Literally everyone who says Camus' books are crappy have only read one of his books (The Stranger) and translated to English.
Just pick up The Fall. The whole thing is just a beautiful monologue. It's brilliant, even in English.
>>8093086
Sartre is smart. Camus is a poo.
>>8093331
Sartre is shit and a tankie.
Camus was good man anarchist, most sensible existentialist.
>>8094897
Camus was an anarchist? I always thought he was very hard to pin down politically, which if I'm not mistaken had a lot to do with why he split with Sartre.
>>8093086
Read myth of Sisyphus and it made me more suicidal. Sure its one thing to live with the absurd but what about negative utility? How are we supposed to countenance that!
>>8094920
Utilitarianism is dumb as fuck that's how.
>>8094980
*nod*
the plague was ok
the stranger was ok
still need to read the rebel
never heard of the fall, will check out. thanks op
>>8094980
What about epicureanism?
>>8095021
hedonism is a distraction from other aspects of ego, if that's what you mean
>>8095030
Free will is a spook
>>8095021
epicurean is ultimately egoist hedonism, not utilitarianism. it actively prescribes refraining from politics and society in general so that you can chill
>>8095057
who cares?
>>8093331
>Sartre rhymes with smart
Camus is at least damn close to rhyming with poo, but Sartre and smart? No.
>>8095214
Well me for one, if I am seriously expected to indulge in the masochistic idea of viewing myself in terms of a metric aside from personal comfort.
>>8095214
If self-determination is a spook then the ego needs be a spook as well
>>8093331
Sartre is Fartre
>>8094920
>what about negative utility? How are we supposed to countenance that!
By believing in a power higher than self.
:^)
>>8093086
I actually prefered La mort heureuse to The Stranger. I thought the message was much clearer and the main character far more relatable. Yet it's always seen as a first draft of The Stranger.
danger and play is what women are and want [they want play] and men want women, but only because women are the ultimate danger and play thing. This is nice, but you can reach a life beyond this.
once you understand that men are not meant to be as good hedonist as women, you first acknowledge the superiority of women at the hedonistic life (which is just called life by men and women) and you see the misery of hedonism, either the direct hedonism of the woman, or the nihilistic fantasy of the delayed hedonism of the man [the one that men advocate for, the one about engaging yourself into challenges after challenges, seeking merit, pursuing your passions, in one word still clinging to entertainment (typically to attract women sooner or later) to better turn away from their impotency at the hedonistic life..] created by men once they get beat by women.
Once you see the game as well as the noneffective masculine life, you lose faith in hedonism. At this point, you either see the solution or not {Nietzsche did not see it, or rather he did not claim explicitly that he saw it]: you strive to do the exact opposite of hedonism (either the masculine one or the feminine one): first you stop being nihilistic, in accepting what you are (it is crucial to be sincere about the starting point], meaning a worm, and in stopping to analyze the past to get a better future (= the strategy of men, which remains inside hedonism (even though they claim that it is not, and in practice is is clearly not), but even more nihilistic than the feminine hedonism, once they are beaten by women] and in stopping to take what you desire, feel and think seriously [=the hedonism of the woman, and the fueling of this hedonism by men].
Women are wrong for having faith in what they desire, in thinking that this is relevant to ones life
they are a bit wrong to let men spend their life trying to serve women
Men are wrong to try to play with women, which is just serving women
men are wrong, after being defeated, to be resentful towards women
men are wrong to think, after being defeated, that the solution is to be even more nihilistic than women
The lack of efficacy of the masculine life leads to a narcissism (contrary to men), but without egotism (contrary to women), a more equanimous and benevolent stance towards what is desired, felt and thought. At this point, you stop looking at hedonism of the body [=the feminine hedonism], turn towards hedonism of the soul [what religious call it], spirit, consciousness [what buddhists call it] [=the hedonism of the mild ascetic, the hedonism that most men fail to see and the one that women love to think that they embody (women love to think that they are not as egotistic as they are, that they embody a humanist stance)] and then you understand that even this is doomed to be disappointing, so you refuse it until you stop caring about this one too.
>literally everyone who says Camus' books are crappy have only read one of his books and translated to English
That's my opinion and I've read his entire work in French. So…?
>>8096922
>I've read his entire work in French.
Sure you have
>>8095030
you retaerd
epicureanism -> hedonism?
hav you ever read epicurus
1/10
>>8097349
You are so wrong it makes me hurt inside. The whole point of Epicureanism, literally the whole point, is that pleasure is the only good, and the best way of pursuing it is through the aiming for the static pleasures, avoiding active pleasures that bring negative consequences, armed with a practical wisdom that he sets out. Jesus Christ have you reap Epicures? REEEEEEEEEEE
>>8096956
not everyone is American on this board
>>8094897
Camus was a selfish piece of shit as a human being. I admit he wasn't as much of an asshole as pedo rapist Sartre though.
>>8096913
Where is this from - the content interests me.
(If you wrote it, do away with the long and even nested brackets. A full independent sentence structure within a bracket makes you forget your location in the sentence structure in the original/outer sentence.)
I see no clear argument against a type of hedonism, btw. You maybe say it leads to nothing or a disappointment, but as a man in this society, putting in some effort just to prevent suffering (think of health insurance) determines some necessary goal.
(And don't tell me I out to let go a viewing physical pain as something to avoid.)
So you have to get somewhere anyway, and thus doing it while enyoing it ("following your passions") is clearly a logical path.
africa has monkeys
europe has french people
>>8095011
I thought The Plague was awesome, it changed my image of Camus a lot. The Stranger is a book that has too much subtext, and not enough actual text.
>>8097858
Camus is literally from Africa mate, I'm pretty sure your point fizzled
>>8097858
But monkeys are better than niggers. Does this mean that the French are better than other Euros then?
>>8097867
He's a Jew. Like all Jews he's from nowhere and everywhere.
>>8096760
No because the revelation that free will is an absurdity brings about an understanding that the only ethical systems that matter are those based on furthering comfort, whether it be for the individual or group. Therefore epicureanism and utilitarianism become systems of objective good because ambiguity and subjectivity simply fail to assert themselves as meta-narratives.
>>8096770
I do believe in a higher power and I can only imagine that if anything his ultimate vision for us is to have the humility to voluntarily extinguish ourselves. But its probably most accurate to assume deism.
>>8098081
>Nietzsche
>Higher power
>Voluntarily extinguish ourselves
>Deism
What the actual fuck am I reading? How could you possibly get any of that from Nietzsche? Those things are all antipathetic to his philosophy.
>>8098131
Who gives a fuck about Nietzsche? I sure don't. A clever obscurantist of Schopenhauer
>>8095230
Not at all. Neither is a good match but smart is muuuch closer to Sartre than poo is to Camus.
t. French speaker
boiomp
>>8098608
>States things that are outrageously wrong
>Gets called on it
>Responds with who gives a fuck about being accurate
One day Timmy you might just graduate middle school.
>>8095230
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
>>8093331
>Sartre
Smart but with an eternal inferiority complex only worsened by his relationship with Camus
>>8093086
How is The Stranger bad?
>>8100027
No, I just didn't see how I attempted to reconcile my argument with Nietzsche so I went to the extreme of saying I don't even give a shitnabout him which is not exactly true but certainly simplified the matter of expressing my ambivalence family. He's certainly not just automatically 'right' he's not even fully coherent.
I read The First Man a few weeks ago. It was gud, very comfy at times, great ending.
