[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.34 MB, 1280x1684, 1433621893860.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7308324 No.7308324 [Reply] [Original]

I am quoting here something from The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus:

>The problem of 'freedom as such' has no meaning. For it is linked in quite a different way with the problem of God. The absurdity peculiar to this problem comes from the fact that the very notion that makes the problem of freedom possible also tries to take away all its meaning.

>You know the alternative: either we are not free and God the all-powerful is responsible for evil. Or we are free and responsible but God is not the all-powerful. All the scholastic subtleties have neither added anything to nor subtracted anything from the acuteness of this paradox.

I can't quite see how free will and the idea of an omnipotent God are incompatible ideas. Is it not possible that we can fully exercise our will under an entity that is 'all-powerful'? Maybe God just doesn't wish to exercise his powers. Sorry but it's impossible for me to understand just how the existence of a God automatically negates the idea of freedom and free will.

I'd like for the answer to be closely tied with the philosophy of Albert Camus. Though I'd be just as keen with a more broader answer.

>> No.7308332

Everybody enjoys the freedom he deserves, which is measured by the stature and dignity of his person or by his function, and not by the abstract and elementary fact of merely being a 'human being' or a 'citizen'.

>> No.7308334
File: 54 KB, 729x466, Obesity_versus_Famine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
7308334

>>7308332
>>7308332
>Everybody enjoys the freedom he deserves

deserves? lel

>>7308324
>>7308324
>Or we are free and responsible but God is not the all-powerful

I think Calvinists understand this point, the idea that human freedom impinges on divine sovereignty...but they fail to understand the reverse, that divine sovereignty means we are not free and God is responsible for evil.

>> No.7308337

>>7308334
Yes, deserves. And we are the ones responsible for evil

>> No.7308372

>>7308337
>deserves.

based on what?
Why did that fat fuck in the previous image deserve to enjoy plentiful food and baseball games? While the african kid deserved the freedom to choose between eating dirt or cow shit while dying of aids?


> And we are the ones responsible for evil

the very possibility of evil is the problem and in fact destroys any possibility of human freedom.

>> No.7308377

>>7308337
Nah.

>> No.7308451

>thread about free will and conscience
>people talk about masses under the rule of capitalism and the poor
wtf lit

>> No.7308453

>>7308451
>conscience
consciousness*

damn im angry

>> No.7308681

Isn't it supposed to be the case that God exists outside of time and sees all things simultaneously, which means all of our actions are known to him and therefore "destined" and not truly free?

>> No.7308916

>America vs Niggerland

How is poverty evil?

>> No.7309062

>>7308681
Compatibilism m8, just because God knows what we're going to choose doesn't mean we don't choose it.

>> No.7309088

>>7309062
So did Camus have any real answer to that, or is it included amongst the so-called "scholastic subtleties"? Pretty weak if that's how he chose to skirt around the argument.

>> No.7309113

>>7309088
I haven't read enough Camus to say what he thought, I'm just saying there is and long has been an influential school of thought that doesn't see why free will needs to be defined such a way that it is incompatible with determinism.