/lit/ - Literature

Really now? Can you disprove his philosophy?

>>1661766

Yeah, he was so deep, he was like Immanuel Kant on acid.

But seriously, we both know he was a crap writer and existentialism is a bunch of a priori nonsense.

>>1661771
Absurdism is nonsense? What philosophy should I be looking into then? I may have to rethink everything now o.O!

>>1661766
I wasn't aware he had managed to put one together.

I think this is the first /lit/ thread I've ever posted in and the second or third time I've ever viewed this board. o.o

I got banned once for dicussing philosophy in /sci/, I suppose it's alright here?

>>1661782
Hopefully the last if you don't stop putting fucking o's all over the place where they don't belong.

>>1661779

Are you dumb or high?

>>1661781
"As one of the great European thinkers of the 20th century, Jean-Paul Sartre popularised existentialism, became a working-class hero — and was chased down the Champs Elysées by a pack of imaginary lobsters."

So, you're responsible in part for existentialism?

You'll get banned the first time you discuss philosophy here. Typically it's a week meant for contemplation and self-examination. It's not a punishment though, more of a sabbatical.

Also, see you in a week.

>>1661784
>implying Camus was capable of philosophy

>>1661787
Since I'd rather not argue my intelligence, we'll just assume I'm dumb or at least ignorant. Alright? So, what should I be looking into now? What philosophy is superior to absurdism?

>>1661771

I hate myself.

>>1661796
You're doing it wrong.

>>1661796
Let me consult the tier list of philosophies...

>>1661790
>Also, see you in a week.
You do not know the power of 7 boxxies.

>>1661799
I hate myself too.

>>1661810
That knowledge would be irrelevant, since no bans are given out on /lit/ for discussing philosophy.

>>1661796

Marxism is more of a science than a philosophy, but yeah, that.

>>1661814
oh, lulz

>>1661818
What philosophy is best in regards to metaphysical issues?

Also, what can we know for certain?

>>1661824

Marxism ilk set you straight and save you a lot of time, seriously.

>>1661818

This post is a testament to the futility of starting a philosophy thread on /lit/. Somebody asks for a "better alternative" (yeah, we're flawed at the outset here I know, but bear with me) to a loose philosophy, that's really more of an artistic movement, and the only serious response is a recommendation to follow an primarily economic worldview. Impressively enough, you've illustrated how useful Absurdism is as a tool for understanding nonsense backed by rationality.

So, I'd guess it'd follow that your response needed some parsing, and that truly you supported the questioner's love for Absurdism.

>>1661828
Will it help me commit suicide, or at least, help me find something else to do with my life if not that?

>>1661832

>>1661832
>>1661832

I'm recommending him a scientific alternative to philosophy.

>>1661840
Oh, Marxism was a typo then?

>>1661832
I'm surprised we've gone this many posts without anyone really taking issue with "Can you disprove his philosophy?". No major philosophy can really be disproven.

>>1661834

Yes.

>>1661840
Give me a summary of philosophical issues Marxism addresses, pl0x?

>>1661840
The scientific alternative to philosophy is utilitarianism.

>>1661857
Good. However, does it simply give you the reason, or does it give you a way? I don't really mean a physical method, but a way in your mind to overcome the fear, the resistance of your own body, etc.?

>>1661863

That's like saying the feline alternative to mammals is a cat.

>Implying Sartre could write better than Camus

>>1661873
>mfw trying to conceive of that.

>>1661863

Marxism is scientific, it can also exist without philosphy, I personally know a number of Marxists who take an anti-philosophy stance. Which I personally think is a little insane, but to each their own. Marxism manages to explain more things than most philosphies could every hope to.

>>1661873
Ha it made a lot more sense than the guy recommending Marxism in place of Absurdism. But your analogy is also flawed, because utilitarianism (Mill) is a philosophy grounded in empiricism.

Hedonism

/thread

>>1661885
Hedonism and Absurdism can coexist pretty easily.

>>1661885
Why not give some reason for your support of this philosophy? I suspect I'll see most philosophies listed here but why should I care for Hedonism?

>>1661881

I was just recommending Marxism in general, you could be both a Marxist and an absurdist.

>>1661888
To the pitchforks brother we will storm the factory and rise

>>1661890
Read your textbook at least. You'll probably learn about Hedonism; it was kind of a big deal.

Add your own meaning to life, stop being a huge faggots, the lot of you.

>>1661890

Feels good man

>>1661878
>scientific
Thats the exact problem with it, the people's demand changes everyday and central planning can never solve that.
TRUE Free market capitalism(Anarcho-capitalism) would allow for the costumer to have the choice of what they want out of a society.
Many people who oppose capitalism think capitalism is the State monopolies we have now (State capitalism) but there's a difference.

>Implying there is any difference between camus and sartre

>mfw there isn't one

>>1661890
You shouldn't. Philosophy is not religion.

The market can't exist without the state.

>>1661903
Yeah but if you want your statement to be taken seriously (which i believe seeing as you cared enough to post it) then you have to explain or at least prove it.

>>1661903
Which ever one holds my interest the strongest will probably have its wikipedia article read the first.

>>1661910
I think you replied to the wrong post. If you didn't, I have no idea what you're asking for.

>>1661905
Thats nonsense, if people need something then somebody will supply it to them, if they don't like their price then they find someone else who is better, if you don't like that then make your own business and undercut/better service/ no state needed.

>>1661919
We do need some regulation to prevent people from ruining their environment, using up important resources on stupid things, and to keep certain substances controlled.

>>1661911
every now and again I bow my head for the intellectual giants that have been slain to sentences in the dead wikipedian tongue, and a generation that hungers for nothing else

>>1661922
No we dont, if people know a company is ruining the enviroment then their buisness will go down.
If our current system reflects the will of the majority then in a free society that same demand would be asked and companies would not find it in their best interest to do that.

>>1661924
>No we dont, if people know a company is ruining the enviroment then their buisness will go down.

No it wouldn't. People are stupid as fuck.

>>1661924
>if people know a company is ruining the enviroment then their buisness will go down.

oh, you.

Well as delusional as you guys are, Marxism is still only tangentially related here. Stop arguing about Das Kapital and start arguing about L'Etranger.

>>1661926

even assuming they were 100% rational actors getting rid of all govt safeguards would mean that most of the time they wouldn't find out when the environment was being fucked w/ so it wouldn't enter their decision making process

liberatirainsm owns

>>1661926
>No it wouldn't. People are stupid as fuck.
Thats not an argument.

How do you think people found out about the BP mess? I bet that the person who blew the whistle got a load of money for doing so. There will always be people there waiting to do that. Companies are only able to get away with alot of the shit they do nowadays BECAUSE of the government.

>>1661936
>How do you think people found out about the BP mess? I bet that the person who blew the whistle got a load of money for doing so. There will always be people there waiting to do that.

there's a long line between 'whistleblowers' and people acting rationally to economically discourage corporations from fucking over the environment. people won't be latter because they are stupid, apathetic, etc.

ofc it won't matter because they'll all live in company towns in libertarian paradise anyway

>>1661936

to whom do they blow the whistle without a government in place, dickass

>>1661942

> implying the EPA is not a privately funded corporation run for profit

>>1661944
can't have any regulatory powers because this is Libertarian Paradise

Is this thread giving anyone else major deja vu?

>>1661941
Of course there would be people who do it because they care, but just in case people are "lazy" then the profit motive would kick in.
But then again saying that, is assuming all people are lazy which i could argue is because of the state helping people not take responsibility for their actions.

>>1661952

Your logic would explain why Somalia is so much wealthier of a country than the US or China or any of the EU nations.

>>1661963
Because there isn't a regime or a hierarchy there to keep stealing all the resources to themselves or anything.

>>1661977
oh, you.

>>1661977
ah bah buh buh

an intelligent carrot. the mind boggles.

>>1661989
>>1661992
Never change /lit/

>>1661994
how the hell are we supposed to respond to your shocking display? do you seriously think that in your anarchocapitalist utopia there wouldn't be any hierarchies, that people wouldn't use force?

>>1661994
>make a case for anarchy, freedom and the individual

>require power structure to keep everything in line

>oh you

>>1662010
The only ones who have the "power" are the consumers
but since were on the subject give me your ideas on how society could work without violating the non aggression principle and without using coercion to get things done.

>>1661999
hierarchies=/=companies in a free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e4aNGKPCUI&feature=feedu
Just watch the first 15min.
Don't try to counter arguments from first principle with arguments from effect.

>>1662039

Anarchistsage is just stating the obvious. If everyone was a member of a perfect utopia then they must be living in a perfect utopia. Pretty simple really.