If A equals B, B will be consequently equal to A.
If «poor little thing which can say "meow" and has four legs» equals to «cat», then «cat» equals to «poor little thing which can say "meow" and has four legs» as well.
Bring your roaster in, Diogen.

I'm stoned and wrote this. I used to write a lot what do you think guys should i get back into writting. My hands Through my hands Love Money Pain Through my hands Compassion Courage Despair Through my hands Life Time Anxiety Through my hands Today

> Nonetheless, do not see any boolean results here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_operator
FUCKING IDIOT!!
youplayedyourself

hey man, that was pretty cool, good job :3

I looked down and saw myself wondering why. I couldn't tell if I had chosen this path or if I had blindly walked to the this moment. I must admit I am being to kind in my words. I have ignorantly came to this postion. I have raced to to this position. I feel the florescent lights shinning above me. I feel the cheap plastic ziptie in my hands. Theres no smell. I take a deep breath and there is no smell. I have grown immune to it. There was a time when the air was filled with a musk, a dampness. I can see my reflection on the sheetmetal. The name tag gleaming.
When your young you see your name on a door you see your name on a plaque on a piece of expensive wood in gold writing.
Your taught that your signature will mean something that it is important.
I let go of the ziptie after removing the staple that fastened it to the invoce sheet.
I look away from my reflection
I take the thirty cent pen and sign my name
removing the first two sheets from the invoice I walk to the open bay
I kneel down
My knees know the feel of cement
to well
I move my hands on the iron latch
worn
solid
fuctional

That is some computer stuff, so why would you just don't go fuck yourself, for instance? In pure logic «boolean» has a straightforward meaning, which is related to true/false-propositions. Since we discuss logic, I see a necessity to rely on such straightforward terms. Also, your previous post still looks proves nothing and has too much about sophistics while to less with logic either,

I know, I'm just being a cunt.

With a proficiency of a virtue. Well done.

(cont) (or cunt, hehehe)
The way the operators in (A=B) and (B=A) would, in some computer languages, result in the boolean values of true or false (or potentially null). It also wouldn't matter where they were placed, unlike your cat example.
I get what you're saying, I was just having a laugh.