what's /his/'s opinions on absurdism? do you think life has an inherit meaning?
I always thought that from a biological standpoint the meaning of life is simply to contribute to the gene pool. As far as a deeper spiritual meaning I believe that their is no one inherit meaning of life. I like to think it's up to the individual to decide what their life means to them and pursue goals based upon that.
>>953894
Life has no meaning, we're just existing molds of flesh and bone.
>>953900
> molds of flesh and bone.
So is my dick yet your mum found it meaningful last night
>>953894
I find that "meaning" is a word that means "what is meant or intended to be conveyed by something" or "what is intended for something". I believe humans are the only ones able able to convey messages or intentions, so, ergo, life has no *inherent* meaning. For some reason people think this is depressing, and it should stop there, but I just said humans are the ones who have intentions. I see life as a blank canvas devoid of anything until the individual "paints" it with meaning. Just because there's nothing there doesn't mean there can't be.
Life probably has no meaning, and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't need one.
>>953905
Go away, narcissist.
>>953894
>absurdism
>inherit meaning
babbys first existential etc
I was going to say that if absurdism had any merit, other people besides Camus would have developed it, but maybe its fading away is an appropriately absurd outcome???
>always thought that from a biological standpoint the meaning of life is simply to contribute to the gene pool.
Why is it that you, along with what appears to be millions of other people, simply cannot understand the basics of natural selection?
there is no teleology behind natural selection, organisms do not have a 'goal' of contributing to the gene pool, they don't even know what either is
why can't you understand this concept?
it's just that, those organisms which survive and reproduce, are more likely to have copies or their genes show up in subsequent generations. those organisms which don't, aren't likely.
and so when we look at the organisms around us (which ARE the subsequent generations) what we see is profoundly biased. it appears that all organisms have this 'goal' of reproducing, it appears like evolution is a guided and designed process. but that is merely an illusion. evolution is totally blind, without goals or ends, without purpose. what we aren't seeing in the organisms around us, are all those millions and millions of organisms which weren't, through pure chance, given genes which code for reproduction or 'contributing to their species gene pool' to put it poetically.
and so it appears to us that all organisms have a biological purpose to reproduce. but as I have no explained, this is merely an illusion.
>>953894
Everything else I experience is in my head, why not meaning.
>>953914
Absurdism didn't really catch on in philosophy, but it was a big hit in literature and theater.
>>953894
>look mom, I'm an existensialist now!
>>954839
>mfw absurdist theatre
>>955081
>Rosencrantz and Guildenstern will never peacefully live to old age
>>953930
On top of that you have other behaviors like altruism that propagate "your" genes without actually contributing to the gene pool yourself. Social insects are a textbook example of that.
And then there's the fact that not reproducing is just as "meaningful" as reproducing. If you're ugly, ill, crippled, depressed, homosexual and/or lacking a sex drive, it's quite natural that your genes won't be passed on any time soon. You're never sinning against the natural order by having or failing to have kids.
Telling people who can't or don't want to reproduce that they should be reproducing because "that's the meaning of life" is the same as cloning a baby born without a head because nature demands we spread our genes or whatever.
>>953905
BTFO
>>953894
That's existentialism familla
>>953894
>do you think life has an inherit meaning?
No because asking for meaning from life is a is/ought gap failure.
![friedrich-nietzsche-by-peindreencatalogne[137322].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/7pLJWPQ.jpg "friedrich-nietzsche-by-peindreencatalogne[137322].jpg")
It's about as credible a position as objectivism. That is non-philosophers trying to be philosophers.
Mememus should be banned from schools and they should teach this guy instead.
>>953905
lol
I just finished reading myth of sisyphus and found it quite recondite.
Although I agree with his absurdist premises (of an unintelligible world) I don't entirely agree with how he deduced the consequences:
1. revolt
2. passion
3. freedom
from a cautiously absurd philosophy. he repeatedly emphasizes in the importance of the struggle and how we must endure the hopelessness because only in that struggle can we ever attempt to find meaning even though we never will. and that is enough for anyone, it is enough to fill an individual's (sisyphus) heart with happiness and why we must think of sisyphus as happy?
Did I get that right?^
I however do not clearly see his justification for an self-admittedly failing plan.
The second half of the book was really difficult for me. Did anyone else feel this way?
>>956034
bump?
