is absurdism the logical conclusion to philosophy

Yes, although probably nothing can be understood, we should try our damnedest with what we got.

That's an odd way to spell vagina.

>>8609008
holy..................................

>>8609008
One could be forgiven for thinking so with a mug like that.

>>8609010
for the sake of you and me, with the understanding that without god himself returning to earth, we can be certain that no conclusive evidence will be derived or discovered within our lifetimes. and with that in mind, should we just accept the absurd and focus on other things?

zzz ggg zzz

>>8609008
It's too radical of a solution. You have a house infested with rats and decide "fuck it, just tear the place down and move to LA". Sure, it's a conclusion, but you lose ton of stuff in the process.

>>8609008
no

its not even the logical conclusion of existentialism

The logical conclusion of phil. is Hegel.

>>8610957
Go on?

>>8610577
Its more like you have a house full of rats so you burn your house down and collect the insurance money.

>>8609008
there is no logical conclusion to philosophy and there never will be one

>>8611065
That sounds pretty conclusive.

>>8609008
>You're a beat down clown and everything is hopless, so don't fight it, just do what you kinda-know-to-be-right-in-your-gut.

No, it's Liberal-Cosumerist propaganda.

Stirnerist sophist scepticism is the end to all philosophy.

>>8611076
>As if that wasn't Pyrrho 2ky before.

>>8609037
What other things? Life is absurd, if you want to escape the absurd, you must escape life. Struggle and be content.

>>8611071
>so don't fight it
Where did you get your information from?

>>8611069
That's dialectic.

>>8611092
i didnt talk about escaping the absurd, i was talking about accepting it

>>8611071
>>8610957
i love these logical, intellectual answers guys, keep them up

>>8609008
No, absurdism is a pussy's nihilism

>>8612510
>its not edgy, so it sucks

/lit/'s finest everyone

>>8612528
>nihilism
>edgy
/b/'s finest.

>>8612537
>still not stating a logical arguement for why his post is correct, likely because his retardation wont allow him to

>>8612541
>he genuinely doesn't know what nihilism is
of course.

>>8611090
Sophists didn't that can't know le nuthin shit way before Pyrrho.

>>8612550
>STILL AVOIDING THE FUCKING QUESTION

WHY DO I SUBJECT MYSELF TO THIS

>>8612578
>responds with adhom, clearly showing his ignorance in the original post
>actually thinks he will get spoonfed proceeding.

The apology of Socrates is the logical conclusion to philosophy.

>>8612590
>im right if i say i am, who are other people to say that i have to prove my point

if i used ad hom, then what does your first post even imply? jesus you autist

>>8612625
>its not edgy, so it sucks
>/lit/'s finest everyone
>"i'm sure this will start a fruitful conversation, and i'm sure i will get a serious response."

He looks like this guy www facebook com/dillon0809

>>8612711
kill yourself

>>8609008
No. I think it is valid but at the same time you could say "I think therefore I am" or the Munchausen trilemma or the skeptics are also logical conclusions. I like empiricism but I don't think it establishes truth but rather presents a convincing case.

>>8609008
No, autism is the logical conclusion to philosophy

Absorudism is a very cheap excuse to rely on. Actually I would say since XXI Foucould is on the lead.
Absurdism is pretty shitty

>>8612867
It's a prerequisite, not a conclusion

>>8613330
it's both the prerequisite and the conclusion but more of the conclusion.