Sisyphus

[The Feral Underclass]

In the Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus uses the Greek myth as a metaphor for the absurdness of existence. Human beings, like Sisyphus, are forced to undergo a repetitive and seemingly pointless task that in the end delivers a spiteful blow to our endeavours (the rock rolling back down the hill - Death)

In the same book Camus undertakes to answer the question “Does the realisation of the meaninglessness and absurdity of existence require suicide?” Regardless of your response to that question, what it proposes is a choice: To choose life or death? The concept of choice implies a conscious understanding between one thing and another and although most people live how many are choosing to live? Or how many are conscious of living over dying? That sounds like a redundant question but there is a profound distinction to be made between being alive and knowing what it means to be alive.

My response, and perhaps Camus' would be that simply living is one thing, but being conscious of your life is to make a choice in spite of death; it is to understand who you are, what you are doing and why, ultimately, you are doing it. Being conscious of your life is an act that in it’s own rebellious way and for a time, fleeting as it is, conquers the inevitable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Now, that is worth discussing.

[tolstoyevski]

of course it's not the metaphor of life. for bourgeois and proletarians live different lives.

it is just the dream of an individualist, who accused Sartre for he is a communist, for he neglected!! the individual.

It is the dream of a petit-bourgeois "philosopher" who felt lonely and hopeless in front of the capitalist system. In fact yes, he is alone and hopeless; and this is the metaphor of his life. What the communists must do is to destroy the bourgeoisie not only with their economy but also along with their philosophy.

Camus had to know what life is before he makes metaphors of it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:27 am
of course it's not the metaphor of life. for bourgeois and proletarians live different lives.

it is just the dream of an individualist, who accused Sartre for he is a communist, for he neglected!! the individual.

It is the dream of a petit-bourgeois "philosopher" who felt lonely and hopeless in front of the capitalist system. In fact yes, he is alone and hopeless; and this is the metaphor of his life. What the communists must do is to destroy the bourgeoisie not only with their economy but also along with their philosophy.

Camus had to know what life is before he makes metaphors of it.
I don't think you understand the metaphor, do you? Try this (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70800&st=0&#entry1292377811) thread.

[tolstoyevski]

I think you didn't understand the metaphor, don't you?

"Absurdity of life"
you can say this a thousand times, but nothing will change. life is absurd only for bourgeois philosophers; this pessimistic approach, from Schopenhauer to Adorno, nothing but nonsense.

What should the working class do, if these bourgeois pessimists cannot find any meaning, any goal worth to fight for? you have to understand that every ideology has its origin in the class structure and be sure, this "absurdity of life" gobbledygook has nothing to do with the working class.

It's a kind of secular religion or idealism which is our enemy and only effective in academies.

just to confirm it, go to a working woman or man who has class consciousness and who is selling his/her labour force for minimum wage and try to tell her about "absurdity of life," about our choices and the despair of existance etc.

Smash idealism, before it smashes us...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:55 am
"Absurdity of life"
you can say this a thousand times, but nothing will change. life is absurd only for bourgeois philosophers; this pessimistic approach, from Schopenhauer to Adorno, nothing but nonsense.
I'm not sure how you're using the word skeptic here? Presumably not in the Descartes way and if that's the case then you're wrong. Understanding the absurdness of life is not a "skeptic" understanding, it's a liberating one.

It is often the case that workerists dismiss anything that doesn't conform to the obvious liberation of the working class but that's just a vulgar anti-intellectualism, which is pretty self-defeating in my opinion.


What should the working class do, if these bourgeois pessimists cannot find any meaning, any goal worth to fight for?

This simply highlights a distinct lack of understanding of existentialism in general. Firstly, Sartre was a Marxist and secondly there is no negation of a "goal worth to fight for" within the confines of existentialism/absurdism.

Both Camus and Sartre were highly political.


you have to understand that every ideology has its origin in the class structure and be sure, this "absurdity of life" gobbledygook has nothing to do with the working class.

It has never claimed to...?

Philosophy isn't a class centric endeavour, it's a human endeavour that superscedes class; mostly on the basis that, as you have pointed out, has nothing to do with class - directly.

I fail to see how, on that basis, it is beneficial to disregard it. In fact, I would argue that understanding philosophies like existentialism can hav a profound affect on an individuals class politics.


It's a kind of secular religion or idealism which is our enemy and only effective in academies.

So is sloganeering and rabid anti-intellectualism.

If you'd be so kind as to offer an explanation for this assertion, I'd be grateful.


just to confirm it, go to a working woman or man who has class consciousness and who is selling his/her labour force for minimum wage and try to tell her about "absurdity of life," about our choices and the despair of existance etc.

I won't need to. We can feel it for ourselves every time we wake up.

[hajduk]

joke
While Sisyphus pusshing the rock on the top of the hill,Edip standing a side and watch him.After some time he ask Sisyphus:
"Sisyphus why you pusshing the rock all the time when you can see by yourself that rock always turn back on bottom of the hill,i mean isnt that stupid?"
Sisyphus look at him and say:"Edip you should go and fuck your own mother" :D

[Hit The North]

Actually the metaphor works best as an illustration of proletarian existence under capitalism. We are the ones who labour and accumulate nothing. We are the ones who are forced to push that rock up the hill - over and over again - in order to guarantee our existence.

[tolstoyevski]

I'm not sure how you're using the word skeptic here? Presumably not in the Descartes way and if that's the case then you're wrong. Understanding the absurdness of life is not a "skeptic" understanding, it's a liberating one.

I didn't use the word "skeptic". I used the word "pessimistic".
Pessimism is an opium which is constantly used by capitalism and willingly accepted by petit-bourgeois philosophers. Because it takes the responsibility from their shoulders: If it's impossible to defeat capitalism, then why all this struggle against it, why all these deaths?

Here's two ways you can choose: Carpe diem or suicide.
It is mostly carpe diem which is chosen by petit-bourgeois philosophers. Or just we see in the example of Artaud or Heidegger or Cioran, a direct or indirect commitment to fascism.


It is often the case that workerists dismiss anything that doesn't conform to the obvious liberation of the working class but that's just a vulgar anti-intellectualism, which is pretty self-defeating in my opinion.

This is the way it must be. There's only one struggle in todays world: the struggle between the labour and capital. All the other struggles emerge from this fight, from the class society and the exploitaion of labour. Existentialists try to define a sick universal human value which is just a fiction.

I am not an anti-intellectualist. I am an anti-bullshitter. Anti-idealist.
Am I supposed to say: Ellen Meiksins Wood, Raymond Williams, Aijaz Ahmad, David Harvey are some of the intelectuals I like. Most of them don't have a political organisation, but they are all aware of that we're living in a class society which must be defeated and can only be destroyed by scientificly analyzing it, not by preaching absurdity nonsenses.



This simply highlights a distinct lack of understanding of existentialism in general. Firstly, Sartre was a Marxist and secondly there is no negation of a "goal worth to fight for" within the confines of existentialism/absurdism.

Both Camus and Sartre were highly political.

It seemed to me that you don't have enough information about the debate between Camus and Sartre. Camus denounced Sartre for commiting himself to a corrupted partial view (this was how Camus saw Marxism) and Sartre accused him for his unwillingness to participate the historical proccess.

What is highly political in Camus? One would think that Camus was a guerilla, but no; he was a pacifist. His writings couldn't even come close to the preface for The Wretched of the Earth which Sartre wrote.




you have to understand that every ideology has its origin in the class structure and be sure, this "absurdity of life" gobbledygook has nothing to do with the working class.


It has never claimed to...?

Philosophy isn't a class centric endeavour, it's a human endeavour that superscedes class; mostly on the basis that, as you have pointed out, has nothing to do with class - directly.

well this quotation clearly shows your position. philosophy "has nothing to do with class-directly" eh? Well this is what we marxists call "idealism". Every thought has its roots in the class base in the material conditions; in philosophy it can be seen more than anything. Speaking with your terms, we cannot talk about a bourgeois or Marxist philosopher, every philosopher thinks universally (which human endeavour superscedes class? work? love? thinking? can't we say that a rich behaves and thinks different than a poor?). peh! crap!
The history of philosophy is full of proofs.

I am not even sure that you know the meaning of absurd: unreasonable; nonsensical.

So if you are defending that a worker's life is absurd, you lose the war.
Because it's not true.
The conditions of the workers have a scientificly proved quality; it is based on a system of exploitation, which we call capitalism. It tries to seperate the producer from her product, tries to seperate the producer from other producers, it stimulates a system of individualism, it encourages pessimism on one hand and indvidiual enlightenment and liberation on the other. These are all based on idealism.
There's nothing absurd in it.

Absurdism suggests that there's something incomprehensible in the world, the motto of idealism and transcendentalism.
Again, there's nothing absurd in a worker's life.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:38 pm

I'm not sure how you're using the word skeptic here? Presumably not in the Descartes way and if that's the case then you're wrong. Understanding the absurdness of life is not a "skeptic" understanding, it's a liberating one.

I didn't use the word "skeptic". I used the word "pessimistic".
Yes you're right you did. Nevertheless, I think my point stands. For someone who has not taken the time to understand existentialism then it would appear, on face value, to be pessimistic.


If it's impossible to defeat capitalism, then why all this struggle against it, why all these deaths?

Who has claimed this to be true and in what capacity has Sartre and Camus specifically asserted the claim that it is impossible to defeat capitalism? Please provide me with some quotes or sources because as far as I understand it Camus and Sartre were both anti-capitalists and supported workers struggles around the world.

Existentialism does not negate struggle, in fact it gives a very human basis to it.


Here's two ways you can choose: Carpe diem or suicide.
It is mostly carpe diem which is chosen by petit-bourgeois philosophers. Or just we see in the example of Artaud or Heidegger or Cioran, a direct or indirect commitment to fascism.

This seems very much like you're name dripping for no apparent reason. What is your point? For a start the question isn't blankly "carpe diem or suicide". That question isn't meant to be taken literally, but used as a way of understanding the human condition.


Existentialists try to define a sick universal human value which is just a fiction.

That doesn't make any sense. What is this "sick universal human value" and why is it "fiction"?


I am not an anti-intellectualist. I am an anti-bullshitter. Anti-idealist.

I am quite confident that you do not understand what existentialism is and I'll bet you're unwilling to learn.


Most of them don't have a political organisation, but they are all aware of that we're living in a class society which must be defeated and can only be destroyed by scientificly analyzing it, not by preaching absurdity nonsenses.

I am still unsure at why accepting that the human condition is absurd does this negate class struggle.

Although Sartre was not an absurdist I suggest that you read: Existentialism is a Humanism (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm)


It seemed to me that you don't have enough information about the debate between Camus and Sartre. Camus denounced Sartre for commiting himself to a corrupted partial view (this was how Camus saw Marxism) and Sartre accused him for his unwillingness to participate the historical proccess.

Actually Camus and Sartre split because of Sartre's support for Stalinist Russia and because of Camus' opposition to Algerian independence.

In any case, this doesn't have any to do with what I said. Both Camus and Sartre supported class struggle and were existentialists. My point being that the two things are not mutually exclusive, which you keep asserting is the case.


What is highly political in Camus? One would think that Camus was a guerilla, but no; he was a pacifist. His writings couldn't even come close to the preface for The Wretched of the Earth which Sartre wrote.

Erm, that's just a bare-faced untruth.

Camus openly supported Spanish anarchists and helped edit an anarchist newspaper. He also did extensive campaigning to get anarchists imprisoned after the Spanish civil war released. Also, Camus fought the Nazi's in the French resistance.

Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.


well this quotation clearly shows your position. philosophy "has nothing to do with class-directly" eh? Well this is what we marxists call "idealism".

No it isn't.


Every thought has its roots in the class base in the material conditions

How does class explain our inability to understand our conditions or the universe?


I am not even sure that you know the meaning of absurd: unreasonable; nonsensical.

Being forced to exist without ever understanding why, while at the same time having to forge a life for yourself only to die at the end of it is nonsensical and unreasonable. Those two words define our existence perfectly.

However, the term 'to live' and the term 'to exist' are two fundamentally different concepts and it is in this distinction that human beings find meaning.


Absurdism suggests that there's something incomprehensible in the world

Yes, existence.


there's nothing absurd in a worker's life.

Other than the alienation, exploitation and oppression...?

[Led Zeppelin]

I suggest you read "The Marxism of Jean-Paul Sartre" by Wilfrid Desan. Camus and Sartre disagreed on a lot of other issues, specifically Marxism and the philosophy of existentialism. Camus was more anarchistic in his version of existentialism, and if I recall correctly he said that Being and Nothingness was a worthless book, this while Being and Nothing was the main existentialist philosophical book written by Sartre.

I haven't read Camus' novels, but I'm willing to bet that The Nausea is better.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 05:43 pm
I haven't read Camus' novels, but I'm willing to bet that The Nausea is better.
You should read 'The Outsider'.

[Led Zeppelin]

The Stranger? I've heard of it, it was praised by Sartre as a good novel, I think it has an artistic value in terms of its writing style and such, but I doubt I'd get any philosophical ideas from it.

But yeah, I'll read that eventually, if only because it's a good novel.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 05:51 pm
The Stranger? I've heard of it, it was praised by Sartre as a good novel, I think it has an artistic value in terms of its writing style and such, but I doubt I'd get any philosophical ideas from it.
Well, that depends on how hellbent you are at not understanding/appreciating absurdism.

[Led Zeppelin]

I don't have a problem with understanding absurdism, I have a problem with accepting it as a viable philosophy, which I doubt I will do based on some articles on the subject I've skimmed through.

Besides, I am already philosophically "complete" by being an existentialist, I don't really feel the need to advance (or change) beyond that because I believe it embodies the most advanced form of philosophical consciousness.

It's basically a full-proof philosophy for life.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 05:56 pm
I don't have a problem with understanding absurdism, I have a problem with accepting it as a viable philosophy
How, in your mind, do existentialism and absurdism differ?

[Led Zeppelin]

I believe people give their own meaning to their own lives, and that meaning is very real, and searching for that meaning to live your own life by is not absurd or meaningless as absurdists claim.

That meaning may be subjective, it doesn't change the fact that that particular person lives by it, and for them it is objective.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 06:05 pm
I believe people give their own meaning to their own lives, and that meaning is very real, and searching for that meaning to live your own life by is not absurd or meaningless as absurdists claim.
Wrong.


That meaning may be subjective, it doesn't change the fact that that particular person lives by it, and for them it is objective.

So something is objective because someone subjectively thinks it?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 08:31 pm
So something is objective because someone subjectively thinks it?
It is objective for that person, yes.

And if I'm wrong then explain the difference between existentialism and absurdism.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+September 12, 2007 08:31 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ September 12, 2007 08:31 pm)
Led [email protected] 12, 2007 06:05 pm
I believe people give their own meaning to their own lives, and that meaning is very real, and searching for that meaning to live your own life by is not absurd or meaningless as absurdists claim.
Wrong.

[/b]
'Wrong' doesnt quite do it here. Led Zepplin has a perfectly reasonable opinion. You need to engage a bit more.

It seems to me that the sense of absurdity is a transitional feature of the process of abandonment of religion. The key concept justifying absurdism would be a concept of 'shock', a sense which raises the question of suicide.

But if you emerge into the understanding of the pattern of meaning in a less dramatic way, then it doesnt necessarily pose the question of suicide. In the absence of that life is not a choice. It only becomes a choice for the person who is attracted to religion but cant adopt it.

Without the process of transition from reliance on authority (e.g. religion) life is not experienced as a choice - to have a comprehensive phenomenology, it is important to recognise and articulate this phenomenon of the person who recognises meaninglessness and does not face life as a choice as a result.

(It is an historical irony that in 44 and 45 Camus was Sartre's ideal of the politically engaged intellectual, it was only later that Sartre became more critical of Camus. In my view, the Outsider is a better novel than Nausea.)

[tolstoyevski]

Anarchist tension, all you can do is to give tension to the discussions, but no real answers. I don't want to hear your "no, it isn't, yes, it's" judgements for they make no sense.



Who has claimed this to be true and in what capacity has Sartre and Camus specifically asserted the claim that it is impossible to defeat capitalism? Please provide me with some quotes or sources because as far as I understand it Camus and Sartre were both anti-capitalists and supported workers struggles around the world.

Existentialism does not negate struggle, in fact it gives a very human basis to it.

Well it's ignorance i think to put Sartre and Camus in the same political line. Because Camus openly supported the French rule in Algeria. Is it true or is it not? Is this what you call anti-capitalism? It is what we call reactionism. And of course it is the direct reflection of the thoughts of Camus.

Yes Camus supported the Spanish Civil War which occured between 1936-39 when Camus was a revolutionary. But looking forward to the years we can see that he took a questionable position. About that Sisyphus nonsense, we can easily say that the offspring of his reactionism can be seen in it. It is the forerunner of Camus' anti-communist stance, in which he began preaching absurdism. Is this the human basis of struggle? peh!



I am quite confident that you do not understand what existentialism is and I'll bet you're unwilling to learn.

what a confidence! How do you know that I didn't understand existentialism. Let me say, because I don't think as you think. Oh, how could it be, while the existentialism is such brilliant philosophy, eh? Indeed, I understand existantialism more than you do, because I can see the idealist essence of it.


Actually Camus and Sartre split because of Sartre's support for Stalinist Russia and because of Camus' opposition to Algerian independence.

Yeah that's the point. That's what makes one a revolutionary and the other a traitor.
You're making anachronism by saying that Camus supported revolutionaries under this sysyphus title, because these are the different periods for Camus. He was a revolutionary when he supported the civil war, but later he openly rejected communism and supported the capitalist french army. Sisyphus can be seen as a transition work which showed his petit bourgeois tendencies.

Moreover, one can support the revolutionaries and her/his ideas can be reactionary. Because the fight against fascism is carried out by a popular front, which includes not only consistent marxists but also petit-bourgeois intelectuals. The question is that which position should the intellectuals take when it comes to decide between communism and capitalism not between fascism and bourgeois democracy. Camus clearly made his choice by supporting French capitalists.

Well, let me discuss the issue of idealism
You say nothing but "no, it isn't" when it comes to idealism talk.

Idealism, as you don't know, is a philosophy which says that the idea determines the material conditions. This idea can be a God as we saw before modernism or the nature as we sometimes saw in romantics or can be something unaccessible, pessimist, dark as we saw in absurdists. So, other than the "idea controls the material" rule, idealism has a second rule: "There is a transcendent reality, which is incomprehensible for us." What can be incomprehensible and transcendent for human? Of course the Idea with big I.

An idealist can take an optimist position by saying that there is a god and he is a benefactor or saying that there's no god but something inaccessible in our lives. We are left alone (who left us?), thrown to the earth (who threw us?) and our life is absurd. Namely, our life is governed by something which we cannot reach and understand. The idea... Remember, Sisyphus is a Greek mythology figure which was cursed by gods. By transcendtal figures.

Now you say:



there's nothing absurd in a worker's life.


Other than the alienation, exploitation and oppression...?

and:


Being forced to exist without ever understanding why, while at the same time having to forge a life for yourself only to die at the end of it is nonsensical and unreasonable.

I have to repeat: Alienation, exploitation and opression can all be explained by scientific research and facts. They all have causes, they all depend on the class structure and struggle namely, material conditions. What do you think? Is exploitation something divine which cannot be understood by human? It is something produced by human, therefore can be understood by human. Remember when Marx says that commodities and capitalist system appear like something independent from human will, he was just talking about that.

That is the point which an existantialist/idealist lose the fight. Because if the alienation etc. is absurd, then why to search for it? It would be nonsense for him if Marx says: "Oh, capitalism and oppression is incomprehensible." How are you going to destroy something you don't even understand? You just can attack like a wild dog to the manifestations of the system but can never destroy it. I have to add, it is impossible for a existantialist/idealist, just like the religious people, to be consistent in todays world. Because the reasons for alienation, exploitation is obvious. Well your ancestors were claiming that it is impossible to fly, to seperate an atom into its smallest parts etc. Fortunately we overcame these difficulties.

It is your problem if you do not understand why you and the oppression exist. In fact by searching for a secret meaning and by being despair when you couldn't find it, you reveal your idealism again, because meaning is something produced collectively by human. It is a stupid and useless idealism to search for an external meaning (are you looking for a meaning giver god, or an idea?) We are just living organisms who thanks to evolution, reached to a level of consciousness and started to think that there must be a meaning out of us. Meaning is something produced inside and by the society. Not by single individuals or as the existantialists think by the Idea.

You always say "wrong". That is dogmatism. Something cannot be wrong just because you feel so. I repeat, meaning, just like language, is created, produced by (abstract or concrete) labour as everything human.

Like all petit bourgeois individual, exitantialists look towards to the huge system of capitalism with all its ties, enourmous armies, power, to its poverty and tortures and ask to themselves: "how and why is that? It's nonsense, I can't understand."

Well, possibly you will say no! wrong! not! but wrote just to fulfill my responsibility.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 12:05 am

Who has claimed this to be true and in what capacity has Sartre and Camus specifically asserted the claim that it is impossible to defeat capitalism? Please provide me with some quotes or sources because as far as I understand it Camus and Sartre were both anti-capitalists and supported workers struggles around the world.

Existentialism does not negate struggle, in fact it gives a very human basis to it.

Well it's ignorance i think to put Sartre and Camus in the same political line. Because Camus openly supported the French rule in Algeria. Is it true or is it not? Is this what you call anti-capitalism? It is what we call reactionism. And of course it is the direct reflection of the thoughts of Camus.

Yes Camus supported the Spanish Civil War which occured between 1936-39 when Camus was a revolutionary. But looking forward to the years we can see that he took a questionable position. About that Sisyphus nonsense, we can easily say that the offspring of his reactionism can be seen in it. It is the forerunner of Camus' anti-communist stance, in which he began preaching absurdism. Is this the human basis of struggle? peh!
So do you now accept that Sartre and Camus believed that it was possible to destroy capitalism?




I am quite confident that you do not understand what existentialism is and I'll bet you're unwilling to learn.

what a confidence! How do you know that I didn't understand existentialism

Because you're claiming things about existentialism which aren't true. For example, that it negates class struggle or is based on pessimism. Neither of those things are true.


Let me say, because I don't think as you think.

No, it's because you don't know what existentialism is, or at least that's what it seems from your posts.


Indeed, I understand existantialism more than you do, because I can see the idealist essence of it.

Your attack of existentialism from the materialist Vs idealist argument makes little sense. Existentialism has never claimed that you understand human interaction and development through ideas.




Actually Camus and Sartre split because of Sartre's support for Stalinist Russia and because of Camus' opposition to Algerian independence.

Yeah that's the point. That's what makes one a revolutionary and the other a traitor.

So are you now accepting that Sartre was a class struggleist? If so, do you now accept that existentialism does not negate class struggle?


He was a revolutionary when he supported the civil war, but later he openly rejected communism and supported the capitalist french army.

Firstly, he rejected authoritarian communism. Secondly, he did not support the French army, he simply opposed a handover of Algeria back to the Algerians. That is a different thing.



Idealism, as you don't know, is a philosophy which says that the idea determines the material conditions.

Which existentialism doesn't claim. Existentialism has no relation to 'material conditions'. It's simply a philosophy to understand the human condition of being alive.

Philosophy sets about to understand why human beings are alive, not how they are alive.



I have to repeat: Alienation, exploitation and opression can all be explained by scientific research and facts. They all have causes, they all depend on the class structure and struggle namely, material conditions.

I don't and never have denied that.


What do you think? Is exploitation something divine which cannot be understood by human?

I am a class struggle anarchist. I accept historical materialism and Marx's analysis of capitalism.


That is the point which an existantialist/idealist lose the fight.

You are attacking existentialism from a false premise. Your argument doesn't work because the basis of your argument makes claims and connections that aren't true.

Existentialism has no relation to historical materialism. It is not an alternative position to it. It is something entirely different and unconnected. They are however, not mutually exclusive

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+September 12, 2007 09:32 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ September 12, 2007 09:32 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 08:31 pm
So something is objective because someone subjectively thinks it?
It is objective for that person, yes.

And if I'm wrong then explain the difference between existentialism and absurdism. [/b]
There really is very little difference except for the idea of the Absurd and Absurd Hero. Absurdism does not make the claim that searching for meaning is absurd.

The absurd is the human condition; that we are forced to live without choice and through that force must conceive life without understanding it only to have it taken away from us without choice. The Absurd Hero is the individual who is conscious of the condition and who chooses life over simply living in spite of it.

What Camus argues in The Outsider is that actually meaning is irrelevant in relation to the absurd hero. It makes no difference what subjective meaning you offer to your life, it is the act of life which is important; to be conscious of it will lead you to happiness in spite of your inevitable demise.

"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

[Volderbeek]

Funny how any search for meaning either just makes shit up or comes full circle and determines that searching for meaning is pointless. Guess it depends on whether you look at things subjectively or objectively.

I mean - what are "meanings" besides metaphors? And metaphors are just ways we use to understand reality. Real things aren't metaphors.

[al8]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 09:41 pm
It seems to me that the sense of absurdity is a transitional feature of the process of abandonment of religion.
The key concept justifying absurdism would be a concept of 'shock', a sense which raises the question of suicide.

That was so in my case. I remember when I began my de-poisoning process from religion that I was very occupied by these concepts (existensialism, but also nihilism). It took time to fully realize one's autonomy. And that meaning was a social construct, both self-given and sociatally provided. For a moment you just existed, and that is absurd. Yet it is a healthy realization. It worked on me like a philosophical clean-up.

But my thinking was that if existence absurd and meaningless, so equally would be suicide. So I decided to wait 'the shock' and see what happened. Fortunate I wasn't an epistemological nihilist. :D

[al8]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 11:49 pm

Philosophy sets about to understand why human beings are alive, not how they are alive.

But I think it can be said that no real questions begin with a why. Real questions can only begin with a how. And that ultimate answer to the why is ultimately always to be found in the how.

I can understand the reason why people call Philosophy a secular superstition - it elevates questions that are posited in a way not meant to be answered. But I think it would be more precise to call it a secular masterbation for the mind. Though it is still 'in the why', it is much more self-gratifying and eye-opening, than any spiritual superstitious pondering. And I can quote that from experience.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by al8+September 14, 2007 03:38 pm--> (al8 @ September 14, 2007 03:38 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 11:49 pm

Philosophy sets about to understand why human beings are alive, not how they are alive.

But I think it can be said that no real questions begin with a why. Real questions can only begin with a how. And that ultimate answer to the why is ultimately always to be found in the how [/b]
What is a "real question"?

[al8]

A question that is meant to be answered. A question that is answerable. Not necesserily a questions with answers that are self-evident. But questions that can, "in theory", be answered. Even be it with a bit of effort.

Fake questions are those that are not posited so as to be answered. They are questions like; What color is Sunday? Why does nitting shine so wet? and so forth.