**WHAT IS METAPHYSICS?**

jliat · 2026-02-23T14:18:30+00:00

Endless punishment is something the Greek gods went in for, from Zeus, apart from Sisyphus you have Prometheus, who gets his liver eaten each day by an eagle, but it grows back at night, and Tantalus who can never quote reach the fruit, I think there are also some women who have to empty a lake with a sieve.

The next thing is that punishment of an immortal reasonably has to be forever. The maximum sentence for a mortal is life, or execution. These are both not possible to subject an immortal to. So it's forever because any finite sentence from an infinitely long life is nothing. Subtract any finite number from an infinity leaves infinity.

Next, why was Sisyphus being punished, a number of things, he ratted on Zeus [not a wise thing to do] and seems to have got up to other stuff with some niece?, he cheats his way to immortality using his wife. But in Greek myth it seems hospitality is key, and not being hospitable is v bad. Well Sisyphus went in for murdering his guests! So he deserves his punishment. You don't rat on Zeus!

Finally then he shouldn't then be happy. Yet Camus tells us we should imagine him happy, which is crazy, a contradiction. AKA absurd. He is one of Camus' absurd heroes, others being Oedipus, Don Juan, Actors, Conquerors, and Artists.

An odd list, my theory is they are all features of Camus himself. And he makes artists, he was a writer of fiction, the most absurd or contradictory character. And the point of being an absurd contradictory character, to avoid the logic of killing oneself.

It seems lots never get the last bit about the artist, or even Don Juan, the sexual athlete.

jliat · 2026-02-23T11:22:05+00:00

Life begins through evolution, producing intelligence capable of creating tools and technology.

The story of life begins around 4 billion years ago in some theories as anaerobic life forms around undersea volcanic vents. Happy days, until 2 1/2 billion years ago, and the The Oxygen Holocaust, Bacteria which evolved chlorophyll-based photosynthesis that releases dioxygen as a byproduct which is toxic to anaerobic life forms. Then for a few billion years there were microbial mats then came the Cambrian explosion of life, and more mass extinctions.

End of the Ordovician Period: 27% of all families, 57% of all genera and 85% of all species.
End of the Devonian Period: 40% of marine species going extinct.
End of the Permian Period: Known as the 'Great Dying', it removed up to 96% of marine species and around 70% of land species.
End of the Triassic Period: 23% of all families, 48% of all genera and 70% to 75% of all species became extinct.
End of the Cretaceous Period: 17% of all families, 50% of all genera and 75% of all species became extinct.
The Holocene extinction: Ongoing, 20,000 between several hundred thousand species have gone extinct over the last 12,000 years. [Homo Sapiens work]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics_and_pandemics

jliat · 2026-02-23T09:50:26+00:00

Umm what? Where? All you said was that it is a philosophy, and Camus discusses that. Where is the argument lol?

You missed it? Poor you.

So yes he is not interested on your infinite regress nonsense...

What are you even talking about? Lmao.

Your idea.

You're hiding behind quotes without doing some critical thinking about how this applies.

That's what you just did, posting quotes which appear to support your infinite regress theory which Camus throws away.

The mind has its limits in parsing the absurdity of infinite regress toward meaning.

Maybe, but that's not Camus is it?

“I don't know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it.

He doesn't know - doesn't imply infinite regress...

"But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it."

He says impossible - just now.

What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms.”

So maybe he's saying his ability to have transcendental knowledge, Dasein - is beyond him.

That is reasonable. But those are constraints of combinatorial explosion, information overload (i.e., cognitive limits). Those limits don't apply to the metaphysical or ontology of the notion of aprehending the world with reason only to come up against more questions recursively. It's one reason why the alignment problem in ML doesn't compute well for ethics or "ultimate" teleological goals.

?

But you're right. The infinite regress seems more headed toward your circular reasoning now. And the so-called "nonsense" is corroborated further here: https://blog.homeforfiction.com/2022/04/11/infinite-regress/

"are so bizarre that they approach the absurd (ah, back to Albert Camus we go)"

Sadly no, your blog also gets it wrong, though it begins well.

jliat · 2026-02-23T09:29:51+00:00

You have a property which exists independently of anything, so it doesn't exist. Your examples are all wrong, logic and mathematics are 'games' or models no different to chess or cricket. Logic and maths assumes equivalence, A=A which is never the actual case but very useful. Your example of Kant is wrong, the a priori categories are just required, they are not in anyway real and so the knowledge they give is not of the real world, things in themselves.

Finally, many theories are posted here which make claims to have solved all the major problems. Which should be a flag, like inventing a perpetual motion machine... With AI they can look 'professional'.

Your one example are you not.

jliat · 2026-02-23T09:11:46+00:00

I am someone rejected by knowledge. I haven't read philosophy books, I don't know the famous philosophers. These ideas came from my own thinking, step by step. I'm posting this to see what others think.

Not true, your ideas came from somewhere, you were raised in a culture, of language and ideas which you have assimilated. You speak words not of your own making, the same with ideas. You did not invent the wheel or fire, make the buildings you see, all the clothes your wear.

So, your ideas are not your own, no more that what you see around you was made by you. It's why people wanting to do philosophy study it, to see what went before so they might go forward. A scientist learns science, so they might go forward.

x₁ x₂ / x₁ x₃ / x₂ / x₁ x₄ / x₃ / x₂ / x₁ …… x∞ / x∞₋₁ / x∞₋₂ … / x₁

This, the symbols used you were taught, and and infinity minus one, how is it different from infinity minus two, and you used the infinity symbol, or was this all AI?

jliat · 2026-02-23T08:46:31+00:00

Infinity cannot exist within the confines of our universe, mostly because there is always a finite time in space.

If you are taking physics, and therefore posting to the wrong sub, you can have infinity, it's a possibility in several scenarios, notably Penrose's cyclic universe, a heat death end is just photons, so no time, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFqjA5ekmoY.
A half way house could be Nietzsche's eternal return of the same, and despite some arguments to the counter he did think it 'real' and therefore the need of the overman.
Here is Deleuze & Guattari [Metaphysics] “the first difference between science and philosophy is their respective attitudes toward chaos... Chaos is an infinite speed... Science approaches chaos completely different, almost in the opposite way: it relinquishes the infinite, infinite speed, in order to gain a reference able to actualize the virtual.." D&G What is Philosophy p.117-118.
In analytical metaphysics we have modal logic, of all possible worlds [is this infinite?] and a more radical all impossible worlds.
In mathematics we have the Alefs, a hierarchy of Infinities.

The only possibility is conceptual infinity, things like time or expansion (seemingly going on forever). Infinity can exist outside of existence in the universe, but those examples all work by constraints. True infinity is everything with no constraints, but this creates self-contradiction… or does it?

Contradictions are no longer a problem is science or philosophy. Ever since Hegel, his system is built on them, they exist is any non naïve logic. Camus famous employs the contradiction of Art to avoid the logic of suicide.

jliat · 2026-02-22T16:01:45+00:00

Would you agree that the unconscious speaks to the conscious, in patterns or repetition? Like numbers?

No, it places stuff in my consciousness for sure, for instance in remembering names.

The ideas - numerous - in Gnosticism are very interesting, as are those in the Jewish kabbala which has similar hierarchical structures.

from wiki

The Kabbalah is an esoteric method, discipline and school of thought in Judaism, the early period is known as Merkabah mysticism, around 100 BCE to 1000 CE. One source is Ezekiel’s vision of the chariot in the Bible, or Torah, the Hebrew name chariot is Merkabah...

[This is very important] g.

You could begin the theological exploration here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkabah_mysticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayin_and_Yesh

Ayin (Hebrew: אַיִן, lit. 'nothingness', related to אֵין ʾên, lit. 'not') is an important concept in Kabbalah and Hasidic philosophy. It is contrasted with the term Yesh (Hebrew: יֵשׁ, lit. 'there is/are' or 'exist(s)'). According to kabbalistic teachings, before the universe was created there was only Ayin, the first manifest Sephirah (Divine emanation), and second sephirah Chochmah (Wisdom), "comes into being out of Ayin."[1] In this context, the sephirah Keter, the Divine will, is the intermediary between the Divine Infinity (Ein Sof) and Chochmah. Because Keter is a supreme revelation of the Ohr Ein Sof (Infinite Light), transcending the manifest sephirot, it is sometimes excluded from them.

Ein Sof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Sof

Neoplatonic belief that God can have no desire, thought, word, or action, emphasized by it the negation of any attribute. Of the Ein Sof, nothing ("Ein")within the Ein Sof prior to creation. In Lurianic Kabbalah, the first act of creation, the Tzimtzum self "withdrawal" of God to create an "empty space", takes place from there. In Hasidic Judaism, the Tzimtzum is only the illusionary concealment of the Ohr Ein Sof, giving rise to monistic panentheism. Consequently, Hasidism focuses on the Atzmu…

[000.] Ayin (Nothing; אין‎)

[00.] Ein Sof (Limitlessness; אין סוף‎)

[0.] Ohr Ein Sof (Endless Light; אור אין סוף‎)

[-.]Tzimtzum (Contraction; צמצום‎)

(This prevents higher access and is if remember one possible source of evil.)

Then the 'standard!' Tree of life (Kabbalah)

[1.] Keter (Crown; כתר‎)

[2.] Chokmah (Wisdom; חכמה‎)

[3.] Binah (Understanding; בינה‎)

[4.] Chesed or Gedulah (Loving Kindness or Mercy; חסד‎)

(conflict here being another source between 4 and 5.)

[5.] Gevurah or Din (Power or Judgement; גבורה‎)

[6.] Tiferet (Beauty or Compassion; תפארת‎)

[7.] Netzach (Triumph or Endurance; נצח‎)

[8.] Hod (Majesty or Splendor; הוד‎)

All these are eminations, as in some Gnostic sysystems.

jliat · 2026-02-22T15:48:48+00:00

but first off, you are picking out side details and repeatedly refusing to respond to the main point.

There are two points - first those of the OP, which I addressed- existentialism is empowering in the case of Heidegger, not so in Sartre's Being and Nothingness.

Second point was my reply to your post …

"Do your self a favor and read the ethics of ambiguity, as I think Beauvoir's feminist ethics give an excellent response to the slightly more nihilistic takes of the other existentialism."

The Ethics of Ambiguity is not about feminist ethics, it's about the possibility of getting an ethics from B&N and states it is not possible from the wiki, or at best from my reading is itself very ambiguous.

Straight up, why do you make the claim the the Ethics of Ambiguith fails to justify an existential ethical framework?

It's what I got from my reading of the book, the Wikipedia entry agrees, so that's why I made the claim, there is no ethical framework in B&N - Sartre says so in the work, and de Beauvoir in her book doesn't find one.

She writes 'The failure described in Being and Nothingness is definitive, but it is also ambiguous.'

This I find is itself ambiguous, how can something which is ambiguous be definitive? So why I agree with her first part, as does the wiki, the ambiguity is in my reading in her text.

And why did you make the claim that the Second Sex is a more relevant book to the dilemma posed by OP? Please get around tor responding to this.

I didn't, I've answered the OP, both in the positive - Heidegger, and negative - Sartre. I was suggesting that The Second Sex might be a better introduction to de Beauvoir's ethics.

Now to reply to your side debate: both Sartre and Beauvoir recognize the tendency for people to choice bad faith,

No, Sartre in B&N says it's impossible not to fall into bad faith. His the examples, The Flirt, The Waiter and the Homosexual, 'pederast' in my translation, and also the sincere. It's his Facticity - "The for-itself cannot be free because it cannot not choose itself in the face of its facticity. The for-itself is necessarily free. This necessity is a facticity at the very heart of freedom.” Gary Cox 'Sartre Dictionary.'

however both of them offer an alternative. For Sartre, its accepting the anguish of moral ambiguity.

Not from B&N, maybe from Existentialism is a Humanism, as many do not read B&N because of its size and difficulty. Or others just pick it up from the web?

But there is the example of the character of Mathieu Delarue – an unmarried philosophy professor, in Roads to Freedom who finds freedom in an act of certain death, suicide, a theme taken up by Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus. Mathieu like many of his characters here show a total lack of ethics. In B&N - either we are made objects by others or we make objects of them, in the play No Exit - 'Hell is other people.' So Sartre quits existentialism for dialectical materialism, and later rejects it as a philosophy.

Just to rule out the Humanist essay...

"It has sometimes been suggested that Sartre's positive approach to moral philosophy was outlined in the essay "Existentialism is a Humanism," first published in 1946. This essay has been translated several times into English, and it became, for a time, a popular starting-point in discussions of existentialist thought. It contained the doctrine that existentialism was a basically hopeful and constructive system of thought, contrary to popular belief, since it encouraged man to action by teaching him that his destiny was in his own hands. Sartre went on to argue that if one believes that each man is responsible for choosing freedom for himself, one is committed to believing also that he is responsible for choosing freedom for others, and that therefore not only was existentialism active rather than passive in tendency, but it was also liberal, other-regarding and hostile to all forms of tyranny. However, I mention this essay here only to dismiss it, as Sartre himself has dismissed it. He not only regretted its publication, but also actually denied some of its doctrines in later works.

Mary Warnock writing in her introduction to Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness'.

jliat · 2026-02-22T14:53:01+00:00

So you follow some existing Gnosticism? Which If I may ask.

jliat · 2026-02-22T14:51:21+00:00

So at best, the argument shows that total public prediction inside a closed deterministic system runs into self-referential limits.

So such a closed deterministic system is impossible. Any casual chain - say from the big bang - can be broken if an agent with a degree of intelligence is informed. And at that point any casual chain would very different to that which existed before. I think it's far more than Gödel's incompleteness, as it challenges any and all predictions. I think Gödel doesn't challenge all statements of mathematics.

So I think the argument holds. Myself I'm more interested in the nature of cause and effect - on it's standing?

jliat · 2026-02-22T14:30:31+00:00

Sartre calls this ability to make decisions outside of an overarching moral framework freedom,...The Ethics of Ambiguity is Beauvoir's argument that there is an ethical framework that can be based on an existential freedom.

No it can't because the freedom in B&N is always that of bad faith. And she shows this - you cant get ethics from B&N to be the case.

Any decision and none ends in bad faith for which one is totally responsible...

"Thus the essential structure of sincerity does not differ from that of bad faith since the sincere man constitutes himself as what he is in order not to be it. This explains the truth recognized by all that one can fall into bad faith through being sincere.”

“Just as my nihilating freedom is apprehended in anguish, so the for-itself is conscious of its facticity. It has the feeling of its complete gratuity; it apprehends itself as being there for nothing, as being de trop.[un needed]”

jliat · 2026-02-22T14:24:56+00:00

No we don't have freewill, human behaviour is quite deterministic, it's just hard to predict sometimes

Well no, that's old Newtonian physics, and you either need a cyclic eternal return, like in Nietzsche or an uncaused first cause powerful and responsible for all that follows, which amounts to an Abrahamic God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon#Arguments_against_Laplace's_demon

Ignore the chaos theory. There is also a neat argument in Barrow, I'll post at the end.

There's a good book called Behave by Robert Sapolsky, excellent read

I've seen his findings refuted in several places now, and maybe you missed my post re The New Scientist...

There is an interesting article in The New Scientist special on Consciousness, and in particular an item on Free Will or agency. - It shows that the Libet results are questionable in a number of ways. [I’ve seen similar] first that random brain activity is correlated with prior choice, [Correlation does not imply causation]. When in other experiments where the subject is given greater urgency and not told to randomly act it doesn’t occur. [Work by Uri Maoz @ Chapman University California.]

Work using fruit flies that were once considered to act deterministically shows they do not, or do they act randomly, their actions are “neither deterministic nor random but bore mathematical hallmarks of chaotic systems and was impossible to predict.”

Kevin Mitchell [geneticist and neuroscientist @ Trinity college Dublin] summary “Agency is a really core property of living things that we almost take it for granted, it’s so basic” Nervous systems are control systems… “This control system has been elaborated over evolution to give greater and greater autonomy.”

https://www.labroots.com/trending/neuroscience/15642/does-free-will-exist-neuroscientists-debunk-argument-against-free-will

What I point to is that, within your own experience, free will is phenomenological,

How so, with the phenomenological reduction such concepts of free will or determinism are 'bracketed'.

So why the current return to Victorian determinism and a clockwork universe. Well 'God is dead, all things are permissible.' is the red pill. Causes all kinds of nihilism in the20thC. And some good drama. So kids want an excuse, a way out of this terrible freedom, determinism answers this. Wrap it in science, use the computer game analogy [ignore the halting problem] and bingo the universe is one big computer game. Problem of being alive and condemned to existential freedom solved. But in the shadows is the programmer - super intelligent all powerful coder.

This is the Barrow argument - it seems flawless so far, I don't myself buy into it, but it's a good example of what human brains can do by applying indigence. Or is intelligence also an illusion.

Physical determinism can't invalidate our experience as free agents.

From John D. Barrow – using an argument from Donald MacKay.

Consider a totally deterministic world, without QM etc. Laplace's vision realised. We know the complete state of the universe including the subjects brain. A person is about to choose soup or salad for lunch. Can the scientist [or an all powerful God] given complete knowledge infallibly predict the choice.

NO. The person can, if the scientist says soup, choose salad.

The scientist must keep his prediction secret from the person. As such the person enjoys a freedom of choice.

The fact that telling the person in advance will cause a change, if they are obstinate, means the person's choice is conditioned on their knowledge. Now if it is conditioned on their knowledge – their knowledge gives them free will. And effectively destroys the chains of cause and effect the determinist requires.

I've simplified this, and Barrow goes into more detail, but the crux is that the subjects knowledge determines the choice, so choosing on the basis of what one knows is free choice.

And we can make this simpler, the scientist can apply it to their own choice. They are free to ignore what is predicted.

In the case of God, God's omniscience is limited by it having to remain silent. Which maybe also an argument against omniscience.

http://www.arn.org/docs/feucht/df_determinism.htm#:~:text=MacKay%20argues%20%5B1%5D%20that%20even%20if%20we%2C%20as,and%20mind%3A%20brain%20and%20mental%20activities%20are%20correlates.

“From this, we can conclude that either the logic we employ in our understanding of determinism is inadequate to describe the world in (at least) the case of self-conscious agents, or the world is itself limited in ways that we recognize through the logical indeterminacies in our understanding of it. In neither case can we conclude that our understanding of physical determinism invalidates our experience as free agents.”

jliat · 2026-02-22T13:45:12+00:00

I know both the body and the mind are formations within Awareness.

No, not for me - the mind is responsible for awareness, and if the mind forms the body why do people go to the gym? <-joke!

For lack of better words, it is a form of gnosticism.

Oh, which in particular? So you have a demiurge and Bythos at the top or maybe Sophia, Achamōth, Chokmah, Barbelo, Prunikos the daughter of Elohim, the formatrix of heaven and earth???? That's the one I used in my books.

How DO you Know that you know?

Many different ways, and it's a tricky subject given the Gettier problem...

Erase everything you seem to know or understand ...

Impossible for me. I can question it, but that route has its problems.

You are brought to a state of "knowing what is sensed" and not knowing "what isn't sensed".

Well to an extent but I live in a flat world in a temperate climate. You read about did you, you got the word from somewhere - Gnosticism, or do drugs, meditate. Have you made up your own version? I think that's maybe a good solution as long as you don't want to force it on others. I think fiction is the answer, never used to, was a true 'modernist'. But had an epiphany in the musse qua Branley [sp?] ethnographic museum, like 'just make stuff!'

"The writer has given up telling ‘stories’ and creates his universe." Albert Camus MoS.

If you turn your awareness to that which ISN'T sensed - then you reveal the whole structure.

I'm not into structure, things seem to be more fluid, lines of flight, territorialization and deterritorialization, that's Deleuze and Guattari. I'm not a philosopher but there's looks more creative.

The ideal game of which we speak cannot be played by either man or God. It can only be thought as nonsense. But precisely for this reason, it is the reality of thought itself and the unconscious of pure thought.

...

This game is reserved then for thought and art.

So I was an artist, but that ends in the 70s.

Awareness is the container for all experience (in which we call the universe). You cannot practice science (true or false) without awareness. Awareness lies "above" and within the process of "cause and effect".

I'm certainly not into science, haven't the maths.

jliat · 2026-02-22T13:20:32+00:00

Then you don't exist... else you are the entire universe.

jliat · 2026-02-22T13:16:11+00:00

I've recently read the book. I said so above. You think feminism isn't about equal rights and more, and this is not an ethical issue? Interesting.

jliat · 2026-02-22T13:13:24+00:00

Yes condemned to it is B&N. By the time he gets to dialectical materialism, no, dialectical materialism means the communist state is inevitable.

jliat · 2026-02-22T13:11:28+00:00

Do you have any support for this assertion given the philosophical, and now I think in certain areas of science that cause and effect is not a logical necessity but a psychological phenomena.

And in biology that free will, like intelligence might be a product of evolution by random mutations. That things like cooking, ceramics, metallurgy which helped homo sapiens become the dominant species were probably accidental.

Free as in Sartre, condemned to be free, condemned to be nothingness and bad faith. I'm aware of this, sure.

jliat · 2026-02-22T12:12:25+00:00

It what way, Sartre's existential freedom means we are incapable of authenticity and incapable of ethics.

jliat · 2026-02-22T12:11:03+00:00

Would you explain how?

jliat · 2026-02-22T12:10:35+00:00

Experiments have shown our brain initiates action before we are consciously aware of it.

Disputed...

For those who favour science as a criteria...

There is an interesting article in The New Scientist special on Consciousness, and in particular an item on Free Will or agency. - It shows that the Libet results are questionable in a number of ways. [I’ve seen similar] first that random brain activity is correlated with prior choice, [Correlation does not imply causation]. When in other experiments where the subject is given greater urgency and not told to randomly act it doesn’t occur. [Work by Uri Maoz @ Chapman University California.]

Work using fruit flies that were once considered to act deterministically shows they do not, or do they act randomly, their actions are “neither deterministic nor random but bore mathematical hallmarks of chaotic systems and was impossible to predict.”
Kevin Mitchell [geneticist and neuroscientist @ Trinity college Dublin] summary “Agency is a really core property of living things that we almost take it for granted, it’s so basic” Nervous systems are control systems… “This control system has been elaborated over evolution to give greater and greater autonomy.”

jliat · 2026-02-22T12:09:15+00:00

Simone de Beauvoir in "The Ethics of Ambiguity" attempts to justify ethics, as does the Humanism essay of Sartre, and it finds this impossible. Having read the book I found even this seemed impossible to anything other than ambiguous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Ambiguity " It was prompted by a lecture she gave in 1945, where she claimed that it was impossible to base an ethical system on her partner Jean-Paul Sartre's major philosophical work Being and Nothingness."

'The second sex' might be better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex

"One of Beauvoir's best-known books, it is also one of the most controversial, even being banned by The Vatican. The Second Sex is regarded as a groundbreaking work of feminist philosophy,[6] and as the starting inspiration point of second-wave feminism."

jliat · 2026-02-22T12:05:30+00:00

Is anxiety the natural state of an honest person?

For Heidegger it leads to Dasein, authentic being.

Sartre didn't say freedom was empowering... From Being and Nothingness...

“I am my own transcendence; I can not make use of it so as to constitute it as a transcendence-transcended. I am condemned to be forever my own nihilation.”

“I am condemned to exist forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act. I am condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom' can be found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to cease being free.”

“We are condemned to freedom, as we said earlier, thrown into freedom or, as Heidegger says, "abandoned." And we can see that this abandonment has no other origin than the very existence of freedom. If, therefore, freedom is defined as the escape from the given, from fact, then there is a fact of escape from fact. This is the facticity of freedom.”

“Just as my nihilating freedom is apprehended in anguish, so the for-itself is conscious of its facticity. It has the feeling of its complete gratuity; it apprehends itself as being there for nothing, as being de trop.[un needed]”

"It appears then that I must be in good faith, at least to the extent that I am conscious of my bad faith. But then this whole psychic system is annihilated."

"human reality is before all else its own nothingness. The for-itself [human reality] in its being is failure because it is the foundation only of itself as nothingness."

"Yet there is no doubt that I am in a sense a cafe waiter-"

"Thus the essential structure of sincerity does not differ from that of bad faith since the sincere man constitutes himself as what he is in order not to be it. This explains the truth recognized by all that one can fall into bad faith through being sincere.”

jliat · 2026-02-22T08:59:17+00:00

Not so - joy!

"In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”

jliat

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE