Where do I start for absurdism?

I agree with your sentiment, but I don't see anything wrong with an abundance of stoicism. My word is to still go with Stoicism first - the ideals which separate epicureanism from stoicism are abundant and echoed throughout literature. They both are, but there's only one meditations. You may think of Stoic's as zombies and Marcus as a goody good but the intense loyalty to rational thought Stoicism vets is apt to garnering a love of all kinds of philosophy. Persecution of Christians may have been abundant, but the persecution of good christian values has been called sympathetic by many. A good stoic will not be strictly stoic for long

Don't

stephen colbert

The Myth of Sisyphus is a good read, but you'd probably have to have experienced a suicidal "episode" to fully appreciate it. (There's a way of thinking he portrays that only would only make sense to someone who has sought a "life purpose" and found reality unconducive.) Don't listen to the fags who haven't read any Camus - as you can tell, they are desperately boring pseuds.

K I E R K E G A A R D

This
It's just millennia-old common sense rebranded with le chic smoking frenchie men

absurdism isn't something you learn

its something you already know and can observe any hour of any day

Don't.

Is the world a game? No. A game is a game and the world is the world. However, the world (and your life, which is your personal part of the world) can be interpreted as a game, i.e. can be regarded as and be compared to one, and this, as we'll be seeing at length, is the most powerful possible interpretation of the world because it gives us the deepest insights into it and informs the mindset that allows us the greatest degree of freedom of action in it (which are by no means unrelated things). But there are other interpretations too. The Christian views the world as a punishment, for example (for something to do with an apple, I believe), while some people like Sartre and Camus throw their arms in the air and call it "absurd" — i.e. they give up on the attempt to interpret the world at all. Strictly speaking, these latter are correct — if you remove all the negative connotations and pathetic existential angst bound up in the word they chose — which of course you can't remove because those things are precisely why those people chose that word. But regarding the world as it is — inconceivable, unfathomable, beyond interpretation — is a weak, reactive even form of thought, while seeing it as you would like it to be — in our case, as a game — is an extremely powerful, positive form that has the capacity — if allowed to marinate in and influence the thought process of a species of life that has the strength to grasp it for long enough — to shape reality to such an extent until at last the world comes to resemble a game and function somewhat like one for no other reason than simply because we want it to.

A thing that "makes sense" is a useful thing; something that we can use (therefore, the stronger one is, physically and mentally, the more things he can use, and the more that "makes sense" to him. For neurotics and the hysterical — like for example Sartre, Camus and other weaklings — everything is nonsensical; "absurd"). So the sentence "I love ice cream" makes sense, because it can be used to understand me, while the sentence "I cream ice love" is nonsense, because no one can figure out what to do with it. — Now take it to the level of the universe. For the universe to "make sense" to at least someone, it would have to mean that that someone could put the universe to use. But who could use the universe, if the universe is everything? It would have to be someone situated "outside" the universe, which is by definition nonsense.

Random book, random page.

>greatest degree of freedom of action

edgy

>they give up on the attempt to interpret the world at all.

You haven't read a word of Camus, have you? I don't know where you acquired that secondhand opinion but it's horseshit.

I mean - good grief - read his most famous essay, The Myth of Sisyphus.

gr8 argument

Where would I even begin? Sometimes someone is so far off the truth, they're not even wrong.

The CAUSA SUI is the best self-contradiction that has yet been conceived, it is a sort of logical violation and unnaturalness; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with this very folly.

The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this UNIQUE ONE, to pull oneself up into existence out of nothingness: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in THEMSELVES, the personal right to THEIR merits, at any price (the vain races belong to this class).

I've read Sisyphus, he doesn't make any conclusions about the world itself, only how an individual should approach it. Also recommending an essay that takes suicide as its starting point is just shameless.

>also recommending an essay that takes suicide as its starting point is just shameless

That's a shit joke.

It's not a joke.

That you thought it might be reveals how out of touch you are with affirmative mindsets.

So you rather he wrote about what to think as opposed to how he thought? Aren't you missing the point by a whole lot?

(If it's not a shit joke you're either lying or astoundingly stupid, which is it?)

I'd rather he sorted his life out before committing something with such a morbid, weak character to print.

>marcus
>aurelius
dumbass loser, married his 1st cousin and his only son was a freak show who fucked up Rome

Gr8 way of dodging the question