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.
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
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.
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