4 ms·

Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. Unlimited, pure freedom does not exist and hence the absolute Free Will. It is an empty concept.

by lngnmn 10y ago

Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. Unlimited, pure freedom does not exist and hence the absolute Free Will. It is an empty concept. Freedom is bound by the mind, the mind is bound by biology. Biology is bound by physics and other constraints of the environment. The Universe of Ideas is mere a hallucination. Suicide as an ultimate act of freedom, which is the canonical illustration - the only freedom man have. Not much freedom, after all.

Cozumel 10y ago
Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)
- foreverarock 10y ago
  I think you are mistaken. At least from my reading of The Stranger I remember Camus stating suicide is a cowardly act. Wikipedia[1] states Camus viewed suicide as a rejection of freedom. Also the myth of sisyphus doesn't have much to do with suicide does it? I may be mistaken. I thought it was more of an analogy to the condition of man, not so much a suggestion to commit suicide to avoid it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide#Absurdism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide#Absurdis...
  - lbotos 10y ago
    Having just read Myth of Sisyphus, the first 3rd is essentially dedicated to the idea of suicide and how to process that choice in the face of "meaning".
- vga805 10y ago
  He said suicide is the most interesting and pressing philosophical question. The ultimate act of rebellion he seems to advise is to live free in the face of and with the full consciousness of the absurdity of this existence, like pushing a rock up a hill over and over again.
- wahern 10y ago
  I agree with the others. The way I like to put it is that the only true freedom is in the _choice_ of suicide. The corollary is that to find any meaning in life you have to first come to terms with that grim reality. If and how you come to terms with that reality shapes the meaning of your life. You can, of course, choose suicide. But then it's lights-out and so there's not much to discuss in that case. I don't think either Sartre or Camus saw suicide as cowardly, but maybe I'm wrong about that. As far as I see it, perceiving suicide as cowardly is sort of at odds with existentialist claim. If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all. (Of course, being animals with an intrinsic evolutionary predisposition to avoid death, suicide isn't much of a choice at all. Unless you're mentally ill, it's _really_ difficult to convince yourself to die. The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit. But I'm happy to adopt the existentialist conceit as I think existentialism says something profound and profoundly concise about how to find meaning in life.)
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    >"If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all." A cowardly choice is still a choice, it's still a possibility. Freedom is freedom to choose, it imposes no limits on what motivates you. Aside from this, cowardly doesn't seem to fit suicide, if we're going for negative connotations then self-absorbed seems more appropriate IMO. >"The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit." What do you mean by this? What freedom do you feel you lack?
    - wahern 10y ago
      One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom. But the limitation I was specifically referring too was that suicide isn't like other personal choices because your body and mind act in concert against self-agency. And thank goodness that they do, but the point is that like infants we're trapped in an environment that is constitutionally hostile to any capacity for killing ourselves. I do agree that a cowardly choice is still a choice, and that existentialism doesn't preclude seeing suicide as cowardly. But what does cowardly mean? Why might it be relevant to questions of freedom? And if relevant, how? Those are big question that hint at 1) another aspect to our rationality and self-agency, namely how they're culturally informed and intertwined with considerations of others' opinions, desires, and needs; and more generally 2) that a definition of freedom implicates other questions about the source and function of morality wrt rationality and agency. I don't think existentialism is particularly concerned with those questions. They're not really within it's ambit. Camus and Sartre had different, even contradictory, moral philosophies even though both were authentically existentialist.
dylanfw 10y ago
> Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. It's interesting that you begin with a comment like this to seemingly dismiss Satre and Camus as not being real philosophers, and then you proceed to put forward your own terribly unfounded philosophy with no supporting argument.
- lngnmn 10y ago
  Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style. Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences. Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism. Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too and the branch which is called philosophy of science. Camus and Sartre have nothing to contribute here.
  - pfortuny 10y ago
    There cannot be a "flaw" in a sequence of statements which do not form a silogism. There is no flaw in your logic because there is no logic.
    - lngnmn 10y ago
      No one writes in formal way on a discussion board. Which statement in particular you personally do not like?
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    dylanfw showed you a flaw in your facts. Sartre and Camus were in fact philosophers by any reasonable definition of the word. Or rather, dylanfw claimed a flaw in your "facts". But your claim - that they were not philosophers - was just a claim, with no supporting reason given. It can be dismissed just as easily (and with more justice). And, dylanfw said "... with no supporting argument". He/she can'd dismiss your logic because there is no logic - just some dogmatic claims, with no support whatsoever. > Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the west, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract speculations, similar to theology. With Hegel, philosophy became irrational. For a good explanation, see "Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer. > Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too. You think that Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why?
entropyneur 10y ago
What qualifies one to count as a philosopher in your opinion? I don't know about Camus, but I'm pretty sure Sartre has produced at least as much purely philosophical works as works of literature and is universally considered one of the most important philosophers of 20th century. The nonexistence of absolute free will does not make it a useless concept just like the nonexistence of "absolute" solid bodies doesn't make "solid body" a useless concept.
woodandsteel 10y ago
>Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. Philosophy is generally defined as explicit thought about the most fundamental issues. That is what the two of them did, so they were by definition philosophers. I think what you are meaning to argue is that they were poor philosophers.

by lngnmn 10y ago

Cozumel 10y ago

Camus said the only freedom is suicide. (The Myth of Sisyphus)

foreverarock 10y ago
I think you are mistaken. At least from my reading of The Stranger I remember Camus stating suicide is a cowardly act. Wikipedia[1] states Camus viewed suicide as a rejection of freedom. Also the myth of sisyphus doesn't have much to do with suicide does it? I may be mistaken. I thought it was more of an analogy to the condition of man, not so much a suggestion to commit suicide to avoid it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide#Absurdism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_suicide#Absurdis...
- lbotos 10y ago
  Having just read Myth of Sisyphus, the first 3rd is essentially dedicated to the idea of suicide and how to process that choice in the face of "meaning".
vga805 10y ago
He said suicide is the most interesting and pressing philosophical question. The ultimate act of rebellion he seems to advise is to live free in the face of and with the full consciousness of the absurdity of this existence, like pushing a rock up a hill over and over again.
wahern 10y ago
I agree with the others. The way I like to put it is that the only true freedom is in the _choice_ of suicide. The corollary is that to find any meaning in life you have to first come to terms with that grim reality. If and how you come to terms with that reality shapes the meaning of your life. You can, of course, choose suicide. But then it's lights-out and so there's not much to discuss in that case. I don't think either Sartre or Camus saw suicide as cowardly, but maybe I'm wrong about that. As far as I see it, perceiving suicide as cowardly is sort of at odds with existentialist claim. If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all. (Of course, being animals with an intrinsic evolutionary predisposition to avoid death, suicide isn't much of a choice at all. Unless you're mentally ill, it's _really_ difficult to convince yourself to die. The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit. But I'm happy to adopt the existentialist conceit as I think existentialism says something profound and profoundly concise about how to find meaning in life.)
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  >"If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all." A cowardly choice is still a choice, it's still a possibility. Freedom is freedom to choose, it imposes no limits on what motivates you. Aside from this, cowardly doesn't seem to fit suicide, if we're going for negative connotations then self-absorbed seems more appropriate IMO. >"The lack of freedom in this world is actually much more grim than even existentialists wish to admit." What do you mean by this? What freedom do you feel you lack?
  - wahern 10y ago
    One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom. But the limitation I was specifically referring too was that suicide isn't like other personal choices because your body and mind act in concert against self-agency. And thank goodness that they do, but the point is that like infants we're trapped in an environment that is constitutionally hostile to any capacity for killing ourselves. I do agree that a cowardly choice is still a choice, and that existentialism doesn't preclude seeing suicide as cowardly. But what does cowardly mean? Why might it be relevant to questions of freedom? And if relevant, how? Those are big question that hint at 1) another aspect to our rationality and self-agency, namely how they're culturally informed and intertwined with considerations of others' opinions, desires, and needs; and more generally 2) that a definition of freedom implicates other questions about the source and function of morality wrt rationality and agency. I don't think existentialism is particularly concerned with those questions. They're not really within it's ambit. Camus and Sartre had different, even contradictory, moral philosophies even though both were authentically existentialist.

dylanfw 10y ago

> Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. It's interesting that you begin with a comment like this to seemingly dismiss Satre and Camus as not being real philosophers, and then you proceed to put forward your own terribly unfounded philosophy with no supporting argument.

lngnmn 10y ago
Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style. Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences. Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism. Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too and the branch which is called philosophy of science. Camus and Sartre have nothing to contribute here.
- pfortuny 10y ago
  There cannot be a "flaw" in a sequence of statements which do not form a silogism. There is no flaw in your logic because there is no logic.
  - lngnmn 10y ago
    No one writes in formal way on a discussion board. Which statement in particular you personally do not like?
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  dylanfw showed you a flaw in your facts. Sartre and Camus were in fact philosophers by any reasonable definition of the word. Or rather, dylanfw claimed a flaw in your "facts". But your claim - that they were not philosophers - was just a claim, with no supporting reason given. It can be dismissed just as easily (and with more justice). And, dylanfw said "... with no supporting argument". He/she can'd dismiss your logic because there is no logic - just some dogmatic claims, with no support whatsoever. > Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the west, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract speculations, similar to theology. With Hegel, philosophy became irrational. For a good explanation, see "Escape From Reason" by Francis Schaeffer. > Fortunately, there is Eastern philosophy too. You think that Eastern philosophy isn't abstract speculation, similar to theology? Why?

entropyneur 10y ago

What qualifies one to count as a philosopher in your opinion? I don't know about Camus, but I'm pretty sure Sartre has produced at least as much purely philosophical works as works of literature and is universally considered one of the most important philosophers of 20th century. The nonexistence of absolute free will does not make it a useless concept just like the nonexistence of "absolute" solid bodies doesn't make "solid body" a useless concept.

woodandsteel 10y ago

>Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. Philosophy is generally defined as explicit thought about the most fundamental issues. That is what the two of them did, so they were by definition philosophers. I think what you are meaning to argue is that they were poor philosophers.