26
   

what is the beggining of philosophy?

 
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 03:06 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:


hmmm...i felt like my first post in this thread sounded pretty pompous and pretentious. i'm afraid my follow-up isn't much better. Sorry to derail the thread further.
Not at all! I appreciated your post.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
I was not pretending to discuss Camus's reasons for his view. For those interested in that, I recommend reading the book. But, that there is no good reason for committing suicide because there is no good reason for doing any particular thing, is certainly the "bottom line" of what Camus is arguing. And that is all I even pretended to present. Even in the face of profundity, it is well to try to understand what the main point of the profundity is. Else, one may miss the point and be left holding the profundity. (Although I am sure some people would not mind that, and maybe think that the profundity was the main point. Those are people who don't care what a writer says (or even whether he says anything much at all) just as long as he says it profoundly.


Well, given your response, i have to say that you have missed the point of the profundity, and your summary summary certainly does not accurately represent the "bottom line" argument that Camus' presents. In my previous post, i attempted to correct your misinterpretation of Camus' point by qualifying it via a more in-depth synopsis of the text. Your mistake is an easy one to make if you do not recognize the significance of his distinction between value and meaning. If you'd like my summary of his argument re: our discussion, i'd say that the "bottom line" statement that summarizes The Myth of Sisyphus is this: "The value of a human life exceeds the value of the meanings attributed to it." I don't expect you to understand any of the above--after all, Albert Camus was not writing in English. Perhaps you would have to speak French in order to get it.

However, i don't even feel that my above statement is an adequate summary formulation. Camus' writing style reminds me of Rousseau's; while the text pretends to be an essay, it is actually a subtle arrangement of aphorisms, defying any simplistic summing up. Or perhaps, given Montaigne's own writing style, that is precisely what an essay is.

After all of that, though, i have to say that in your first post addressing me you were not pretending to present anything substantive regarding Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, since you posed your summary in the form of a question. If you did not want to start a discussion, then you need to refrain from passive-aggressive sniping on the internet. Otherwise, your interlocutor is likely to take your dismissive faux-questions seriously, and begin the explanation that you only pretended to request.

To finish this (again very off-topic) post, i have to admit that i am on your side in the foregoing spelling controversy. i tend to like Goshisdead, via his contributions to the forum (i'm a big fan of his posts), and i tend not to like you, via yours. But i think your original post re: the matter of signifier/signified distinctions, was a rebuke against Render, mocking his mockery of RL's thread title. Unfortunately, your refusal to take the opportunity to point this out to Gosh is just another disappointing example of your relish of conflict, rather than an interest in open discussion. I don't know how you perceive your own contributions to this forum, whether you see them as somehow privileged statements from an unassailable position or as the only reasonable set of statements (both of which, i suppose, come to much the same thing.) But when you pick pointless fights the way you do, it tends to come off as emotionally stunted and intellectually crippled. You are obviously not stupid, but very comfortable, in a certain philosophical setting, however, your reaction when confronted with your own ignorance tends to manifest itself as a sort of virulent intellectual xenophobia, and that is not likely to be persuasive to anyone with reservations regarding your point-of-view. Something to think about.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 11:16 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna wrote:

Razzleg wrote:


hmmm...i felt like my first post in this thread sounded pretty pompous and pretentious. i'm afraid my follow-up isn't much better. Sorry to derail the thread further.
Not at all! I appreciated your post.


Thanks! i felt like my original post kind of pretentiously dismissed the phrasing of the original question, in order to bring to the fore my own interpretative re-phrasing of it. i love philosophy, and i feel like it can "begin" just about anywhere, depending on the individual. But i do think that there are certain fundamental areas at which philosophy begins to assume a more than personal significance, and that is what i wanted to point out. I think that RL's question is a valuable one, and i felt that the way i phrased my first answer represented a sort of back-handed response.

Sorry, reasoning logic, both for the possible stand-offish tone of my original response, and for continuing to respond to Ken's tangent instead of furthering your original question.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 01:01 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

But i think your original post re: the matter of signifier/signified distinctions, was a rebuke against Render, mocking his mockery of RL's thread title.


So used to the literalistic sledgehammer bating that I didn't even notice that there might have been subtlety involved. Cool
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 01:46 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
I was not pretending to discuss Camus's reasons for his view. For those interested in that, I recommend reading the book. But, that there is no good reason for committing suicide because there is no good reason for doing any particular thing, is certainly the "bottom line" of what Camus is arguing. And that is all I even pretended to present. Even in the face of profundity, it is well to try to understand what the main point of the profundity is. Else, one may miss the point and be left holding the profundity. (Although I am sure some people would not mind that, and maybe think that the profundity was the main point. Those are people who don't care what a writer says (or even whether he says anything much at all) just as long as he says it profoundly.


Well, given your response, i have to say that you have missed the point of the profundity, and your summary summary certainly does not accurately represent the "bottom line" argument that Camus' presents. In my previous post, i attempted to correct your misinterpretation of Camus' point by qualifying it via a more in-depth synopsis of the text. Your mistake is an easy one to make if you do not recognize the significance of his distinction between value and meaning. If you'd like my summary of his argument re: our discussion, i'd say that the "bottom line" statement that summarizes The Myth of Sisyphus is this: "The value of a human life exceeds the value of the meanings attributed to it." I don't expect you to understand any of the above--after all, Albert Camus was not writing in English. Perhaps you would have to speak French in order to get it.

However, i don't even feel that my above statement is an adequate summary formulation. Camus' writing style reminds me of Rousseau's; while the text pretends to be an essay, it is actually a subtle arrangement of aphorisms, defying any simplistic summing up. Or perhaps, given Montaigne's own writing style, that is precisely what an essay is.

After all of that, though, i have to say that in your first post addressing me you were not pretending to present anything substantive regarding Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, since you posed your summary in the form of a question. If you did not want to start a discussion, then you need to refrain from passive-aggressive sniping on the internet. Otherwise, your interlocutor is likely to take your dismissive faux-questions seriously, and begin the explanation that you only pretended to request.

To finish this (again very off-topic) post, i have to admit that i am on your side in the foregoing spelling controversy. i tend to like Goshisdead, via his contributions to the forum (i'm a big fan of his posts), and i tend not to like you, via yours. But i think your original post re: the matter of signifier/signified distinctions, was a rebuke against Render, mocking his mockery of RL's thread title. Unfortunately, your refusal to take the opportunity to point this out to Gosh is just another disappointing example of your relish of conflict, rather than an interest in open discussion. I don't know how you perceive your own contributions to this forum, whether you see them as somehow privileged statements from an unassailable position or as the only reasonable set of statements (both of which, i suppose, come to much the same thing.) But when you pick pointless fights the way you do, it tends to come off as emotionally stunted and intellectually crippled. You are obviously not stupid, but very comfortable, in a certain philosophical setting, however, your reaction when confronted with your own ignorance tends to manifest itself as a sort of virulent intellectual xenophobia, and that is not likely to be persuasive to anyone with reservations regarding your point-of-view. Something to think about.


Something to think about.

It certainly would be if you could make a case for it instead of simply asserting, with no evidence, that it is true.

It so happens that I do read French, but wouldn't it be unfortunate if Camus could not speak to those who did not read French. I cannot read ancient Greek (I don't know whether you can) but I think I understand Plato and Aristotle. I did not think that philosophers spoke only to those who could read the language they wrote in.

the matter of signifier/signified distinctions, was a rebuke against Render, mocking his mockery of RL's thread title. Unfortunately, your refusal to take the opportunity to point this out to Gosh is just another disappointing example of your relish of conflict, rather than an interest in open discussion.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at. I don't recall Render's posts, and thus have no idea what you can possibly be talking about. So your assumption that I "refused' to point out something or other (whatever it was you think that Render said) is obviously false, and unsupported. Therefore, any conclusion you draw from this false and unsupported assumption can have no merit.

You do follow what I have just written, don't you?

But I can see how you would like Gosh's posts. They too contain unsupported assertions innocent of any logic.
Razzleg
 
  2  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 02:53 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
Something to think about.

It certainly would be if you could make a case for it instead of simply asserting, with no evidence, that it is true.

It so happens that I do read French, but wouldn't it be unfortunate if Camus could not speak to those who did not read French. I cannot read ancient Greek (I don't know whether you can) but I think I understand Plato and Aristotle. I did not think that philosophers spoke only to those who could read the language they wrote in.

the matter of signifier/signified distinctions, was a rebuke against Render, mocking his mockery of RL's thread title. Unfortunately, your refusal to take the opportunity to point this out to Gosh is just another disappointing example of your relish of conflict, rather than an interest in open discussion.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at. I don't recall Render's posts, and thus have no idea what you can possibly be talking about. So your assumption that I "refused' to point out something or other (whatever it was you think that Render said) is obviously false, and unsupported. Therefore, any conclusion you draw from this false and unsupported assumption can have no merit.

You do follow what I have just written, don't you?

But I can see how you would like Gosh's posts. They too contain unsupported assertions innocent of any logic.


Haha--i follow what you have written very well.

i am glad you read French. Despite studying each for several years apiece, at this point, i have only a skeletal remembrance of Ancient Greek and French vocabulary. i have great faith, because i must i'm afraid, in the efficacy of translation to communicate ideas. My remark regarding the language barrier was just a little snarky comment directed towards your oft proclaimed deafness regarding philosophical statements not phrased in what you pretend is "proper" English.

As far as making an argument defending my statements about 1.) your misinterpretation of The Myth of Sisyphus and 2.) your infantile version of intellectuality: i feel little need to make such an argument, since you are far more effective at making my argument for me. Due to my laziness, the truth of my statements will simply have to be "proven" by my never being wrong on these matters.

And regarding the spelling issue, the post to which i referred (wherein you correct Render) is quoted below (from page 2 of this thread):

kennethamy wrote:

Render wrote:

Well you could start by spelling beginning right.


Don't you mean "beginning"? Since beginning is not a word, it cannot be spelled at all.


Your ensuing argument with Gosh could have been avoided if you had taken the time to point out that you were remonstrating the grammar/spelling nazi, not sympathizing with him. But i suppose that both the response to Render and the following conflict with Gosh were both nothing but divergent examples of the same phenomenon: your plain, cussed need to disagree with the first available non-kennethamy-conforming statement.

i have been described, and have subsequently described myself, as a born contrarian. i confess, you out-do me in this regard. On the one hand, i have to salute your firm, albeit misguided, resolve to argue with anyone, but i also have to say that you make me feel a little sad. (No no, i'm aware that my emotional state is of little concern to you.) Your decision to argue with anyone seems to make you incapable of discerning who is worth arguing with in a given situation, and it has also apparently robbed you of any self-critical capacity.

i am sure you still have no idea what i am getting at. i would invite you to re-read this entire thread so that my point could be amply demonstrated, but i am sure that doing so would have little effect. if you'd like, you could employ your French to produce a more detailed refutation of my interpretation of Camus' philosophy, but i'd like to ask you to make a new thread if you are interested in doing so. i'm sure we've taken up too much of reasoning logic's space.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 06:59 am
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

kennethamy wrote:
Something to think about.

It certainly would be if you could make a case for it instead of simply asserting, with no evidence, that it is true.

It so happens that I do read French, but wouldn't it be unfortunate if Camus could not speak to those who did not read French. I cannot read ancient Greek (I don't know whether you can) but I think I understand Plato and Aristotle. I did not think that philosophers spoke only to those who could read the language they wrote in.

the matter of signifier/signified distinctions, was a rebuke against Render, mocking his mockery of RL's thread title. Unfortunately, your refusal to take the opportunity to point this out to Gosh is just another disappointing example of your relish of conflict, rather than an interest in open discussion.

Actually I have no idea what you are getting at. I don't recall Render's posts, and thus have no idea what you can possibly be talking about. So your assumption that I "refused' to point out something or other (whatever it was you think that Render said) is obviously false, and unsupported. Therefore, any conclusion you draw from this false and unsupported assumption can have no merit.

You do follow what I have just written, don't you?

But I can see how you would like Gosh's posts. They too contain unsupported assertions innocent of any logic.


Haha--i follow what you have written very well.

i am glad you read French. Despite studying each for several years apiece, at this point, i have only a skeletal remembrance of Ancient Greek and French vocabulary. i have great faith, because i must i'm afraid, in the efficacy of translation to communicate ideas. My remark regarding the language barrier was just a little snarky comment directed towards your oft proclaimed deafness regarding philosophical statements not phrased in what you pretend is "proper" English.

As far as making an argument defending my statements about 1.) your misinterpretation of The Myth of Sisyphus and 2.) your infantile version of intellectuality: i feel little need to make such an argument, since you are far more effective at making my argument for me. Due to my laziness, the truth of my statements will simply have to be "proven" by my never being wrong on these matters.

And regarding the spelling issue, the post to which i referred (wherein you correct Render) is quoted below (from page 2 of this thread):

kennethamy wrote:

Render wrote:

Well you could start by spelling beginning right.


Don't you mean "beginning"? Since beginning is not a word, it cannot be spelled at all.


Your ensuing argument with Gosh could have been avoided if you had taken the time to point out that you were remonstrating the grammar/spelling nazi, not sympathizing with him. But i suppose that both the response to Render and the following conflict with Gosh were both nothing but divergent examples of the same phenomenon: your plain, cussed need to disagree with the first available non-kennethamy-conforming statement.

i have been described, and have subsequently described myself, as a born contrarian. i confess, you out-do me in this regard. On the one hand, i have to salute your firm, albeit misguided, resolve to argue with anyone, but i also have to say that you make me feel a little sad. (No no, i'm aware that my emotional state is of little concern to you.) Your decision to argue with anyone seems to make you incapable of discerning who is worth arguing with in a given situation, and it has also apparently robbed you of any self-critical capacity.

i am sure you still have no idea what i am getting at. i would invite you to re-read this entire thread so that my point could be amply demonstrated, but i am sure that doing so would have little effect. if you'd like, you could employ your French to produce a more detailed refutation of my interpretation of Camus' philosophy, but i'd like to ask you to make a new thread if you are interested in doing so. i'm sure we've taken up too much of reasoning logic's space.


I never argue with (I think you must mean, " disagree with") anybody to says what is true, I disagree with those who say false (or silly) things like beginning is spelled so and so. That is just silly since beginning is not a word but what the word "beginning" refers to, and only words can be spelled either correctly or incorrectly. My criticism was nothing like the one you suggest it was. Indeed, I don't even understand what you believe my criticism was.

You are right about one thing. I have no idea what you are saying. You and Gosh have at least this in common: you struggle with the language, and neither of you is successful. More attention to trying to make what you say clear may help. You might want to start with your understanding of Camus' MOS and explain to me why, my admittedly brief summary of his argument is wrong. Here it is again:

1. There is no good reason for doing anything.
2. Committing suicide is doing something.

Therefore 3, there is no good reason to commit suicide.

That seems (more than ever) a neat and accurate summary of Camus' argument in the MOS. But you might want to mention what it is you think is wrong with it. (After all, you did not reject it in your first post to me. Indeed, you comment on it was "sort of", which would indicate that you thought it was correct, although it needed fleshing out, which I readily admit it does.
GoshisDead
 
  3  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 11:17 am
Good times.......... Good times
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 12:39 pm
@kennethamy,
Hi Ken!

I wasn't referring to your interpretation, merely the pointlessness of attacking a typo when there is a subject to discuss. My post was not directed at you, it was directed at the arrogant nature of the pedant.

IMO it is the subject that RL threaded that required attention, not the typo.

Journey well Ken!
Mark...
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 03:35 pm
@kennethamy,
Hi kennethamy and all the rest of you. I do not take kennethamy's response as a insult. I think that Ken gave a very good answer. He observed something that seem to be incorrect and pointed it out.
How is that a atack on someone who is trying to learn to be correct? I guess that If I was a person that did not like to learn to be correct that it could be offensive, but even so I do not think that it was kennethamy's intent.

Your quote [But, as I keep pointing out to you, beginning is not a word at all. Beginning is the start of something. It is "beginning" that is a word. Let me try to explain once again, by example. The word, "cat" is a word. Some of its properties are: it starts with the letter, 'c' ; it has four letters; it precedes the word, "dog" in the dictionary. On the other hand a cat is not a word. A cat has no letters. A cat is a mammal. A cat like milk. A cat climbs trees. A cat say "meow". Now, what could be more different from the word, "cat" then a cat? And what would be more different from the word, "beginning" than a beginning? Words and things are different from one another. And you seem to be confusing them. ]

I would still like to know what the fourth letter is in the word cat that I am not seeing. lol.

Just incase you all missed my responce to all of your replies I will repeat it again, I think you all are very wise. I really thought that a couple of you went above and beyond the call of duty with you excellent explanation's of the question that I asked. Thank you all for your replies.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 04:07 pm
@reasoning logic,
Gee, a lesson in kindergarten.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 05:08 pm
@reasoning logic,
reasoning logic wrote:

My opinion would be to know that you could be wrong. What is your opinion?

These words just do not seem to go to gather very well do they? [ know] that you could be [wrong]

The begining of philosophy is found in the discovery of mortality, usually, when near the begining of life we realize life is not ours to keep, that all the joys we know and the pain we endure are ultimately for nothing, unless we ourselves find the something which make it all worth while... The existential question is behind philosophy, and that path leads to morality, for being with meaning is only possible where we learn to live without doing harm to life, to the earth, to future generations, or to present humanity... One cannot have philosophy without the love...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 05:11 pm
@Razzleg,
Razzleg wrote:

Albert Camus wrote:
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest--whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories--comes afterward. These are games; one must first answer.

The moment or question that acts as one's introduction to philosophy is accidental, or perhaps, at best, incidental. The point at which one begins to address the origins of philosophy, rather than the moment of inception, holds greater interest for me. Given that, i like Camus' answer.

NB: i think that "to gather" works just as well as "together" in the context in which you used it, regardless of contemporary usage.

I tend to agree with Camus... Though paricide expresses it better since those who hate their own lives try to cut it off at the root...Suicide is a minor problem, easy when one denies the value of their own life... When people deny the value of all life based upon their own experience of life, then everyone is in danger, so murder, war, slavery, and exploitation in general all grow out of the devaluation of life that is so common to protestantism, and its bastard child, Capitalism... That is why thinking people cannot avoid the moral question, because when we take a person's life we do them small injury, but when we rob the meaning wholesale from people to have no more for ourselves we do an injury to all of humanity...It is very often difficult to scrounge meaning out of of desparate lives, but those who make other hate their lives, and curse their lives and wish for death when all we have is time and life are God's own criminals...

Living with misery and poverty does not create a better quality of person, but a worse quality...And I want you to think about it... Wars are fought by people who have suffered injustice and wish to export it... But it is rich people who for no better reason than boredom and the desire for adventure who start wars... Having money does not give them a greater appreciation for the lives their victims sacrifice, but less...They find their lives pitifully unbearable, and they look at the poor with contempt for suffering so much more for so much less...We all look at the old or maimed that way and say: I wouldn't want to live in that condition; but in that condition we might well want our lives even more... The inability to sympathize with humanity, to suffer the human condition with others and care for them, and love is a permanent barrier to philosophy... Most people have the ability... The question one might better ask is: What prevent philosophy for taking hold in a person's life??? The only knowledge a person starts with is natural knowledge, the basis of morality, the bond between humans beginning between mother and child...
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 06:33 pm
@Fido,
Wow Fido! Others have gave great explanations to the the question that I have asked and you have given an even more indepth understanding.
It sure would be nice if more people could also elaborate on the subject as you and others have done, even though you and others have answered the question with a intellect that is unimaginable to the common person.
Thank You and the rest of the others who have taken this subject as serious as you all have done.
0 Replies
 
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 02:45 am
@kennethamy,
Oh, Ken, i feel like a dog with a bone, i just can't let it go. i probably should, if i wanted value for my time. But i'm afraid that i feel compelled to answer you one last time in this thread. i'm not quite certain why you feel that "disagree" needs to be substituted for "argue", but i am going to take one last opportunity to disagree with you. If, once you conclude your reading of my post, you inexplicably feel that you have the upper hand, i encourage you to celebrate your superiority with silence. i'm afraid that the two of us have already occupied too much of this thread with our inappropriate exchange. However, even if you do not do so, i make you the promise that i will do so. This is my final post to this thread.

Heretofore, i have attempted to converse with you as i would another functional adult, i tend to be rather blunt, but that attempt does not seem to be particularly effective with you. i've noticed that you do everything in your power to drag people down to your own level. The following (in 2 parts) takes place on the level you have set:

Part the first (linguistic confusion):

kennethamy wrote:
I never argue with (I think you must mean, " disagree with") anybody to says what is true, I disagree with those who say false (or silly) things like beginning is spelled so and so. That is just silly since beginning is not a word but what the word "beginning" refers to, and only words can be spelled either correctly or incorrectly. My criticism was nothing like the one you suggest it was. Indeed, I don't even understand what you believe my criticism was.


On page 2 of the thread, when Render made fun of RL for his title's spelling error, you responded by pointing out his punctuation error. When one wants to discuss a word rather than the object to which the word refers, traditionally one puts quotation marks on either side of the written word to signify that intent. Render failed to conform to this guideline, and you subsequently pointed it out. i cannot say what your ultimate intent was, but (given that your comment was unsolicited) it seemed to be a pointed comment directed at Render, highlighting his own linguistic deficiencies in order to curtail any pretense to superiority he might be gloating in. When Gosh (quite understandably) misunderstood your intent, and accused you of being a spelling Nazi, you did not refer him to the context of your own comment. I cannot imagine, unless you are completely daft, that you were unaware of the confusion, given that it was a confusion created by your own somewhat ambiguous post. Rather than backtrack, and indicate the point at which the confusion erupted, and thus ameliorate it, you took advantage of the confusion to start another argument. I am sure that all of these events have not escaped your notice; but given your profession of ignorance, i am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps these subtleties have escaped you. But after being presented with them, are you capable of admitting that they took place? i'm curious, do you even read the posts to which you respond?

Part II (The Myth of Sisyphus):

kennethamy wrote:
...you struggle with the language, and neither of you is successful. More attention to trying to make what you say clear may help. You might want to start with your understanding of Camus' MOS and explain to me why, my admittedly brief summary of his argument is wrong. Here it is again:

1. There is no good reason for doing anything.
2. Committing suicide is doing something.

Therefore 3, there is no good reason to commit suicide.

That seems (more than ever) a neat and accurate summary of Camus' argument in the MOS. But you might want to mention what it is you think is wrong with it. (After all, you did not reject it in your first post to me. Indeed, you comment on it was "sort of", which would indicate that you thought it was correct, although it needed fleshing out, which I readily admit it does.


Well, to be pedantic, which seems appropriate at the kennethamy level, i didn't say that your original question was "sort of" correct. I made a noncommittal response to your summary by saying that it was "kind of" close to an accurate interpretation of the text. My intent was to signal that by making a few crucial corrections, your summary would not be entirely wrong. i take responsibility for that intent not being made clear. Clarifying it now, though, let me say that there was no unqualified affirmative component in any of the statements above, including the original one. And although i have take responsibility for the phrasing, i'm afraid that only an entirely inexperienced fumbler could deliberately read it otherwise.

Simply stated, your interpretation of Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus is incorrect because it bears no relation or resemblance to the original text. It does not take cognizance of his crucial distinction between value and meaning. Nor does it appreciate the terms in which the original essay is couched. Let us take a moment, and look more closely at your simple-minded syllogism:

kennethamy wrote:
1. There is no good reason for doing anything.
2. Committing suicide is doing something.
Therefore 3, there is no good reason to commit suicide.


Here are a few problems with your formulation as it regards Camus' text:

a) Your syllogism references living in a way that Camus clearly did not. He, rightly, did not identify living with doing.

b) Corollary--He did not identify "a reason for doing anything" with a reason for living, or the value of life.

c) Similarly, he did not deal with any wording as simplistic or reifying as "a reason for doing anything", which no one with any self-conscious experience could take seriously. (In part, because "a reason" implies a particular set of circumstances and a particular result. The very specific term "a reason" has no strict relation to the far more general term "any") The word "reason", in your usage of it, has been undermined from the start by the distinction he makes in the first few pages of the essay between meaning and value.

d.1) Your final statement: " there is no good reason for committing suicide" as a summary of the conclusion to Camus' argument is subject to several of the above criticisms, not the least of which is the disqualification of teleological determinations of living. Camus' conclusion seems far more akin to my summary (""The value of a human life exceeds the value of the meanings attributed to it.") than yours.

d.2) My entire defense of a proper interpretation of Camus' TMOS has been presented prior to this post. You have not taken any trouble to address it, so i assume that you are incapable of doing so. Nonetheless, I challenge you to attempt it, otherwise your protests will seem like mere feeble gestures of faux-superiority (so much more embarrassing than actual inferiority). Are you capable of constructing an interpretation via actual (and significant) passages from the text, versus your own poor recall of it?

All of the above has been undertaken with an interest in my seeming even marginally "understand-able" to you. Unfortunately for me, most of the onus of proof remains on you. You have tried to belittle me for making unsubstantiated statements. However, on the matter of Camus' meaning, it is you that have made nothing but statements without substantiating them. If you would like to back your own summary up, i invite you to reference the text. Otherwise, it would appear that you are just expressing your own prejudices, with no apparent relation to the essay as written.

Have you ever read Camus' text or have you only read the Cliff-notes? \

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken, in my previous posts in this thread i have attempted to cut through your usual bullshit. You may not continence this frankness, but i detect, by your manner, that you might be lonely, and conflict is the only form of interaction that your substantial mental defenses recognize. (Perhaps i am wrong, and your posts are the excrescence of an unusually full life. If that is the case, i apologize for wounding your dignity.) If, on the other hand, you are lonely and want company (even on the interwebz), you could find it here. You and i could be friends, but you have to stop pretending that i am an idiot. i have found, both on the internet and off, that disagreement is not necessarily an impediment to friendship.

i am afraid that you are once again going to say that you find my post confused, unintelligible, and then go on to intentionally misconstrue the all-too-clear language of my post by saying that i struggle with my own mother-tongue. If that is the case, i feel sorry for you. i am sure we will butt heads again, given your rigid and self-limited understanding of a human's experience of language and reality. i hope you appreciate that our conflict is not something i find enjoyable.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 04:04 am
@Razzleg,
you should read up on 'co-dependency' ;-)

0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 04:20 am
@Razzleg,
Kenneth is hard to talk to because he often gets hung up talking about language when philosophy calls that the second intention, as opposed to using language for life, the dynamic process of communication... I would like to spell and write better...I get in a big damned hurry and often leave whole sections of sentences out, and even say the opposite of what I intend on occasion... As a dynamic process, corrections can be made, and people can move on... Now, to my shame, I am a terrible speller... And I love the quality of a word that through spelling it can be traced, because language is history, and certain words entered our language at different times as a result of historical changes and conquests... But as text messages show, our words are sonograms... The written word conveys the sound and it is the sound that has the meaning, and for that reason, that many different words sound alike, that we must usually be careful with spelling... Otherwise, not... I should have been born with a spell check program... I am only as good as I am by practice, and out of a need to appear more educated and intelligent than I am... At heart is loneliness that craves affection and fears rejection... And, because my life has been strange to me, and has made me ask, and made me seek, and encouraged me to know, I now feel I have something to add... So words are just words... Do not let them become stumbling blocks to thought, but use them up...
RealEyes
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 04:29 am
The beginning of philosophy is a question; a phrased verse of patterned thoughts structured like a cup in hopes of gathering the essence of formless truth. Philosophy by itself is empty.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 06:43 am
@RealEyes,
Tale another shot at it, or get outa Dodge.

Consider: Philosophy is one of our arts, ways that traditionally have led us closer to truth by method... But no one can say philosophy is empty because it is a full time job for anyone who takes it on as a serious pursuit to free themselves of their cultural and religious prejudices... We never see truth but through some particular lens, and to correct for the flaws of the lense, and to keep the lense free of crap is the key behind the locked door... Philosophy has all the attraction of a lunatic asylum for the very reason that it is hard to do, difficult to manage, and generally fruitless... We all learn some in the process of trying to learn all... It is not just wasted time... But there is a valid reason why people tend to look at philosophers as deranged.. I never tell anyone I am a philosopher without being prepared for them thinking I am a nut... I am not chasing invisible butterflies with a fishing net...I am not holding up a cup like a blind man hoping some formless truth will fall in... In fact, were truth not a form, I could not find it, nor identify it... Though truth is not my main pursuit, anyway, but the moral... The lies we tell are entirely more intersting than the truth we can never seem to grasp...
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 09:39 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Philosophy is one of our arts


The above is a statement I agree with. No one studies does a serious study of philosophy out of necessity. It is almost impossible for it to be a money making vocation. It's various methods are too flexible to be a science. People study it out of passion. People study it out of a sense of accomplishing an ideal aesthetic. People read and write it in a manner of an ideal aesthetic. The axioms which they use to base their arguments adhere to an ideal aesthetic. Philosophy is beautiful. To some it provides symmetry. It provides rigid relations connected with straight lines smooth edges. To others it provides the distilled essences of all things represented in broad strokes of distinct color. Yet to other it is an impression of what may be; confused yet grasping at the interconnectedness of the whole and barely recognizable. When practiced right no matter the aesthetic intentions, it is done with care and grace.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 10:37:02