Absurdism Refutal

You're taking one part of an entire philosophy, a part that I've never even seen directly STATED as you stated it, calling it a paradox through some clever manipulation of words, and using it to discredit an entire school of thought.

from the "myth of sisyphus", he declares that a man realizing that the universe lacks absolutes is how a man obtains true freedom. this is common in any absurdist's foundation, a lack of "absolutes", or "ability of knowledge", and is always self-contradictory. in fact, I challenge you to define absurdism right now in a way that does not contradict itself while still being "absurdism".

yes, it makes anything based on the idea that the universe is devoid of absolutes based on a self-contradicting stance. interpret that how you will.

Maybe not fully 'refuted' but I think it was supplanted by postmodernist ways of viewing the subject and the universe. The existential subject may deduce that there is no inherent meaning to the universe, but that subject is constructed politically and linguistically -- there would be no way to escape the web of language to arrive at a truth outside of that language regarding the nature of the universe. Even the philosophical position of the individual (subject) is constructed historically. But both positions support each other well.

Since I'm going to have to play your pedantic game, saying "the universe lacks in absolutes" is not equivalent to saying "there are absolutely no absolutes ever, including this one." Quod erat demonstrandum.

so what you are saying is that absolutes can exist? because this is not what camus is saying.

He argues there is no absolute meaning, not no absolutes. The statement 'there is no absolute meaning' is not an absolute meaning.

I'm saying refuting an entire philosophy because you think you're smarter than everyone who has ever studied Camus by pointing out a completely non-existent paradox is silly and so petty as to be painful. Do you think that absurdism was meant to hold strong under the rigors of analytical philosophy or formal logic? Because it wasn't. Camus simply proposes a viewpoint, a way of looking at the world. Certainly you can try to "disprove" it or some such, but it won't work, because that isn't the level it works on, and that isn't how you're meant to approach it. You can try, but you'll just look foolish in your approach and ignorant as to the philosophy itself.

here I'll quote him since you guys have to literally lie to defend your author. copypasted from myth of sisyphus.

>"no truth is absolute or can render satisfactory an existence that is impossible initself."
>"the impossibility of knowledge is established"
>"all true knowledge is impossible."

an ad hominem, followed by a denial of logical positivism, followed by a removal of goalposts by suggesting that refutation isn't the point in a thread about refuting camus. everything checks out, absurdism is perfect for you.

Fallacy fallacy. Really, why bring analytics into a continental discussion. I don't get it.

you ignored the two thirds of my post that wasn't pointing out that you made a fallacious argument.

Definitions/principles do not act in accordance with themselves.
The statement "There are no absolutes" doesn't disable itself.
It's semantic and foolish to complain about language being unable to truly describe something when you very well understand what it means.

Well considering part was a snide stab at me, and the rest was actually just a list of fallacies, I don't get what you're trying to say here.

And in any case, if you don't think "nothing is absolute is a paradox ergo I win" isn't an argument that's been spouted endlessly to no effect on any number of different things I don't really have anything more to say. I've quite literally seen it used as a justification for why the Jedi in Star Wars are dumb. It just doesn't really hold any weight as an argument, because it doesn't attack the subject matter, just a straw man.

Yeah this, it doesn't refute the actual argument.

damn, very eloquent btfo

>Definitions/principles do not act in accordance with themselves.
because you say so? how about an argument.
>The statement "There are no absolutes" doesn't disable itself.
because you say so? how about an argument.

I am not complaining about language, I'm complaining about the concepts which can only be discussed via language. I am very familiar with the absurdist argument and camus's take on it, and am very aware of the core contradiction of the "knowledge of the lack of ability to know" that lies at the core of absurdism and is a stain upon it, and camus' definition is no exception, and thus far the only response is "semantics11!!1" with no explanation.
>very well understand what it means
when I hear "absolutes do not exist in the universe", that is very much an "absolute" in any sense of the term. the very concept of rationalizing absurdism contradicts itself. it's a stillborn subject.

I don't know If I have earned the right to express my opinion. But I find absurdism the most applicable of non ethics based philosophies. Perfect for autists bored with life.

>Only Sith deal in absolutes

All I can hear in my head right now.

the only fallacious reasoning I pointed out was your ad hom. I accurately pointed out you are denying logical positivism, and accurately pointed out that you are ignoring the goal of this thread by suggesting that refutation of camus is impossible or pointless. do you have any way to support this argument?

an argument being paradoxical invalidates itself. to deny this, you deny logical positivism. to deny logical positivism, you deny the ability to rationalize absurdism, which is a laughable thing to do in the first place.

>a denial of logical positivism

what does that even mean?

even the logical positivists stopped being logical positivists in the fucking FIFTIES, for fuck's sake.

Listen, "nothing is absolute" isn't Camus' only or even main argument. It's the argument that you're refuting, and the only one you can refute. But you're using it to refute everything that Camus said, which is ridiculous, and what I take issue with.

Language categorize and describes, it simplifies. A yellow thing is probably not just yellow. "Now you must say it's yellow and slightly green and a little orange, there's black spot here and white spot there." Is basically your argument. And if that was how we need to talk from now on, we'll end up saying nothing, cause nothing has any meaning.
You see? Writers compromise details for holistic meaning.
You need to read some books buddy. And some psychology maybe.
This is why postmodernist are wrong too.

while that's completely false, how do you propose rationalization of a concept without using logic? what is your alternative? feelings?

Ah, I see now. When you write 'logical positivism' you really just mean 'logic'.

britannica.com/topic/logical-positivism

Big words make better arguments.

I'm not defending Camus by the way.
I haven't gotten to him yet.

See You're very dense, btw.

its amazing how confident you are

Ad Hominem! Fallacious argument!

And the irony in "nothing is absolute".
Pretty funny.

so you're literally just angry and sharing that with me? okay. how about an argument? like, come on. the denial of knowledge or absolutes is the core of absurdism, the inability to rationalize is at it's core. it is ironic that you are trying to rationalize a stance that denies rationality. it's as though you do not know what you are talking about.

from outside the realm of absurdism, it's easy to point out that one of it's core bases contradicts itself. from within the realm I couldn't tell you anything because we don't know anything(other than the fact that we don't know anything I suppose and that's okay I guess).

>analogy used as a straw man followed by an ad hom
why is the subject material itself so scary for you to talk about? how about define "absolute" in the way camus means it, and explain how my argument is semantical instead of these fallacious rants?

amen

To a cold and meaningless universe, saying 'there are no absolute truths' doesn't change the nature of that universe to having an absolute truth about it. Truth is not accommodated by the universe; the universe just simply is, regardless of the human position (and their knowledge) within it. Your utterance is not like walking into a room full of silent people and saying 'it's so quiet in here'.

not really, I was careful to use the term "logical positivism" to point out that most people when trying to rationalize philosophical stances only consider the rationalization meaningful if it is supported by logic. red herring, how about focusing on camus' material itself? or does that frighten you because it's hollow?

how about an argument?

Lol I'm not angry. I think this is funny. I think it's immensely amusing how sure you are that you're right and that I'm wrong and that you're logical and I'm not. What part of what I said made it seem like I was angry? I'm just telling you straight up that "refuting" one statement of a philosophy (which you haven't actually done) does not render the entire philosophy invalid like you seem to think it does.

In the off chance you're just an idiot and not a troll.

There is a difference between insults and the ad hominem fallacy. Just because someone insulted you and hurt your boo-boos in an argument does not automatically make that argument fallacious; it is basing the entire argument on the person (hence ad hominem) without addressing the opponent's point that makes the argument fallacious. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem. Stop using that "fancy Latin phrase" to stroke your small rhetorical penis you brainlet. But I bet you're just going to call this an ad hominem attack.

>'there are no absolute truths'
is that an absolute truth? for it to not be an absolute truth, it would then follow that there might be absolute truths. in which case, the original claim is invalidated. your irrelevant analogy about breaking silence is nothing but poetry, it doesn't support the argument in any sensible way. in fact, it would cease being quiet in a room the moment someone says "it's quiet", causing the room to not be quiet. pure sophistry.

I love and hate all you argumentative bastards with equal measure.

the inability to possess knowledge is one of the core bases of absurdism, along with a lack of meaning and ability to rationalize. one of it's core bases contradicts itself, another one says it's pointless to try to rationalize it anyway. it's drivel.

yes, hence, the two times I pointed out someone made an ad hominem argument were when they were suggesting I was incorrect based off of a judgment of my character. if you were reading anything this would be obvious.

>in fact, it would cease being quiet in a room the moment someone says "it's quiet", causing the room to not be quiet.

That's the point.

What I'm saying is that this is -not- the case of saying that there are no absolutes in the universe because the universe is without meaning; it doesn't care. The universe isn't changed by this utterance like the room full of people is changed by the break in silence.

buddy, it's okay to admit that you're wrong.

Ad hominem

didn't make an argument mate

so it is not true that there are no absolutes in the universe? so there are absolutes? but it doesn't matter? and your analogy wasn't connected in any way just as I said? this post...maybe rephrase it, it seems completely non-sequitor to your previous points.

Argumentum ad populum.

Ad hominem!

You're >literally< saying a green apple isn't green cause it's also a bit yellow. (An argument.)
You're clearly a troll or just retarded (Just an insult, not trying to argue, maybe help you. Therefore not a logical fallacy.)

I can't defend Camus, I haven't read him yet. I'm just defending allegorical use of words. We're forced to simplify things and their meaning and the words to use. Otherwise we'd need a thousand appendices for every sentence. Here's a handful of examples. (We as in most people. Need as in obligation cause you're retarded. Thousand as in grand number. Grand as in greater than need, not need as in obligation. I must imply every meaning cause you're a Sith who only deal in absolutes of the meaning of every word.)

You're talking to more than one person. I'm arguing your retardation for being unable to read between the lines.
I "have" mild aspergers myself but you're full on low functioning autist.

how am I wrong? camus says he knows that he cannot possess knowledge, that it is an absolute that absolutes don't exist. this is a basic contradiction. nobody has responded to this with anything close to a sensible argument.

Whether there are or aren't absolutes in the universe is not changed by the statement "nothing is absolute" because that's just a statement of language, and as we all know, language can never be perfect. The universe doesn't change because of that statement. The universe remains in whatever state it was in before the statement was made, be there absolutes or no. Camus asserts that the state of the universe is one with no absolutes. This is not changed by saying "nothing is absolute" any more than it is changed by saying "the patriots will definitely win the super bowl."

>You're >literally< saying a green apple isn't green cause it's also a bit yellow. (An argument.)
and a straw man, because I didn't say that or anything resembling it. you could have said I made a semantical argument, but without evidence that's not much of an argument. quote me, explain how the terms I'm using derive from the meaning of the terms camus is using and how it's semantical.

>I'm arguing your retardation for being unable to read between the lines.
so I'm supposed to assume camus is right because he's saying things that he isn't saying?

Expecto Patronum

whether or not the universe changes when someone says something isn't really relevant here. in fact, the universe remaining unchanging would further contradict the argument as that suggests that the universe is absolute regardless of someone's statement. this would make camus' argument both physically and linguistically self-contradicting, it only gets worse at this point.

regardless of that, I am specifically pointing out the meaning of the argument utilizing language(as I have no other tool to do so), which is why I elaborate on the meanings and use synonymous language. it should be clear at that point that my argument isn't semantical in any way, that the concept of absolute non-absolutism or knowing that you cannot know are stillborn stances from a logical perspective.

of course, denying logic's ability to create meaningful philosophical stances can be a way to pretend to solve this, but then, how are we supposed to refute camus? with our feelings? what's the point of the thread at that point?

>your analogy wasn't connected in any way

It was. The idea there are no absolutes is situated either in a universe with absolutes or without them. In a universe with absolutes it is wrong because there are absolutes and the observation that there are no absolutes is a fault in the perception of the individual -- in which case you'd have to prove these absolutes that are required to exist upon the failure of the claim that there aren't. In a universe without absolutes it doesn't change that universe ('break the silence' in the analogy) because it's just a series of abstract sounds made by some physical processes occurring within that universe -- it doesn't actually construct any knowledge or meaning or alter the universe in any way to include absolutes.

blah blah blah yak yak yak

What did everyone think of Exile and the Kingdom? Personally it's my favorite but what does Veeky Forums think?

Yeah to be honest I didn't care enough to read this so I'm just gonna say "ad hominem" and go to bed.

>he argues that there are no "absolutes" in the universe. however, for this to be true, it would be absolute that there are no absolutes, thus, forming a paradox.
This is what I'm arguing, nothing else.
I'm sorry for you.
A statement that seemingly contradicts itself, doesn't contradict itself.
>Nothing deals in absolutes.
Is an absolute statement.
You're saying this statement is false cause it contradicts itself. But if it contradicted itself, that would make it un-contradict itself, cause it's no longer is true, then become true again. Master skywalker! There are too many of them, what are we going to do!

I'll let you think about that for awhile.

>this is a basic contradiction.

Not really. You're saying there's a presence of absence, or that the absence of a chair is still essentially a chair just not there.

so your argument boils down to a human saying that absolutes doesn't exist is meaningless in a universe with no absolutes? ironically a little bit anthropocentric. remove humans from the equation, intelligent beings in general. a universe with no absolutes is impossible because it then becomes an absolute that there are no absolutes. ironically it would require a semantical garbling of the word "absolute" to change this, requiring these meaningless intelligent beings you speak of. the concept itself is an impossibility, and a philosophical framework with the concept as a basis has an impossibility as it's basis.

>whether or not the universe changes when someone says something isn't really relevant here

It is in an attempt to situate the argument in a place that isn't some closed-circuit linguistic reasoning; that is, giving it an actual context to determine its validity.

>the universe remaining unchanging

The universe changes, it is just unchanged by that statement i.e. there is suddenly not an absolute truth present in the universe if someone says 'there are no absolute truths'

>You're saying this statement is false cause it contradicts itself. But if it contradicted itself, that would make it un-contradict itself, cause it's no longer is true, then become true again.
hence, paradox. meaningless drivel.

for some reason you guys can't respond to my argument without using an irrelevant poetic analogy. in the case of "absolutism", the concept itself is extremely relevant when determining whether or not it can not exist. this does not follow for a chair. absolutism exists when absolutism absolutely doesn't exist, paradoxically. a chair simply doesn't exist when it doesn't exist. pure poetry, just like apples and the color yellow.

the only Camus I haven't read. What's it about?

you can't seem to respond to an argument without a blind appeal to "logic" or just rattling off some latin

Man, I should really go re-read The Fall.

>I was careful to use the term "logical positivism" to point out that most people when trying to rationalize philosophical stances only consider the rationalization meaningful if it is supported by logic.

Logical positivists, generally, held that statements were only 'meaningful' if they referred to 'the world', or a set of 'objects' 'within the world'. The condition of meaningful language is: 'refers to' the concrete, and not 'is supported by logic'. 'Real' language, as far as the positivists were concerned, presupposed a logical structure, so saying a statement is 'supported by logic' would be tantamount to saying something like 'music is supported by sound'.

strawman

>giving it an actual context to determine its validity.
and unfortunately in the process steering it into something that "isn't really relevant here". I've already responded here to this ironically anthropocentric argument pretending that pretends my argument is anthropocentric.

Collection of like 6 short stories. I'm sure you could find a pdf of one and see if the rest interest you.

> ironically a little bit anthropocentric.

'Existentialism' is anthropocentric, yes, since it regards the meaning of human activity in the universe.

>a universe with no absolutes is impossible because it then becomes an absolute that there are no absolutes.

The universe itself being absolute does not negate the idea that there are no absolutes -in- the universe. The universe isn't a truth about the universe.

I've been very careful to explain the rationalization of my arguments and the lack of rationalization in people's rebuttals. unless you can quote me appealing to logic instead of using it. even in the post you're responding to, I went into detail explaining how the analogy doesn't make sense.

yes, so what's the problem here? accepting paradoxes runs contrary to this.

>there are no absolutes -in- the universe.
this now becomes an absolute, unless you semantically garble the definition of "absolute". this is my point. it's contradictory, it's impossible for there to be no absolutes -in- the universe because that becomes an absolute -in- the universe.

do paradoxes scare you

So I'm curious what are absolutes? :^)
They... hmm, how should I say this... they do not exist?
As in, there are no absolutes?
No, that can't be true.
There are almost no absolutes? There are some absolutes? Well this is difficult. Humans can deal in paradoxes to convey greater meaning? So lets agree if we make a statement, yes this is it! They do not contradict themselves if they seemingly do!! Aha! I got it yes... hahah! EUREKA!
>There are no absolutes!

>yes, so what's the problem here?

1) You are using the term 'logical positivism' incorrectly and 2) you don't seem to understand the basic 'positions' of logical positivism, yet seem to accept it's 'doctrine' as axiomatic even though 3) the whole fucking 'movement' has been dead for over 60 years because their positions were completely fucking untenable

>accepting paradoxes runs contrary to this

Irrelevant by 3) and by virtue of the fact that we just kind of accept paradoxes as part of the milieu of our existence you stupid little idiot.

are you suggesting that a paradox isn't a paradox if it's used to try to convey "greater meaning"? what is the "greater meaning" within the context of the paradox camus uses, then?

no but I don't take them seriously when they are part of the basis of a stance. same reason I have an issue with cognitive relativism.

I'm saying a sentence is more than its words.

>absolutism exists when absolutism absolutely doesn't exist

'There are no absolutes' is a relational statement and therefor can't be an absolute. There is no such thing as an absolute because everything is relational.

but what you defined hasn't ran whatsoever contrary to anything I've said, not sure how you think it's been used incorrectly. ironically I think you are the one who doesn't understand the concept because it's still largely brought up particularly when trying to sort out relativist arguments.

>Irrelevant
but it's not. accepting paradoxes runs contrary to logical positivism. this is a fact, and relevant when someone is trying to accept a paradox.
>he literally follows suggesting it's irrelevant by saying it's okay to accept paradoxes
maybe you accept paradoxes as part of existence but that axiomatic argument is nothing but an opinion. what is it based on? feelings?

and are you able to elaborate or just say that "more is being said even though I can't explain it"?

what is the statement in relation to? relational statements are statements made in relation to something.
>everything is relational.
is that an absolute?

>this now becomes an absolute

No it doesn't. It's contingent on the absence of absolutes.

>the absence of absolutes.
which is an absolute now. hence, paradox. hence, impossible.

>what is the statement in relation to?

That there can even be a distinction between absolute and non-absolute shows how non-absolute absolute statements are. Is the preceding statement an absolute? No because it proposes that same relation.

I'm going to repost this because apparently you didn't read through it the first time.

>britannica.com/topic/logical-positivism
>Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and that all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless. A brief treatment of logical positivism follows. For full treatment, see positivism: Logical positivism and logical empiricism.
>ogical positivism differs from earlier forms of empiricism and positivism (e.g., that of David Hume and Ernst Mach) in holding that the ultimate basis of knowledge rests upon public experimental verification or confirmation rather than upon personal experience. It differs from the philosophies of Auguste Comte and John Stuart Mill in holding that metaphysical doctrines are not false but meaningless—that the “great unanswerable questions” about substance, causality, freedom, and God are unanswerable just because they are not genuine questions at all. This last is a thesis about language, not about nature, and is based upon a general account of meaning and of meaninglessness. All genuine philosophy (according to the group that came to be called the Vienna Circle) is a critique of language, and (according to some of its leading members) its result is to show the unity of science—that all genuine knowledge about nature can be expressed in a single language common to all the sciences.
>The Vienna Circle, which produced its first manifesto in 1929, had its origin in discussions among physicists and mathematicians before World War I. The general conclusion was reached that the empiricism of Mill and Mach was inadequate, because it failed to explain mathematical and logical truths and because it did not account satisfactorily for the apparently a priori element in natural science. In 1922 Hans Hahn, one of the leaders of the Vienna Circle, laid before his students at the University of Vienna the Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (1921; Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922) of Ludwig Wittgenstein. This work introduced a new general theory of meaning—derived in part from the logical inquiries of Giuseppe Peano, Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, and Alfred North Whitehead—and gave the Vienna group its logical foundation. Most of the group’s members moved to the United States at the outset of World War II. In the meantime, disciples had arisen in many other countries: in Poland, among the mathematical logicians; and in England, where A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth, and Logic (1936) provided an excellent introduction to the views of the group. Interest in logical positivism began to wane in the 1950s, and by 1970 it had ceased to exist as a distinct philosophical movement.

>by 1970 it had ceased to exist as a distinct philosophical movement.

There's a reason for this Reason. Many.

I'll give it a try. Why would you call it your favorite?

More is being said cause otherwise we'd need, as I said here A thousands books for every book.

Metaphors, abstract ideas, analogies, metonymies, allegory, hyperbole, poetry, figuratively speaking.
Or simply lacking the right words, cause they simply do not exist we use the word closest to what we imagine.

The fucking fuck that someone has to explain this to you.

quantum superpositions are paradoxical

yet they seem to form a very basic element of the natural world

weird

>ITT: One baby's first take on philosophy, getting scolded for its irrational logic.
I see in you a true believer in "everything is relative, nothing matters, life is meaningless"
You'll be a great postmodernist.

>This'll get 'im

*me

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization
Go on and read the "see also list"
Your first step to being able to read properly has begun, you fucking toddler.

There's nothing wrong with that logic either.