>>1333191
bump

>>1333191
Objectivist deism

I like Camus' philosophy, even though I can't really see much difference between it and just plain old existential nihilism. I think existentialism itself proposes engaging in a wilful act of self-delusion that will ultimately leave the individual worse off than if they had just come to terms with, rather than trying to overcome existential nihilism.
I'm not rightly sure I have one. At the moment, Stirnerian egoism seems the most consistent to me, and seems as though it could present a useful framework upon which to build further beliefs.

Doesn't make me think at all tbqh, because I get the same feeling reading Camus as I get reading Nietzsche.

E.g people who are unwilling to deal with futility, and have to create some fiction for themselves to cope with existing.

Babby's first existentialist thought
Absurdism says nothing other than what every other person has already reflected on since childhood.

Albert Camus was just obsessed with being part of the circle and made a half-assed attempt at making a version of existentialism. All so he could smoke cigarettes while looking intellectual and shag from it.
His philosophy is likewise for people who just want to smoke cigarettes and speak of "the absurdity of life" in order to look intellectual and shag from it.
It's nothing meaningful. It truly is pseudo-intellectual circlejerking.

>>1333191

I think his philosophical novels spoke more than his essays did. Good novels btw.

>>1333191
To live, day by day, for tomorrow we die

Absurdism isn't really valuable but it's quite aesthetic.

>>1334371
Kind of agreed. Camus was a solid writer, but not really a brilliant philosopher.

The real brilliance of the movement lays in thinkers like heidegger, kierkegaard and in my opinion the most brilliant, sartre.

"existence precedes essence" will always be the most crucial thing that the existentialists left to philosophy.

here is a lecture by sartre that introduces existentialism well, as an actual philosophy. Camus only ever skims the important questions and just makes them aesthetic. Sartre and Heidegger do.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm

>>1334290
What if I told you Stirnerian egoism and existentalism aren't mutually exclusive?