STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I thought existential angst was getting what you want but still feeling empty? Your problem sounds like you aren't looking in the right places. Experiential and not existential.
There's no "out;" you're in the darkness and that's that.
I think I got it now. By the way for those that have helped me, go **** yourselves:
Not to take this in the wrong direction and not to get into a long philosophical discussion, but one of the things I'm always amazed about is how existentialism is often connected directly with "angst" or "nausea" or being depressing. This really isn't the case, unless one is misreading their Sartre (or, reading too much into their overly-lyrical Camus).Originally Posted by rach2jlc
Get laid, smoke a cigarette.
Only if you are the type to need the approval or admiration of others.
What do you mean Camus made it out? He criticized past existentialists for offering any hope.
Absurdism is to become aware of one's absurd situation and do nothing in reaction. There's no "out;" you're in the darkness and that's that. The only difference is that you're aware that you're in the dark, perhaps with scorn and contempt.
As for the Republic, I'm not sure how political theory will be helpful for the OP, unless you expect him to buy into antiquated quasi-religious concepts.
Camus of The Stranger is different from the later Camus of The Chute.
But position taken in the last sentence goes beyond nihilism. That's a power move. And power is not nothing. Scorn and contempt are the cheap, adolescent ways we try to convince ourselves we are of value.
We are political animals...
At the 0:37 mark. I think I got it now. By the way for those that have helped me, go **** yourselves: (added new tag)
...Nevertheless, if I had to make a recommendation, I'd say skip over the Sartre AND the Camus and go straight on to Merleau-Ponty. ... ...So, while working on your mental outlook, this is why I also recommended balancing it with working on your physical outlook. Go sign up for kickboxing classes or something. Or, as another user mentioned, go get laid. Maybe more than once.
...I think one has to consider the context of the absurd revelation and existential crisis for many people. In the pre-absurd condition, people often leave the foundations of their own beliefs unexamined and are unconscious of them as such. To them, those beliefs not only play a major part in their own identity but the external world around them as well. Though they may claim otherwise out of politeness or mindless dogmatism, their way is 'the' way at the end of the day.
Then they find out Santa isn't real. I think it's worth noting that this isn't limited to major religions, but also ideals unintentionally modeled after Platonic forms. Even if the end result is more happiness for the absurd man, such a revelation isn't usually an easy one to deal with.
"There is no meaning to life, except that which we create."
"Because we experience subjectivity at all times, we are in no position to determine whether or not our subjective experience has value beyond that which we create. We have little to no grounds for believing otherwise; besides, what could be gained even if we did believe otherwise? We should focus on the meanings that we create."
"The most profound sentence ever written, Temple said with enthusiasm, is the sentence at the end of the zoology. Reproduction is the beginning of death."
Read Stefan Zweig’s ‘World of Yesterday’. Seriously, reading about his passion is amazingly uplifting.
I'm going to take issue with the latter, rather than the former, as I think it relates more immediately to the existential discussion at hand. I think those questions you mention and the terminology they use are too muddled and confused to be productive. It presupposes that 'good' denotes something beyond 'effective' or 'useful in acheiving [blank],' that a true ideal happiness, let alone an achievable one, is something beyond a fancy. You wouldn't call something truly orange, after all?
I'm unfamiliar with The Chute, only Stranger and Myth.
I think I would call something truly orange. I'm no Platonic idealist.
I think good does denote something beyond usefullness/effectiveness, and I think that you would agree. Or, for example, is your mother good only to the extent that she is useful?
I'm assuming this is a reference to "La Chute," what is usually translated in the English editions as "The Fall."