The world as we know it is no part of this dialectic of loss and love. For the world, as the concept of extension, is only discerned us each alone, and the lost enumerator is as anomalous to that count as the freedom enabled through it is. The worth of time is intimated, not explicated. No god can be such loss as we exact of ourselves and emancipate of each other, and neither can any thesis of the world's imposing its paradigm upon us. The dialectic of intimacy is the completest term of time, and it is not possible to be alone there.
The early Existentialists never realized this, but considering their times it is not hard to sympathize with their pessimism. Saturday, February 10, -- AM. It is generally believed and supported by records that Camus died in a car accident with his publisher at the wheel. Do you have access to information contrary to this? It has also recently been discovered that Nietzsche did not suffer from syphilis but was merely briefly misdiagnosed with the condition. Also, saying engaging in risky behavior is tantamount to purposefully ending one's item life is reductive, uniformed, and insulting.
It seems to me that in the conversation in the program that there is a confusion of categories, as if you're not listening to what each other is saying. One fellow is saying that life can have all sorts of meanings, the other is saying that Life is absurd and has no inherent meaning. Why are these two positions supposedly contradictory? If Life doesn't have any inherent meaning, that is precisely what gives the freedom to humans to create meaning.
In other words, meaning is something people do, not something people find. If we are looking at what you are doing Life 'for the sake of' the 'for the sake of' is first, not really necessary as it is a kind of narrative addition, and second, an interpretation requiring an interpreter making the interpretation. As far as saying that this means that ethics is no longer possible, that isn't really true either - an authoritarian given ethics may not be possible but a shared consensual ethics is possible, and is, in fact, the ethical world we live in.
Meaning is what people do, not what they find.
Sunday, March 1, -- PM. That's a step in the right direction, but language militates against us. The conceit of time as extension, as duration, as lasting or survival absurd on the face of it since life as we know it is constituted as a biological commitment to dying--that is, the complexity of a complex organism, such as the human, is the differentiation of each part that maximizes the potential articulacy of our being alive in exchange for the power of immortal replication is intrinsic eliminativism.
Essays. Albert Camus. Translated from the French by Justin O'Brien. The Absurd Man The pages that follow deal with an absurd sensitivity that can. The Myth of Sisyphus is a philosophical essay by Albert Camus. The English translation by Justin O'Brien was first published in In the essay Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd, man's futile.
A human is a person. But person is a fundamental dynamism of time. Time is anomalous to whatever would define it as replication the same. The new paradigm is no truer than its predecessor. It is up to us to see the difference through which its truer meaning is real, for it is only real lost to that conviction in 'presence' replication or extension. The logic of extension is never true of time, but there is no other mode of rigor by which we can make its truer moment real than to pursue that rigor to the extremity through which that incompletion of formal extension is recognizable.
But since it is only loss that is its realest term only the freedom that loss means to its other is its articulation. Loss leaves the remainder responsible of the worth of it. That responsibility is love. Neither that loss nor that love is anything worthy of its time alone. Only the act of loss and the response of love in dynamic assault upon the rigor of formalism hermetic between its beginning and its end, antecedence and consequence, cause and effect, is there anything temporal at all.
Time is intimation, not explication. And so long as we are convinced that proper rigor can only replicate the originary there can be no explicit accounting of this. The monism of the West or the collectivism of the East can neither one of them be a venue for the drama of intimacy through which we have a most personal interest in letting my loss be your emancipation of the continuity of time. We are so committed to ontology of the isolating term that we are blind to the participation in giving time is realness and its most articulate term that loss and love is.
The Existentialist had an intuition of all this but were entrenched in the monad, and so failed to extricate themselves from the pessimism of that conviction.
Camus himself was a lightweight, and was popular at the time and perhaps provocative today because of his fetish for lobbing bombs which he made no effort to clean up after. I might have expected a lot more interest in this theme, as it was so prevalent fifty years ago, but it seems that either the program is not much listened to or, as I have suspected for some time, philosophy, especially in this the most un-philosophical country in the world, is succeeding in its effort to commit institutional suicide. Being a sop to science is no substitute for the humanity it so thoroughly outlaws or denegrates.
Science does nothing to denigrate humanity. It is a wonderful way to see the beauty of the universe. Time crystals were just created in a laboratory. Science is an excellent companion and to philosophy and, at best, they both inform each other. Tuesday, November 6, -- PM.
In and of itself science does not degrinate. But neither does religion. Both can be used in a way that will be regretted later. No matter how absurd life can appear to us, that fact that we exist, and being aware that we exist, puts us at a crossroad. Either we immediately recognize that life has no meaning and thus the question never arises, and the accompanying struggles, suffering, and death that are a part of livivg wouldn't bother us either.
That in and of itself gives us a reason to live that goes beyond mere survival in the moment. And if we realize, as Schopenhauer, Neitzsche, Hegel, etc. But that does not conclude to no meaning. The overwhelming experience of abandonment though, which Neitzsche had, can lead us to that conclusion. And our resulting behavior will go against human's search for meaning, ending in Neitszche's insanity, never connecting with the life outside of himself as his original source for meaning that of relating and away from individuation , or temporarily as in Pegg Lee's case, who became an alchoholic , exacerbating the abandonment experience.
At the end you mention the ways in which both Camus and Nietzsche deal with the world? Perhaps the distinction between these two views requires significant knowledge of each author? Perhaps the main sticking point is around the projection of meaning, with Camus seeming to say nothing about finding illusions within which to? But if that? Can we ever just move forward? Or is the way in which Nietzsche uses? In any case, I? Monday, March 2, -- PM. Nietzsche's vision is of an agon, a deadly competition between rival perspectives.
If you want to understand it, the best beginning is actually to look into a work by Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation. Compared to Camus, Nietzsche is philosophically much more substantive, supplying us with extensive explanatory materially and justification. Camus just tells us what he thinks but doesn't give us a lot of reason to agree or meat for critique. That difference necessitates ideology. Is this absurd? Or selfish?
However, even with a spiritual power as the answer to meaning, another question is posed: What is the purpose of God? The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. Saints, Heroes, and Schmucks Like Me. Letting Go of Human Nature. For you, I'm not so sure. Why we Charge for Downloads.
You cannot know which one I mean and also what I think it means except as a passive submission to my associating them. Compare the use of ideology in Nietzsche and Marx. One is egoistic, the other collective. But what if there an individual motif or demiurge to any collective ideology?
All of a sudden the enigma is resolved. The meaning of life or one? The absurdity of life, yes or no, could depend on the questions you? So instead of thinking that life is depleted of meaning couldn? I can imagine a Sisyphus happy, one that plays more with accepting an ever changing meaning of existence than one rebelling against its absurdity.
Tuesday, March 3, -- PM. You wouldn't be the first to suppose Sisyphus happy in his futility, but you might find it harder to make it out that Camus intended this. The point is, Camus didn't make himself clear, and this opens him to the worst charge that can be made against a philosopher, that he didn't know what he was saying.
If you attempt a more comprehensive perspective I think you will find it too overwhelming. Limitless grief or joy just don't lend themselves to perception, let alone expression.