Does Camus make sense?

introbert

As someone with a casual interest in philosophy, Albert Camus became an early acquaintance of mine. I agreed that the 'death of God' was a point of departure into absurdity, and also that everyone was faced with the question of 'suicide' whether they liked to admit it or not. Camus' reconciliation of these points that one should embrace absurdity while making the choice not to kill oneself seems a little mistaken to me.

He uses the examples of absurd heroes as people who accept absurdity from the point of departure from God's death. However, realistically in comparison to the norm, these are a type of suicidal and self-destructive behavior. I can't help but to think the whole philosophy is erroneous as a type of slave mentality wherein the slave self-destructs without his master. This differs from an atheism wherein believing in God is the point of departure for a life of absurdity, and the adherent goes on to live unaffected without religion.

It seems to me Camus' writing offers nothing original from the religious belief that those who fall from the grace of God, or stray too far from the shepherd and his flock will find nothing but damnation in this life and the next. I have no way of knowing what effect Camus' writing has had on the mass audience that his popularity reached, but can't help but think his philosophy fed the institutions most associated with religion with human sacrifices to the gods that they worship. I'm talking about venereal diseased Don Juans to hospitals, disorganized anomics to psychiatry, drug addled to rehab, the deviant to corrections, the list goes on. It seems like the death of God in the minds of the people will feed the expanded mystical body of Christ in all its extremities, ironically giving God new life.

180 Proof

No question (philosophical or otherwise), just your (mis)reading of speculative essays by a novelist-dramatist. So why start a new thread?

BC

No question (philosophical or otherwise), just your (mis)reading of speculative essays by a novelist-dramatist. So why start a new thread? — 180 Proof

He claims to have only a casual interest in philosophy. Sort of like me.

↪introbert

Once upon a time, long ago, I read Camus and Sartre. I haven't had any desire to return to their books.

everyone was faced with the question of 'suicide' whether they liked to admit it or not — introbert

Oh to be young and angsty again! No, I don't think everyone is faced with the question of suicide. One could just as easily say that everyone is faced with the question of living, whether they like it or not.

God is dead. Or what?

"God is dead" (German: Gott ist tot; also known as the death of God) is a widely quoted statement made by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche used the phrase to express his idea that the Enlightenment had eliminated the possibility of the existence of God.

wiki

I don't know if God ever existed, let alone died, but I'm pretty sure that if he does exist, he was able to survive the Enlightenment and Fred Nietzsche.

I'm talking about venereal diseased Don Juans to hospitals, disorganized anomics to psychiatry, drug addled to rehab, the deviant to corrections, the list goes on. — introbert

What are you going on about here?

It seems like the death of God in the minds of the people will feed the expanded mystical body of Christ in all its extremities, ironically giving God new life. — introbert

Are we, perhaps, possibly, out of our depth here? I know I am.

Banno

Does Camus make sense? Did the man who claimed things do not make sense make sense?

god must be atheist

I don't know if God ever existed, let alone died, but I'm pretty sure that if he does exist, he was able to survive the Enlightenment and Fred Nietzsche. — Bitter Crank

Old joke:

God is dead. -- Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is dead. -- God.

introbert

Seems like this post is not well recieved.

↪180 Proof

The question is whether someone who accepts absurdity is ultimately choosing not to kill oneself and in the process of accepting absurdity is fuelling purposeful institutions that have always been connected to God. So there is a question lingering if Camus makes sense.

↪Bitter Crank

I'm going on about giving examples of the self destructiveness of absurd heros and how they feed and empower these purposeful institutions. Someone who proceeds from a position that life has no meaning or purpose will almost certainly encounter one of these institutions. I dont think I am "out of my depth" in asking that question it seems like an obvious contradiction that finding no purpose without god will lead to risky behaviors that will feed the institutions most closely connected to god.

180 Proof

↪introbert

"If Camus makes sense"? I can't make sense out of your question (above).

javi2541997

Did the man who claimed things do not make sense make sense? — Banno

:up: :sparkle:

Agent Smith

Is it not absurd that there are beings who have an innate desire for meaning living in a world devoid of one? That's like bringing a baseball bat to a basketball game? We'd be the laughing stock of the world, nay, the universe! :lol:

Agent Smith

God new life. — introbert

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

javi2541997

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

:up: :fire:

javi2541997

Is it not absurd that there are beings who have an innate desire for meaning living in a world devoid of one? — Agent Smith

That’s one of the main complexities of human nature. The aim of surviving when we were born to die

Agent Smith

That’s one of the main complexities of human nature. The aim of surviving when we were born to die. — javi2541997

Conatus (re Spinoza).

introbert

I guess I didn't express myself clearly enough in this post. The basic idea I tried to present was that if the death of god make's life meaningless/ purposeless/ absurd then it is questionable that you can not choose suicide due to the inherent self-destructiveness of absurd heroism. The contradiction that the death of god, makes god live in a very purposeful and practical way to me makes this philosophy not make sense.

I gave the example that a philosophy that said the death of god should be a point of departure for living a life believing in god is absurd.

To me that Camus' (and Sartre's) existentialism led into postmodern critiques of institutions by those such as Foucault and Deleuze is not coincidental but the ongoing process of the individual not only recognize god is dead but, what Camus did not recognize, to also keep god dead!

Deus

If Kierkegaard is regarded as the finest proponent of existential philosophy then these French fella’s (Camus and Sartre) are mere footnotes in that overall thought.

If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?

- The Sum of All Existentialst thought and Movement is the above thought by Soren Kierkegaard

javi2541997

French fella’s (Camus and Sartre) are mere footnotes in that overall thought. — Deus

I think these philosophers and original authors laureates with the Nobel prize of literature deserve more respect.

Deus

↪javi2541997

Well they’ve got the respect conferred to them by that prize and their fans but not mine.

javi2541997

↪Deus

Why?

Deus

↪javi2541997

Don’t get me wrong from a literary point of view they can express themselves fairly well.

I get a sense that he has a superiority complex compared to his fellow “creatures”

am alone in the midst of these happy, reasonable voices. All these creatures spend their time explaining, realizing happily that they agree with each other. In Heaven's name, why is it so important to think the same things all together.

Sartre (amongst his catalogue of brilliance and bullshit)

javi2541997

↪Deus

Understandable. It is true that Sartre was conceited. But, I still think we should separate the works and the authors. Probably, the personality of the author is not good but his books are brilliant. This issue tends to be more common than we thought.

180 Proof

↪introbert

Camus is not an existentialist like Sartre or Kierkegaard and his notion of – encounter with – the Absurd is not derived from "the death of God" or "meaninglessness of life" and is certainly not the basis of Foucault's or Deleuze's postmodernism. Read the works of these philosophers and learn why you're wrong about Camus et al rather than just relying on derivative third-hand and fourth-hand sources.

Deleted User

if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything great or inconsequential; if an unfathomable, insatiable emptiness lay hid beneath everything, what would life be but despair?

Since when is it one or the other? Either “eternal consciousness” or “wild ferment” and emptiness and unhappiness? If so, I should alert all the happy atheists I know.

Deleted User

still think we should separate the works and the authors. Probably, the personality of the author is not good but his books are brilliant. This issue tends to be more common than we tho — javi2541997

Umm I believe it’s called the Ad Hominem fallacy?

Deus

↪GLEN willows

Not really an ad hominem as such. I mean Garry Glitter and Jimmy Saville probably made ok music. The fact that both turned out to be pedophiles SHOULD be held against them.

To be frank I still can listen to Michael Jackson’s music without committing any ad hominems not because he doesn’t deserve it but I guess his work does stand for itself…

Me calling him a pedo and STILL listening to his music does not create any cognitive dissonance when playing billie Jean.

BC

This issue tends to be more common than we thought.

I still think we should separate the works and the authors. Probably, the personality of the author is not good but his books are brilliant. — javi2541997

Yes. In principle, I think we should separate the work and the author. Or, the politician/producer/coach...and his sex life. Why shouldn't we let someone's personal life define their public life?

We buy the book to derive pleasure (or instruction). We are not buying the book as an endorsement of the author's private life (which is private after all. Most people want to be in public without some aspect of their private past being used to discredit an unrelated achievement.

Politicians, producers, professors, etc. are voted for (or not), funded, or hired on the basis of their ability to produce results. If the politician has a string of affairs, but is an effective politician delivering the results voters wanted, what is it to the voters that he was lecherous? John F. Kennedy was much more active sexually than the public was aware of. This is as it should be.

The NYT claims that 201 powerful men were bright down by #ME TOO. Powerful men, or powerful women, are powerful usually because they are productive and influential in their field, not because of their sex lives. James Levine was fired in 2018 after 40 years of conducting the NY Metropolitan Opera Orchestra (and the Boston Symphony and Munich Philharmonic) because of allegations of his having had sex with young (male) musicians. Some of the 'incidents' go back 50 years!

I can disapprove of the sexual relationships other people have without it determining how I rate their professional performance.

javi2541997

↪Bitter Crank

Completely agree, Bitter.
The issue of not separate the books of Yukio Mishima from his personal character was the main of being "disliked" in Japan, because he is seen as a weird Samurai with old fashioned ideas who kill himself after a ceremony wearing a military uniform.

The past summer, I have read an interesting biography about Mishima written by one of his best friend who ended up being the mayor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara.
Shintaro tells in the book that Mishima was hated and disliked by a lot of people in Japan but they accepted the talent in his literature. Most of the reviewers saw him as a Japanese artist who was against any sense of modernism in Japan after WWII. (Even some writers insinuated his compromise on far-right politics when Mishima founded Tatenokai, his private militia)

Shintaro Ishihara celebrates the fact that the youngest generations of Japan no longer see Mishima in a negative perspective and they finally separate the personal issues from his works.

BC

↪javi2541997

Perhaps separation is the problem with the American Ayn Rand. She is a reasonably successful writer -- by which I mean her books are at least quite good, and people continue to read them decades later. I don't especially like her approach to life, her philosophy, or the philosophy and approach to life that people who adore her politics profess. But her books are separate from her followers, or from herself (when she was still alive).

Some artists are drunks, drug addicts (William Burroughs comes to mind), hateful bastards, dishonest, fakes, and so on. We like them because of the art they produce, in spite of their sometimes dissolute personal lives. (The artists are the ones who suffer; we should be compassionate.).

javi2541997

(The artists are the ones who suffer; we should be compassionate.). — Bitter Crank

Exactly! This is why we should pay more respects to artists/writers despite the fact that we probably don't like his/her personality at all.

Deleted User

↪Deus

I'm a musician. Do you know how many awful people made great music? The list is huge, but let's start with John Lennon. Beat women, beat MEN, was verbally abusive, cheated on Yoko blatantly in front of her.

So many famous composers were anti-semitic, anti-black, not to mention philosophers. In my opinion no - the art should be judged separately from the man. Including Gary Glitter (although his music sucked anyway.)

Think of a beautiful piece of music you love, let's say by Debussy. If you found out he was a rapist *he wasn't) it doesn;t change one note of Clair de Lune. It may cause YOU (or me) to boycott him, but the music is still exactly the same.

Deleted User

↪Deus

yes ad hominem. It says to critique the argument made, not the person who made it. If Einstein was a sex offender, the theory of special relativity would still be correct, right?

If Kant turned out to be a serial killer, it wouldn't change the categorical imperative (pro and con)....although it would be pretty darned ironic....

Deus

↪GLEN willows

Ad Hominem = To the Person (Latin). there is no ad hominems here as both authors are dead. Also i did not attack any of their philosophical arguments by calling them idiots merely expressing my view on the significance of their thought on western philosophy. It was a simple ranking exercise.

Now you came along this thread and tried arguing with a dead man by picking up the quote I posted from Kierkegaard and in your infinite wisdom either expect me to defend a dead man’s logic (btw there is no defence required on my part as his paragraph is watertight and you don’t understand what he’s actually saying so you try to nit pick it logical inconsistentcies where there are also none) or expect him to rise from the dead.

To re-iterate I have not committed the ad-hominem fallacy as you suggest by downplaying the importance of their work.

I thought I’d point the topic in its rightful direction as the point on the matter was made.

Does Camus make sense?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions