Is it better to just accept the world is absurd and move on with your life?

[Anonymous No.21920054]

Discussion on Camus

[Anonymous No.21920087]

>>21920054
Nah, I prefer to just accept the world is fucking awesome and keep living life uncucked by sadboi ideologies.

[Anonymous No.21920121]

>>21920054
No I wanna whine about the world not being my mental image of based and trad while I jack off to drawn pictures of Japanese children online.

Yeah I'm a frequent user of /pol/ how did you guess?

[Anonymous No.21920129]

>>21920087
I wish I wrote that in my literature review

[Anonymous No.21920143]

i a the fat fingered francophobe your mother warned you about

[Anonymous No.21920159]

I'm reading Sisyphus and I think I'm getting filtered. I get the idea of the absurd but then he seems just to reiterate the point from slightly different angles and citing a ton of other authors. I think I'm missing some subleties.

[Anonymous No.21920346]

>>21920159
I think you should read The Stranger first.

[Anonymous No.21920466]

>>21920346
Ok, will do that.
He also mentions Kierkegard and Husserl a lot, should I read them too?

[Anonymous No.21920561]

>>21920466
Personally, I don't think it's necessary. Just be familiar with existentialist philosophers and their ideas. Some on here will argue otherwise and tell you that it is necessary.

[Anonymous No.21920571]

This meme best explains it

[Anonymous No.21920878]

>>21920466
Not purely for understanding the MoS, but you should eventually try them anyways.

[Anonymous No.21920884]

>>21920087
Based

[Anonymous No.21920891]

>>21920054
>reality is absurd
>but its le wrong to murder people
Camus is a moralfagging charlatan who got buck broken by chad sartre

[Anonymous No.21920901]

>>21920891
>who got buck broken by chad sartre
qrd?

[Anonymous No.21920930]

>>21920901
Camus and sartre got in a friendship-ending fight since sartre said that killing millions to save billions is good, whereas camus said that any type of murder is wrong. So even though albert was an absurdist, he was a deontologist at heart.

[Anonymous No.21920932]

>>21920891
Both Camus and Sartre were moralfagging charlatans that got buckbroken by Zapffe.

[Anonymous No.21920960]

>>21920891
>buck broken by chad sartre
> Beauvoir only settled for Sartre after she got Noped by both Camus and Merleau-Ponty, leading to Sartre eventually sperging out against both.
> When "Chad" Sartre suggested the group should start setting up bombs he got immediately shut down by both Beauvoir and Camus so hard he never once spoke about it himself.
> didnt die young on his way to meet the love of his life after plowing a prodigious amount of hoes.
Sure, quite the "Chad"...

[Anonymous No.21920961]

>>21920901
Camus, who was born in Algeria to
French parents, refused to endorse the Algerians in the Algerian War, saying "Between justice and my mother, I choose my mother." That got him excommunicated from most of the French left.
Sartre would also later break with some French leftists by supporting Israel during the Six-Day War.

[Anonymous No.21920963]

>>21920961
>refused to endorse the Algerians
As one should.

[Anonymous No.21920991]

>>21920960
>didnt die young on his way to meet the love of his life
Dying before achieving your goal is for suckers.

[Anonymous No.21920999]

>>21920932
Elaborate on Zapffe?

[Anonymous No.21921035]

>>21920930
So basically Ozymandias vs Rorschach?

[Anonymous No.21921053]

>>21921035
Yes exactly
And the consequentialists were right both times

[Anonymous No.21921083]

>>21920087
"It's only when I stop giving a shit about the world that I'm able to live life to the fullest."

[Anonymous No.21921094]

>>21920054
I personally think Christian Absurdism has a lot of potential. I know Camus personally advocated for an atheist-style Absurdism but he still sympathized with his Christian friends. Christianity still formed a background for the direction of his opinion on meaning.

[Anonymous No.21921103]

>>21921094
>Christian Absurdism
elaborate

[Anonymous No.21921107]

>>21920999
Zapffe stated that:

>Evolution made men smarter;
>Men could identify objects with their features, explain cause and effect, create abstract concepts, etc;
>Finally men realized that they are mortal animals that would sick, rot, and die. To cope with this, men created artificial meanings in this tragic meaningless world;
>Those artificial meanings could be implemented by isolating, anchoring, distracting, and sublimating oneself.

[Anonymous No.21921184]

>>21921107
>To cope with this, men created artificial meanings in this tragic meaningless world;
completely wrong and ahistorical if he's talking about religion

[Anonymous No.21921192]

>>21921184
No, he is right.
Or do you actually believe in the magic man in the sky?

[Anonymous No.21921207]

>>21921192
I'm saying man didn't create religion to cope with the "meaningless world." The very modern idea of a "meaningless world" is anachronistic when applied to ancient cultures and mythologies. Man stopped being religious and spiritual and then thought the world was meaningless, not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.21921401]

>>21921207
I think he's saying you can classify religion under the "identify objects with their features, explain cause and effect, create abstract concepts" more so than the "artificial meanings could be implemented."

Religion straddles both the explanatory framework and the artificial meaning for cope. Its just that as it lost ground on the former it found utility in the latter.

[× I V R I V S × !!GgBWHLRiayD No.21922045]

>>21920054
>Is it better to just accept the world is absurd and move on with your life?


"Better" than what?

The right thing to do is to occupy oneself with something, and to excel within it, embracing proactive poeisis, thus, committing to the faithful, optimistic transilience from absurdity to rationality.

One finds a way in this world, but not without meta arteriogenesis.

[Anonymous No.21922238]

>>21920159
Contrary to what most people say, it's not the easiest read. This is mainly because of the way Camus writes. The essay is quite poetic and vague (i.e., you have to read between the lines a lot of the time) and not very straightforward. At least this was my experience, but I could just be an idiot.

[Anonymous No.21923131]

>>21922238
i agree with this 100% though just as easily another idiot