/lit/ - Literature

>>6917538

Camus can do but Sartre is Smartre.

That's your proof.

Sartre was ugly as fuck, how come he got so much fresh undergrad pussy?

>>6917553
If you smart, you sexy.

>>6917544
I'm convinced

>>6917553

>>6917544
Scooby Doo can doo-doo, but Jimmy Carter is smarter

His ideas on the Absurd were eh, but at least his philosophy was a fresh look at existentialism. Sartre had nothing to say that wasnt fucking obvious after page two of Sickness Unto Death.

Camus was a fucking chad man

>>6917544
oh yeah? well ... scooby doo can do do, but jimmy carter is smarter

Its amazing how little these men expanded on the ideas of Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. Heck, The Myth of Sisyphus is basically Essay form Candide.

>>6917782
Sartre just took what Heidegger worked on and applied it to aspects he was more interested in.
Camus is just a pseudo intelkectial who writes bad fiction to boot.

>>6917802
>Sartre just took what Heidegger worked on and applied it to aspects he was more interested in

no.
Sartre was doing something entirely different. He was trying to "flip" heidegger, but ended up just expanding on Kierks "churchyard" and calling it "nothingness".

Did Sartre believe in free will? I understand he did not think humanity was given a plan/purpose, but did he ever directly attack the idea of determinism?

>>6917829
Didn't heidegger himself derive most of his work from Kierkegaard ?

>>6917860
i read being and nothingness a few months ago. his whole point is to reach the idea that free will exists for existence precedes essence.

>>6917860
He did. Read his book 'being and nothingness' if you want to learn more. The whole novel basically argues the existence of free will.

My big problem with both is that they never really justify why "the Absurd" is, in fact, Absurd. Or even moreso, why this should cause anxiety or distress at all. Yes, if we strip away our prejudiced meanings, we find that things are operating according to rules that lack any care for human affairs. Why is this at all distressing? Why should I be anxious that there is a bent piece of wood next to me in a Tram for no reason other than it was put their to be used as a chair? Absurdity is an opinion, not a state of being.

>>6917918
The distress obviously comes from living for no purpose. And it sucks. Why eat just to die, why sex just to leave, why study just to forget? It's pointless. We trick ourselves into believe that they matter. And it sucks that most live like they don't even grasp the concept .

He's like a diluted Sartre?

>>6917864
No, not really.

There is some similarity, i would not call someone a retard if they thought the two related, and Heidegger certainly read Kierkegaard.
But they are different for a couple reasons.
Kierk is existential thoroughly. existential crisis comes from examining a "space" that you think meaning will come into, then realizing that meaning you will never come. For Kierk the only way to move past this was faith.

But Heideggers work was primarily ontological. He is concerned with the ontology of being and in an attempt to pursue this he goes through a phenomenological discourse.

Heidegger ends up making some existential claims, but thats only because he went through the phenominological.
also "Lichtung" or "the clearing" for Heidegger is not similar to Kierk's "churchyard" (Kierk's space for existential meaning to "come").
"lichtung" is different because its more like we already as humans assume the world has meaning and form, but in the "clearing" we realize that "earth" has an undefinable characteristic and is only presenting meaning and that meaning could take a multiplicity of forms, an idea he for from Husserl. This is entirely none existential, despite having an existential component because of the person who has "dasien"

I hope that makes sense.

>>6917962
It does. Thanks for clearing it up .

>>6917538
Sartre is a pivotal philosopher. Camus is an edgy 2deep4me hack novelist.

>>6917553
because you can overcome ugly

>>6917771
...that's Kierkegaard bruh...

>>6917946
Why does the act of death negate any aspect of our lives? Why do you need a purpose? Do you eat to live, and not for the pure enjoyment of eating? Does Sartre write to appease his life duty, and not for the pure enjoyment of writing to demonstrate his ideas?
"Life without purpose sucks" just seems so childish. Why do you need a purpose? Enjoy life for its own sake; work and toil for how grand it is to work and toil, not to pay the gatekeeper of death.

>>6918006
Yes dumbass. Im saying that neither really said anything Kierkegaard hadnt already.

>>6917544
Well, I laughed.

>>6917752
underrated post

>>6918026
Life is a series of trying to reach the expectations of non-being goals YOUVE set for yourself which lose all appeal after fulfillment or not of it. Which puts you immediately on a track for the next course of action of moving your current being to a hypothetical non-being place and state. But there is a time before and after movements when you realize you don't care and see it futility. But still go forth getting your fill of expectation realisation. But it can't satiate you, it's impossible. So what this means and what my point is that this continual motive to action is a struggle to put yourself through and logically it is more to the point in just killing yourself. Which I'm not advocating, just using as an example.

I dbt know if you or anybody else has ever experienced a state of complete transcendal non-being state where you remove yourself completely from being it is pure bliss -- or not bliss just a grace of nothingness. But these states don't last long and physical and subconscious urges drag you through the cycle again.

The "life without purpose" is the moments in between the purposes we give our little silly goals in consideration and anguish for future not-really-wanted endeveaurs. Which sounds like perpetual suffering doesn't it?

poo poo pee pee

>>6918071
You are making quite an assertion that by satiating desires I am attempting to return to a state of "non-being". I challenge this.
If anything, by, say, eating, I am enjoying the pure state of being. The being of eating, to be exact. This is no non-being, in any way. It is a very strong sense of being in a certain affection, the affection of eating and satiating hunger, of taste and energy. This affection could be anything, whether the affection of hard labor, spiritual insight, of laughing or relaxing.
When I enact in toil, big or small, when I work towards fulfilling goals, I am doing to not to escape being, but to entrench myself in it. These affections, modes, states of being, whatever you want to call them, bring a sense of "being" to both my self, and the world around me.
The sense of "non-being" you describe, I have felt, and it is the polar opposite.
For me, non-being is the state of complete detachment from not only self, but also to other. That is, not only does a sense of self fade away, but the sense of everything else but yourself does as well. Many seem to thing that when you allow your idea of self to disappear and merge with the world around you, you are "non-being." I completely disagree, instead I propose you are merging your sense of being with the sense of being of things around you.
My favorite activity, and favorite example of what Im saying, is hiking. When I hike, I get the sense of being hot, of being strained, of being observant, of being reverent, of being warm, of being close to natural earth. I get the sense of my being, becoming closer and closer to the being I percieve in nature. I get the sense of our beings becoming one, a -perhaps spiritual- interplay of our "beingness". I have so many different senses of "being", like I do not have to "be" anything else, like my being is secure, content, assured.
In order to experience "nonbeing", not only would I lose my sense of self, but the sense of world around me. The sense that nothing is in a state of being, that there is nothing at all to be. This does happen, usually in the depths of a bad acid trip, or more commonly when Ive spent too long closing myself off from both the world around me, and my own afflictions. When Ive spent too much time pondering some silly Great Other and not set my mind towards legitimate sensations of being. This is avoided by doing things that restore sense of being, by engaging my sense of being with the sense of being I percieve in the exterior world. Remind myself, essentially, that being exists.

Notice how I use "sense of being". That is because I am referring to not any ontological posit of what being is, but more to the sensation, the emotion, the feeling of being you can feel in your self, and in things you percieve around you. Because it is this sense of being that truely matters in discussions of existential matters.
So no, I do not wish to rush to a state of non-beingness, for I want to utilize my time of being now.

>>6918214
I'll respond to you in a little bit Anon. I just have to go somewhere quick.

>>6918214
To follow up, I propose that the closest thing one could come to experiencing "non being" (death) would be unconsciousness. Where there is no sense of being inwardly or outwardly, nothing is percieved as being. The caveat is that you dont remember being unconscious for this exact reason. Thus, we will never at all know the depth of non-being until it hits us on the deathbed.

>>6918214
I agree with most of what you have to say. I however didn't mean that we attempt to return to a state of non-being through the act of being. What I meant was that in the act of being you are the being you act to be, so if you're current being is concerned with a self-imposed obligation to read and understand what I'm trying to say that is exactly the end to what you're being is attempting to go to. The return to non-being is after you have read and perceivably understood my post then you are confronted by it by default, since the previous being has served its purpose and to continue being that exact being without an opportunity to read what I've written (since you can only re-read it now, and build on your own understanding of it plus possible derive more from the post again, which is an altogether different act of being) would be impossible as that being is no more: You return then, after the fulfillment of the being's course, to a state of indecision to what course of action to take next, which is a state of non-being because of the fact that you question what you would like or have to do next, that is you have surpassed your previous being which was concerned with reading my post and now reflect on your having-done-so, through the action of surpassing the being you transcend it back to a non-being state (as which was how you were before you decided you wanted to read my post). In this non-being state you do not identify with the previous non-being, for 1, it was a different you, and 2, you may be able to recall the emotional connections to that being through memory you now see it as a thing alien to your state of being or non-being now, it was given a purpose and a peculiar identity for being which you now can not replicate exactly.

It is also true that in that indecisive state between different beings that have a sense of being-in-the-world where you transcend them by going into a non-being state (and it might be important here to clarify what I mean by 'non-being' in context to avoid confusion; I mean it is simple not the being it was before the surpassing, not the one it will become afterwards, but most importantly it doesn't have a sense of being-in-the-world, that is to say it doesn't have an assigned identity which gives it purpose, for it is the state where such things are determined) is not a state of nothingness as a sense of being outside of being is considered for possible action. This means you look at possible beings which you might adopt as an other as only you can forcibly bring it into existence.

My point was that we do the exact opposite of what you believe I posited, I say we continually rush to a being of being-in-the-world, with a specific purpose and identity, if only until it has served its purpose, or if you prefer, run its course, then the rush to being starts again.

1/2.

>>6918654
Now, ANYWAY, how this relates to your first questions in this thread is that if you can recognize the futility of these beings you give action to the whole time before and after their conception and dissolution, who's to say you can't during? As you can, we often do ("why the hell am I doing this again?"), this is a temporal transcendence out of that state of being and in so a distancing of you from your sense of being-in-the-world where you are confronted again by a choice to continue the act of being in that way or to choose an alternative. What brings us to this non-being state is a realization of the emptiness of the underlying reasons you gave that being a specific identity, you reject the value judgements you allocated onto an object or activity which without is just a thing or a purposeless reality. This is where I draw my stance from, everything is pointless and to no avail unless you forcible give it an identity where it naturally doesn't have one. If we can see this process it makes it really hard to continually apply values to things and still believe in their allocated purpose, I find myself perpetually in a state of non-being where I consider the futility of all my possible actions with intermittences of states of being. This is why when I say 'everything is pointless' it is for me as I am not so readily convinced in values I am forced to attribute to the world around me and which other people expect me to hold.

Your idea of spirituality and a sense of being in the world I find equally absurd as I do not buy into the values you assign and re-assign them the whole time. For whatever reason you do is in my opinion a very good characteristic of you and no doubt in result you probably live a much less unhappy life then me, all the power to you.

2/2

^ it's been so long since i've seen a post that's so long that it can't fit into a single post on /lit/, kudos to you sir

>>6917951
Or a unconstructed Sartre.

>>6917553
Was he really that ugly? Imagine a pretty girl with fucked up eyes and bad teeth but with lots of confidence. That's Sartre.

>>6919491
He's just got squinty eyes. That's all really. Just google his pics.

>>6919491
Minus the being a girl part.

>>6919491
Also pls don't ever make me think of him as a girl again. Wrong wrong wrong

>>6919507
wat

>>6919512
his mom was pretty

>>6919528
Why does banging Sartre's mom seem like the most logical thing in the world to me now?

>>6919518
One eye on existential melodrama and one eye on the prime teen pussy.

Oh come on...

we all know that Camus can do but Sartre is smartre.

>>6919556
ur late dude

>>6919556
Late m8

Camus prose so bad so....

>>6919639
Ur late too m8
>>6919563

I remember the detail from Wall how he described some woman character's butt wiggle as lusty as black girl's and I have fapped to that description, so..

>>6919543
because you're on 4chan

Camus can do but Sartre is Smartre

>>6918043
ITs a simpsons joke dude

>>6917544
[kamy] does not rhyme with "can do", nor does [saʁtʁ] with "try harder"

>>6922203
Camus is mucus while Sartre is an entrée.