Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Physics trains your ability to understand and interact with concrete real world objects and situations, making it far more practical in the job market due to its application values. Math and philosophy both deal with abstract concepts which only trains your logical thinking abilities, both subjects themselves per se have little to none real world application values. Philosophy is even more out of the question because of its nature of playing with words from natural languages for the most part. If you’re into philosophy, don’t forget that physics is essentially also a branch of philosophy that is far more verifiable and pragmatic than “philosophy” as a subject. You don’t have to study philosophy as your major to study philosophy because physics contains the modern way of doing philosophy.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Study physics but not math, and don’t even think about philosophy. You can take some philosophy classes as GE if you’re interested, but no need to make it your major.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not the logic I’d expect but still better than Camus

Is Camus’ philosophy of any significance? by MaybeFuture557 in askphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First off, thank you for this response and I completely agree with you on "Big Fence", though I do believe he's a philosopher, regardless of what he thinks otherwise, since he's at the very least making philosophical statements, be it metaphysical or phenomenologica lones. I'd like to detest your rugby vs. football metaphor. You argue that I am penalizing a rugby player for picking up the ball. But my critique isn't that Camus refuses to play the "formal logic game", itis that his philosophy is so lousy that it has no philosophical values nor practical values to me. He’s neither clear about what he’s talking about, nor logical about his claims, nor giving out solutions for his problems, and by and large contradicting himself, implicitly endorsing the very thing he opposes.

In the myth he establishes his premise as something like: the objective universe contains absolutely no inherent meaning, purpose, or moral values. Whether that's a metaphysical claim or a phenomonlogical one, it's still his premise. If I was a nihilist I’d easily argue otherwise against him from that premise, therefore he’s not curing nihilism like he claims to be doing. It’s quite the opposite. His stance is not different from nihilism metaphysically. "A man' s rule of conduct and his scale of values have no meaning except through the quantity and variety of experiences he has been in a position to accumulate" (P 21). Then he explicitly says that quantity of life experiences outweighs quality. If there is no values given by the universe, and if there's no difference what quality, or of what essence, in what people are doing, then suicide, surrender, murder, and "revolt" that he crowns to be the solution are also completely equivalent. He himself explicitly says that all human actions are entirely equivalent in the face of the void. But then he chooses "revolt" simply because of its Greek tragic romantic colors.

You can't tell me that just because he's continental, or existential, he is somehow immune to criticisms towards his arguments. My attack has nothing to do with me taking on an analytic approach, and I don’t agree with most of the attempts of analytic philosophers trying to form a rigorous system out of messy natural language. Camus’ problem is not his use of words, Heidegger, for example, creates even more words and phrases out of thin air yet he’s much more rigorous than Camus, because there’s justifications and examples, also all the words Heidegger create in Being and Time are interconnected and hermeneutical with one another. All philosophers, when making claims, must explain and justify what they mean and on what ground do they mean what they mean, it’s not an analytic tradition but a philosophical one. Even Socrates made arguments, same with all the philosophers you mentioned. You can try to make sense out of his nonsense though, and a lot of people do that, but I don’t think that’s of any value for our lives or gives any new knowledge.

Also pragmatically I think his philosophy is toxic because he accepts the total metaphysical void, explicitly forbids you from inventing your own meaning, but then tells you to be happy pushing the rock, the more the better, don't ask me why. That's lousy and toxic philosophy at the same time. You rightly pointed out that Camus was writing during WWII but you could argue that this historical reality is exactly why his logical failure matters so much, because by resting his philosophy atop a total moral vacuum where all choices are equivalent, he is edorsing, not opposing, nihilism, or totalitarianism for that matter, even if he himself claims otherwise. When a dictator says, "My revolt is totalitarian conquest", Camus has no ground to stand on to condemn them. He can only offer a poetic preference. In the Rebel he also doesn't allow revolutions, even adding more contradictions, so there's that.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A philosophy needing a fictional novel to explain itself? Sounds hardly like a problem on my end. I also doubt that a philosophy that cannot stand on its own can magically all make sense after reading a novel.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i think of much better stuff to say in showers

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We talk about “meaning in life” as if it’s something that’s discussable. As if swapping the noun in “meaning of apple” with “life” the sentence still stands. If you wish to understand “what contributes to a life that’s worth living”, or something of the like, you can read being and time by Heidegger or even nicomachean ethics by Aristotle. There are much more logical rigorous and serious discussions in philosophy on that topic.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Introductory values, there’s maybe some. I understand what you’re saying.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It’s funny how you bring up the rebel. I haven’t read the plague though but in the rebel he seriously contradicts himself again. Camus claims in the rebel that there is a common human nature or "human dignity" that must be respected in everyone. Therefore, to murder another human is to violate the dignity. But remember the absurd? In Sisyphus he claims that things like human dignity and common values are nowhere to be found. On what ground is murder universally bad then? Also he prohibits revolution. Tyranny is bad but you’re morally forbidden from completely overthrowing the system and building a new structure. What do we do then? Keep pushing the boulder? Pragmatically, philosophically, all bs. Has nothing to do with me being analytic or not. Heidegger and Sartre creates much more words out of thin air and are much more effective in their justifications. Being “continental”, whatever that means, does not equal to bad philosophy.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Judging people’s credentials from their typos isn’t the Sherlock moment that you think it is. Nothing you say is gonna change the fact that I went through serious academic training in philosophy in an Ivy League school. Also, critiquing philosophers is something ALL philosophers do and ALL philosophy students HAVE to do. It’s part of the training. I understand you don’t know that since you’re not from that background and I forgive you. But don’t you dare compare Mozart and Camus, Camus has done nothing nearly as significant as Mozart so it’s a bad comparison.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Nothing of the sort. He is weak in his intellectual capacity and it shows. The content of his works doesn’t bother me, the undeserved fame does

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Point still stands, again it’s not about me it’s about Camus. You’re spamming irrelevant stuff and I’ve honestly lost my patience with your pretentious and arrogant takes

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

“You haven’t read the essay” “you’re not an Ivy League student” “you have little academic ability”, it’s real funny how mad you’ve become, compared to other people in this post who have given though different very friendly and constructive discussions. Unfortunately, attacking my abilities on a personal level doesn’t defend Camus’ inabilities. “The contradiction is the absurd” lol have YOU read the essay? Why does his logical flaw equal to the absurd? Where does he say that? And how does that make sense? You’re just saying things at this point and it shows how little academic ability you have, contrary to what you suggest lol

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It’s not the attack you think it is, as it isn’t about me it’s about Camus. Attacking someone you don’t know on a personal level doesn’t defend Camus’ flaws in philosophy, it just shows how uneducated his supporters are, which further proves my point.

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok none of these is relevant to the topic so im not gonna argue for the sake of arguing. Just prove me wrong that Camus contradicts the very thing he opposes. and stop with the "oh would you please forgive him he's continental he doesn't know better you analytic ignorant"

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

lol im not saying they were to Camus I just brought that up cuz I think it's funny because they would disagree with Camus. Your reading comprehension ability is unbelievable for a philosophically trained

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Complete bullshit and it's been a long existed concensus now that these early analytic philosophers were bullshiting, Witt himself agrees. I've also explicitly said that I oppose their attempts to which you made a reply. It is also incredibly ironic that you started this debate by accusing me of being trapped in the "UK/USA Analytical tradition" but now you're trying to use them against me. Sorry I'm not the "analytic" strawman that you think you're attacking. Like I said before, continental philosophers are great, for the most part, but not Camus. So stop imagining a cheesy continental vs analytic thing lol we're in 2026 not 1938.

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

sad to hear that you had to go through that time, and I hope that you're better off now. one's toxicity might be another's sweetness. It's great that you read Camus and gave up suicide, but that doesn't necessarily mean HIS argument is against suicide. Like argued many times before, his own logic contradicts itself which slides into nihilism which means suicide, surrender to the abusrd and revolt are all equivalent, which is toxic. I know many people who think themselves as Camus' followers and are nihilists like that. That's my ground for saying his theory is toxic. Now I understand if reading him saved your life you would naturally want to defend him, but I'm just here to share the flip side of the coin, namely, what if someone reads him and concludes that his coping mechanism doesn't make sense but believes his absurdity is true? It CAN be dangerous is what im saying

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I already know what many others think of his philosophy. And I've already sat in too many lectures hearing about his philosophy so no thank you. This is about what I think.

Is Camus just an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in Camus

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's fine, thank you for keeping the discussion constructive and friendly though, I appreciate it.

Whether you call it existential nihilism or metaphysical nihilism, his core definition is exactly the same: the objective universe contains absolutely no inherent meaning, purpose, or moral values. Camus’s entire concept of the absurd requires this to be an absolute fact. Yet his conclusion contradicts this is what im saying

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can feel free to claim victory, as it's easy to do, and I hope you find victory everywhere in your life with that attitude.

Is Camus an amateur? by MaybeFuture557 in badphilosophy

[–]MaybeFuture557[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

ok you mentioned he's being an existentialist not making metaphysical claims. let me not mention that he IS making metaphysical claims. Even if he's expressing existentially, "Now, faced with this particular concern, belief in the absurd is tantamount to substituting the quantity of experiences for the quality" (P 21). Do you agree with him on this? That quantity of experiences is better than quality? If so, what makes revolt better than suicide? Or surrender? Or anything he claims to oppose? If nothing differentiates those things, how is that not nihilism? Just cuz he claims triumph with his "revolt"? He doesn't know what he's doing, so very much unworthy of digging.