Is he based, mid-wit core or r*ddit?

Is he based, mid-wit core or r*ddit?

Attached: 31306073-025E-44AE-B40B-0A10DAB63FF8.jpg (770x962, 96K)

early works: r*ddit
later works: based

how can suffering be infinite if you die in the end?

suicide is immoral because suicide contributes to the absurd

morality is a spook

Time is one dimensional, one cns measure alone other axes, those could be infinite.

The Fall is one of my favorites.

I didn't condome or condemn suicide at all though

Sure, but I took the point to be a matter of finding absurd pleasure in your own absurd suffering, not some endless suffering of the universe im general. That's my issue with the example of Sisyphus: real people die, eventually.

Actually I misunderstood your post; you're saying there might be infinite suffering within single points of time, even. Which is a reasonable point, but I just doubt it. Maybe my sense of suffering is a little straightforward, but if X amount of pain cam cause you to simply die from shock, then there's bound to be a cap on that axis too.

>hurr durr life is meaningless but it's livable with "spite"
Oh, if you knew how bad it really was

The passed memory of suicide is the infinite suffering within finite lifespans.

I felt like he didn't have the balls to arrive at a more pessimistic conclusion, like he couldn't cross the humanist line and just admit that everything is of no avain.

Cioran is a much more elegant writer and a thinker more profound than Camus could ever be considered. I only wish Cioran wrote fiction as well. Camus's fiction is decent, but I like Sartre's fiction better. I think Camus was more honest as a thinker than Sartre, but Sartre was a better writer.

And Cioran is better than both of them combined.

based

I don't really think he was that great, but he was relevant at the time, which is why he got the Nobel prize. Used to love the guy too, but it takes just one honest critical look to see that he was all-looks and didn't really go as deep as he could've. At least he looks badass, no wonder he had mistresses all over Paris

Just read Celine then

Really? I mean, I've known of a couple suicides, and I cared about some more than the rest. Do we really have degrees of infinity here or...?

People here just like Cioran because he's less popular and edgier than both.

Camus is fine, he's not god-tier, but he's not reddit either, and that should be obvious if you read his most important works, which most people here did not do. Frankly, I doubt most people on this board even read more than a handful of books per year.

Based
He transcended the reddit philosopher of his time (Sartre)

I know I don't. I did read part of the Stranger and the Sisyphus essay though, as well as bits of biographical stuff, and he seems based. I had the same problem with his humanism as the other poster, although I don't think not being a humanist = pessimism. And his humanism is honest and not annoying.

>Used to love the guy too, but it takes just one honest critical look to see that he was all-looks and didn't really go as deep as he could've.
What do you mean by that?

I don't know if it was looks so much as he wasn't that intellectual. Wasn't the guy basically a part time novelist who played soccer, hung out, and slept with women? I just don't see an interest in philosophy past what he needed to live life.

I feel the opposite way as that other poster. Cioran, frankly, just seemed immature to me, as if he never grew out of his angsty teenager phase. I read him in French, so I can't vouch for his English voice, though.

His philosophy MA thesis was on the "Relationship of Greek and Christian Thought in Plotinus and St. Augustine". I think you're selling him a bit short.

I didn't know that. Thank you. Do you know if it was a good thesis?

Haven't read it yet, unfortunately.

I'm ok with him as a writer, "The Plague" is my favourite of his works (also his notes are rather interesting), but as a philosopher he seems to be too concerned with public opinion and humanistic views. I liked his idea that, unlike what Sartre was saying, there could never be any meaning to human life, but to me the next logical step would be to advocate for nihilism in this case. No God, no meaning - why bother?

There's is, of cause, depth in this notion that absurdity does not strip life of its value, but since life is mainly suffering it would be more humane to openly state that we should not inflict suffering upon the future generations.

I think I was spoiled by all the pessimistic literature (also it's been a while since I read him), so I'd like to hear your thoughts on Camus.

Attached: cioran meme.jpg (1440x1188, 221K)

T a random guy on an internet forum, sure showed him

not who you replied to, however i can't help but feel the same. that being said, he still has a soft spot in my heart, considering he was one of the first philosophers i started out with when i was younger.

Same, bro

I kind of what to be like him in certain ways, but I can't help but notice this admiration of mine that is more like the one teenagers have regarding their idol

tumblr

lol
Reddit > Yea Forums
Unlike you all, we stuck our peepee
virgins

hope this is ironic

I have graduated top of my class in trolling

I feel that rather than being a genius philosopher, Camus was an intelligent guy with a deep interest in philosophy. That makes him more approachable and relatable than a mad genius like Neech or an autistic genius like Kant.

>Neech

>Nee-shuh

Didn't have his head up his own ass like Sartre and unlike the other existentialists he could write with clarity. Excellent author, but middle-brow philosopher.

Nitch?

He gave three options, retard.

i mean if you are still here,then it proves is affirmation

i dont see life as happy,but rather interesting

by that i mean that are things that while not necesarily making you happy,make you feel with meaning

social activist fighting for a cause for example

on my personal case i enjoy food,little walking and feel of hot water almost burning my skin