Dude just ignore the absurd lmao

Or
>rebel against the absurd by instituting your own order.

Holy shit reading the essay actually helps understand it.

the assumptins you make in your green text are, as sartre would say, "an act of bad faith".

This. Let's celebrate writers like Camus so Yea Forums can be just like /r/books.

I get that he thinks committing suicide is more absurd than living but why? Is there anything to it other than "LMAO suicide is so random"?

Irony aside, I felt the same closing the book when I finished it. Rebel with contentment of our condition? Really, even philosophical suicide is more appealing; the reality is that it isn't just the lack of meaning in life that calls for suicide, it's the overwhelming amount of suffering that makes life not worth living.

naturally, no.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems

Attached: 1550719274023.gif (498x594, 97K)

That means you cant prove everything. You can still prove some things dickhead

No, you dumb motherfucker, Camus is entry level nonsense what the fuck get off this board. Come back when you've gotten through Foucault

Shut up Faggot. Haha

>You can still prove some things
prove it

Gödel's theorem itself rests on a proof. And the limitations it impose on what can be proved are very specific, notably they are tied to the use of Peano's axioms for arithmetic. Gentzen proved Peano's arithmetic is consistent (something that you can't prove in the usual axiomatic setting according to Gödel's theorem) by using different axioms.

OP missed the entire point of his thesis and instead of engaging with it, he makes an attempt at mockery, not discussion. This post has been made time and time again and OP, without fail, offers nothing new.

>rebel against the absurd by instituting your own order.
>implying that would be "rebelling" at all
This is expected from someone living in an absurd universe. Read the essay, the absurd comes from the disconnect between reason and the fact that reason can't gives us a complete picture of the universe and the meaning of life. To "create your own values" and "rebel against the absurd" would be a totally absurd, like that example in which Camus himself gives, about a man who runs toward an army with a knife (the action is absurd because there is a disconnect between his reason and reality).
This is not an answer to the absurd because whatever order you "create" is already contained in the absurd, and the person who feels the absurd won't feel any better by following his "own" order rather than some external order. Remember that he criticized past existentialist philosophers for making what he calls a leap of reason, jumping into religion to ignore the absurd. He essentially does the same, but if you think about, his "religion" is actually worse. If you can't find comfort in a 2000 year old religion which has given comfort to most of humanity, why would you find comfort in your own "order", made by a fat NEET with no life prospects?

Nope. None of then proved anything. They just stated that these things are reasonably coherent given an amount of time. You can't prove that a million years for now the laws of physics won't change. You can't prove anything.

>BTFOs camus two days in a row
keep it up OP, you’re doing good son.

Attached: image.jpg (640x640, 242K)

You're one dumb fuckee if you thought that he btfo Camus.

You're a brainlet if you think Camus can ever recover from OP. I'm gonna start BTFOing other frenchlets as well like Foucault and Derrida. But first i'll BTFO american literature. Just you wait.

We literally live in the Camus world. You lost before you were even born.

once could imagine a deer being eaten by an alligator satisfied

>I don’t have a counterargument so I’ll just call it bait!

Camus ir barely consider a philosopher. If you want some french mindfuck try Deleuze, Debord, Baudrillard, Virilio, Nancy, Didi-Hubermann and so on.

>dude just cope harder and harder
Why do people say this about Camus. Suicide is in fact the real cope for him, and not true revolt, right.

Suicide, by definition, can't be cope, brainlet. Read the essay again and see how he spends half of the essay repeating obvious points, doing retarded critiques and not proposing nothing in the face of "muh absurd".

Suicide is actually cope by definition as by killing yourself you openly admit that you can't handle the absurd and still try to act rationally in the irrational world

Nope. Cope is a mechanism that gets you going and helps you from descending into a mental breakdown or actually killing yourself. Suicide on the other hand is a valid option in the face of the absurd. Camus simply handwaves that and spends at best, a few paragraphs on why you shouldn't suicide when that's the supposed aim of the essay. What a fucking brainlet, he literally spends 90% of the essay criticizing previous existentialists for being irrationalists and falling into religion and he himself wants to announce his own brand of atheist irrationalism. How can anyone even take that faggot seriously is beyond me.
>you openly admit that you can't handle the absurd and still try to act rationally in the irrational world
His whole reasoning is basically "life has no meaning, thus, you have no weight on your shoulders, so there is no reason to suicide! do whatever you want and be free, be happy!". This is ridiculous because Camus simply looks at suffering and decides not to deal with it when this is the whole reason of suicide. But If life was pure happiness then yes, maybe Camus would have a point, because yes, if life is enjoyable, then that by itself is worth living and it wouldn't matter if life had meaning or not, you're free! But the fact is that life IS suffering AND has no meaning so why continue to suffer a pointless existence when you could end it all forever and simply not deal with it? Just because some French brainlet says that you should not? What a fucking retard.

By the way i don't think suicide is the answer or anything, i just think Camus is an absolute brainlet.

Sartre was, as i would say, a complete irrelevant faggot.

>just imagine Sisyphus is happy, bro
>I know I can
>I, who have never known anything but a life of easy sex and am currently one of the world's most famous writers
>It's easy, man. who cares if life is pointless
>just be like me and go on living lmao
>so what if we're condemned to extreme manual labor (something I've never done) for the whole of our miserable lives--havent you read The Fall btw
>so what if you will know neither rest nor female companionship for the entirely of your worthless days (hey, busty whore #345, would you mind getting me my slippers and gin before giving me that blowjob?), just accept it bro!
>just do stuff even if it's all in vain idk (what, my publisher just said he'd publish the toilet paper that I wiped my ass with this morning? Woah, I really am a genius!)
>I mean, c'mon brah, it's simple, you just gotta understand the Absurd™
The car crashed about forty years too late

Kek. Camus epitomizes why CHADS aren't made for suffering. It's painfully obvious in 'The Myth of Sisyphus' how little Camus has suffered throughout his life. "bro just accept suffering and try to live happy y'know" is one of the most pathetic philosophical stances i've ever heard, and it could only come from a CHAD who had the easiest life of all writers.

Read the First Man

I wouldn't call this a celebration.

Sure you can keep convincing yourselves that external factors are the main reason you're not happy, rather than putting in the effort to work on your attitude towards externals which is actually the main component but what good is that doing you?

>Camus
>a philosopher
Hahahahahaha

>easy sex, fame and being a good writer make you happy bro

jesus christ what a numb brainwashed consumerist drone

This, remember Romain Gary, an ambassador, the only person to win two goncourt prizes for his books (under two pseudonyms), and a notorious fucker of attractive women, was so depressed he killed himself.

Same could be said for DFW. One of the most acclaimed writer of his generation, receiver of buttloads of prizes, blower of cumloads on prized receiving butts, also killed hisself.

Clearly the problem runs deeper than this.

Camus was African.

I could prove that you're a retarded faggot, but you've already done that for me.

They don't understand that the so called "Chad" is literally a mindset and outlook, and will continue to be miserable "Incels" no matter what they achieve, how much pussy they slay, or how much money they make. The biggest Chad I know IRL is celibate and completely sober.

Ikr, read Sartre instead. I think the only reason people say Camus is better because he wasn’t a tankie.

lol, you've completely mangled the dichotomy for your own incel purposes. you bought the memes hard, my friend, and you've overpaid with your life

>defender of human reason and happiness
dropped

>edgy nihilist
kys

Denying objective truth is in it of itself a claim to objective truth.

Embrace the absurd, don’t ignore it.

Because if god is dead than you are your own god. You have your own destiny to create and suicide would waste that chance. You have plenty of time to be dead.

This

I got be honest, I found Camus philosophy interesting, but after going over a period of depression and suicidal ideation, he sounds completely naive, suicidal thoughts have nearly nothing to do with philosophical reflection, it's delusion fueled by fucked up brain chemstry.

Then it's a logical contradiction to have objective truth anyways.

Wrong, it's a contradiction to deny it.

Fair enough, but he didn’t have the authority to start handing out anxiety pills, so he wrote on the kind of thinking that kept him going instead. At least he tried to stem to the tide a bit, doubt he actually expected suicides would just stop if absurdism took off.

I don't think he was ever suicidal at all, a person can reach a nihilist conclusion but still have the same will to live as anyone else, he didn't struggle with suicide, he struggled with wanting to give a philosophical basis for his will to live, and one that preserved his morality at that.

Back to the reddit from whence thee came demon

>the limitations it impose on what can be proved are very specific, notably they are tied to the use of Peano's axioms for arithmetic

No; otherwise we would just axiomatise differently so that everything were decidable

>Gentzen proved Peano's arithmetic is consistent (something that you can't prove in the usual axiomatic setting according to Gödel's theorem) by using different axioms.

??? Gödel's theorem is exactly about consistent systems; if a system is inconsistent anything can be proved, so it's useless. look up the principle of explosion