What are your thoughts on it, Veeky Forums?

What are your thoughts on it, Veeky Forums?

No way is that dude happy.

The point is he's happy enough to not kill himself..

camus is a brainlet

Much like Tantalus, Sisyphus already resides in the underworld. He is, for all intents and purposes, a shade. How would he kill himself?

Wasn't referring to Sisyphus. Perhaps you should read it.

I've read it multiple times and used to love it but I've become rather disillusioned since reading Thomas Nagel's The Absurd in which he explains the concept or feeling of absurdity rather more rigorously than Camus but in far fewer words, and is directly and accurately critical of some of the logic of the Myth of Sisyphus.

I also read some Kierkegaard, but it didn't really sink in. (I'll probably try again.)

always hated, thought Prometheus was a good expel of what we should look to, one who suffers for the accomplishments he loves, not running from his fears and falling like sissy fist

Sickness Unto Death was as far as I got with Kierkegaard and I didn't return to him.

Haven't read The Absurd. Sisyphus was also a favourite of mine back in the day, so will be looking that up.

A too-long excuse for nihilistic materialists why not kill themselves. Not very convincing.

It's a little confusing when you're replying to a post that clearly seems to reference Sisyphus. I have no problem believing in Camus' happiness. He lived a pretty chady life after all. You can call me a brainlet, but I don't see why an otherwise healthy, functioning human being would necessarily have to grow terribly depressed/ill/suicidal from a mere abstract philosophical "realization".

>Camus maintains in the Myth of Sisyphus that the absurd arises because the world fails to meet out demands for meaning. This suggests that the world might satisfy those demands if it were different. But (...) there does not appear to be any conceivable world (containing us) about which unsettleable doubts could not arise.

This is because, in Nagel's view,
>We see ourselves from outside, and all the contingency and specificity of our aims and pursuits become clear. Yet when we take this view and recognise what we do as arbitrary, it does not disengage us from life, and there lies our absurdity: not in the fact that such an external view can be taken of us, but in the fact that we ourselves can take it, without ceasing to be the persons whose ultimate concerns are so cooly regarded.

not the same guy but it look clear to me hes taking about camus not sisyphus, its hard to forget he is already dead

Because Veeky Forums likes to get their depression confused with philosophical enlightenment.

You don't have to be suicidal to contemplate suicide.

was sisyphus a buddha living in a box? i don't remember that part

That's Sisyphus slacking off. He should be rollin' like limp bizkit

the truth is in what you do, not in what you thing though

and his conclusion is
>Camus - not on uniformly good grounds - rejects suicide and the other solutions he regards as escapist. What he recommends is defiance or scorn. We can salvage our dignity, he appears to believe, by shaking a fist at the world which is deaf to our pleas, and continuing to live in spite of it. This will not make our lives unabsurd, but it will lend them a certain nobility. This seems to me romantic and slightly self pitying. Our absurdity warrants neither that much distress nor that much defiance. At the risk of falling into romanticism by a different route, I would argue that absurdity is one of the most human things about us: a manifestation of our most advanced and interesting characteristics. Like scepticism in epistemology, it is possible only because we possess a certain kind of insight - the capacity to transcend ourselves in thought. If a sense of the absurd is a way of perceiving our true situation (even though the situation is not absurd until the perception arises), then what reason can we have to resent or escape it? Like our capacity for epistemological skepticism, it results from the ability to understand our human limitations. It need not be a matter of agony unless we make it so. Nor need it evoke a defiant contempt of fate that allows us to feel brave or proud. Such dramatics, even if carried on in private, betray a failure to appreciate the cosmic unimportance of the situation. If sub specie aeternis there is no reason to believe that anything matters, then that doesn't matter either, and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair.

was Nagel the one that raped a few undergrads? those existentialists were all human filth

that was John R. Searle

Easy introduction to existentialism

Propaganda

bump

Why does Camus get so much discussion on Veeky Forums??

...