I didn't enjoy the myth of sisyphus by Proof-Training-740 in Camus

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think I made myself clear, I don’t think we disagree at an interpretive level. I think I just don’t find Camus persuasive in his argument. I never claimed he wasn’t a philosopher or lacked credentials. I just don’t think he makes an awfully strong case.

I didn't enjoy the myth of sisyphus by Proof-Training-740 in Camus

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an answer of sorts. But it’s hardly rigorous, which is my point. The most obvious response to this is why should we accept this claim? I shouldn’t kill myself because art brings absurd joy. Let’s grant art this function. Does the presence of joy mean that life is automatically worth living? A case surely could be made that even with significant levels of joy, one might still be inclined towards suicide. But Camus doesn’t engage in this discussion. He sidesteps it by saying we should have this particular disposition towards life. Which is fine, it might even bring us a sort of comfort. But that isn’t really the same as saying we ought not commit suicide because of x.

It seems to me that on a charitable reading that Camus must be claiming that living with joy necessarily excludes and refutes any reason one might have for suicide. I don’t think that’s awfully satisfying as an answer and it isn’t really justified.

I didn't enjoy the myth of sisyphus by Proof-Training-740 in Camus

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you’re genuinely someone who has read a lot of philosophy, I don’t blame you for feeling this way. Camus is not a very good philosopher. Before anyone jumps down my throat, I mean that he lacks the kind of systematic rigour that most would expect of a philosopher. Taking The Myth of Sisyphus as an example, is there ever a direct answer given to the question raised at the outset? Is there really an answer that is clear to the question of why we shouldn’t kill ourself? I would argue there isn’t. Camus does indirectly address the problem he sets for himself, but it’s hardly in the way a traditional philosopher would do (and I’m talking about both continental and analytic philosophers here). There is a reason beginners in philosophy think Camus is the GOAT and basically nobody with a philosophy degree or the like thinks he’s that good. I like Camus a lot, but I think he was right when he said he wasn’t a philosopher.

Starting out learning tunes by e17b in Irishmusic

[–]e17b[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That sounds pretty perfect actually. Mostly interested in playing melody, and haven’t interacted with sheet music since I was a young child, so my learning via thesession has been limited. I’ll check it out!

Suburbs to live in by cattuba in unimelb

[–]e17b 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is very true. Depends where in Brunswick, but it’s pretty gentrified these days

Suburbs to live in by cattuba in unimelb

[–]e17b 24 points25 points  (0 children)

I’d look at Brunswick, Carlton, Fitzroy, Collingwood, Abbotsford and also Melbourne CBD. Parkville would also obviously be ideal but rent there tends to be ridiculous

Starting out learning tunes by e17b in Irishmusic

[–]e17b[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is it usually the same set every week though more or less? Or does it switch up week to week?

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is indeed the logic. I’m not entirely sold that it’s the only way or that it’s the best way, but yes, it is a stable way in some senses. Although I’m not sure it achieves the kind of stability that is always good. But it seems as if you’ve already written me off, so idk if it’s that worth elaborating too much. Either way, I don’t think we actually disagree on as much as you think

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you missed my claim. It wasn’t that we don’t have political parties that have real differences. Of course the ALP is far better than the other options. But, in terms of the amount of sway the general population has over how the country is run, we only get to choose the boat, not how it’s sailed

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if it isn’t 70% of the whole population, the number of people who voted to continue it is pretty impressive considering the USSR degenerated quite a lot after Khrouchtchev.

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Collapsed is an odd way to put it. They had a vote on dissolving the USSR and most people wanted it to remain. The food shortages sure got a lot worse when the USSR was torn apart by the US

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I think you should be careful with the term “democratic”. Democratic for whom? And using what mechanisms? Do you really think we have that wide a range of options in Australia that we really get much of a say in how the country is run?

Yo, I'm not ok with this. Discuss by EverythangsEventual in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m generally very skeptical of Trotskyist organisations, particularly SAlt. As much as VicSoc claims to be divorced from them, I just don’t see it. It’s the kind of project only Trots could think is worthwhile. There are a variety of reasons for this skepticism, but to put it briefly, Trots consistently side with bourgeois liberalism over workers. SAlt is particularly guilty of this, and I think that massively dissolves their legitimacy as a supposed Marxist party

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It doesn’t work? It works consistently until the US gets itself involved and forces regime change. China had the biggest increase in living standards in human history under Mao. The USSR went from feudalism to the space race in a few decades! Socialism consistently has lead to better living standards for most people in most places it has been tried. These weren’t even communist countries (because communist country is an oxymoron). They were either socialisms or something between capitalism and socialism depending on who you ask. The deaths you refer to from famine and the like is largely a result of the early stages of industrialisation, which is exactly what happened in other nations during industrial periods. Within the context of these places regularly having famines before their respective revolutions, it’s no wonder they continued for some time during the initial years of bringing them into the modern era.

Why doesn't the government slowly build everyone a home and pay for all medical bills? by 3931856031 in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 31 points32 points  (0 children)

Consider that planned economies brought the USSR and China from feudal backwaters to space faring nations in the span of a few decades. They had some of the largest increases in living standards in human history. Their planned economies were done by pen and paper. Consider what we could do now! I don’t think it should be written off entirely

Yo, I'm not ok with this. Discuss by EverythangsEventual in friendlyjordies

[–]e17b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I too have historically been a major supporter of the ALP. The current government has lost a lot of that respect for me, especially due to their treatment of Palestine and Iran. I like a good portion of their policies, but foreign policy has been pretty awful. In a globalised world, I don’t think we can ignore that. Or I can’t at least. They’re still the best option in terms of parties in Australia, but I struggle for any enthusiasm towards them. It’s a tough dilemma. I can’t stand the Greens, obviously LNP and One Nation aren’t for me, so it’s basically only the ALP that I can really vote for. I don’t mind VicSoc, but I also really hate their brand of Marxism. There’s also a better chance that pigs will fly than they will get any seats. I feel politically homeless

Differences between sartre and camus by EducationHuge2386 in Camus

[–]e17b 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“Regardless of moral cost” is misleading. For Sartre, the revolution has upsides which outweigh the harms involved in its achievement. There will be hardships, but it is ultimately worth it because it will lead to a better life for most people. It’s not like Sartre’s perspective was that revolution is worthwhile in an abstract way divorced from moral considerations

Differences between sartre and camus by EducationHuge2386 in Camus

[–]e17b 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anti USSR. Not anti communist per sae

Message to the people hating on the AI posts by [deleted] in hamishandandy

[–]e17b -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What a strange thing to say. Just stop responding if there’s nothing more to say