>>17351490
I disagree. Camus is obviously not the most profound philosopher but I think he's good at what he's aiming, I see him as kind of a first step into philosophy lived in relation to the world. He's not building a very complex system, and he doesn't pretend to. He's trying to tell you that things can be alright and can work out, and I think he succeeds in doing it. He's not the end game, he isn't supposed to be, but his philosophy makes sense and is helpful without being a cope (i.e. pretending things are not the way they are). That's why I like him.
Voltaire now, I would barely call him a philosopher, he's more a polemist and a "thinker". True his system of thoughts is not great, but as a polemist, he is excellent and it's no wonder he was so well-known during his life. As such I would call him "based" even if I don't agree with the man, because it's always enjoyable to read someone shitting on everything he can lays his hands on (in a funny manner).