Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Absurdity
    #21855373 - 06/25/15 02:02 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Just as a laptop sits in front of me upon a table, and its four legs stand upon the floor, I would propose the possibility that by association, the following passages may be gathered as fitting together.

I do not think it is possible to begin with a classical philosophical proposition of absurdity. Rather, I would like to think this following impression of things... or into things, somehow happens to make sense. A “proposition” is bearing the name, (as Swift said) of a modest thing isn’t it? Or maybe it is most immodest, but then, that would have be said equally of all "propositions"...



...Perhaps an impression of absurdity is well alluded to in a Salvador Dali Painting, as insinuation, bending and slighting of a geometrically conceived dimension, the tabula rasa of perception.

Or surely it could be found by an unsavory rhetorical device (why did Socrates say that all rhetoric could be was dishonest way of pleasing one's reader, or crowd?) Camus’ question of philosophical suicide, in Myth of Sisyphus, does beg a question: “it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face.” This is the sort of reasoning appealed to as being in a certain way absurd, yet to the philosopher, it is not the victim of its burden of argument. It just has a quite explicable premise.

Absurdity itself correspondingly has something to do with the sense things make; it seems to be a humming strangeness for some reason experienced and perhaps isolated on the cusp of a perspective. I am not adding a ‘reason' as necessarily being there, to begin with, because I am trying to be fair about this.

According to Camus this is as scrupulous as it can seem to be:

“just as one does or does not kill oneself it seems that there but two philosophical solutions, either yes or no. This would be too easy. But allowance must be made for those who, without concluding, continue questioning. Here I am only slightly indulging in irony: this is the majority. I notice also that those who answer “no” act as if they thought “yes.” As a matter of fact, if I accept the Nietzschean criterion, they think “yes” in one way or another. On the other hand, it often happens that those who commit suicide were assured of the meaning of life. These contradictions are constant. It may even be said that they have never been so keen as on this point where, on the contrary, logic seems so desirable.”

Such is the impression, as Camus says, that absurdity does not seem to be found in the "classical" dialectic, but is more on the side of things being “undermined”. That was in a way how the conveniently delimited reductio ad absurdum argument worked. And so perhaps it mostly happens in an individual's head, but that means nothing to the instance of reasoning that comes from that head, does it? I always liked Dali's words, "I don't do drugs, I am drugs", however in Camus' case, it is much more somber tone.

Should life be undermined? That can become distinctive, in a way that is philosophical, but initially I would say this seems to be the gathering tide, looking upon the world in a way with the philosopher’s very candid “honesty” or “dishonesty” aside, that makes as much sense as anyone can attempt to make of it. Absurdity, as philosophy, where it is found, seems to touch upon life.

Life itself presents a “problem” or problematic. It is always becoming what it is, growing upward and outward to the light. Dialectics align to this momentously, and it is thanks largely to some impression of that (its reason or indeed, its "propositions") that we find that there are these branching protrusions of moments, decisions, romances and concussions of life, and of humanity itself, being at least provisionally understood and represented.

I have found that occasionally and with a certain inkling, much insight can be found by pulling back the dense foliage of progressing growth, to find something that has been a bit concealed by this lively process. I take it that immediately the allusion will be somehow, or on some “level” be granted to anyone.

But imagine that this depth does not reveal something that is so conspiratorial, shocking, shuddering, or profound, or triumphant, or anything corresponding or presentable to a "moment". Would this be least expected at all? Maybe there is a good essay to write, (for "the genealogist" in us) But perhaps this (as I am writing and wondering myself) is partly what is given over to the tide of “perspective” in absurdity, the strange bearing of uncanniness. Of course, this is not because it "should be" given over, for any reason. Least of all should anyone insist that.

What I am saying, again, by correlation to an impression, is that the closest thing I am able to distinguish as absurdity of life, is that for some reason, something strange may be found, and yet for some reason this is not necessarily the kind of thing that is just “thrown into the light” in a moment, bringing the world back to ordinariness. Posteriorly considered, absurdity, for what it's worth, is not “presenting” strange things in that manner, but a humming, ambient presence, underlying things. In other words, it is precisely when for any practical purpose, logic seems to fail.

Perhaps there is just a slower drawn out realization, in the resulting grind, wherein indeed you saw "something". Suppose the revelation, indeed was that moment presenting itself, and yet through its own protruding moment, it leads only to admitting that in life, in histories, and in the world, we do not follow the paths of any values we set forth, and life goes on. Whether it is a proceeding ideal, or anything traditionally “generational” growing from seed to seed; perhaps for whatever reason, we seem to follow the more immanent probability of a fracture, nullification, and propagation...again and again. That also is natural to life. 

The bearing of absurdity, I would say, is mainly in its strangeness, and it is getting the chip (or in Sisyphus's case, the boulder) off one's shoulder in some way. Maybe it is impossible. But to the strangeness: Of course there is something uncanny bared in strangeness, and that is constantly being leaned on, but it is also possible to find that strangeness is completely “seeming” to reality. Hence, a philosopher's heart may stand on one side of this or the other, which is the premise of this discussion, and so I questioned if there is ultimately reason to it, to life - in a classical sense. Reason only seems to follow upon this: "What is the relation between the absurd and suicide, the exact degree to which suicide is a solution to the absurd?"

By this, or any similar procession, absurdity is the ordinary familiar that is somehow found to be pervaded by the strange. Some manner in questioning of the absurdist, seems to be of what comes out of that. Is it the momentous revealing of the strange, in the light of day? Camus says it is not. Absurdity to him, is not a proposition about the individual or the world, in the usual sense, it is not something as in the usual case between the two, but indeed something ostensibly blended, as much as Fractured.

"What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity."

Looking out, climbing up and out (the show must go on) on the cusp of life’s protrusions, suppose we spot constellation or some affair of the universe, which you find you may point out with your finger, and yet, you know at once that this is neither no more nor no less impressionable than any single luminosity, or the Chesire smile of the moon? Suppose it was realized by some that what might be a lunatic assertion, can also always be put as just in the insinuation, or question. It strikes the intellect somewhat differently.

The delicate line explored here is the tiding of historical events for Camus. "Written... in 1940 amid the French and European disaster, this book declares that even within the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond nihilism.

This, my own little bit on Camus' absurd, could be taken by association to introduce absurdities, and impressions to be shared, perhaps of our own age. 

One I would like to share, is of another French philosopher Michel Foucault; a book called "The Order of Things" which fittingly begins with a testament to Jorge Luis Borges:
Quote:



This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought - our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography - breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a ‘certain Chinese encyclopaedia’ in which it is written that 'animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, © tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off  'look like flies’.

In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that. But what is it impossible to think, and what kind of impossibility are we faced with here? Each of these strange categories can be assigned a precise meaning and a demonstrable content; some of them do certainly involve fantastic entities - fabulous animals or sirens - but, precisely be­cause it puts them into categories of their own, the Chinese encyclopaedia localizes their powers of contagion; it distinguishes carefully between the very real animals (those that are frenzied or have just broken the water pitcher) and those that reside solely in the realm of imagination.

The possibility of dangerous mixtures has been exorcized, heraldry and fable have been relegated to their own exalted peaks: no inconceivable amphibi­ous maidens, no clawed wings, no disgusting, squamous epidermis, none of those polymorphous and demoniacal faces, no creatures breathing fire. The quality of monstrosity here does not affect any real body, nor does it produce modifications of any kind in the bestiary of the imagination; it does not lurk in the depths of any strange power. It would not even be present at all in this classification had it not insinuated itself into the empty space, the interstitial blanks separating all these entities from one another. It is not the 'fabulous’ animals that are impossible, since they are desig­nated as such, but the narrowness of the distance separating them from (and juxtaposing them to) the stray dogs, or the animals that from a long way off look like flies. What transgresses the boundaries of all imagina­tion, of all possible thought, is simply that alphabetical series (a, b, c, d) which links each of those categories to all the others.

Moreover, it is not simply the oddity of unusual juxtapositions that we are faced with here. We are all familiar with the disconcerting effect of the proximity of extremes, or, quite simply, with the sudden vicinity of things that have no relation to each other; the mere act of enumeration that heaps them all together has a power of enchantment all its own: ‘I am no longer hungry,’ Eusthenes said. ‘Until the morrow, safe from my saliva all the following shall be: Aspics, Acalephs, Acanthocephalates, Amoebocytes, Ammonites, Axolotls, Amblystomas, Aphislions, Anacondas, Ascarids, Amphisbaenas, Angleworms, Amphipods, Anaerobes, Anne- lids, Anthozoans. . . .’ But all these worms and snakes, all these creatures
redolent of decay and slime are slithering, like the syllables which designate them, in Eusthenes’ saliva: that is where they all have their common locus, like the umbrella and the sewing-machine on the operating table; startling though their propinquity may be, it is nevertheless warranted by that and by that in, by that on whose solidity provides proof of the possibility of juxtaposition. It was certainly improbable that arachnids, ammonites, and annelids should one day mingle on Eusthenes’ tongue, but, after all, that welcoming and voracious mouth certainly provided them with a feasible lodging, a roof under which to coexist.

The monstrous quality that runs through Borges’s enumeration consists, on the contrary, in the fact that the common  on which such meetings are possible has itself been destroyed. What is impossible is not the propinquity of the things listed, but the very site on which their propinquity would be possible. The animals ‘(i) frenzied, (j) innumerable,
(k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush’ - where could they ever meet, except in the immaterial sound of the voice pronouncing their enumeration, or on the page transcribing it? Where else could they be juxtaposed except in the non-place of language? Yet, though language can spread them before us, it can do so only in an unthinkable space. The central category of animals ‘included in the present classification’, with its explicit reference to paradoxes we are familiar with, is indication enough that we shall never succeed in defining a stable relation of con- tained to container between each of these categories and that which includes them all: if all the animals divided up here can be placed without exception in one of the divisions of this list, then aren’t all the other divisions to be found in that one division too? And then again, in what space would that single, inclusive division have its existence?

Absurdity destroys the “and” of the enumeration by making impossible the “in” where the things enumerated would be divided up. Borges adds no figure to the atlas of the impossible; nowhere does he strike the spark of poetic confrontation; he simply dispenses with the least obvious, but most compelling, of necessities; he does away with the site, the mute ground upon which it is possible for entities to be juxtaposed. A vanishing trick that is masked or, rather, laughably indicated by our alphabetical order, which is to be taken as the clue (the only visible one) to the enumerations of a Chinese encyclopaedia. . . . What has been removed, in short, is the famous ‘operating table’; and rendering to Roussel, a small part of what is still his due, I use that word ‘table’ in two superimposed senses: the nickel-plated, rubbery table swathed in white, glittering beneath a glass sun devouring all shadow - the table where, for an instant, perhaps for- ever, the umbrella encounters the sewing-machine; and also a table, a tabula, that enables thought to operate upon the entities of our world, to put them in order, to divide them into classes, to group them according to names that designate their similarities and their differences - the table upon which, since the beginning of time, language has intersected space.

That passage from Borges kept me laughing a long time, though not without a certain uneasiness that I found hard to shake off. Perhaps because there arose in its wake the suspicion that there is a worse kind of disorder than that of the incongruous, the linking together of things that are inappropriate; I mean the disorder in which fragments of a large number of possible orders glitter separately in the dimension, without law or geometry, of the heteroclite; and that word should be taken in its most literal, etymological sense: in such a state, things are ‘laid’, ‘placed’, ‘arranged’ in sites so very different from one another that it is impossible to find a place of residence for them, to define a common locus beneath them all.”





Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAmidst Eridanus
Chicken Chaser

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 107
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Absurdity [Re: Kurt]
    #21856321 - 06/25/15 05:55 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I'm having a hard time understanding what you are getting at, and I've read it five times over. My general impression is that you are alluding to Derrida's Deconstruction? Or at least to the small degree that I understand your text and Deconstruction.

Wikipedia is the limit of my knowledge of Absurdism and it states:

"Camus considers absurdity as a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict or a "divorce" between two ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the confrontation between man's desire for significance, meaning and clarity on the one hand – and the silent, cold universe on the other."

This text is very easy for me to understand, however I can't seem to pull much meaning out of yours.

Am I the only one experiencing the Absurd right now?


--------------------
It is better to travel well than to arrive.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: Amidst Eridanus]
    #21857401 - 06/25/15 09:39 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Hello,

To your "concerns", well, what can I say? How can I know what you mean by "Derrida's deconstruction", or how you tie that into what I've written? How can I know what you mean by "your understanding of Camus"? Try to level me with here.

How about this, if you are concerned about a just and fair representation, when you are referring to an idea that is not your own, whether you are for or against formally establishing its place as a point of reference, try to present it as best you can in its terms, bearing some form of content.

Or in other words, to be less pedagogical, maybe seek to understand, and then be critical. I wouldn't suggest this be a good samaritan. By all means do what you like. I'll just tell you that If you don't aren't doing things in this order, all you are doing is waving a torch in the air, and making noises.

I have nothing to say about the "state" of literary philosophy, any locus of its authority, or the absolute place of a text as point of reference. Bring that torch to the hidden places I say..
Does that help? 

Anyway, anything can be "absurd", and at all drawn breaths the absurd is questionable. But it is not just about insinuation and undermining either, if you ask me. I wouldn't be able follow, understand, or get behind just that.

In Camus' case, the premise seems to be, one which you "take it or leave it", but also a little more. You know what I'm saying? Well, I'd stick to that in spirit. Here is something that is close to a succinct inspiration in Camus, where I think you can note his sincere sensibility, you could say, "in spite" of what he was working with:

Quote:


"I...conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions. How to answer it? On all essential problems (I mean thereby those that run the risk of leading to death or those that intensify the passion of living) there are probably but two methods of thought: the method of La Palisse and the method of Don Quixote. Solely the balance between evidence and lyricism can allow us to achieve simultaneously emotion and lucidity. In a subject at once so humble and so heavy with emotion the learned and classical dialectic must yield, one can see, to a more modest attitude of mind deriving at one and the same time from common sense and understanding"




Sorry for the formalism. I appreciate the read and criticism. To lucidity, my friend, or as the pedagogues say "form and content".


Edited by Kurt (06/25/15 10:23 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAmidst Eridanus
Chicken Chaser

Registered: 01/09/14
Posts: 107
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re:Absurdity [Re: Kurt]
    #21857475 - 06/25/15 09:53 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Everything is just going past me. I feel like we are operating in two totally different spheres.


--------------------
It is better to travel well than to arrive.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: Amidst Eridanus]
    #21858117 - 06/26/15 12:18 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Isn't Jacques Derrida kind of a heady reference to make... especially if you are attempting to understand something?

Maybe one day I will be worthy. I have two copies of his books, but I could never make any sense of them. 

Anyway, I would say that there is a lot between that wiki quote you cited and Camus. He is actually pretty difficult to grok. When I felt I did understand, I wrote this. It's just something I wrote, I am not an expert.

Here are some "fundamentals":

"The fundamental subject of "The Myth of Sisyphus" is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face"

Camus writes, "the classical dialectic must yield". Clearly in absurdism, any consideration of suicide is a rhetorical question/argument, right? And yet if you read the text, you can see it is at the same time not leveled to that exactly. In content, it's not merely "undermining" or "insinuation" either.

I disagree with the wiki interpretation as you quoted it, because it presents a one dimensional view of the absurd struggle. The confrontation, the possibility of looking face to face, is what is you would look to from another point of view. I am not saying a confrontation is meaningful, but why would you confront something if you didn't have something in mind in it? Why do you keep up the struggle?

I would add absurdity is not ultimately leveled to something between the individual or the world, in the classical philosophical sense. In Camus' words, in absurdity is a "divorce of actor and setting".

I am not sure where I stand on it, as I am just reading this text now. However, what I am considering, is that absurdity may be distinguished from nihilism...or irresoluteness and apathy, or suicide...whatever you want to call it. Camus says "even in the limits of nihilism it is possible to find the means to proceed beyond nihilism". If there is anything to absurdism, it would have to be that.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleRahz
Alive Again
Male


Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
Re:Absurdity [Re: Amidst Eridanus]
    #21858169 - 06/26/15 12:33 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Suicide may be a response to pain, or perhaps the logic of it is buried deeper than a philosophical inquiry can uncover... death is just as irrational as life.

The search for meaning may be rational or irrational depending, in much the same way it may be prudent to pull the thorns from ones skin, so long as there are thorns to be pulled.

For me there's usually a quiet sense of pleasure in abiding the moment. The expectation is that desire will break the calm on a regular basis. No meaning required.


--------------------
rahz

comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace


"You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: Rahz]
    #21858342 - 06/26/15 01:57 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I would take that point much in kind.

Clearly when it comes to Camus' Absurdism, there is an insinuation, whether it is suggested of one's time and place, the circumstances one suffers, or indeed in an individual's temperance to such sufferings.

"It is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face."

So for one thing, does that mean that we can only think of a meaningful life when we are pushed to edge? Of course not. That premise doesn't need to be taken, plain and simple.

But then, I would add that I think there may be different "edges" to come up to confront, like in perceptual fields in Salvador Dali, or in logical boundaries, like in the Foucault passage at the bottom of the quote. Perhaps there would be inspiration or allegory for anyone, in how Foucault finds a confrontation with the so called tabula rasa

Quote:


Absurdity destroys the “and” of the enumeration by making impossible the “in” where the things enumerated would be divided up. Borges adds no figure to the atlas of the impossible; nowhere does he strike the spark of poetic confrontation; he simply dispenses with the least obvious, but most compelling, of necessities; he does away with the site, the mute ground upon which it is possible for entities to be juxtaposed. A vanishing trick...What has been removed, in short, is the famous ‘operating table’; and rendering to Roussel, a small part of what is still his due, I use that word ‘table’ in two superimposed senses: the nickel-plated, rubbery table swathed in white, glittering beneath a glass sun devouring all shadow - the table where, for an instant, perhaps for- ever, the umbrella encounters the sewing-machine; and also a table, a tabula, that enables thought to operate upon the entities of our world, to put them in order, to divide them into classes, to group them according to names that designate their similarities and their differences - the table upon which, since the beginning of time, language has intersected space.





Mainly I think this allegory suggests confrontation with the imagined orderly states of affairs of western philosophers who by fashion situate meaning safely in logic, or language usage, but what other kinds of "blank slate" ideals are there? Kill the buddha!

PS you ever read any Jorge Luis Borges (not Foucault who is commenting on him here)? He was not only an great short fiction writer (Pick any story and I doubt you won't be impressed) but a scholar and philosopher who wrote a bit on buddhism.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ

Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re:Absurdity [Re: Kurt]
    #21944244 - 07/14/15 10:11 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

suicide isn't absurd. suicide is the end of absurdity.

no more sense's, no more absurdity; so in that sense there is no "giving in" to absurdity. it's falling into line with the rest of the absurd.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: akira_akuma]
    #21944543 - 07/14/15 11:10 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

As you say. Why not accept the absurd as life instead? That is Camus' suggestion.

"It" insinuates itself, not necessarily on anyone, and not necessarily by any certain fate of the world or attitude towards it alone, but in a blending of situation (which Camus describes precisely as dissassociation of "actor and setting") that is quite unique. Disassociation is maybe experienced in other words, not in the literal (death), but figurative sense.

Suicide is an idea we can't find closure to, and yet it is not just an idea, to walk to the edge either. But then, if you ask me where you fall to is moot point, unless you are interested in a clever epitath. Maybe in life, absurdity is also less of an idea confined to the head. Maybe its a Metamorphosis, and not a fight that is just internal. You might start to seem like some bug to your own family who tries to swat you or something. Ah how relatable is that?

The logical sense may become strange or eccentric in absurdity. As one is pushed towards the edge of life, maybe one's attitude towards social mores can alter in such an affect of both insight and distortion, that is practically hallucinogenic. But if I may take your comment in kind, I'd say life is absurd, and the absurd (for some anyway) is life.

I agree with what you said, but would also add that melting or merging to the absurd is a distinct choice, and there are perhaps others.


Edited by Kurt (07/15/15 03:20 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ

Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re:Absurdity [Re: Kurt]
    #21944629 - 07/14/15 11:33 PM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Maybe its a Metamorphosis, and not a fight that is just internal. You might start to seem like some bug to your own family who tries to swat you or something. Ah how relatable is that?




well considering that's the exact story of Metamorphosis, it's pretty relatable.

Quote:

but would also add that melting or merging to the absurd is a distinct choice, and there are perhaps others.




absolutely, in the same sense that consuming food is a distinct choice.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: akira_akuma]
    #21945073 - 07/15/15 02:29 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Maybe I missed your previous point... Were you responding to something I said about suicide's relation to the absurd? I didn't intend that "suicide is absurd".

A human's involvement with an idea of suicide may surely be absurd, and not wrong for that, anywhere between thinking about it and doing it.

I was following Camus' logic, which doesn't necessitate being undermined in life in any way, or contemplating suicide, or committing to suicidal act. As I understand he just says it's legitimate to feel absurd. We can bear an open mind to this and to all realm of possibilities which may be called strange or even wrong by your usual whitebread American.

"It is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face."

As for the decision to commit or not, if I am trying to be open to a person's individuality in just such a way, what can be said? I would acknowledge the choice in a positive way, as a choice with relative options.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ

Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re:Absurdity [Re: Kurt] * 1
    #21945257 - 07/15/15 02:50 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Camus is a pretty 'hip' philosophizer. admittedly i like his work. but i don't see the importance of condensing all of the human condition down to this one point of "can you handle the absurd, bro!?" - "what, you're thinking of dying, but life is absurd, you don't need to get so down!"



but yeah, no, the option of suicide is insinuated in the absurdity of life, so i guess it's a pretty formidable obstacle to living, and in a way it's something that most everyone has to face, on some level, whether life is actually worth living or not. i agree with Camus there.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: akira_akuma]
    #21945422 - 07/15/15 03:14 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Well at least it's not that death anxiety shit :tongue:

To be serious, to me it's a step back from a myth of authenticity, but still scrupulously human and "real" at the same time.

It's mainly a meeting with the leveling of conformity. One doesn't have to be "undermined" by life. Okay so you are. One's reasoning  does not have to be absurd - it can be though!

Then there's always trading stories and sharing scars.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ

Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re:Absurdity [Re: Kurt]
    #21945561 - 07/15/15 03:44 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

if we live in a world of absurd rules, then it would be acceptable to be absurd, of course, but then how do you consider what isn't absurd if the premise is that the rules are already absurd?

PS on the instance of suicide.

— Phyllis Webb, “To Friends Who Have Also Considered Suicide”
It’s still a good idea.

Its exercise is discipline:
to remember to cross the street without looking,
to remember not to jump when the cars side-swipe,
to remember not to bother to have clothes cleaned,
to remember not to eat or want to eat,
to consider the numerous methods of killing oneself,
that is surely the finest exercise of the imagination:
death by drowning, sleeping pills, slashed wrists,
kitchen fumes, bullets through the brain or through
the stomach, hanging by the neck in attic or basement,
a clean frozen death—the ways are endless.
And consider the drama! It’s better than a whole season
at Stratford when you think of the emotion of your
family on hearing the news and when you imagine
how embarrassed some will be when the body is found.
One could furnish a whole chorus in a Greek play
with expletives and feel sneaky and omniscient
at the same time. But there’s no shame
in this concept of suicide.
It has concerned our best philosophers
and inspired some of the most popular
of our politicians and financiers.
Some people swim lakes, others climb flagpoles,
some join monasteries, but we, my friends,
who have considered suicide take our daily walk
with death and are not lonely.
In the end it brings more honesty and care
than all the democratic parliaments of tricks.
It is the ‘sickness unto death’; it is death;
it is not death; it is the sand from the beaches
of a hundred civilizations, the sand in the teeth
of death and barnacles our singing tongue:
and this is ‘life’ and we owe at least this much
contemplation to our western fact: to Rise,
Decline, Fall, to futility and larks,
to the bright crustaceans of the oversky.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re:Absurdity [Re: akira_akuma] * 1
    #21945790 - 07/15/15 04:24 AM (8 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Anyone whose goal is 'something higher' must expect someday to suffer vertigo. What is vertigo? Fear of falling? No, Vertigo is something other than fear of falling. It is the voice of the emptiness below us which tempts and lures us, it is the desire to fall, against which, terrified, we defend ourselves.

- Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being






Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* How to accept the absurd?
( 1 2 all )
Cognitive_Shift 5,153 38 11/13/13 02:40 AM
by absols
* The Myth of Sisyphus; The Absurd
( 1 2 all )
daytripper23 3,063 35 06/24/09 01:35 PM
by OrgoneConclusion
* Philosophical Debate about Absurdism letholdus 1,331 16 04/27/12 07:46 PM
by letholdus
* Camus and Absurdity
( 1 2 3 all )
Grateful Dead 1,012 41 12/10/17 09:41 PM
by RJ Tubs 202
* Absurdism jjdiggincrates 661 4 05/31/11 09:39 PM
by Icelander
* Absurdism Actionpotential 658 8 04/17/12 06:47 PM
by Freedom
* The Absurdity of God
( 1 2 3 all )
silversoul7 3,851 40 12/11/03 08:20 PM
by bumski
* the absurd
( 1 2 all )
kaiowas 1,787 21 12/21/03 08:20 PM
by kaiowas

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,212 topic views. 1 members, 9 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.