I don't think the fact I disapprove of something or believe it's futile necessarily means that it shouldn't be done or that I should be disturbed by it.

Not necessarily, of course. There are things one let's go. But belittling someone or some condition strikes me as the sort of thing which people shouldn't do. Especially if it is a serious condition.

Not necessarily, of course. There are things one let's go. But belittling someone or some condition strikes me as the sort of thing which people shouldn't do. Especially if it is a serious condition. — Moliere

The significance of the conduct has to be considered. "Philosophical contemplation" of suicide doesn't strike me as particularly significant; it's unusual that people would even read of it or hear of it. And it's not as if Camus or anyone else would be ridiculing those with suicidal tendencies or who commit suicide or harming them. No malice or ill-will would be involved. They would merely be engaging in a misguided exercise of sorts.

The question of suicide masks the real issue, which is our own temporality. It's true we want to be happy, be at peace, but it this is not always possible, and living a temperate life might alleviate some pain, but in the end it is all the same, death sooner or latter. It's not meaning which counts, it is the ability to accept what is, to will what is, inspite of what is. I think that is only possible by finding something transcendent, beyond one's self. — Cavacava

So the doctor managed to accept what is even without finding anything transcendent? Why do you think that it could be possible only by finding it then? Seems contradictory.

I'm not sure Kazuma.

The Doctor had displayed an unbendable will in a way I doubt I could measure up to, but his circumstances were unique and he did not have many options. In the back of my mind I think he saw his role to help others as his transcendent goal*, he embraced the absurd as his raison d'ê·tre (his god).

*Transcendent means to go beyond, which is not necessarily transcendental. Levinas used the term transcendent to mean going across over to the other. The desire is for the other to be absorbed as part of my own reality, while this desire can't be actualized (there will always be a gap), it can be deepened.

Can anyone suggest any critique on Camus':

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.”

Also, any opinions on why this is or is not the most serious philosophical problem? — Kazuma

I would ask why are there only two alternatives (life and death). I would also want to know why life is worth living for some and not for others. Why does death often come with the experience of pain that precedes death to the point that we have created a whole industry (hospice) to avoid that pain? Why would a bad experience precede something that some claim to be peaceful? Does the pain before death mean something about where you are headed?

Suicide is one of those choices that you can't change. You can often change your choices in life. Maybe it's the fear of making the wrong choice that keeps us from committing suicide. Many people refuse to make choices for fear of the outcome and then the decision is eventually taken out of their hands.

Granted he may not state it, but I think the presumption is implicit in his view. — John

I would put it like this -- the view of materialism is one view which is compatible with absurdism, given certain perimeters to that materialism (such as being a non-realist on moral truths, for instance, which isn't a necessary given), but I wouldn't assent to say that it is the only metaphysical view consistent with absurdism.

Anti-realism, as a whole, seems to fit. Really any metaphysical picture which does not believe eternal values can give aid to humanity would probably fit (so, perhaps they could exist, but be beyond knowing, for instance).

The declaration that it is legitimate to wonder whether life has a meaning is precisely the declaration that the question should be asked and answered by the discursive rational intellect, rather than by intuition and the leap of faith. — John

Heh. This is responded to as well. The leap of faith, from Camus' perspective, is no better or worse off than hoping or having a nostalgia -- it's guaranteed to kill the absurd by simply accepting it. It eliminates one of the terms which grants the absurd. The absurd man clings to reason because he has no such intuitive faculty, that you mention later. Just to make that clear, that isn't to say that there is no such faculty. Perhaps others are different. After all, people get by in there own ways. But this is what the absurd man does.

I don't find this convincing. I think there is a metaphysical presumption of the indifference of the universe or the Real, that is based on the demand that if it were not indifferent that it then should be obvious to the rational intellect that it is not indifferent, and that since such a situation is not obvious at all, that it must be concluded that the Real is indifferent and that we should henceforth live our lives in a kind of radical rebellion against this absurdity, in the light (or darkness) of the nihilism produced by that purported 'insight', rather than capitulating to believing what we are understood to have no evidence for; a capitulation that is seen as 'giving in to wishful thinking'. — John

I would say that the absurd man uses rational intellect not on the basis that this is some kind of criteria of reality, but because it is all the absurd man has. Further, I would caution against attributing nihilism. The whole book is against nihilism, or overcoming nihilism even in the face of nihilism. You may believe that this preconditions the conclusion that reality has no meaning for people. But the absurd man has no other means for grasping the problem.

The absurd man just sees no solution to the absurd in faith. All it does is eliminate the absurd rather than confront the absurd -- and the absurd man is convinced of this alone, that there is an absurd reality born from human desire and the knowledge that reality will never fulfill that desire.

For me it is ultimately an adolescent and facile conclusion, and an utterly artificial 'solution' to a pseudo-problem that has come about due the modern obsessive embrace of objectified rational conceptualization and the abnegation of our intuitive and mytho-poetic faculties.

I think you're holding back. Come on. this is a friendly space. Tell us how you really feel. ;)

I would ask why are there only two alternatives (life and death). — Harry Hindu

What other alternatives could there be? We are either alive or dead, there is no other alternative.

I would also want to know why life is worth living for some and not for others. — Harry Hindu

I don't see why life would be worth living for some and not for others. How did you come to that conclusion?

Why does death often come with the experience of pain that precedes death to the point that we have created a whole industry (hospice) to avoid that pain? Why would a bad experience precede something that some claim to be peaceful? Does the pain before death mean something about where you are headed? — Harry Hindu

Pain makes us feel mortal, while without pain we don't have to think about our own mortality. What happens after death, I don't know. The idea of a peaceful realm might be constructed just to make us feel better about something we know nothing about.

Suicide is one of those choices that you can't change. You can often change your choices in life. Maybe it's the fear of making the wrong choice that keeps us from committing suicide. Many people refuse to make choices for fear of the outcome and then the decision is eventually taken out of their hands. — Harry Hindu

Does that mean that suicide is just the matter of choice? Isn't it the matter of whether life is or is not worth living? Because you seem to state that we live because we are afraid to make a change, to die.

I don't see why life would be worth living for some and not for others. How did you come to that conclusion? — Kazuma

Because I see life as worth living and others commit suicide.

Pain makes us feel mortal, while without pain we don't have to think about our own mortality. What happens after death, I don't know. The idea of a peaceful realm might be constructed just to make us feel better about something we know nothing about. — Kazuma

We can be in pain and not dying. So pain isn't something that informs us of our mortality. Seeing others die informs us of our mortality. Pain informs us of damage to our body which could be life-threatening or it might not.

Does that mean that suicide is just the matter of choice? Isn't it the matter of whether life is or is not worth living? Because you seem to state that we live because we are afraid to make a change, to die. — Kazuma

I said that we are afraid of making an irreversible change that we might not like.

Because I see life as worth living and others commit suicide. — Harry Hindu

That is only your perception and perception of others. It does not mean life is worth living for some and not for others.

We can be in pain and not dying. So pain isn't something that informs us of our mortality. Seeing others die informs us of our mortality. Pain informs us of damage to our body which could be life-threatening or it might not. — Harry Hindu

Pain can be perceived as a potential danger to our health and can be, as you said, life threatening. Therefore there is a reason to avoid it.