The absurd man camus essay
But if that? Can we ever just move forward?
Albert The Absurd Camus Essay
Or is the way in which Nietzsche uses? In any case, I? Monday, March 2, -- PM. Nietzsche's vision is of an agon, a deadly competition between rival perspectives. If you want to understand it, the best beginning is actually to look into a work by Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation.
Compared to Camus, Nietzsche is philosophically much more substantive, supplying us with extensive explanatory materially and justification. Camus just tells us what he thinks but doesn't give us a lot of reason to agree or meat for critique. That difference necessitates ideology. Is this absurd? Or selfish? You cannot know which one I mean and also what I think it means except as a passive submission to my associating them. Compare the use of ideology in Nietzsche and Marx. One is egoistic, the other collective. But what if there an individual motif or demiurge to any collective ideology?
All of a sudden the enigma is resolved. The meaning of life or one? The absurdity of life, yes or no, could depend on the questions you? So instead of thinking that life is depleted of meaning couldn? I can imagine a Sisyphus happy, one that plays more with accepting an ever changing meaning of existence than one rebelling against its absurdity. Tuesday, March 3, -- PM. You wouldn't be the first to suppose Sisyphus happy in his futility, but you might find it harder to make it out that Camus intended this.
The point is, Camus didn't make himself clear, and this opens him to the worst charge that can be made against a philosopher, that he didn't know what he was saying. If you attempt a more comprehensive perspective I think you will find it too overwhelming. Limitless grief or joy just don't lend themselves to perception, let alone expression. But nevertheless we intuit them. We settle for the limited version, though we know it a travesty, because we can only bear so much loss or worth.
Camus' Meursault in The Outsider: Archetype of an Absurd Man
And so we chip away at our own and each other's cheapened version of being. Camus leaves it at that. What he does not recognize is that a change of mind is the most rigorous, and most real act. And the most articulate response is the freedom this enables that response. We free each other in tiny increments of the offer the world is of our facile knowing it. That offer can never outstrip its own time, and yet is it always unworthy of its time, and of us. Again, Camus would leave it at that, even unrecognized the loss a changed mind is and the freedom this is enabled from the belittling of time the world is of us.
But that freedom, which is a kind of responsibility of the worth of its enabling loss being recognized and not limited to itself and its own perspective can only suffer extension the kind of 'extension' that the world is belittling time in itself being the act of loss its own changing mind is. And so there is act and response become act enabled its response, and so on.
It is a dialectic of loss and love that cannot be limited to the world as we know it and can only complete itself in a completed ruin of the world's ability to offer us the belittling of time it is. Camus was too much of his time to see this. But if the dialectic can only grow more completed than the world's devaluation of time then any beginning of that growth is already encompassed all the world is offered us.
And where we are proved the world unworthy of its time we are found time more completed than what would extend it. To put it more rigorously, time is only extended by attenuation of its worth.
Camus' Meursault in "The Outsider" Archetype of an Absurd Man
Or better still, the least term of time is all the differing it is. For loss is the realest term of time and love is its freest and most complete articulation. Good question N.
- Albert Camus: Existentialism and Absurdism.
- Navigation menu.
You're right that the difference has to do with the role illusion plays for each. As you mentioned, Camus rejects the idea of taking shelter in illusion, unlike Nietzsche. It's something like an artistic illusion. When you look at a still life, for example, you know that there's no bowl of fruit or whatever in front of you, but you engage with the illusion that there is. Something similar happens when we read novels, or go to the movies.
We know it's all an illusion, but we get great pleasure from suspending disbelief and getting lost, even if just temporarily, in the illusion. We have emotional reactions to the illusion, even though we know it's not real. We're not really fooling ourselves in the same way we do with the unconscious illusions belief in God would be an example of that for Nietzsche. Or, that's not intrinsic meaning - the kind of meaning to be discovered in the world.
You might wonder why we need this kind of meaning at all. I think this is a very good question! Why must the meaning exist independently of us?
SparkNotes: The Myth of Sisyphus: The Absurd Man: Don Juanism
Perhaps you think we're doing something else? Laura, Language is not idiolect. We can only exchange as much foolishness as we do without ever doubting we understand each other, or at least the words, if not the reasoning, if we influence each other in what language can be and do. Even stupidity requires a kind of rigor, though this may seem hard to find on the face of it.
We are not alone.
enter I have been doing a lot of reading in that obscure period between the "fall of Rome" it didn't fall, it got left behind and the early feudal era. In Bede it soon becomes extremely evident that a central theme of Christian propaganda was convincing us that this life amounts to punishment that only faith in another life can sustain us.
No doubt Camus was simply echoing this ideology, probably without recognizing its source in his own prejudices. Thursday, March 5, -- PM. Can the issue of the meaning of life receive any valid perspective from the old fashioned notion of "human nature? While these "meanings" are personal choices, what they all have in common is that they are revealing aspects of reality in new ways. Is there any sense to therefore saying that at least part of human meaning is participating in the revelation of reality?
Friday, March 6, -- PM. Condolences, I suppose, to those who just show up at work on time ready to do enough as expected to keep the paychecks coming. The problem is that we can only express the worth of time in terms of its depreciation, even deprecation. This is, quite simply, that we can only express the moment of it the differing it is in terms of an extension that attenuates or evaporates the worth of it. In a logical form, it is the quantifier which elicits the conviction conceit?
But how much or how many is the worth or moment of time? The worth of time is not measured in duration or the unity of its expanse, but in how freed it is of such a count. In physics it has become clear that an externally regulated universe ordered by mathematical symmetry and tempo is impossible. There must be anomaly.
We are a highly evolved mode of that anomaly the worth of time is. But there is no enumerating it. It is not one, or some or any or all, or even none.