/lit/ - Literature

>when it comes to the man who recently killed those people in the movie theater at the Dark Knight premier, I found myself unwilling to label him as "evil" or "bad".

boy, do I know that feel

>>2835397
OP here.

I'm not trying to be an internet tough guy, but I think my friends may onto something when they say I'm traveling down nihilistic modes of thinking..

Because I said that it all just seemed like an event to me, and nothing more. Just matter colliding with other matter. Chunks of copper coated lead colliding with blobs of skins cells wrapped around muscle tissue, bone, and viscera.

They said they were troubled because I seemed lack "empathy". But the unfortunate thing is, I simply direct my empathy towards the individual that no one else is willing to empathize with. The shooter. The man who studied neuroscience for years. The man who most likely arrived at the same sort of conclusion that I have: that our moral constructs of right and wrong are groundless, and while they're currently employed to preserve the functioning of a civilized society, they really have no lasting value or meaning beyond that which we've ascribed to them.

If I think about it another way though, I guess Camus claims that it is the absurd man's principle to fill his life with as many experiences as possible. And so this shooter... while he may have been having an experience as he shot into the crowd.. was also ending other people's ability to fill their lives with experiences.

I've only really been reading into absurdism for the past month, so I welcome any sort of backlash or criticism you all have for me and my perspective (or lack thereof)

>While socializing with two friends last night
Aspie fuck.

You were chatting, talking, having a conversation even. "Socializing"? Jesus fucking christ...

>>2835408
OP here. I do not has asperger's syndrome. We were drinking rum, and taking turns playing grand theft auto four.

>>2835404
>>2835397

I also know that feel, brothers.

My jimmies get so rustled when people start talking about what a "senseless monster" Mersault is. A lot of people just miss the whole point of L'Etranger (most accurately "The Estranged") and read it as "The Stranger" or "The Outsider," which is just the complete antithesis to Camus' novel. Mersault is the same as you and me. He's not psychopathic or insane. He merely sees life (and consequently morality, judgement, objectivity) hyper-logically, in all of its absurdity.

OP here. I guess what I'm asking of /lit/ is, why is what they think of my outlook. How "stupid" it is. I won't retaliate really, I just want to see some other responses.

>>2835446
who says that?

>>2835488
OP here. My friends that I drank with said that I was drifting "dangerously" close to nihilism, and one of my friends even said "you should get that checked out."

The discussion just seemed ridiculous to me. I tried my darnedest to live in that moment without judgement, and without burdening life with my expectations, and it only really attracted the judgement of other people.. who each began to burden me with their expectations.

(I'm 20 years old btw, so if I seem naive that is why. I'm also a psychology major, whose ultimate wish is to become a therapist, preferably helping individuals suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. So this whole empathy thing seems necessary. At least it seems as though I'm empathizing with the "wrong" person.)

The way I see it, for the shooter in that theater, if I had lived his life, exposed myself to the same stimuli, and internalized that exposure in the very same way, then the shooting wouldn't seem like an "evil" thing to do.

when i think of these things without context i agree

i can't find these actions any more reprehensible than other actions

but when i think about the repercussions to each family i do feel some compassion.

i am very ignorant as well so i can't really contribute to discussion.

>>2835488

I read it in class at a special high school semester program. Got a lot of really ignorant comments from kids who attend some really expensive schools.

>>2835472
I think it's a totally understandable opinion for a sheltered westerner beginning their 20s to have. You're just coming to terms with existentialism, but you haven't completed the journey.

You'll know when you reach the beginning of the end when you're comfortable using good and evil again: that they don't exist in an objective reductionist universe, doesn't mean they don't have detailed meanings useful to individuals.

Yeah, you risk coming off like a dipshit if you're uncareful with the social context, but it's better than just merrily kneejerking away.

*better in the subjective context of knowledge-focussed, conventional western philosophy

http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Knurd
You need to drink more.

>>2835500
>20 year old psych major trying to live without judgement

You're being naive. "living without judgement" is a cultural aesthetic people use to gain social advantages, don't deploy it near the honest or powerful. People who already have social advantages have the power to discard it and live honestly, because all complex organisms have goal preferences.

"Understanding implies agreement" is another tool of social shorthand. I know from personal experience that it's possible to understand someone, to walk in their shoes, and then to fight, because understanding their position enables you to discern they have fatally incompatible value systems.

Totally non-conflicting value systems are impossible, but that dichotomy is where generalizable moralities spring from. They're the least-conflicting set of value systems: no murder, theft, etc.

>>2835532
Although the internet has made "no theft" this whole big thing...

why would you even want to live your life without judgments? why is that even desirable or something you want? what is your motivation here? i honestly do not understand why you would set yourself that as a goal - judgment seems, to me, to be such an intrinsic part of what it is to be a human that i don't understand why you'd renounce it. judge properly and well, certainly, with understanding and comprehension. but not judge at all? why?

>>2835544
Theft defaults to physical objects; primitive societies didn't recognise copyright. As late as the 1700s, Jefferson was mocking the idea.

Copyright as we know it started circa 1928.

>>2835547
That doesn't matter. What matters is that people in power have co-opted the "no theft" part of the generalized morality and re-defined it to suit their purposes.

How about I fuck your girlfriend, steal your stuff, and kick your teeth out?

My prediction is that you'll feel wronged. If that's true, then you're a hypocrite without empathy. If that's false, then hurry up and post your address.

The shooter's actions and my opinion are both meaningless, but personally i disagree with his actions.

>>2835553
Computable morality is a pretty new thing, it came out of AI safety protocols; though libertarians will claim credit for the idea.

Morality as we know it is heavily based on the presumption of righteousness, despite the efforts of utilitarians.

>>2835509
This. When i started doing some reading on existentialism I decided not to use good and evil because I thought about how, well, meaningless they are, but this guy knows what he's talking about. On the plus side, now that you don't use words like good and evil you might actually explain a point in an essay better.

> failed to miss the point he wished to convey

Hm?

However. You said you just got into existentialism and one of the things you have read is Camus' Sisyphus... Camus does describe that there is a big absurdity to human life that arises from the urge to find sense and purpose on the one hand, and the objective absence thereof on the other.
But he states that there are two ways of dealing with the absurdity: either to kill oneself or to accept it. The former is the only philosophically justifiable way of dealing with absurdity if your conclusions lead to nihilism. The latter is what Camus' Sisyphus does - and by accepting the absurdity of life he is now aware that his own judgment is a final one, or rather the most final. In that sense, he overcomes absurdity, becomes his own objectivity and is to be considered a happy man.
Now transfer these conclusions from Sisyphus as an individual to mankind as a whole. The systems of values and ethics most of us accepted and the purposes of life most of us consider to be "right" do not only serve to preserve the functioning of civilized societies - they are also the most objective and most final judgments in the cosmos we know of and they are to be considered total, even if there are exceptions of individuals or small groups of people, for the majority of human beings through all of history have had a certain fundamental understanding of what is to be considered "good" and "bad". Also, people tend to be happy if they live by these principles, happier even than those who live life by the principles of other origins such as religion.

I think he's evil, but I don't hold any sympathy for the victims, because how is this any different from the millions of other evils that happen every day? Any justification assumes an amount of provincialism or righteousness of subjectivity that I don't feel comfortable with.

>>2835500
I majored in psychology and now work in the field, mainly with traumatized individuals (not a full-blown therapist but that used to be what I wanted to do; now I'm not so sure). I've more or less become a nihilist, perhaps in part because of my job. It makes the work harder in a lot of ways but actually makes it easier in some ways: dealing with the fucked up shit, doing things the client doesn't like but are ultimately best for them, doing things that aren't best for the client but that the system forces you to do, etc. Don't know if I can do the work with real passion anymore though, it's more just a source of income now.

I try to hide my nihilistic tendencies from my friends but I think they started to catch on. Plus I think I blew it when I got shitfaced and started telling a couple of them about how much I relate to Meursault.

the point of humanity is not abstract metaphysical realization it's function in the real world
so if someone did something bad to "your" group he is bad

>The way I see it, for the shooter in that theater, if I had lived his life, exposed myself to the same stimuli, and internalized that exposure in the very same way, then the shooting wouldn't seem like an "evil" thing to do.
Hard determinism is fucking stupid.

>>2835757
>Hard determinism is the only possible position
ftfy

the retard you quoted didnt say anything resembling hard det.
just that "if i was x, x wouldnt be bad".

>discussion of nihilism
>no one knows what the fuck they are talking about
READ NIETZSCHE. Don't read anything ABOUT Nietzsche JUST READ NIETZSCHE. Don't read Camus or Sartre. READ NIETZSCHE. You apes of Zarathustra.

OP here. Thank you for all the responses. Please continue discussing absurdism. I enjoy it all. :)

>>2835559
lel u reli owned op xD

i luv makin fun of dumb edgy teens xD

First comes rejection of notably subjective words, then comes depression. Finally comes existentialism.

>>2835397
I've been gazing into the abyss for about 10 years now, OP. I've always been very open about my idea's in general, going through all their different phases. The result is that everbody sees this very seeking as part of my identity and they know that there are no limits to it.

In that way, there's no hypocrisy in trying out, let's say, a Buddhist way of life and a half year later being an eco-fascist who praises Pentii Linkola and like it when tsunamis kill thousands, to name an example.

In every phase people have always been aware that I was looking for what is plausible and truthful, and being aware of my pursuits they've never seen me as a baddie of some kind. They knew my inquiry was sincere and that I didn't come to conclusions to be edgy and annoying, but because I felt my inquiry led me to them.

Which led me to a position where everybody is expecting me to speak freely on any matter, including most authority figures. My point being, I guess, that you should let people get used to you being a parrhessiast. Then you see who accepts it and who doesn't. The latter can be cast of. If you wish to speak your mind freely there will be plenty of consequences, but you'll have to consider if it's worth it for you.

At least getting your thoughts out in the open will save you half the misery and feeling of isolation, in a way.

>>2836017
Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist.

>>2835406
>our moral constructs of right and wrong are groundless

From this still doesn´t follow that shooting people in a cinema is a good idea. To what end did it serve? What did he accomplish thereby? Nothing of consequence, five minutes of fame. Now he´ll get executed or jailed for life and the show is over for him.

Seriously, even killing himself would be more sensible.

>>2837234
Sensical according to which value system?

>>2837269
Any.

>>2837302
Nope. From a misanthropic viewpoint taking out many people can very well be preferred over taking out a single person.

>>2837314
A consistent misanthrope would have killed himself.

>>2837330
>>2837302
>>2837234
what the fuck am i reading

>>2835406
>>2835397
Sounds to me like you are turning a little nihilistic. That's not a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that life not worth living just that there is no good or bad. To me that seems like to only sensible way to perceive the world. The trouble is alot of people seem to confuse that world-view with a lack of empathy or sociopathy, which it totally isn't.

>>2837362
Being a nihilist myself, It's always been important to me to be open to the contradictions that come with being human, when you combine this with a nihilistic world-view you have the ultimate realist. >>2835500
Your friends don't know what they're talking about. Being nihilistic means shunning traditional values of good and bad, not putting aside empathy or goodness. As long as you've got a good head on you there is no reason not to pursue a career in psychology. It's not wrong to sympathize with the shooter at all, but what they might not understand is that sympathy is entirely your creation. You read news reports and decided to feel for someone who was probably hurting inside, if anything that proves just how empathetic you are. And it's not bad that you choose to sympathize largely with the shooter more than the victims, that's just where you felt the sympathy needed to go.
>Not bad, just the way it is.
See a pattern? That's nihilism, unlike swedes who put ferrets on your dick.

Just wait until you're older, OP. I can only hope that you aren't older than 20.

>>2837391
Nihilism is a an unwillingness to label people good and bad. It's being reasonable. I can only assume you mean the typical "Only teenagers believe in nihilism". That's bullshit and speaks of your ignorance. Belief in nihilism has nothing to do with age. For some reason people seem to think that nihilists all hate society or something and that could not be further from the truth. Being unwilling to call someone evil is not childish, it's recognizing the grey in the world and acting on it rather than sticking your head in the sand and calling the bad man bad.

>>2837399
>"nihilist"
>believes in reason

>>2837470
Well, I'm a moral nihilist which is usually what people mean when they say nihilist. True nihilists are just fucking morons.

>>2835612

So it amounts to moral tedium for you. That's the crutch of weak mind inclined to nihilism...

>>2837490
lol but you are not a moron right? you've got it all figured out haven't you bubble boy?

>>2837504
No, I don't and neither do you.

Something from Bukowski always made sense to me. Someone had pointed out a tragedy in a newspaper to him or something, and he said "so what?". it's just a newspaper. it means nothing.

I only feel for things I can see or that affects me in some way. I mean, doesn't everybody? Sure, people will say "it's so awful! how evil!" but they'll be saying it while they eat chocolate or scratch their ass. It's nothing to them, and that makes a lot of sense.

>>2835500
"dangerously"

There's nothing wrong with the way you're thinking. (Nothing right with it, either.)

>>2837527 I only feel for things I can see or that affects me in some way.

that only happens when you don't think about the permeating effects of any event. like purchasing groceries without considering how it is made and what is put in it. maybe you are just uninformed or ignorant, but everything affects everybody to some degree. this is a complicated universe, and not a video game, after all.

>>2837571

calling me uninformed or ignorant for not giving a shit about someone that dies hundreds of miles away is pretty cuntish. there isn't enough enough time in the day to give all the fucks to all the things.

>mfw people think absurdism requires moral nihilism
OP, if you want some morality from Camus, read The Rebel.

>>2837597

but it's true. if you only don't care about it because it's easier for you to exist in the small world that you live in, then fine, good for you, but don't think for a second that isn't the lazy and stupid path that nearly everyone else in america succumbs to eventually.

>>2837597
>>2837623
There's always a happy medium. I see people suffering in my local community. I have compassion for people far away, but I can help those nearby to a greater degree with the same amount of effort. So I volunteer at a local soup kitchen. Meanwhile, people get gunned down in a movie theater, and people on the other side of the world starve. I recognize that it's a tragedy, but also that there's only so much I can do.

I don't understand why no one realizes you can care without beating yourself up and crying constantly over it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrdLvxNts24

>babbys can't figure out how to live in a universe without God
I agree with >>2836017.
Make yourself an ubermensch. It's the only way to give your life any sort of meaning. inb4 John Gray and other edgy anti-humanists.

>>2837644

it's because nihilistic people (contrary to what people think on this board, the majority of non christians and disillusioned christians are this) think that because nothing is true or real or good or bad, they can and (in order to be honest) should stop caring, rather than using nihilism positively to expand their mind and realize there is so much more to the world than the limited views that we all perceive in

>>2837672
>Make yourself an ubermensch. It's the only way to give your life any sort of meaning.
Become a cynic and live in a barrel. The need for "meaning" only comes when we're unhappy. Become happy, and you see that to live is valuable in itself.

>>2837691
That's where I'm coming from. I was depressed for probably 6 years about a meaningless, cold, and violent universe. Then I reread Also Sprach Zarathustra and understood it this time around and I've decided the only way to possibly get over my existential angst was to improve myself and, on the way, maybe help other people out.

>>2837691
This. Cynicism is the answer for our times. An adapted cynicism of course. You can't go barrel mode in Northern Europe if you fancy your health. Let's say a room with some basic toiletry, a kitchenette and a matress.

>>2837148
Yes he was. However, he thought it was something that should be overcome. The coming of the overman, that he predicted would come in the futur, could overcome nihilism.
IMO, he is not coming. Only apathy will come out of our generation and future ones.

>>2837761
Nietzsche wanted the Overman to come. He didn't claim it as an inevitability though. We're going towards a last men society, something he warned for as well in Thus Spoke. Zarathustra.

More than a hundred years sgo he already warned us and said that it might be too late very soon. Wen we look around, I se e us being a lot closer to a last man mentality than an Ubermensch one. With our tremendous leap forward in technology, one could say we are becoming a bit of both. A sort of last man/Overman hybrid.

Our most recent Overman ideology, transhumanism, is mostly egalitarian and democratic in nature.

>>2837776
Hmm, interesting.
Although, Nietzsche wanted a return to nature.
I wonder what he would think of our technology.

>>2837776

how ironic, considering egalitarian democratic societies were (accurately) predicted to lead to a last man mode of thoughtt

>>2837796
did they not?

>>2837796
sorry mate, missed the "accurately"

>>2837800
I'm not expressing an opinion about whether or not they did, but that anon actually SAID the prediction was accurate. Reread the post you just replied to.

>>2837800

duh. transhumanism isn't an overman ideology, it's the opposite.

>>2837804

im not the guy who claimed it to be.
it will, however lead to nothing but decay and weakness.

Yep, we're all fucked.
brb, suicide.

>>2835559
Best fucking response. And OP didn't even answer it...

>>2837885
>implying a shark is a hypocrite for eating fish because he doesn't prefer to be eaten
>implying a heterosexual man is a hypocrite for sticking his penis up his girlfriend's bottom because he doesn't want a penis up his bottom
>implying an old lady feeding ducks is a hypocrite because she doesn't eat stale bread soaked in pond water
>implying someone killing in self-defense is a hypocrite because he doesn't like to be killed

Not every ethic is some variation of the golden rule.

>>2837804
It is. Both are seeking to overcome mere humanity as we know it. Übermensch and transhuman are basically the same word. It's just that modern transhumanist look to technology and Nietzsche's versions seems more of a psychological transformation.

>>2837892
You're doing logic wrong. Christ, /lit/ has some major idiots. How? How do you become/stay this dumb?

>>2837892
Your answer doesn't convince me.

There is footage of a monk who turned himself on fire and didn't even say a word or give any sign of suffering.
OP has anger against society and he doesn't even know it. He confuses that with empathizing with the shooter. If he had been there or if someone who he loves had been there he wouldn't be saying this shit.

It's an intelligent act to try to stop seeing things as bad or good, we can empathize with the shooter, but he still did wrong to innocent people.

don't worry, op. i'm sure you'll get over it once you grow up and stop acting like a self-indulgent faggot.

oh wow you've discovered that life isn't black or white. murder is still evil especially when it comes to killing innocents/youths. if it's all absurd i say kill yourself since it doesn't matter anyways. if it doesn't happen right now let's assume you do believe in something even if you're too chickenshit to label it.

sage for idiocy.

>>2837911
>if it's all absurd i say kill yourself since it doesn't matter anyways.
Absurdism doesn't work that way.

>>2837911
Words of wisdom had been said.

>>2837911
>murder is still evil especially when it comes to killing innocents/youths

That casual sentence sneakily claiming allegiance to thousands of years of Judeo-Christian dogma.

Who don't you add some argumentation instead of spouting populist truisms in the hope of getting people to agree with your grown up, commonsensical world view.

>>2837931
I concur.
I think this gentleman is just talking out of his ass. He also sounds very emotional.

>>2837917
>>2837931
following op's logic is the taking of life isn't evil or bad then take your own. other people obviously wanted to keep theirs and thus people are upset. but no, you can't respect what others have a right to claim for themselves (i.e. their own life) because you're spoiled middle class faggots, thinking you've one-upped basic common sense. go back to /b/ where other 12 year olds will believe you're thinking outside the box too.

>>2837911

Do you feel intellectually superior by talking like this? Like a twat?

Weren't you in his place a time ago? Why reply at all if you're not to help?

Perhaps you don't have your shit together, that's why.

>>2837950

>following op's logic is the taking of life isn't evil or bad then take your own.

"x is not evil" is not a reason to do x, idiot.

Wow, you are taking Absurdism and just RUNNING with it, huh?

>>2837950
You don't get it. Why would one who doesn't adhere to morality any more still object to taking another persons life against his will? Why would one respect them? Why would they subscribe to your idea of decency? Your logic:

>just because you don't belief in good and bad doesn't mean you get to be a bad guy you privileged piece of shit you're spoiled you should just be a nice guy even if you don't believe in it be decent

It's like someone isn't playing football and you're still mad at him for standig offside.

>>2837966
Sounds more like taking absurdism and running FROM it back to nihilism.

>>2837960
Sure, it is. I punch myself in the balls every morning for fifteen minutes just because I believe it isn't inherently wrong.

>>2837952
cry some moar, little babe. i'm not here to hold hands or to coddle spoiled teenagers. i find
>>2835500
>>2835406
>>2835397

all repulsive. i don't need to read anymore. i can't unless another anon can tell me op has made a 180 degree turn. and no i wasn't like that. i was stupid at age 20 but not that stupid.

edgy teen general?

this thread made me cringe.

>>2835446
You're stupid. Mersault doesn't recognize the absurdity until his execution.

Killing some dude because he was annoyed by the Sun? This guy is not a Camusian hero. He's not a psychopath, he's just a caricature of an emotionless robot.

Mersault, until the end, struggles with and acts out against the Absurd. He feels powerless. But at the guillotine, he finally embraces the Absurd, understanding that the universe doesn't give a fuck about us humans.

Plebeian interpretation.

Read some Kant and gtfo

>>2837987
Not OP, and I don't disbelieve morality, but Kant is pretty bad.

>>2837993
what is so bad about him?

THAT. IS NOT. ABSURDISM.
FUCKING. RETARDS. EVERYWHERE.

>>2837994
There's no good criteria for determining how specific a "similar circumstance" is. If you err too far one way you wind up with sweeping "ten commandments" type rules. If you go too far the other way, it's not distinguishable from utilitarianism. And any specific point in the middle is pretty arbitrary.

I prefer a kind of ethics where the moral imperative is to become a good and compassionate person so that kindness and caring about others flows naturally.

>>2837998
That has been pointed out several times in this thread already.

>>2837968
that's a really good point. i can't really provide a paradigm to op when op's view can't possibly give consideration to it.

i liked this anon's post >>2835559

but it seems idiotic that to have op understand is to have unfortunate shit land on him or her personally. i guess the other way is wait for op to grow up like i said in the first post i made itt. also i'm sure the shooter is probably overintellectualized. it really saddens me when i see shit on tv talking about how reclusive the dude was and how they paint some whole violent personality based on that and other traits like it. i would say there are plenty of mad people in this world. not all have to be violent.

>>2837900
>transhumanism
>seeking to overcome mere humanity as we know it

No. Transhumanism is a perfection of the plebeian tendencies of the masses, of the attitude which sees the highest good in the comfortable life, and has nothing to do with achieving human greatness that Nietzsche advocated. Transhumanism doesn´t "overcome" anything - quite the opposite, it is subservient to everything (or rather, every man).

Go read The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life and see the trashing Eduard von Hartmann gets from Nietzsche. Von Hartmann believed essentially the same bullshit as the transhumanists do - that we are inevitably progressing towards a "better future for everyone", i.e. a life of ease, and you don´t have to do anything at all to achieve it! You can just sit back and wait for the historical necessity. And it is precisely this attitude of passive acceptance and inactivity that Nietzsche despises and strives to overcome.

>>2838103

transhumanism is just the scientification of consumerism for the philistines

Dear OP:

You are not alone.

>>2838103
I'm aware of all that and have read the text you recommend. I think you misunderstood me. Transhumanism does seek to overcome human nature as we know it by altering it's biological form with the help of technology. This surely is overcoming humanity in a sense.

It's an ideology with very different values than those of Nietzsche, but it is still trying to surpass mere humanity and has it's own overman. Their post-human, whatever that may be. Therefore I'd say it is /an/ overman ideology, but not the same as Nietzsche's. It's the last man overman, so to speak.

I would like to say "ITT: trolls trolling trolls," but I've been here long enough to know that probably isn't the case.

>>2838103

You're wrong. You don't understand what transhumanism is. Go read about it, or don't.

>>2838109
Yes indeed. It is the ideology of the last man, who believes he can be - ought to be - provided for without doing anything to that end, that his happiness is somehow a right granted to him that others have the obligation to fulfill.

Not to speak of his idea of happiness, which is ludicrous and despicable for any man with a sense of human greatness.

>>2838123
>It's the last man overman, so to speak.
I can agree with that. But I would still hesitate to apply the same label to both Nietzsche and transhumanism, given the huge differences in what they "overcome".

>>2838146
>You don't understand what transhumanism is

Well enlightenten me, then, what is transhumanism?

Why are you guys still talking? >>2835607 had it right ages ago; there are only three possible reactions to absurdiy. Nihilism (Dostojewski: suicide, Shestov: futility), religion (Kierkegaard: religiosity as a metaphysical evasion) and "humanism" (Nietzsche: over-human, Heidegger: dualism of thought and being, Camus: Sisyphus).

The only (refreshingly) deviant reactions are Kafka's humor and Wittgenstein's "nonsense-philosophy".

>>2838359

how about reframing your nihilism so you can see that your "absurdity" is just a pretentious way of saying "welp too hard to understand the world through with my limited mind gonna go create meaning here on my own then" when all that leads to is mindless consumerism and banal american "individuality"?

>I found myself unwilling to label him as "evil" or "bad".
That's only because you got detached from reality. It will attach you right back on, just you wait, junior.

>>2838394
Not OP, but shouldn't we have compassion for the mentally ill as well as those they hurt?

>>2838389

1. It's neither my nihilism, nor my absurdity.
2. "Absurdity" sounds less pretentious for me, as it is more practical than that long ass sentence.
3. So, do you think that humanity or the human mind is able to understand "the world"?
4. Do you think that understanding the world would lead to discovery of objective "meaning"?
5. Philosophically dealing with absurdity and reacting in either of the possible ways is not what leads to consumerism and banal american individuality. Not doing it does - or at least only banally thinking about it in a pop-manner does. Or do you think that modern egoism, materialism and consumism have anything their philosophical roots (e.g. hedonism)?

>>2838359


I'd place Wittgenstien's project right beside Heidegger's. When he said that ethics can't be talked about, he meant that the language of the modern science, with its talk of objective truth, falsity justification etc., cannot be applied to ethics and that we should stop trying. Instead he takes ethical and aesthetic points of view as granted and asserts (or maybe implies through omission) that things have value because they have value.

>>2838419
>3. So, do you think that humanity or the human mind is able to understand "the world"?

sure, it wouldn't be complete, nor would it be free of internal contradictions or conflicts with other worldviews. and in any case absurdity is an understanding of the world in a self-aware and self-defeating way. the world is extremely complex and interconnected in ways we can't even imagine, but that doesn't mean we can't form some kind of sensible and workable theory of it that will guide us towards ever accumulating and ever transient knowledge.
>4. Do you think that understanding the world would lead to discovery of objective "meaning"?

maybe. i am perhaps foolishly agnostic on that. human history has shown that every time humans have tried to form objective meaning they just go further into fairyland, so it would be wise to be skeptical. but skepticism can go both ways, which is why the neutral ground of "i don't know" is the safest bet here. that doesn't mean i can't on occasion state a fact as an objective truth, or turn around and show how facts themselves are formed from an ideological basis that prefers certain sets of data over others, because it is only by accepting all three that one continue to be free

>5. Philosophically dealing with absurdity and reacting in either of the possible ways is not what leads to consumerism and banal american individuality. Not doing it does - or at least only banally thinking about it in a pop-manner does. Or do you think that modern egoism, materialism and consumism have anything their philosophical roots (e.g. hedonism)?

i think the philosophical roots of consumerism and etc. occur along the fault lines of a break (called world war II) that brought on a certain kind of senselessness and meaninglessness (along with authoritarian, fascist forces), and the reactive forces (guided by the greed of the powerful and the automatic functioning of capital and the "markets") that push you into depression (leading to a burgeoning pharmaceutical industry based on mood management) or into a process of meaning-making, identity formation (by the accumulation of stuff and the consumption of identity producing products) or into rebellion (co-opted, making the only "meaningful" rebellion self-destructive behavior)

>>2838491
>>2838492

Thanks for your detailed answers, but you are kind of answering away from questions.

> 3. So, do you think that humanity or the human mind is able to understand "the world"?

Again, we are talking about absurdity, which is, by the way, not a ,,way of saying welp too hard to understand the world through with my limited mind gonna go create meaning here on my own then" - that is one of a few possible reactions to it. Absurdity itself is not a philosophical "absurdist" concept, it's a fact of human life philosophically grasped. "Understanding the world" in this context means to dissolve the contradiction of which absurdity arises. Which is, ,,the urge to find sense and purpose on the one hand, and the objective absence thereof on the other."

>>2838946

Dissolving is meant here in the sense of to either overcome man's need for sense in existence and purpose in life or to prove that there is objective truth and therefore principles we can live by.
Science is uncapable of dissolving it, because it describes reality, it doesn't find truth (of course, there are scientific approaches to kill man's desire for purpose though: mind-altering substances and technologies in general. But is artificially destroying our nature really worthwhile? Well, not few people do more or less "think" so - hence alcoholism and drug addiction). Philosophy hasn't been able to dissolve it in 3000 years. So, I ask again: Do you think that humanity or the human mind is able to understand "the world"? That is, to overcome human nature or to find objective truth. The latter I doubt, whereas the former is either questionable when approached scientifically (as mentioned above) or a philosophic act of a scale mankind has never seen before (a scale like "god is dead", "transvaluation of all values", "overhuman").

>>2838950

> Do you think that understanding the world would lead to discovery of objective "meaning"?

Again, I'm not arguing about different philosophical approaches to the question of pure reason and the limitedness of human reason in general (such as your agnosticism or scepticism). I'm just wondering what makes you so sure that humanity is to be better off when searching for objective truth instead of considering to become their own (-god/-truth/-objectivity/-absolute authority and only reference), as implied in

> "Welp too hard to understand the world through with my limited mind gonna go create meaning here on my own then" when all that leads to is mindless consumerism and banal american "individuality"?

Imagine if we were to find objective prove - independent on how that would be accomplished - of the absence of any higher instance of truth, values, morals such as god; what would that change, what kind of "meaning" would we be able to deduct from that? There are countless cases imagineable in which objective truth wouldn't lead to any form of "meaning" for our existence.

>>2838953

>5. Philosophically dealing with absurdity and reacting in either of the possible ways is not what leads to consumerism and banal american individuality. Not doing it does - or at least only banally thinking about it in a pop-manner does. Or do you think that modern egoism, materialism and consumism have anything their philosophical roots (e.g. hedonism)?

Your answer to this question is rather interesting, but it's again failing to see where I was going with my statement and question. I'm saying that modern consumerism and banality do not result from philosophical reactions to the fact of absurdity or any form of deep thought process in this sense. It's the opposite; the transitory nature and emptiness, arbitrariness of the functioning of modern societies and individuals results from a lack of any reaction or dealing with these matters. Therefore, most people nowadays accept the reaction the general society or the system has to offer and trusts those "solutions" blindly.
– Consumism how it functions today, and how it makes individuals and societies function, doesn't grow from philosophical roots such as hedonism, individualism, anarcho-individualism, subjectivism or any philosophic school of thinking for that matter. It is merely the result of large groups of people letting the "system" think for them.

"Becoming your own god" doesn't necessarily lead to you wanting a whole world to worship you...