The French like their philosophy to be impenetrable, if its understandable they reject it as its not worth listening to. So the philosophers play up to this as they are well rewarded.
The cream of French womanhood throw themselves at them, they get paid a great deal for their lectures and their social standing is at stratospheric levels, who wouldn't talk impenetrable horseshit if that was on offer?
And what is more, the first Gulf War never happened, it was purely a media event. Don't argue.
What? You all like Nietzsche better? I think he's absolute garbage. At least Camus puts forward a reason for morality. If nothing else the appearance of morality at least wastes time in your torturous existence.
I absolutely like nietzsche better. Your statement perfectly illustrates why Camus and his French pals are the real nihilists, and yet nietzsche gets pidgin holed as a nihilist by the lefty academics because he Nostradamus status saw thier bullshit coming from a century out
I must admit. I never thought I'd meet another human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only a philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.
Camus and ‘life affirming’ are an odd thing to say in the same sentence.
*laughs in stoic.
The existentialists insisted over and over that they were anti nihilism and then out the other side of their mouth say that life has no inherent value and is an exercise in futility. A ‘torturous existence’, in your words.
I think that too is a fair thing to point out. It's a self refuting argument. This is why I'm so big on metaphysical arguments though. With a metaphysical argument you have to reason out a consistent system of how and why knowledge and morals are the way they are. It sort of weeds out incongruent arguments or else your metaphysical argument won't work.
At the root of any metaphysical axiom is a fundamental article of faith that the whole thing is built on which is why I regard most metaphysics to be dishonest and unproductive
I don't know why faith is such a bad thing. I have faith that my federal tax return will show up in the mail any day now. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't come eventually. People who invest have faith there is a return but they still hedge. A metaphysical model would not work on anyone's time but it's own.
I think the most decent metaphysical argument would be the argument of hierarchical metaphysics advocated by both Aristotle AND St. Thomas Aquinas. Both of them, despite having at least 1,500 years between them came to the conclusion that there was a hierarchy of metaphysical importance with each step in the hierarchy filled with objects and creatures of an increasing level of epistemological capability and ethical responsibility. The only difference between the arguments being that Aristotle felt the hierarchy was natural and etched into the universe where as Aquinas felt the Christian God was the creator and head of the hierarchy. To me the fact that multiple philosophers agreed on most aspects of this model makes it a compelling metaphysical argument.
I hear you, metaphysics can be a useful exercise, it’s a tool to use and then go build more practically minded sets of ideas upon. There are countless philosophers with bizarre and shitty ideas that have created metaphysical narratives that are logically consistent, if the foundational suppositions that the metaphysical narrative is based on is bizarre and shitty so will be the rest, sound logic or not
Keep in mind that most of the great classical works of antiquity were not in Italy during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but were being held by Muslim kings during the Islamic Golden Age. So there is very little chance that Aquinas read or copied any of Aristotle's work.
I’d rather read the metaphysical meandering of a Muslim king than the rational idealism of Hegel or the emo bs the existentialists cooked up. Worshiping ones own intellect is a fatal trap too many philosophers have fallen onto. Aquinas was a solid guy considering his situation, nothing bad to say about him though I thought he referenced the republic a few times
We may disagree about a whole lot but it is interesting to talk philosophy within the context of geopolitics and I appreciate your interest in doing so. The metaphysical thinkers tend to be a bunch of useless navel gazers but Kant has some decent ideas about what the role of the state should be. He tends to be an advocate for authoritarian tyranny over inalienable rights and I don’t fuck with that at all. As for Rand, I read atlas shrugged as a teenager and it struck me as halfway a call for individualism and the other half a four dollar romance novel sold at the checkout line of a supermarket. She’s got some good one liners, I’ll give her that
Camus leaned towards humanism and wasn’t anywhere near as fucked in the head as the rest of his pals, Sartre was completely deranged. My point stands though, Camus’ nihilistic world view served as a precursor to the the shitty identity politics way of looking at the world in which every interpersonal interaction is an expression of a power imbalance that can and should be leveraged by the enlightened would-be philosopher king. Machiavellian/Platonist/Hegelian jerkoffery
He doesn’t advocate for philosopher kings explicitly but that is the attitude behind the arrogance of the existentialists as a whole. They assume their intellect is the source of their virtue
I meant to post this on the Donald. Not particularly Q related. Sorry about that, internetting while inebriated
I had to read one of his novels in French for my high school French class. I thought he was stupid.
I remember reading The Stranger in high school but remember nothing in particular from it
That tracks
French philosophers?
The French like their philosophy to be impenetrable, if its understandable they reject it as its not worth listening to. So the philosophers play up to this as they are well rewarded.
The cream of French womanhood throw themselves at them, they get paid a great deal for their lectures and their social standing is at stratospheric levels, who wouldn't talk impenetrable horseshit if that was on offer?
And what is more, the first Gulf War never happened, it was purely a media event. Don't argue.
had me in the first half
What? You all like Nietzsche better? I think he's absolute garbage. At least Camus puts forward a reason for morality. If nothing else the appearance of morality at least wastes time in your torturous existence.
Though it is valid to point out that Camus could not be conservative because he advocates for constant rebellion against stasis.
I absolutely like nietzsche better. Your statement perfectly illustrates why Camus and his French pals are the real nihilists, and yet nietzsche gets pidgin holed as a nihilist by the lefty academics because he Nostradamus status saw thier bullshit coming from a century out
I must admit. I never thought I'd meet another human being on this planet other than some turtle neck wearing professor willing to talk about philosophy. I just find Camus to be more life affirming than Nietzsche. Nietzshe makes such a simple epistemological argument. "I said it's right and so it is." At least Decartes could provide mathematical proofs to back up his arguments. It's a huge criticism I have with the moderns. The only moderns I hold in any esteem are Decartes and Kant. I don't know what it is but after 1600 all philosophers stopped being able to do math. Seriously. Pythagoras for example was not only a philosopher but he could obviously provide mathematic proofs of his arguments. Also, for what ever reason, after 1840 it's like philosophy stopped making metaphysical arguments. Kant is like the last modern to make a good metaphysical argument but even he rest a lot of it on morality. After Kant it's only simple epistemological and moral arguments. It's another reasons I can't stand Marx and Rand in equal measure. Both of them only provide the most basic moral arguments. Neither of them really dig into metaphysics or epistemological arguments. Marx kind of defers to Darwin for epistemological arguments and defers science as a whole for metaphysical arguments. Rand doesn't even touch on anything but moral arguments.
Camus and ‘life affirming’ are an odd thing to say in the same sentence.
*laughs in stoic.
The existentialists insisted over and over that they were anti nihilism and then out the other side of their mouth say that life has no inherent value and is an exercise in futility. A ‘torturous existence’, in your words.
I think that too is a fair thing to point out. It's a self refuting argument. This is why I'm so big on metaphysical arguments though. With a metaphysical argument you have to reason out a consistent system of how and why knowledge and morals are the way they are. It sort of weeds out incongruent arguments or else your metaphysical argument won't work.
At the root of any metaphysical axiom is a fundamental article of faith that the whole thing is built on which is why I regard most metaphysics to be dishonest and unproductive
I don't know why faith is such a bad thing. I have faith that my federal tax return will show up in the mail any day now. Just because it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't come eventually. People who invest have faith there is a return but they still hedge. A metaphysical model would not work on anyone's time but it's own.
I think the most decent metaphysical argument would be the argument of hierarchical metaphysics advocated by both Aristotle AND St. Thomas Aquinas. Both of them, despite having at least 1,500 years between them came to the conclusion that there was a hierarchy of metaphysical importance with each step in the hierarchy filled with objects and creatures of an increasing level of epistemological capability and ethical responsibility. The only difference between the arguments being that Aristotle felt the hierarchy was natural and etched into the universe where as Aquinas felt the Christian God was the creator and head of the hierarchy. To me the fact that multiple philosophers agreed on most aspects of this model makes it a compelling metaphysical argument.
I hear you, metaphysics can be a useful exercise, it’s a tool to use and then go build more practically minded sets of ideas upon. There are countless philosophers with bizarre and shitty ideas that have created metaphysical narratives that are logically consistent, if the foundational suppositions that the metaphysical narrative is based on is bizarre and shitty so will be the rest, sound logic or not
Keep in mind that most of the great classical works of antiquity were not in Italy during the time of St. Thomas Aquinas but were being held by Muslim kings during the Islamic Golden Age. So there is very little chance that Aquinas read or copied any of Aristotle's work.
I’d rather read the metaphysical meandering of a Muslim king than the rational idealism of Hegel or the emo bs the existentialists cooked up. Worshiping ones own intellect is a fatal trap too many philosophers have fallen onto. Aquinas was a solid guy considering his situation, nothing bad to say about him though I thought he referenced the republic a few times
We may disagree about a whole lot but it is interesting to talk philosophy within the context of geopolitics and I appreciate your interest in doing so. The metaphysical thinkers tend to be a bunch of useless navel gazers but Kant has some decent ideas about what the role of the state should be. He tends to be an advocate for authoritarian tyranny over inalienable rights and I don’t fuck with that at all. As for Rand, I read atlas shrugged as a teenager and it struck me as halfway a call for individualism and the other half a four dollar romance novel sold at the checkout line of a supermarket. She’s got some good one liners, I’ll give her that
Existentialism is gay
IIRC, Camus fell out with Sarte over what he saw as the excesses of the Soviets.
Camus leaned towards humanism and wasn’t anywhere near as fucked in the head as the rest of his pals, Sartre was completely deranged. My point stands though, Camus’ nihilistic world view served as a precursor to the the shitty identity politics way of looking at the world in which every interpersonal interaction is an expression of a power imbalance that can and should be leveraged by the enlightened would-be philosopher king. Machiavellian/Platonist/Hegelian jerkoffery
No where does Camus advocate for Platonic philosopher kings. Camus' rebellion is personal. He's specific about this.
He doesn’t advocate for philosopher kings explicitly but that is the attitude behind the arrogance of the existentialists as a whole. They assume their intellect is the source of their virtue