Is it even possible to BTFO him without making him stronger? It's like trying to slay the hydra

>tfw the rebel was almost complete shit from this point onward until the art section
Why does Camus just blow at writing hard phil? And this really isn't one of those baitposts where I assume something in a question to piss people off; I'm being sincere. His novels are at least good, and the actual philosophy he presents is worth considering, but he just sucks at putting it on the page in explicit form. Am I just interpreting his beliefs charitably? Are they just too "absurdly contradictory :DD" to be put on the page properly in the first place?

Having only read Myth of Sisyphus, The Plague, and The Stranger, he seems to me like an intentionally edgy Stirner. Instead of "Do what thou wilt," his general advice was, "Do what thou wilt, provided moral people cut themselves on your edge."

>syphilistic mental case!
>virgin!

Pick one NIGGA

He was probably a chronic schizophrenic, and a virgin. Here there is no contradiction.

got syphilis from his whore mommy kissing him on the lips for finishing all his tendies like a good boy

He rejected the term philosopher applied to him. He was "just" a writer who had ideas to share. It's kind of a cop out but it makes sense in any discussion about his essays. If you expect hard-phil from Camus, you'll be disappointed. If you expect a set of ideas put forward from a writer who doesn't try to be a "true" philosopher, he's pretty good.

And tbf his absurdism isn't that hard to write about. You don't have to look hard to find good essays about it. What I haven't found yet is one that summarizes his entire set instead of singling out a question or two.

>still attempting to personalize critiques instead of advancing knowledge past necessarily incomplete philosophy
the mark of a true pseud

...

They can't both be right, though. It feels like you have to either choose Nietzsche or choose Christ.

"If anyone doubted that the Christian world of today has reached a frightful state of torpor and brutalization (not forgetting the recent crimes committed in the Boers and in China, which were defended by the clergy and acclaimed as heroic feats by all the world powers), the extraordinary success of Nietzche's works is enough to provide irrefutable proof of this. Some disjointed writings, striving after effect in a most sordid manner, appear, written by a daring, but limited and abnormal German, suffering from power mania. Neither in talent nor in their basic argument do these writings justify public attention. In the days of Kant, Leibniz or Hume, or even fifty years ago, such writings would not only have received no attention, but they would not even have appeared. But today all the so-called educated people are praising the ravings of Mr N, arguing about him, elucidating him, and countless copies of his works are printed in all languages."

Nietzsche has already been utterly bootyblasted by superior tolstoy-chan.

>neither in talent nor in their basic argument
>neither in talent
tolstoy was reading bad translations or was a moron. i agree with Nietzsche on almost nothing, but his prose is incredible

Am I the only one that just can't seem to connect deeply with any other philosopher? Nietzsche seems like he gazed straight through all of the bullshit, but every other philosopher I've read after him strikes me as rather cold. I'd like to connect with some other philosophers, but I can seem to find one with the same thunder as Nietzsche.

he was a hypocrite. what more is there to say?

Ya dude, his prose are fucking amazing! And hes hilarious. When I read his books I genuinely feel like hes talking to me and teaching. As far as I can tell, no other philosophers are this good of writers, or as witty in an antagonistically matter-of-fact manner. I like Hume, w. James, and yung, but it isnt the same. Nietzsche is the GOAT. Doesteyevsky is just behind him in second.

>disagree with him
>"please do!"
It looks like you finally understand Nietzsche.
Entirely wrong.
>its immature so its bad

Bad ideas. Stop deluding yourself.

The ubermensch died today guys

>Entirely wrong.

But no serious Christian can take Nietzsche seriously, at least not all of him. You can't believe in the Resurrection and also take Ecce Homo as gospel.

And Camus banged his head even harder against the front window

But that's still wrong. Stop being so disgustingly literal. Jesus was the immature Übermensch.
Christianity as we know it has been all wrong, but it can be made right again before our lifetime ends and Christ returns.

Absolutely. I did feel a decent connection with Plato as well. His dialogues really provoke me to think about the different sides of arguments more clearly. I like to imagine what I would say to Socrates had I been in those situations

While Camus walked up to the front door and sucked on the door knob while fingering his asshole

>Christ was an immature übermensch
I really can't see how you get this out of his work, he has nothing but disdain for Christ, if anything Nietzsche was more of a "Buddhist" than anything close to a Christian

Nietzsche goes off on the Buddhists. WTF, educate yourself

Nicee man, daydreams are great. Cheers user

are you implying stirner wasn't intentionally edgy

>Stop being so disgustingly literal.

Are Christians not meant to take the Resurrection literally?

goes off a bit harder on the Christians desu

Why must we imagine Sisyphus at all?

True, but that doesnt mean he liked the buddhists

He is by far the most forgiving of Buddhists compared to any other faith besides maybe Hindus whom he barely mentions.
He had a great admiration for the Buddha and called himself the "Western Buddha"
But his understanding of Buddhism was lacking and mostly came through Schopenhauer, but even he recognized the strong similarities between his own philosophy and that of the Buddha.

Personally, considering my own knowledge of Buddhism is likely greater than his own considering the time he lived in, I don't see their goals are being very different at all.
You can justify nearly everything Nietzsche says along Buddhist lines without the need for moral wankery

Doesn't mean he hated them, he goes off on absolutely everyone even people he agrees with. And he did like Buddhists considering the praise he does give them (unique because he doesn't give any to other faiths)
His only quandary with it is the inaccurate idea that Buddhists are ultra-nihilists who basically make peace with nihilism

The buddhas says detach from this world and believes in reincarnation

You cant be this dellusional...

PSEUDS DETECTED

There isn't so much a difference between their world views reguardless
Buddhism doesn't care about morals or see the world as evil (or romantically pure)

Their highest virtue is compassion, something Nietzsche considers fairly unimportant. Strength and courage have done more for..etc. than compassion. Famous quote

Buddha has morals. Nietzsche doesnt. Both address Nihilism. Not seeing much more overlap

I didn't say that.
Nonsense.

Kierkegaard is as intense and artistic also, read Either/Or.

nice quote, where's it from

Awkward translation, Buddhist compassion is not exactly the same as the Christian concept of it.
Read the Diamonds and Heart Sutras
>Buddhism has morals
No, and even Nietzsche acknowledged their detachment from moral bickering

Camus? More like Campoo. He was a faggot frog.

Aren't clouds actually fractal patterns though?

>there is only one truth
You're misunderstanding both of them.

Nietzsche denied the world but not himself. Cioran overcomed him by denying the world and himself.

>If you expect a set of ideas put forward from a writer who doesn't try to be a "true" philosopher, he's pretty good.
But he published what would very clearly be called hard phil. I get that I can lower the bar and just say he's a writer with ideas to share, but The Rebel in particular looked like it was just a refined notebook. It demanded lots of prior reading for very few new ideas. The whole book felt like Camus just got too high on his own Sisyphus and tryued to find the patterns he highlighted in his previous work elsewhere.

And it isn't just like "oh yeah, Camus just isn't a philosopher"; in The Rebel he almost comes off as philosophically illiterate. In the opening pages of the book I think, he puts forward the idea that rejecting suicide and rejecting murder go hand in hand, then starts talking about how the absurd is a contradiction and asking the audience what they can deduce from that. Yeah, what they can deduce from a contradiction. He thinks it sounds clever, but it just sounds retarded and ultimately it made me hesitant to really trust any of his interpretations of the other authors he included in the book.

I don't think that was the point of characters like Meursault was to set an example, at least not in the opening three-quarters of the book.

heh heh le redpilled fedora neckbeard

If you read his notebooks that's pretty much what you'll find.

I might be biased because I'm into the Camus-"aesthetic" and didn't expect much else, but despite his shortcomings as a philosopher I enjoy his works. As you said, if you gotta lower the bar.

Your criticism is valid though and I mostly agree with it.

clicked on this thread to say this. kierkegaard and nietzsche are the top two philosophers for cutting through modern bullshit, but i ultimately think kierkegaard has a more substantial, upbuilding vision than does nietzsche.

also, instead of having a mental breakdown over a whipped horse, kierkegaard cucked his fiancee with christ.

We must look for meaning though, regardless if that's how it is. We can't do otherwise.

Nietzsche didn't deny anything

>His novels are at least good
Rethink this

Nietzsche is like that kid who always plays F tier characters in smash and when you win says "well its not like it matters" and that one time of 10 that he wins he'll never shut up about how bad you are and how you should kill yourself

Read Gorgias

Dude nothing is real LMAO

Good riddance

...

What bok is this from? Hes not saying hes a buddhist--so you know. He just agrees with that one sentiment, at least from this excerpt

This is Cioran isn't it?

>Kierkegaard cucked his fiancee with Christ
kek, good one

if you think that's bad, try refuting hegel

It's from Ecce Homo. Also thanks for the factoid but I'm not the user in the discussion.

...

>implying Nietzsche's philosophy of difference isn't itself a refutation of the dialectic

Delet this

this guy BTFO even if you agree with him

>"you're a faggot because you were incapable of imposing your own will upon the world and simply followed mine by accepting my philosophy!"

Both Scheler and Girard smashed Nietzsche. You guys are falling for the meme.

Yes.

wrong try again spinozist

He has a point. There are a lot of neet-cha fanboys who hang on his every word as the ultimate authority on everything (even though neet-cha really didn't know much about anything at all). Very slavish and restrictive.

wew, whoever wrote that thing BTFO

>refutation of the dialectic
I don't think your really thought that statement through.
The idea of viewing the historical process as competing wills to power, a struggle between order and chaos, is just another stage of the self-realization of the absolute, a way of looking at the speculative method from the outside, putting the Hegelian clean, rationalistic viewpoint of the historical process into perspective against the unreasonable elements we find in it, grounding it in that aspect of our experience of being.

>Camus