• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Callow and reading Camus

Migrated topic.
C

chris-cringles-finger

Matt F
I'll keep it brief, amigos. I'm a recent college grad. My culture disaffected me years ago, and after reading Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, I'm all but convinced that absurdity is the ultimate epistemological bedrock that Socrates missed. So, from here, from this place of nausea, I look to hallucinogens and like-minded people to help me construct a sensible picture of reality based on dispassionate observation, logic and love, devoid of the trappings of culture.

I'm working on applications to the University of Amsterdam to study cognitive neuropsychology. I studied biology and psychology as an undergrad and hope I can research hallucinogens, particularly DMT, at the highest level scientifically - some day. I'm an avid marijuana eater. I hope you are, too. I play guitar, piano and bass, and sing. I hope you do, too. I am extremely introverted. I hope you are not.

Thank you for this forum.
 
Welcome Chris.

Existentialist writings have had a great influence on my world-view as well, glad to know that someone else is impressed, astounded, changed by Camus.

Good luck in the admission process to U of A, sounds like a worthwhile and noble academic pursuit to me.

Also, I'm somewhat jealous of your musical talent, it's always been something I've wanted to develop but never managed to really stick with an instrument.

Again, welcome.
 
Thanks for the warm words, amigo. Camus anticipated the failure of common logic that quantum physics demonstrates, which leaves us all, whether we like it or not, in strange places. At least, that's what I'd boil my reaction to his work down to.

Thanks for the luck. I'll need it.

Don't be too jealous - it didn't come easy. I was just trying to keep up with my high school friends who could learn instruments well in a matter of months. Talent is something I am certainly not blessed with...envy, on the other hand....
 
chris-cringles-finger said:
Camus anticipated the failure of common logic that quantum physics demonstrates, which leaves us all, whether we like it or not, in strange places. At least, that's what I'd boil my reaction to his work down to.
Click to expand...

I agree to some extent. I didn't even relate the idea of absurdity with the contradiction to Newtonian physics that quantum physics is when I read The Myth of Sisyphus. However, I think your example is a brilliant one because that is perhaps the most fundamental manifestation of the absurdity of the world. (as far as I can think)

I suppose I read it as simply Camus' realization that humans expect the world to behave in certain ways (based on "common" logic), but it rarely does. In other words, it is about the realization that there is no objective reality as a way to understand the world and our place in it.
My interpretation was certainly less meaningful than yours, or at least less specific and concrete.

Thank you for your insight my friend. If you ever feel like writing more on philosophy, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Freedom+Facticity
 
welcome to the nexus, chris-cringles-finger,

nice to have another scientist among us :) The topic you have chosen to pursue certainly sounds interesting. I hope it is what you are looking for. Do you have any experience with dmt yet? If so, I'm interested in what you make of it, given the context of your philosophy and scientific background.

cheers
Enoon
 
Also a philosophy major and I have to say I disagree with your assessment of Camus. He was a far better writer than philosopher and I think his account of "the absurd" is filled with holes. I appreciate his writing and The Myth of Sisyphus is a brilliant piece of literature despite it's failures as a philosophical piece. Nagel has a brilliant response to Camus (and the existentialism movement in general) aptly titled "The Absurd" that you should probably check out since he's held in much higher regard than Camus by academic philosophers.

He concludes:

"If a sense of the absurd is a way of perceiving our true situation (even though the situation is not absurd until the perception arises), then what reason can we have to resent or escape it? Like the capacity for epistemological skepticism, it results from the ability to understand our human limitations. It need not be a matter for agony unless we make it so. Nor need it evoke a defiant contempt of fate that allows us to feel brave or proud. Such dramatics, even if carried on in private, betray a failure to appreciate the cosmic unimportance of the situation. If sub specie aeternitatis there is no reason to believe that anything matters, then that doesn't matter either, and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair."

Personally, I found the existentialism movement very disappointing as I went into my class expecting to be blown away. With the exception of Nietzche I found most existential arguments to be flimsy with an extreme western bias (especially Sartre).
 
SkepticalJay said:
Also a philosophy major and I have to say I disagree with your assessment of Camus. He was a far better writer than philosopher and I think his account of "the absurd" is filled with holes. I appreciate his writing and The Myth of Sisyphus is a brilliant piece of literature despite it's failures as a philosophical piece. Nagel has a brilliant response to Camus (and the existentialism movement in general) aptly titled "The Absurd" that you should probably check out since he's held in much higher regard than Camus by academic philosophers.

He concludes:

"If a sense of the absurd is a way of perceiving our true situation (even though the situation is not absurd until the perception arises), then what reason can we have to resent or escape it? Like the capacity for epistemological skepticism, it results from the ability to understand our human limitations. It need not be a matter for agony unless we make it so. Nor need it evoke a defiant contempt of fate that allows us to feel brave or proud. Such dramatics, even if carried on in private, betray a failure to appreciate the cosmic unimportance of the situation. If sub specie aeternitatis there is no reason to believe that anything matters, then that doesn't matter either, and we can approach our absurd lives with irony instead of heroism or despair."

Personally, I found the existentialism movement very disappointing as I went into my class expecting to be blown away. With the exception of Nietzche I found most existential arguments to be flimsy with an extreme western bias (especially Sartre).
Click to expand...

I read Nagel's piece, quite brilliant imho. Although I feel that his argument against absurdism was merely a more refined version of it, one step further back as he puts it. What really impressed me was how eloquently he presented the case for absurdism as he was tweaking it to suit his understanding. Granted, he sticks some logical daggers in Camus, but the real meat of the argument seems to me to be drawn from Camus.

Doesn't he essentially conclude by agreeing with everything Camus argued, but suggesting that we should face absurdity with a different attitude than that of Camus? I could be missing something, so please elaborate on your own views.

In any case, a very interesting and challenging read, thank you for pointing it out.

Also, I think you're being a bit narrow minded in saying that you found the existentialism movement flimsy...imo Nagel's conclusion is existentialism 2.0.
 
InfiniteFacticity said:
I read Nagel's piece, quite brilliant imho. Although I feel that his argument against absurdism was merely a more refined version of it, one step further back as he puts it.
Click to expand...

It's not an argument against absurdism, it's a different account (the correct account in my opinion) of what absurdism actually is. Life is not absurd because we die someday or because the chains of justification we'd use to explain our actions could go on infinitely as Camus proposes. Absurdity is the conflict between our ability to realize, objectively, our actions are meaningless and our compulsion to take our every day concerns seriously. Camus wants to treat absurdity as some kind of tragedy to be overcome/embraced while Nagel realizes that approaching absurdity with all the melodramatics proposed by Camus is itself absurd. Absurdity IS the human condition, it is not to be overcome, but embraced with irony. In other words, Camus sees a problem where Nagel sees none. The fact that I live in a world where I am really concerned with my career, family, and every day toils and yet consciously aware that, objectively, none of that is going to matter when the world ultimately comes to an end is the price of humanity. This acknowledgment does not require a call to change my life, to heroically rebel, or to fight with all my might the chains of socialization.

What really impressed me was how eloquently he presented the case for absurdism as he was tweaking it to suit his understanding. Granted, he sticks some logical daggers in Camus, but the real meat of the argument seems to me to be drawn from Camus.
Click to expand...

Read completely allegorically Camus' writings on the absurd can be used to support Nagel's observation, but his arguments are flawed. The framing of the emotional conflict; the awareness of the internal struggle belongs to Camus. That is why I find the Myth of Sisyphus to be a fantastic work of literature even if it fails to stand to analytic scrutiny.

Doesn't he essentially conclude by agreeing with everything Camus argued, but suggesting that we should face absurdity with a different attitude than that of Camus?
Click to expand...

No, he's arguing that Camus did not understand what the absurd really was and, therefore, failed to give an accurate account.

Also, I think you're being a bit narrow minded in saying that you found the existentialism movement flimsy...imo Nagel's conclusion is existentialism 2.0.
Click to expand...

I'm not being narrow minded. It's my opinion and it was formed after honest exploration. Most existential writers and philosophers base their arguments on flimsy premises. Sartre, for example, would have us accept that existence precedes essence. This is a metaphysical claim that he never attempts to back up through metaphysical arguments. And yet he uses it to support his fundamental existential argument as if it were a given. He also fails to answer common objections to existentialism adequately, namely that if his brand of existentialism makes no distinction between ethical and unethical behavior.
 
Back
Top Bottom