>bla bla life is absurd
>so just don't kill yourself
He never actually answers the question. Okay, so life is absurd. Why not kill myself?
Sisyphus was destined to roll the rock for eternity: but we can quit rolling ours whenever we want (suicide).
albert camus was a retarded faggot who got famous 'justifying' his choice not to suicide even though he never had the balls to do it in the first place
suicidal people don't sit down and write novels
and people don't kill themselves becuse muh lack of objective meaning
his works are just intellectualized bullshit. a shallow pretentious french piece of shit pretending to grapple with hard questions
the little bitch was never suicidal, not once in his life. he doesn't know a fucking thing about it, just forget about his shitty work
>'embracing the absurd'
And why should I?
If nothing has meaning, all is absurd - it doesn't matter.
I feel "embrace the absurd" is like saying "embrace the pain of living", and why would I do that if there's no intrinsic value in suffering (embracing the absurd)?
Because you have just as much right to feel contented as hopeless. There really is no reason to prefer being an angsty little shit over being a happy productive member of society, so why not choose the most enjoyable road in the long term? Just because there's no inherent meaning in anything doesn't mean I can't derive meaning from the pleasure of a good book or a nice risotto.
One must imagine Sisyphus as happy.
full disclosure I'm a filthy hedonist
Nobody said you should. Do you even know what the conversation you're having is?
Killing yourself and Embracing the Absurd are two options that are mutually exclusive.
You can do either, but not both.
So go ahead and kill yourself, if you want.
Agreeing with OP here, Myth of Sisyphus is shit tier philosophical investigation.
The line "one must imagine Sisyphus happy" is the argumentative equivalent of Deus ex Machina.
Camus pulls a rabbit out of a hat and determines that we should smile.
But it's also clear that the book isn't meant as a serious investigation. It leans on the pathos of its archetypes.
These are not existential answers, they're wish fulfilment for the existentially depleted man.
Their revolt is no less pathetic, Camus merely props them up as aspirational figures.
Embracing the absurd is coming together with the realization that you have to create your own meaning in life through your actions. It's supposed to free you and empower you, but if it makes you want to kill yourself then hey, who's to stop you. Just know that this life is the only one you got so why not just live it to the full. So it's basically YOLO, but not as in the way the kids see it.
philosophical suicide =! boohoo suicide
the answer to your problems if your life is shit enough is always suicide.
he's not refuting that.
he's refuting the idea that suicide is a solution to the meaning of life.
Well then the notion of an afterlife isn't just wishful, it's illogical.
Sorry bro but an afterlife is necessarily dualist, and dualism is straight up wrong. Emotions are chemical reactions, and chemical reactions stop in your brain when you die.
>suicidal people don't sit down and write novels
I think people criticize this work so much because it is so accessible. It's an emotionally driven attack in the vein of the hipster movement.
I know because I went through those emotions and finally looked back on them to see the error of my ways.
Or he doesn't offer anything.
>muh absurdity society is against you
>muh suicide or religion, or the third option
>muh look at me pretend to be an authority on Basic intelelctual thoughts
I feel like everyone have felt that life is absurd. Maybe they wouldn't choose that word, but what it represents is something so basic it's ridiculous Camus gets to build his own philosophy on stating the obvious and just putting a name to it.
>Nothing to shit your pants over.
Pants have to be shat, new pants have to be bought. It's teh way of life.
But has the substance of consciousness ever been measured?
And are not our atoms permanently trapped on this plane; forever dispersing and combining?
Does the substance of creation ever fully die?
And are we not made of that very substance?
Who is to say, though the form may change, and all memories fragment and disperse, that we ever cease to experience something.
If it is possible that you were born and your vessel endowed with consciousness, then what makes impossible to happen again? and again, and again.
Chemical reactions recognizing that they are chemical reactions.
Such a view falls foul of Leibniz's Law of Identity, which says that if things are identical then they must share identical properties. Having a suicidal thought (mind) is not the same as having a wicked body state (brain).
Embrace the absurd because in the end its just as gratifying and funny as it is depressing.
Basically, the absurdity of the world is not instrinsically bad. Its whether of not you affirm or deny it that makes it good or bad. Basically regurgitating Nietzsche's views on life and eternal recurrance.
Well, presenting this as a Pascal's wager, let's say there's a 50/50 chance you get to stop vs. you have to keep pushing. If he has to keep pushing, then he's no worse off than before, while if he gets to stop, he's better off, so it's a win-win situation. (Even though this is 50/50, any non-zero chance of suicide letting him stop pushing the rock will still favour suicide.)
Suicide should never be ruled out, I even want assisted suicide to be legal to people who are not terminally ill. But suicide should be only considered if you are the edge of death, if existing is an excruciating experience, because once you commit suicide, there is nothing, you are gone, complete void.
This means that if you are to scared or scared to commit suicide is a reason in itself to not commit it.
Life can always get better, you could write the next HP series, you could find the love of your life. You just got to find your own purpose, even if that would be to have a happy average life, and work towards it.
Even if you think you can't achieve that, you don't know what could happen in your life, maybe we find contact another life form in space, maybe you win the lottery from a ticket you found on the ground. Maybe you won't have the happiest life, but you could have a interesting one out.
Killing yourself would mean you will never experience all the endless possibilities that could happen.
Sorry, not native english
The purpose of life experiences beyond the temporary immediate emotional response is to improve future conditions and to create memories that can be reminisced on and recreated in the future. These experiences are pointless if consciousness is totally annihilated upon death as, then, these experiences, stored in the mind, will cease to exist. For the performer, it will be as if they never happened.
i never claimed to be deep, only that everybody here is misunderstanding and misrepresenting the work
it's clearly an essay and not, in fact, a short story
is the stranger assigned to high schoolers? i read it in college and would be impressed and shocked if you can find a high school curriculum in which the stranger (the book i assume you're referring to) is assigned
and to top it all of, sisyphus is very different from the stranger in a number of ways. there are connections for sure, but not in the way you seem to be thinking that would constitute exact similarity
I get the sense reading Camus' philosophy that he wasn't really trying to promote his views so much as he was trying to explain them. Its more an explanation as to why he didn't commit suicide that it is an argument as to why you shouldn't. It feels more like he's answering the question for himself rather than anybody, but he certainly is against suicide in general from the outset.
To embrace the absurd would be to live life in a constant awareness that all of your actions are probably meaningless. To turn to religion would be to reject the absurd by insisting that life does have meaning and to commit suicide would be to reject the absurd by refusing to live a life that has no intrinsic value.
life is absurd only if you choose to be a rationalist and choose to notice the perpetual sterility of any rationalism so far.
suicide is acceptable only if you disengage yourself form your previous engagements.
after you understand that there is no reason to die, just as there is no reason to live.
suicide is the faith of the hedonist [=the one who takes seriously the idea of self through emotions, ideas, conciousness...] in the cessation of life, but the suicidal person despises life much, only because he cannot get what he wants. suicide expresses greatly the faith in an ego. this is nice, but before your suicide, attempt to abdicate before your misery, it might change your perspective and anyway, if you really have faith in your future death, then you can endure a few years of pains, but then you equally understand that resentment, hate, greed are pointless.
abdicate before your misery. life does not matter, death does not matter.
this is what normies believe. since you have so much faith in induction, why do you reject the fact that most of your life has not been satisfactory in not getting what you want again and again ?
you even admit that you age and get sick, whereas you admit that you do not want this....
euthanasia is a false problem, because hedonists know that they are wrong and normal suicide would attract too many hedonists...
Let's recall that to live in time is to live in predicament, to live in worry: this is what hedonists do since they always think and do things to get benefits in the future, in taking seriously their emotions and ideas and trying to establish what they see as good emotions. but they fail precisely because they identify and cling to their pleasures, which are always fading.
the euthanasia is a diversion, by the liberals, from the question of suicide. the quesiton of suicide has two facets
-the suicide from depression
-the suicide from philosophy
suicide form depression is dealt by the liberals in giving people drugs, because liberals reduces everything to pain, suffering[=identification of the willing agent with the pain]. liberals are always hedonists: this is why any person who want something in democracy must express a (physical) suffering to attract liberals.
suicide form philosophy is not dealt by the liberals, therefore is the most dangerous to the human rights, precisely because the perspective of the philosophical suicide lies outside of the doctrine of the human rights: this perspective says that human rights are nothing but conventions and makes the liberals standing before their contradictions: the one where they are not able to justify their authority, just like the liberals complained that kings were not able to justify their authority
[in fact, kings justify their authority by their lineage, which pisses off the liberals'; the liberals justify their authority poorly in saying that ''the people wants us, the liberals, to be in power''; the trick then is to carefully select what they call ''the people'']
the nice trick by the liberals is to obfuscate their authority into an implicit one, more compatible with their hatred of explicit authority [=tyrannies] : they claim thus that the human rights are natural, that any humans think that the human rights make sense [with the faith that they will be backed-up by their faith in what they call science] and anybody disagreeing on this is not a human, but an animal [=a reactionary].
so the suicide outside of depression is dangerous, because it shows that liberals cannot counter the lack of motivation to live. the liberals prefer to focus on suicide from pains: this one enables them to say that ''the human suffering'' must be answered by... science and faith in the human rights, in one word, the occidental humanist doctrine. pain/suffering is always the decisive motivation to get things form the society, in a liberal society.[as minorities, workers...]
Great arguments guys..
Like I said Camus is just philosophical posturing. Nobody kills themselves because life lacks an objective meaning. He was just a french faggot posturing like it was ever an option for him.
Truth is it's the other way round. He wasn't suicidal and found a reason to live. Rather he was always going to continue living regardless, suicide was never actually on the table. The myth of Sisyphus is just a post-hoc justification of the life-affirming conclusion he never strayed from.
You guys really think people lethally harm their bodies because life lacks a clear objective purpose? Get real, educate yourself. Stop posturing like a fucking faggot trying to justify your 'decision' to keep living when dying was never an option to begin with.
Bunch of fucking posers. People kill themselves as an end to severe mental and physical distress. Nobody caves their fucking skull in and paints the wall behind them with their brains because muh absurd world lol xD
I know it seems cool to you losers, to pretend you're this brooding and edgy kid, smoking djarums and pondering suicide. But it's not. It's pathetic.
>I cannot glean any information from this thread
No shit, it's a thread on /lit/. You could try reading the actual book people are talking about, and/or serious academic discussions of it.