Jow Forums discussess philosophy

Metaphysics are pointless.
Stoicism has some merit in it but is autistic and contradictiong.
Mysticism is for literal retards or people who like psychedelics

Epicureanism is the best way

>Epicurus would be disappointed
Epicurus didn't even say that we should get laid at all, you fucking brainlet retard. Kill yourself this instant.

Attached: Epicurus on sex.png (1090x848, 229K)

I was just about to post this, thanks friend

>contradictions in stoicism
name some? the stoics were praised for their solid logic

Guess contradiction ain't the right term.
My problem lies in their understanding of the truth and happiness coming from virtue and adding a metaphysical layer to support that, which is kind of a cop out. The fact that their virtues come from the morality of their societies also hurts them.

I still think there are lots of good lessons in stocisim but to call yourself a stoic is "meh"

>Do you believe that your race and nation is superior to all others? Do you value family and community? Religion is your answer.
That's not true. At least if you adopt mysticism, that doesn't have to happen. On the contrary, if you adopt mysticism, like that inspired by St. Augustine it's the complete opposite. You make a difference between the City of God and the City of Man, and you care even less about politics and your nation.

>Do you want truth at the cost of your well being, philosophical pessimism is for you!
Philosophical pessimism doesn't lead to truth any more than any other philosophy does. If you want truth, I don't see how pessimism brings it about besides just a change of POV of the World that is gloomier. That's it.

>Mysticism is for literal retards or people who like psychedelics
I disagree completely. Mysticism seems to be the patrician choice for anyone who wants to live authentically. I think it's actually a more legit search for truth than even other philosophies.

Attached: rianne.png (1039x736, 1.37M)

>what is misanthropy

>stoicism
How would you react if an African American man stole your bicycle?

Any mysticist I've talked to reminded me of the guys that just want a unique edgy identity AND to fit in a community at the same time. I also despise anything metaphysical so I'm biased.

At least when I talk to dudes who have used psychedelics I get the vibe that they saw that shit that made them believe in somethign bigger and they legit believe it. I wouldn't know.

The thing about hedonism is, the greater the pleasure the greater the hangover. And that applies to all pleasure, not just drinking.

Which is why you go for Epicurus and not cyrenaic hedonism.

All true robots would be happier if they read Epicurus

>I was just about to post this, thanks friend
You're welcome bro

>The fact that their virtues come from the morality of their societies also hurts them.
>Stoicism
>morality of their societies
Bro, you do know that the stoics were the one that least cared about society at that time, right? I mean, Plato, Aristotle and all philosophers past cared about society and politics, but the Stoics, along with the Epicureans didn't even spend writing a single page about it. I mean, you just have to take Seneca to know that he told us to "go against the crowd", or Epictetus, who told us that we can be happy regardless of anyone else. You don't know what you're talking about mate.

Attached: quote-happiness-and-freedom-begin-with-a-clear-understanding-of-one-principle-some-things-epictetus- (850x400, 65K)

That is because they hold their virtues as universal goals, but they were the result of their culture is what I'm saying.
I'm not calling them comformists

Metaphysics is the most patrician of philosophical schools. Not surprised a peasant would be confused by it

Attached: 1537303244224.jpg (529x399, 26K)

>How would you react if an African American man stole your bicycle?
I suppose like so.

>All true robots would be happier if they read Epicurus
Does Epicurus even have any extant writings?

Attached: 3a3448bb498bc662db72aba2a1d4f319.jpg (391x400, 26K)

Breh, what's this about not caring for your fellow man, mate?

>truth and happiness coming from virtue
as far as i can tell, stoicism was described as living in accordance with nature (the hellenistic concept of nature being existence itself as opposed to something separate from man). i take it as being far more utilitarian than something based heavily in morality.

nihilism, antinatalism, rationalism, skepticism, cynicism, atheism, objectivism, hedonism and realism

the most realest, down-to-earth and least delusional philosophical stances you can have and most difficult to argue against, nobody will control you, you will indulge in more pleasure than anyone else around you and therefore be happier and freer, nobody will indocrinate you, trick you or delude you and you will be prepared for every situation as worse or as good as they may be, your only flaws are meme culture, edgy teen / fedora memes and basically being compared to a teenager no matter what valid argument you present, oh and people using "nihilist" as an insult

Attached: 5eb.jpg (600x750, 26K)

this is the quote to live by
>>boobs transcend all known reason

>at is because they hold their virtues as universal goals, but they were the result of their culture is what I'm saying.
No fucking shit. You can say this about literally anyone. Like Nietzsche was the result of the troubles and spirit of the time. We can say this about even now. Doesn't fucking mean anything. Besides, of course they were trying to find universal goals. That's the fucking point of creating a system of ethics.

>Metaphysics is the most patrician of philosophical schools.
Sorry to break it to you, user. But Metaphysics isn't even a philosophical school. It is a branch of philosophy itself. You do know that literally every single philosophical school has its own system of metaphysics with it, right?

Attached: 1536602859075.png (762x783, 173K)

Hedonism is wrong.

most of it is directly hurting people. Drugs, alcohol don't work either, people change when they're drunk. Drug overdose can kill the person. This harms everyone else if they were valued and loved unconditionally. The drug user dies for their hedonism.
People who are social outcasts can drug overdose with no problems and for their own reasons, but that's subjective reality.
I do think life is for pleasure but I think self aware people who enjoy morbidity use it as a excuse to harm people maliciously. I mean successful people and people "valuable" can do this without backlash and still live a normal life and die happy. And feel great about being. A horrible person, because people enjoy morbidity. (Except the victim, but that's irrelevant since they're the target and everyone is okay with them being used as a object of entertainment)

>Breh, what's this about not caring for your fellow man, mate?
Why the fuck would you? I mean, not in the individual sense, but to actually give a single shit about politics and political philosophy at large is completely fucking fruitless. I am with the Stoics on this one. It doesn't fucking matter what the fuck we do, we can't change society at large. But we CAN change ourselves, change the individual and our mindset and that's what fucking matters, the fucking pursuit of happiness and freedom from pain and worry. Basically, it is not that they didn't care about others, they did, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius more than Epictetus, but they realized the fucking foolishness of wasting time on politics instead of focusing on the self and its relations with its close friends/family etc. Basically you can change yourself, but you can't change the World. If you try to, you will only find disappointment because we're so powerless.

Attached: quote-yield-not-to-misfortunes-but-advance-all-the-more-boldly-against-them-virgil-365424.jpg (850x400, 54K)

> Thinks in words
Ew, disgusting brainlet alert

Has been a while since I read on them, but I recall that being what mainly drove me off and why I focused on Epicurus.
Still, once again "virtues" and "nature", weird concepts that are constructed and redefined. Your basic biological needs and happiness are not though.
Sorry if I'm not making sense, haven't slept in a while.

Obviously every man is the result of his enviroment, but I'd say that Nietzsche's and Epicurus's "doctrines" are more universal

dialectical materalism everything beside is shit

I really like metaphysics but the more I get into it the more God feels real to me.

>Mystics
>psychedelics
I don't think we are talking about the same sort of people, user. I was talking about the philosophy of Mysticism and its system, not those fags who claim to be "mystics". I was talking about the real fucking thing. Studying mysticism is fucking awesome.

>i take it as being far more utilitarian than something based heavily in morality.
I agree with what you said before this but not this. Stoicism doesn't seem to be utilitarian at the least, and morality is literally the number one preoccupation to Stoics (in the sense of making an ethical system)

I think that you're mistaking hedonism for just mindless search for constant pleasure in the present at the cost of the future. That isn't reasonable hedonism m8.

>What is misanthropy
The more misanthropic I become, the more miserable I am. Better to just have some faith in people, at least a few people, but hating everyone indiscriminately (including yourself) is just a fucking recipe for pain.

Attached: 3fb9bb7ffe09d91449ae2ca9a4af67ee.jpg (850x400, 39K)

>but I'd say that Nietzsche's and Epicurus's "doctrines" are more universal
>Nietszsche's doctrine
>universal

M8, you really have to go sleep. You're not making any sense.

>dialectical materalism everything beside is shit
Nice bait. Dialectial materialism is such pseudo bullshit it literally is pseudo-science.

>I really like metaphysics but the more I get into it the more God feels real to me.
Me too. Take the Mysticism pill

Attached: vogue paris 024.jpg (1235x1600, 292K)

>Mystics
I trust psychedelic users over psuedo-intellectual occultfags but I'll bite.
Got any link that will familiarise me with what you're talking about?

If anything egoism is the most universally applied thing there is

no it's not, because i say it's not, i don't give a shit about you or anyone else, the only thing that matters is me and my interests, why in the fuck would i care about you or your interests? you're not me, you don't affect me, you are a productive sheep, an object of entertainment, whose sole purpose is to serve me, if i feel like stabbing you and taking your money and blowing it on irish cream whiskey cigars and hookers then i will, if it makes me happy then that's what i'll do, similarly, if i want to drug overdose and die then i'll fucking do that, but it doesn't, because i don't like that shit, either way i don't give a shit about "morality", and i certainly couldn't care less whether or not you think i'm "morbid", i'm going to die and so are you, but you see i'm going to be buried with a fully belly and smile on my face while you die with a frown sacrificing your entire life to make yourself as miserable as possible to make people like me happy, so fuck you :)

Attached: Vomitorium.jpg (1600x1067, 254K)

I believe in Nihilism, but I don't actually LIVE by any philosophy

I don't know only about Camus, but Camus is the only one that makes sense as he cared about things that are actually important to us as biological human beings and not some ascended impossibly idealized hypothetical entities Kant and Nietzsche preached about. And Kierkegaard need not apply as all he did was advocate for a "leap of faith" which is retarded. Sartre had a good run, but it went nowhere as he only explored the human condition, but didn't draw any conclusions.

Dunno why but thats just cringy

>he doesn't love his neighbors
>he calls himself a Stoic
I mean you don't have to be political for the sake of it, just spend your time helping out starving Africans. Those poor humans! Doesn't your heart yearn for them, Mr. Stoic?

nature would just mean what we observe in the case of the stoics if that makes more sense.
>stoicism doesnt seem to be utilitarian in the least
its pretty utilitarian if you accept that the principle of desire is to not desire anymore.

>If anything egoism is the most universally applied thing there is
Yeah, I guess you've got a point. Everything we do, we do out of egoism, because we think it will give us pleasure. So, for example, even when we help people, we do it because it will make us feel better. Hence even Hobbes, as I remember, once gave alms to a poor person, even though he believed that man's completely egoist and self-centered, and he said that he did it because his suffering disconcerted him, that's why he gave alms. I guess he's got a pretty big point. But in terms of the ethical system that will fulfill you the most, you have to not believe in Egoism, even though everything you do is for your own benefit at the end of the day. It is like free will, I mean, logically speaking, when it all boils down to, there is no free will and it doesn't exist, but you can't fucking accept that at face value, because then you might start believing that you're not really responsible for your actions at the end of the day. Basically you're right, we are all egoists, but we can't believe it, and we should accept other ethical systems, that fulfill us more than rational egoism.

Nice seeing you again.

Attached: 17816d1297aca4f73b9e1f58a9f2aebc.jpg (564x710, 18K)

Not that guy, but starving Africans aren't my neighbours. I do love my neighbours and I'm on very good terms with them, they sometimes even feed me and when a great illness befell me, my neighbours were there to support me.

Never heard of Camus's name before though I do recognise his "mom died" quote.
Just read the wiki article, I pretty much agreed with him before reading it. Can I get a quick rundown?

hahah of course, it makes you uncomfortable because you know it's true because it goes against the fundamental basis of your reality and everything you hold so dearly to be true, and so naturally, as anyone who is on the losing end of an argument and in denial of harsh and brutal truth, you are left to name-calling, insults and attacking the persons character; on the internet, this is usually done in the form of using ironic detachment along with meme and "cringe" culture as a method of bashing the person instead of their ideas

Attached: 2ee.gif (287x344, 141K)

I see. Simply wall yourself off from the undesirables and everyone is happy. Truly a great philosophy, stick your head in the sand and all problems go away!

Be honest user. Are you really a happy person? When you think like that, it's very difficult not to be miserable.

>I don't know only about Camus, but Camus is the only one that makes sense as he cared about things that are actually important to us as biological human beings and not some ascended impossibly idealized hypothetical entities Kant and Nietzsche preached about.
That's a good point. Do you know any books by Camus that expound his point of view besides the classic The Stranger? The only one I read and it was a nice, but not incredible book.

> And Kierkegaard need not apply as all he did was advocate for a "leap of faith" which is retarded.
I disagree.

Hey, if you wanna be happy, it's very good to help people, but politics just makes people more mad than they already are.

>nature would just mean what we observe in the case of the stoics if that makes more sense.
I don't know if I follow.

>its pretty utilitarian if you accept that the principle of desire is to not desire anymore.
I don't think you know what you're talking about mate. That seems more like something Schopenhauer would say. A Stoic would say that desire is the fulfillment of something, which leads not to ataraxia but a heavy heart, hence desires should be extinguished if possible. A state of peace is absence of desires, but desires never want to "not desire", that makes little sense.

Attached: 931c8128065f023102e998fb1857f341.jpg (564x710, 30K)

>Given one life
>Waste it pointlessly following another's philosophy not your own

just b urself

Attached: 1531959024231.png (1194x826, 148K)

Sorry man I'm obviously dumb and can't formulate myself properly.
Hedonism does more harm to society as a whole, is what I'm trying to say. But it's to complicated.
I think the "victims" of people who enjoy mocking people and keeping them as objects of entertainment have more of a right to be hedonistic, and if they're self aware they should be allowed to force their "captor" into feeling helplessness only once, so the more successful person can feel the lose of their own self agency and freedom, and God status once.
But this might make society worse, if the person used to being victimized and being "less" gets the power, they will understand why successful people do it and realize they can be a God too

>life has no inherent meaning, you are the actor on stage, everything else is irrelevant, whether god exists or not we cannot know and it does not concern us
>the desire of a human being for an ordered, meaningful structure conflicting with a universe that has no meaning creates a sense of unease and discomfort which is described as "the absurd"
>Camus advises embracing the absurd and withstanding that discomfort, going past it, beyond it and advocates for a creation of your own meaning, as long as you do not declare it to be the ultimate truth and maintain an ironic distance from it in the face of the absurd, as it would put you squarely in the same league as normalfags that decry that the way they live is the only right way
>Suicide is not the answer as you are to find pleasure and satisfaction within your struggle, hence the story of Sisyphus unless you choose to rationally self terminate yourself as someone that is logical until the bitter end

Nature had not granted me any power to solve the problems of the starving Africans and if nature did not intend for the starving Africans to have problems, they wouldn't have them. Perhaps aforementioned starving Africans should take measures not to starve, as I have done, with the help of my good neighbours.

Jesus fuck this looks like something I could have wrote, word to word.
Reminds me a lot of Epicurus too.

So, anything Cramus related I should read? I think I get it already but if there is anything you consider a must, hit me.

Yes. His 3 letters (to Herotodus, to Pythocles and to Menoeceus) Also some sentences, but his philosophy is better resumed in the Letters.

The aforementioned Myth of Sisyphus is a good read, but it references a book called "The Fall" which introduces the concept of a "doubtful case", aka the case of a man whose suffering cannot be proven until he commits suicide as a result of that accumulated pain, but as he is now dead he cannot witness the reaction of those that doubted him, which is why until he does it, his pain will remain a "doubtful case".

>Be honest user. Are you really a happy person? When you think like that, it's very difficult not to be miserable.
from the sounds of it, you sound even more miserable than i do with your happy go lucky all-knowing psychoanalyzing ass becuase you have to convince yourself that being in a constant state of happiness is possible and everything you do actually matters...must be difficult not falling apart and being shattered and broken on the inside with all the lies you feed yourself

"happiness" are neurochemicals, they're called serotonin dopamine and oxytocin, and i'm always releasing them in the right amounts
whether you or i think i may be "happy" or not and it feels fucking good, probably better than whatever you think you feel ;)

Attached: flat,1000x1000,075,f.u1.jpg (1000x741, 150K)

How about "the stranger" ?

>had not granted me any power
A quick Google search will turn up a list of charities to donate your money and time to. To have no sympathy for the plight of the Africans is a very un-Stoic position. Tsk tsk

It resolves the problem of murder and subjective morality and why an absurdist more often than not is amoral, but not immoral, as being amoral doesn't mean that your personal morality would necessarily be contrary to what is commonly accepted as sane in the society you inhabited. It does however frequently clash on the finer points of "I did it because I believe it was the right thing to do according to x and y" versus "I was taught to act this way by others".

>Can I get a quick rundown?
I think it's difficult to do one. These guys were extremely well-read and have a wealth and plethora of ideas and thoughts and it's hard to boil down that fast. But basically, at least in the book of "My mom just died", Camus makes a plot of a guy who really doesn't care about anything, and leads his life really not bothering too much about anything. As he lives his life he ends up suffering and rejoicing but never too much, and he never ends up really caring or finding that anything has a deeper sense of meaning at all. "Hence his mother just died, I don't really care that much." The interesting thing is that it's not simply about the psychological development of a character that doens't care about anything at all. It is also about an underlying sentiment, not only of the times, but of Camus also about the inherent meaninglessness of existence and things in life in a human being. He teases us with the inherent futileness of things, and also reflects the prevailing sentiment of the era. Along with all the suffering that the character has to go through, he also has to deal with the fact that it doesn't change anything at all, and it's reflected in how he deals with life, and this is in a way very ironic considering that the simple fact that he doesn't care, also makes things even more meaningless.

>Waste it pointlessly following another's philosophy not your own
I used to think like that but then I realized it's much better and faster to fucking read rather than trying to come up with the ideas of the greatest minds that took literally thousands of years to achieve. Seriously, it's better and faster to read, then you live life following the one you think best. But the more, and the faster (as long as you know well) you read, the absolute better.

Are you talking about the Master-Slave Dialect?

>and realize they can be a God too
What do you even mean by that?

Attached: 2le2b1f.jpg (850x567, 22K)

I do not have any money to spare for them, all of it goes to maintaining myself and it has been demonstrably proven that these charities are ineffectual at remedying the issue and instead only serve to exacerbate it. They have existed for decades and yet the situation on their continent remains the same. They will not benefit if I were to choose to destroy myself for their sake as they have not benefited from countless sacrifices of others. I know you are mocking me, but ultimately you're just mocking yourself here by showing your ignorance and excessive contempt for a way of thinking that irritates you.

All your money goes towards maintaining only yourself? There is not a single charity out there that does good in the world? Perhaps instead of attacking someone that questions your fear of charity, attack the indifference toward your fellow man inside your heart.

I have mentored several men, but I have my limits as a living being. He who fights for everyone, dies for no one. And you ought not to deflect from what I have pointed out, refuting your African example.

>whether god exists or not we cannot know and it does not concern us
I think that Camus said that God did not exist, not that we don't know. Well, I think though.

>Suicide is not the answer as you are to find pleasure and satisfaction within your struggle
I don't see how that makes that much of a sense, because you're basically saying that you are "to find pleasure and satisfaction within your struggle". In the end, this seems like a hedonist argument to me. Basically saying you'll find happiness in life, but we all know that that has been said countless times since antiquity.

Don't be a meanie egoist, user. Saying things such as "They should take care of themselves" and things like that is really not the answer. At the end of the day noone really has any fault for what they do or not, specially when it comes to their own welfare.

Attached: 11.jpg (1168x1526, 480K)

>Basically saying you'll find happiness in life
Not having read Camus, but I'd assume it's not about finding happiness but about how besied the sadness/pain, you can also feel good/happy during your lifetime. Death feels like "nothing", if you can even call that feeling.

"Charity does not benefit those who receive so much as those who give." I ask you, why do you think you are such a good Stoic with your first world luxuries and utter contempt for the poor? Why do you care if you live or die, Mr. Stoic? Why have you hardened your heart against charity when numerous practitioners went into poverty willingly so they could free themselves from a life of excess? You with your internet access, spending your leisure time shitposting on an anonymous basket-weaving forum. Does it pain you so much to admit you are wrong?

>and everything you do actually matters...must be difficult not falling apart and being shattered and broken on the inside with all the lies you feed yourself
I never said that. I don't think anything matters in the end, except for one thing: happiness. This is what really fucking matters.

>"happiness" are neurochemicals, they're called serotonin dopamine and oxytocin
Yeah, if you wanna be scientific about it. But it's not just that, the fact is, my consciousness is a phenomena. It has a qualia, a "taste", it's not just this or that chemical, that is reducing it until it becomes almost meaningless. My existence, and my consciousness are much more than that, and not only that, but happiness, for me is a bliss and such an incredible and awe-strucking phenomena it's unbelievable. Consciousness for me is phenomena, and happiness is the emotional state I want to be in all the time, as much as possible, and I sincerely believe that it's possible to achieve a state that can be called "continuously happy" or "content", only it's extremely hard, if not impossible. I genuinely believe there is such a thing as a "happy person", but it's hard to find.

Well, if you're content with how things are going for you, then good for you. But as I see things, it's very hard to become satisfied and happy with things the way you look at them, but if you can, then I'm happy for you. :)

Attached: Bonsai-1.jpg (1024x682, 147K)

The Myth of Sisyphus, quoting.
>I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burdens again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

A lot of people got the wrong idea about Camus, treating his claim that life is meaningless as an end to thought, instead of a starting point.

>with your first world luxuries and utter contempt for the poor?
I am neither a noble nor a rich man, I live in a tiny apartment that does not even have a working shower, I cannot afford anything but a minimum amount of food and my physical ailments have turned my life into a battle for survival. With certainty I can say, that am poorer than you and yet I do not neglect the act of responsibility for my actions as well as my well being. I have given charitably of myself to many, but I have chosen to give to those that will make use of it instead of throwing it away. I care if I live or die because as long as my life continues I can further observe and explore numerous worlds that are other people. Even yours contributes to this experience, no matter how contemptible it chooses to present itself to me.

We are all hypocritical up to some point, but I think that the best course of action would be to help those we can, and at the same time realize that we're not and have never been and have never tried to look like saints. If you do that, then you'd be willing to help people (which is better than nothing), without falling into hypocrisy. If you read Seneca, for example. he doesn't at all disdain the possession of abundant goods. He even says it's a good thing, it gives you power to do as you please and even helps you to help others and be more virtuous. The fucking problem is that we become attached to them, and abuse them. We live in luxury not because we have been granted them, but because we desire them and give them more value than they should, but having money, or having been born in a first World Country does not exclude the possibility of being good, even though to people who don't fully apprehend the luck that they have really do seem to be hypocritical.
My point is, if you realize all the luxuries and the privileges you have been born with, and you acknowledge them fully, and help others, then it's not hypocritical and it sure is better than doing nothing.

I use to also pride myself of my frugality and simple living but there really is no shame in being wealthy, the only problem is how you use it.

>I am neither a noble nor a rich man
You are writing like this is a letter from Seneca. Are you being wholly sincere and honest here, mate?

Attached: 31ce19622587722f4827775df3174b77.jpg (549x755, 70K)

Egoism. Do what you want. The self is all that matters.

Attached: 1487318700588.gif (273x322, 1.14M)

Yes, this is a thread about philosophy, why not be verbose for a bit if you can afford to be? I am completely sincere.

>A lot of people got the wrong idea about Camus, treating his claim that life is meaningless as an end to thought, instead of a starting point.
Ok, so basically the fact that life is meaningless is given as a FACT by Camus.

>This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile
God then does NOT exist, not like the other user said, that we DON'T KNOW whether he exists or not, but more that we're sure he doesn't. At the same time, life doesn't seem futile even without the existence of God.

I don't see how I got anything wrong. I guess that probably Camus' thought must have different interpretations, am I right?
Can't we just see Camus' work more as a literary movement rather than a purely philosophical one?

Attached: 1536352971691.jpg (650x642, 109K)

Life has no meaning so do what you love, with the people you love, and try and make the best of your one shot for yourself and the people around you.

You have one chance to live forever, it's through the actions you do and the effect you create on the people around you.

There's a lot of negativity on this website. I hope none of you actually carry it into the real word.

In the modern era, Charity has been destroyed by the state. It can no longer really exist.

Charity (and Mercy - they're really the same thing, and should probably be referred to as Charity / Mercy) occurs when one voluntarily takes a step back from justice. Justice is the rendering to each that which is deserved, whether we're talking about a benefit or a harm. Charity is the voluntary rendering of a benefit that is not deserved; mercy is the voluntary withholding of a harm that is deserved. In both cases, they are the opposite of justice.

Because they are the opposite of justice, they have to be voluntary. If you are forced to involuntarily show mercy...that's not actually mercy; it's merely injustice. If you are forced to involuntarily show charity...that's also not actually charity, that's also merely injustice.

Because the modern state has nearly totally removed the voluntary aspect of Charity, it has destroyed it as a category.

Camus wrote novels that explored hypothetical scenarios or characters (Mersault from The Stranger and The Judge Penitent from The Fall) just like any other philosophers and I am sure he would have written more if he didn't die so early, the existence of god was never a major concern in his works and he did not go out of his way to disprove it, universe being meaningless and left masterless does not mean it lacked a creator or a deity, if you will. Plenty of masters are indifferent towards their creations or choose to abandon them.

What kind of mysticism do you subscribe to? Is it just a syncretic mesh? Can you tell me more about mysticism in general, as I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject.

>Life has no meaning so do what you love, with the people you love, and try and make the best of your one shot for yourself and the people around you.
Fuck dude. You are completely fucking right. We gotta enjoy our fucking life to the fullest and not waste time.

>In the modern era, Charity has been destroyed by the state. It can no longer really exist.
That seems like something Milton Friedman would say.

To be honest I found The Stranger a poor book devoid of much meaning or feeling to arouse in the reader. It's not that great. I still don't really see it revolutionizing anything at all. It's an OK book, I've read better.

Attached: 2603755-Seneca-the-Younger-Quote-Make-haste-to-live-and-consider-each-day.jpg (1600x900, 85K)

The Stranger felt to me more like a thought experiment as Mersault was way too autismo to have existed and lived on his own for as long as he did, stumbling blindly through life, especially at that time in history.

I think people tend to got bogged down by this defeatist, Nietzsche belief system, the idea that the universe has no purpose? That's a weight off my back to be honest I'm glad that my life is free to be lived however I feel.

You'd be surprised how many people equate life not having a meaning to life not being worth living. It's the default kneejerk response among the normalfags.

>What kind of mysticism do you subscribe to?
Christian. Of course there are various forms of Mysticism, and I don't subscribe to any one in particular. But I really really enjoy reading about the philosophies of Mystics and their lives.

> Can you tell me more about mysticism in general, as I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject.
Mysticism is a big subject with the philosophical and religious thoughts of a huge amount of writers, but basically, at least in Christian Mysticism, I see it as a plethora of attempts and views of how to live life religiously and to apply philosophy to one's life and to actually find God. It is a more honest attempt of religious living than any of the mainstream Christian religion way. I'd recommend reading "The Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a Kempis, then "The Cloud of Unknowing", the former I keep with me and it's on my top 5 books of all time.
In Mysticism one tries to be as sincere and honest as possible with achieving an experience of the divine and finding meaning of one's life through ardently and genuinely pursuing God. It brings about in one a "reality" of the religious that is really connected with the individual and his religion to God and spirituality without the need of intermediaries like the Church or mainstream Christian views, hence why many Mystics were chased by the Catholic Church. In Mysticism thereiis a plethora of different view on how to understand and have a connection to God, and every one is extremely interesting to me.

Attached: a82e8e0e7b90a78ea16f00b2c321a0d0.jpg (1513x2079, 338K)

>That seems like something Milton Friedman would say.

Well, it's much more clear if you look at it from the perspective of Mercy, first.

>Be you
>You're at court before King Solomon, in a dispute with a man who had stolen from you
>King Solomon says, "user, it is clear that the accused is guilty. But he is also a poor man, and he stole from you only because his family was hungry. I would think very highly of you if you showed Mercy, and forgave the wrong that was done to you."
>You think it through
>It would be cool if the King and others thought you were a cool dude
>And hey, the guy's family was hungry
>"You're right, King Solomon. I have chosen to forgive the man who stole from me."
>Everyone pats you on the back
>King Solomon gives you a thumbs up

That's voluntary mercy. But if instead the scenario is:

>Be you
>You're at court before King Solomon, in a dispute with a man who had stolen from you
>King Solomon says, "user, it is clear that the accused is guilty. But he is also a poor man, and he stole from you only because his family was hungry. So I have decided that justice to you is unimportant, and I have decided that we're just going to let this guy go."
>King Solomon flips you the bird
>Accused guy laughs, grabs his junk and shakes
>King Solomon snaps his fingers
>King's guards come and drag you the fuck out of court
>Hit the bricks, loser

Same outcome, but because it wasn't voluntary, but was imposed on you, it's clearly not Mercy at all...but merely injustice.

Yeah, he felt really soulless. There was very little character development. I understand that was part of the point of the book, but at the same time he was so soulless and the character so empty there was little empathy to have with him, not only that but the few parts where there was something that related me to him, the thoughts were more of Camus rather than his character. And these thoughts really unrelated to anything in the plot or even the character.

I felt that way back in the day but lately the fact that there is so little purpose or direction in everything brings despair to me all of the fucking time. I wish that God existed and he showed himself to me and told me exactly the way to live my life and I'd never have to worry about choosing or anything like that. I'd just accept whatever God gave me with gratitude.

Attached: 1512215926910.jpg (736x1012, 81K)

Such a sentiment has been describe by someone whose name I can no longer recall as "fear of freedom". The fear of knowing that you are the only one responsible for all he good and bad that befalls you, lack of hindsight included of course.

Yeah ok. So basically what Milton Friedman had to say.

Yeah. I think it has more to do with anxiety. Kierkegaard hits this point very well. Freedom is a fucking curse, from an existentialist point of view.

Attached: gif.gif.gif (500x281, 1.31M)

Anybody ever read this masterpiece?

Attached: no longer.jpg (225x225, 8K)

>Yeah ok. So basically what Milton Friedman had to say.

Well, no. Not really. Friedman was much more interested in the macro impact of various possible state decisions on wealth transfer. The interplay of justice and charity as classical virtues wouldn't really have been his cup of tea, except in a table talk or anecdotal sense.

You've made a pretty good example there, user, I salute your eloquence.

>The interplay of justice and charity as classical virtues wouldn't really have been his cup of tea, except in a table talk or anecdotal sense.
Have you read his biggest, most well-known pop-book "Capitalism and Freedom"? He tackles the subject fiercely, besides he also says the same in his numerous interviews.
You do know that Milton Friedman's economic ideology also implied more than just that, right? He also had pretty strong views on Charity and anything of political philosophy that had to do with freedom.

Attached: 1492743240854.jpg (288x358, 46K)

I guess the gripe here is that he's an economist, not a philosopher.

>>Camus advises embracing the absurd and withstanding that discomfort, going past it, beyond it and advocates for a creation of your own meaning, as long as you do not declare it to be the ultimate truth and maintain an ironic distance from it in the face of the absurd, as it would put you squarely in the same league as normalfags that decry that the way they live is the only right way

The problem is that as soon as you NAME this, as soon as you describe it as a process...it can't be done.

>Hey guys, I'm about to create my own meaning, but don't worry, I'm going to maintain an ironic distance from it!
>Oh yeah? Knock yourself out, faggot.

Why bother? You'll always know it's just a sad game.

And if someone comes to smash your meaning, and to crush your ironic distance...on what basis can you tell them they are wrong? Maybe they're just creating THEIR meaning, and the meaning they've chosen to create is kicking your ass.

You're free to evolve and mutate on those grounds, nothing is ever final until you die. You're not really saying anything to oppose the notion of absurdism by this, only expanding on it. If's only impossible if you hold on onto the yokes others like to hang onto your neck.

All this talk about meaning fucking signifies fucking nothing. Fucking Camus was a writer of fiction and that's fucking it. If you want to get deep into philosophy you should read strictly philosophical guys first and then move on to others but in general there is just so much more awesome philosophy that it is not even that imperative to read Camus.

Seriously, all this talk of existentialism was said in one way or another by other philosophers in the past already. Why bother that fucking much with just fucking Camus? There are so many great philosophers of the past, and I genuinely believe that if you want to live genuinely you gotta follow the mystics of the past rather than Camus.

Attached: Vogue-Italia-May-2017-Rianne-van-Rompaey-by-Karim-Sadli-13.jpg (700x914, 159K)

I think it's unfair to discredit Camus as a mere novelist just because he didn't manage to churn out twenty essays.

>He also had pretty strong views on Charity and anything of political philosophy that had to do with freedom.

He did, but his point of view would still have been more oriented to the practical. He believed that the absence of state-mandated charity would produce better outcomes for the poor themselves. He also believed that a large economic role for the state decreased the scope of human freedom overall. In his more extreme moments, he came close to the Randian view that charity wasn't even a virtue at all.

My point here was certainly at least in the ballpark of things that Friedman had to say, but the focus and emphasis were different.