Why doesn't Camus ever say why it is desirable to revolt

File: jean-paul-sartre.jpg (12KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x300px

>>9339048
Yo Albert! How's the comic?

>>9339048
Life is absurd without God. Nihilism is the rational conclusion of a Godless existence. Come back to the light.

>>9339078
Don't talk to me, you, shitty friend.

Revolting against the absurd means to live a satisfying and happy life despite knowing how meaningless life is. You see the chasm, but you do not wail in despair or make up stories to lessen your pain. According to Camus, you revolt by accepting the absurd and being happy in the face of the absurd.

He never conclusively says why you should revolt though, he only gives sentimental reasons. That's a weakness in his philosophy.

>>9339086
Why is nihilism undesirable?

>>9339098
That's what I thought, but I suspected I might have been reading him poorly.

>>9339098
Also, "being happy in the face of the absurd" seems like a version of "make your own meaning" which he regards as dodging the absurd rather than facing it. Do you think that's a contradiction?

>>9339108
Yeah, definitely. Another inconsistency of Camus's work. He's a lot more similar to Sartre than you would think at first glance.

A pet theory of mine lit: I think man inherently craves meaning and order, and even theories and philosophies like nihilism and absurdism give meaning to your life, in a way.

>>9339108
I actually think accepting the absurd is extremely different from creating meaning in your life. It's accepting the inevitable, and the purpose is not meaning. But meaning is still created because of it, which is, Camus's mistake.

Its how to cope with life

>>9339086
> I evaluate truth based on whatever philosophical ramications seem most appealing to me

>>9339132
I agree. Furthermore, man inherently creates purpose, even if it consists on hoping for the discovery of higher or more satisfying purpose in the future; otherwise man commits suicide, which is rare (for philosophical reasons).

>>9339108
>"being happy in the face of the absurd" seems like a version of "make your own meaning"

Do you not know what meaning means?

>>9339048
>>9339098

The reason he can't give a convincing reason as to the value of revolting against the absurd is because the existence of the absurd implies the non-existence of absolute (read: arguable) values.

If he tried to convince you that it was 'good' to revolt the against the absurd he'd be contradicting himself. If there were good or bad things to do, the likes of which you could argue about, then there wouldn't be The Absurd.

The Absurd is the term for a lack of real prescriptive goals. If you could prescribe goals in that context you'd be magic or a retard.

Like you guys.

>>9339048
Absurdism is the only valid stance. Escaping its suffering is a delusion. Christianity deals with suffering. Have you embraced Jesus and become at the very least a cultural Christian yet?

>>9339156
Your claim is a philosophical ramification, you fuckin' retard.

>>9339349

pain is mandatory. suffering is optional. absurdism is absurd.

>>9339310
Which just makes him giving a reason for rebelling all the more important for his philosophy. Because it is difficult, or maybe impossible to give a satisfying reason for following and accepting his philosophy, does that mean that there is no need for a sound reason to 'Rebel'? Does that excuse Camus? Not at all. It just makes his philosophy equal with nihilism, existentialism, and any other philosophy that attempts to deal with the absurd.

Camus's arguments against suicide are appeals to emotion as well. He can't give a reasonable answer to both of these problems.

>>9339156
Why have a preference for truth if there is no meaning to be found in it? Actually, you can't give me a why if you're a real nihilist.

>>9339048
Camus is Shit tier.

>>9339310
Desirable doesn't require the absolute. Claiming something is more desirable than something else doesn't require the absolute.

>>9339193
I should have written purpose. Thank you.

>>9339310
Why not suicide then? "Without man there's no absurd", that's no reason.

>>9339557
So, like 30 people in the history of mankind are acceptable-tier regarding philosophy and the rest are pure shit? Right?

>>9339936
What does that have to do with Camus?

File: 1488926218822.jpg (2MB, 1833x2286px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1833x2286px

>>9339161
>tfw no purpose

I don't know what Camus says about it, but here's my take:

It's wrong to search for "meaning" in life, meaning in life wasn't what made life worthwhile and bearable to humans in the past. It was the firm model of existence and conduct, a set of axiomatic rules which they needed to follow throughout their life. What made a peasant content in life wasn't the promise of life beyond death in the Kingdom of God, but the rules he needed to obey to get there. The promise of God is nothing but a motivator that incentivized him to follow the rules. These included working hard, taking care of his family, not being gluttonous etc. All of these rules subtly shape your mind, your body and your relationships in ways that are good for your well-being. People who wrote the Bible knew this, but they also knew they wouldn't be obeyed just because, so they needed to, like all other religions of the world, construct a supernatural entity so people would follow the bitter pill of self-improvement and decent conduct with a sweet pill of concrete gratification beyond the grave.
If you, as a human, can choose a set of rules you will follow to a tee and until your death, and there are many good ways to live about which you can read in works of philosophy, you will find the same thing that the Christian peasant in the 1100s found. This promise is also the motivator behind your decision to follow these rules. The prosperity and contentment of the Heaven is just as concrete and gratifying as the prosperity and contentment on Earth, only less immediate. That would be your reward.

Shit thread.

>>9339098
>>9339048

I thought it was embracing the absurd not revolting against it. If you revolt against the absurd, that means you're living your life skeptical of the absurd. Mean you're diving nose deep into any purpose that denies the theory of the absurd.

When you embrace the absurd, you're accepting that life has no purpose, but you're okay with finding your own.

>>9339098
>He never conclusively says why you should revolt though, he only gives sentimental reasons. That's a weakness in his philosophy.

I think it's the other way around

>>9341806
If you read The Myth of Sisyphus you'll see he uses that especific phrasing throughout the book. Revolt against the absurd. He presents suicide as the acceptance of the absurd to the limit.

>>9339557
>Tiering philosophers

This where you fucked up at. You've let down every philosopher including the ones you love.

>>9341816
What do you mean Anon?

>>9341819
Is the absurd man's quest for answers in a universe not designed to give you answers?

>>9341826
Yes. Although I think it's more the man's crave for answers than the quest itself.

>>9341826
He says revolt, because the absurd presents you with two choices: Leap of faith (theism or hiperrationalism) and suicide. You take the third, hidden option.