Camus: The Absurd
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 гру 2022
- Dr. Ellie Anderson introduces some ideas from Albert Camus' 1942 The Myth of Sisyphus, a key text for absurdism that is also often considered existentialist (though Camus, like many thinkers associated with this tradition, rejected the label 'existentialist'!). She touches on the absurd, the three consequences of the absurd, and more.
Have you listened to our podcast yet? Check out all episodes at overthinkpodcast.com or on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts! Of special interest for this video is the Existential Anxiety episode.
My left ear found this really interesting.
Yes, it takes me back to the days of mono, when stereo was a feature
Mine also. The right ear bud just went out…
Select the Start button, then select Settings > Accessibility > Audio, and then switch on the Mono audio toggle. After i googled this it was fine :D
@@immanuelheim7586 thank you, very helpful. Would've been absurd to listen just through my left ear!👍
Very left leaning …
One must imagine the right ear happy.
Left ear
One day the "why" arrived for me in the form of cancer. I was 23, taking existentialism at university, and reading The Myth of Sisyphus. I had been ill for a long time at that point. There were good days and bad days. Enough good days for me to remain ignorant of the pattern of death growing inside me. On my last day in school before I received the diagnosis (stage 4 non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) we finished the essay TMOS. My last memory of the class was my professor finishing with the line "we must imagine Sisyphus as happy". I completed six months of chemotherapy and eventually returned to university. I finished one semester. In my second semester, I again took existentialism, this time hoping to finish. I also worked as a supplementary instructor teaching PHI 101 students. On my last day on campus, the day before I found out my cancer had returned, I read Camus with my 101 students. Camus was there with me when I discovered the absurd. He helped me to see what is actually meaningful, in the subjective and immediate sense.
Anyway, great video. Awesome content in general.
Bummer. Would you say that having cancer has given you meaning in some way? Like having some thing to struggle against give you a reason to struggle? I know it’s a weird thing to ask, but it’s some thing I thought about before.
@@user-il9ze9py8c not weird, good question. It helped me to realize the meaningful things in my life, like family, friends, love. It’s a sort of refocusing or clarifying. I didn’t find meaning in the struggle against the disease. I just didn’t enjoy it. At the end of the day pain and fear simply sucks. It’s not romantic.
@@space_eko I'm really sorry you had to go through that. I'm sure it was miserable. What I mean is, I have met quite a few people who have beaten cancer, and they all seem to have experienced it as a tempering experience. They went through it, suffered immensely, but then came away from it with a newfound focus and appreciation for life. To be clear, I wouldn't want to be sick, and I wouldn't wish it upon anyone, but there does seem to be a very real growth that comes from suffering, or at least there can be, but something like cancer is unique in that it isn't something you can combat, like an animal, or out think, like a puzzle, it's just something you have to endure by yourself. This is going to sound strange, but I think that humans are very well equipped to suffer, almost like we need it on some level. It's why we watch horror movies, why we eat hot foods, why we push our bodies even though we don't physically have to in an increasingly sedentary world.
Sorry for the wall, it just seems like such a unique experience, and something that you just cant understand without having gone through it yourself. I'm glad you made it through!
I guess your comment stood out to me because it shows that you have meaning and focus in your life, and a lack of meaning and focus in my life is what led me to read the myth of sisyphus, which is what led me to watch this video. I'm interested in what motivates people.
Would you consider yourself a nihlist before you got sick? Would you consider yourself one now?
@@space_eko Hope you doing well bro
@@space_eko”What doesn’t kill you makes you very, very weak.” - Norm MacDonald
The fourth consequence of the absurd is quiet quitting.
Fantastic summary. I read this essay the day after I graduated from high school, and there began my education. Listening to this 43 years later I am struck by how seminal reading The Myth of Sisyphus has been for my life, the revolt, the freedom, the passion... I'm reminded, and this is a tangent, of something I read by a Buddhist about the liberation of hopelessness. In a society that clings to hope, in this Christmas season where I've heard over and over that "everything happens for a reason," I'm struck by how the absurd has contributed, not to angst or malaise or existential vacuum, but to my sense of motivated acceptance, active compassion, amazed engagement. Thanks.
If finding meaning in alleviating suffering for others is not enough for you, then maybe it is absurd to go on living.
@@eyemagistus Or rather, whether it is "enough" for me, or whether or not it is absurd to go on living, I go on living regardless. But I do find meaning in alleviating suffering for others, or rather, my goal is more to help people learn to reduce their own suffering, and it is enough for me. Yes, life is absurd, and for me (I don't know if Camus would agree here), this absurdity implies hopelessness. But hopelessness allows me to take things less seriously, to free myself from an excessive focus on meaning, to allow things to be as they are, or to work to improve things for the sake of improving the quality of this absurd life. Hopelessness need not be a downer. Rather, it is a motivator. Live like it's the end of days (Biblical or practical) while preparing for the very real possibility that it is not. And, this too is of key importance, get down to the funky beat. Merry Xmas.
Camus was like my best friend growing up. I read the Myth of Sisyphus when I was 17 and felt like I was glowing the entire time. I'm looking forward to reading it again now entering into adulthood. My favorite thing about Camus is that it doesn't feel like he places himself above you like a lot of philosophical writers, he just feels like a friend walking beside you, trying to appease your loneliness by sharing his.
Same for me with Hesse, and although I want to re read I think is was the need of that age and probably I shouldn’t
Well done. As a therapist, your presentation reminded me of something I think about a lot, the idea that we live in a bubble of limited perception, and that we need to learn to be more comfortable with uncertainty. If there is a "purpose" to all of this, there is little chance that I can figure it out from here. My brain is intelligent enough to know that I will die, but not intelligent enough to know the why, or if there is a why, especially because my ablity to sense my environment is limited. I take comfort in the idea that whatever it is, it's not my fault. My lack of perception limits my responsibility. Philosophers still go after that closure, because that is what people want. Maybe we should just encourage people to see that closure is not necessary.
In relation to what you comment on perception, I remember two theories, they may interest you. What Donald Hoffman raises in "Case against Reality" (from an evolutionary perspective, with a hard numerical approach). And the concept of "Predictive Processing" (from the phenomenological approach proposed by Andy Clark, particularly in his book "Surfing Uncertainty"). There's a lot of material on both here on YT. And both, from very different paths, propose something similar to the idea of a limited perception; our understanding of the universe ends up being something more like a self-confirming premise (perception as a form of "controlled hallucination")
Closure is necessary only for those who are fearless enough that they truly DESIRE the deepest of truths. The Meaning of Life, in an absolute sense, has finally been revealed, for any who desire it. I published this information 10 years ago and I see that few are ready (fearless) enough that they are even curious. Are you? Click and ye shall find...
@@tomrhodes1629ah, a keeper of the esoteric truth!
This is quite serendipitous. Only an hour ago I was engaged in a very heavy conversation with a friend who just found out she has stage 4 cancer. She was querying me about life and death and my perspective as an atheist. A one point she asked me if I thought life has a purpose. My answer was sadly generic but I was reeling from her shocking news. Your short paragraph above has covered with great economy a lot of what I was trying to say in such a non-succinct way. Thank you.
Oh closure is absolutely necessary. You might just get used to the idea that you will not get it.
Thanks for all of your content!
Thank you! Once again, your intellectual dance with words always carries one to the end! Departing with a better understanding!
thank you dr. ellie. this is a wonderful early college level book to wrap your thoughts sround, as is all camus. its interesting to rethink about at later stages of life too periodically. i recently retired and walked away from my sisyphusan rock and so thoughts of camus and his absurd and what it means now are again on my mind lately.
A very concise, expert presentation. Well done. Thank you.
Been there: many times. When that awareness happens, don’t shy away from it.
I would literally kill to have Dr Anderson as my professor. I would have enjoyed my degree so much more if someone delivered these ideas so fluently and engagingly. This channel is one of my best finds for 2022! Thanks Ellie
One can only hope you don't mean "literally" literally.
Now that would not be absurd enough, would it?
Watch out for reflexions of the sun. Might cause you to literally kill someone without true intention, as Camus' protagonist in The Stranger did. He litera-rily did it.
I have never literally killed someone, let us know how it was ..
@@ypey1 Oh my mistake, I should have anticipated pedantic literalism from the comment section on a philosophy video!
You were made for this. Thank you!
One of the best works I have seen. just progressed to the 2nd year of bachelor's degree in philosophy and politics, I feel so lucky that I have found this channel.
Thank you so much , this lectures are wonderful!
Excellent content as always! Greetings from a Camus fan!
I am loving your channel. Just my level, right length, mind-blowing topics. And very good explanations! Im learning so freaking much.
Beautifully stated: from and about. Thank you.
To be honest, I love the continental philosophy series more than the podcast. Thank you for what you are doing!
brilliant summary. you got to all the nuances of sisyphus so concisely and exactly to camus' point(s). i really don't think i've ever heard it explained so well.
i've been a fan of this book since i first read it at 19 (46 now) and over and over again at various points throughout my life and i always pick up some new shade of his meaning that i hadn't fully caught onto before.
camus packed so much into such a short essay.
it's interesting being light years from the 19yr old who was gifted a beat up copy of this book, slid to me across the table by a fellow student in conversation french class, to being in the throes of middle age and camus is still guiding my revolt against the absurd. rock on... ✌🏽😜
You are the thinking man's Heather Graham. Thank you for existing....
Great summary. Well done. Thanks.
Thank you for not littering this with ads. Am enjoying your channel
Amazing explanation, thank you so much, concise yet profound.
Thank you so much 🥳 it was easy yet detailed explanation on his ideas.
Everyone else has in-depth responses covered, so I'll make a short aesthetic one: the pictures of the excerpts are a wonderful addition. They're very simple yet very helpful.
Ha! You dropped this video just as I'm making my way through the myth of sisyphus. Wonderful!
Now that is absurd. Merry Christ-mas.
Rock on!
Love this. Thanks!
amazing lecture, greetings from Brazil
I love Camus’s work. The Myth of Sisyphus is a very dense read, but a must read
Such a cogent presentation. Thanks once again. Shortly before Camus died, he asked a Methodist minister for Baptism...and meaning. The minister said Camus should wait and think it over. Then Camus died in a car crash.
The minister was a man named Howard Mumma. Mumma claimed in a book written decades after Camus’s death that Camus was approaching faith. Was Mumma accurately representing Camus’s thought? We cannot know. However, Camus’s thought in his many works is consistently agnostic, sceptical, classical, and intelligent. I doubt he was as easy a convert as Mumma makes him out to be! Of course, even if Camus sought religious meaning at any given moment in his life, it does not in the least change the power of the arguments he made about the absurdity of the universe. The arguments are independent of the man.
@@oldpossum57 In 1966 Mumma told a St. Olaf College professor that Camus requested Baptism prior to his death. I believe Mumma. His request does not change his arguments, no. It changes the perspetives of his arguments. Marcel predicted in the '50s that Camus would convert. Camus was headed that way.
I love the little stomach noises throughout the video. Also, technical note, I could only hear in one of my headphone speakers, whereas I can hear in both for other youtube videos. Something you may want to look into! (I can help). These comments aside, I really enjoyed your video. Camus' take on the absurd is possibly the most foundational issue I'm trying to get my head around properly. Your video has brought additional light on it to me. So thank you! You're a very smart and eloquent person!
Transparent, you are.
@@KravMagoo how so?
The invention of jargon & attributing meaning to them is stunningly easy & illuminating at the same time.
Easy?
9:53 was that your stomach? 11:48 too, then your next example is about the next meal. Yeah, you're certainly hungry.
LOL, nice catch! Szép! :)
I thought it was mine 😂
Reminded me this quote by Confucius: “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.”
@@oguzcanyavuz8069
Aah, so that's what this quote means! Thanks. :)
Excellent!
A favorite of mine from Albert Camus and the notion of the absurd could not be more clear than with comments of the audio quality.
Thanks for the Absurd to consider. Sound recording was totally one sided (mono), not in center.
Thanks a million.
You need to enable mono audio from phone settings to enjoy the absurd on both ears 😊
I enjoyed this. I do love Albert.
Thank You Dr. Ellie Anderson... What a pleasure it is to listen to such an intelligent clear thinking presenter/woman. I am a bone head/peanut brain so I will have to watch a couple times. Put a philosophy book in my hand OMG, UGH!!! Put a blueprint in front of me along with a machine shop and I become a very focused rock star . I have liked and subscribed 😀... TM
always happy to learn from my left ear.
what a perfect review!
I LOVE THIS CANNEL!!!!!!
Great work. Remember those characters that seek subtle perfection and great friendships in Camus’s novels. They are his hope against this rational nihilism that is fundamentally anti life
Hi. Love your videos. What, if any, philosophy speaks about the dichotomies of reality? Who studies the ideas of irony on a molecular level; the peculiar oddity of the disjointed relationships between intention, observation, and result that makes irony such a common aspect of experience?
I mean, I can see the irony in living against the absurd but what about the concept of irony itself, it's mechanics, and their relationships to experience.
thank you
It's okay that Dr. Anderson uploaded a video with only a mono signal audio which only plays on the left channel. Perhaps her camera, or audio device, only recorded in mono, or how the video was rendered… sh*t happens. Which, of course, makes it wonderfully absurd as it follows the three consequences of the absurd. As it should. Great content, as usual.
Yeah. hard to listen to. It does seem to be just this one video that is problematic.
@thomas thompson I checked my speakers, as well. I know that one of my RCA connections is a bit absurd, as it once in a blue moon decide to cancel out.
Yeah thanks all for bringing this to our attention, and sorry about this!
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy Don't apologize, your content is great, which in this context is much more important.
Is it just me or the video actually lost the sound on of the sides of headphone ? :3 The content's still great as always tho.
Edit: while I don't like Camus, I respect him. He had tried his best to solve some of the hardest problems of existentialism in general.
What makes you respect him?
Thank you so much 😇
But the sound is coming out of one side of the speakers ☝🏻☝🏻☝🏻
yes I get that too...
what s going on?
@@GRLohr
Not a big deal , still a very useful lecture though 🙏🏻😇
You're awesome that was a great video.
I wanted to watch this video, but I can't handle to listen to it with my left ear only
Merci!
The audio is only playing in the left ear for headphone users. Great vid btw
Excellent "explication de texte." This would pair very well with an analysis of Adorno’s “Jargon of Authenticity."
No sound on one side, headphones/speakers :/
I just moved to Paris a couple months ago and bought myself "l'étranger" for myself as a xmas present two days ago so this is perfect timing lol!
The camera records in stereo but the microphone is one source. Hence it goes to the left. A good tip is to convert the audio to a mono file.
Read Camus in college and it is such a relief to read someone talking about suicide in a philosophical way, amidst our culture where suicide is hardly discussed at all, and never discussed philosophically, only psychologically.
"Once the absurd is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all." -- one of my favorite quotes of all time.
When I got to the end, however, I got frustrated. I cannot imagine Sisyphus happy. Camus seems to be defending a kind of optimistic nihilism -- nihilistic because there are no truly good reasons to live, and optimistic that we can live regardless. But I can only imagine Sisyphus happy were he a simpleton. Kids play with simple toys. Should we play with kid toys well into adulthood? No. We grow up and become more rational and needier. We need something more sophisticated, more meaningful. The rational response for Sisyphus is not to feel happy at all, but to feel boredom and despair.
Optimism can archetypically be associated with naivete, a kind of willful ignorance for the sake of emotional comfort. Pessimism, instead, can be associated with a sober acceptance of reality, no matter how painful reality is. I think Camus is engaging in naïve optimism, and not taking absurdity to its logical, pessimistic, conclusion.
It reminds me of those who say "Sure, there is no meaning to life. But that's okay; we can create our own meaning."
To me that sounds like: "Sure, there is no God. But that's okay; we can create our own God."
This is an explicit denial of reality, which is irrational. If, objectively, there are no good reasons to live, and yet you live anyway as if there _are_ good reasons to live, then you live a lie. (To me, the core idea of absurdity is contradiction, and thus life is absurd if life is contradictory. And certainly life _is_ contradictory, contradicted by death. But I also find myself using "Life is absurd" to mean "Life is meaningless", which in turn means "Life is without good reason to live".) If so-called "noble" lies are acceptable, then why can't we all accept the noble lie that God exists? How do modern critiques of religion survive?
Instead, I say there are objectively good reasons to live. It's perfectly rational to live to maximize the moments of flourishing and minimize the moments of suffering that you and those around you experience. So I accept a kind of Aristotelianism or Eudaimonism. Life is not absurd or pointless or stupid or a joke. Life is full of tragedy and suffering, but it's also full of happiness. Life is not _fundamentally_ bad, but _conditionally_ bad. In Sisyphus' case, his life is quite bad, and perhaps it would be reasonable for him to choose to die rather than choose to live, in a similar way that a terminal patient might reasonably choose to die.
But humans in general are not Sisyphus. We don't all live conditionally bad lives. Many of us are young, healthy, working jobs, have friends, family, meaningful hobbies, and are working to improve ourselves and improve our lives. Even those of us who are unsatisfied with our lives are working towards improving them. Sisyphus is stuck in a way that most of us just aren't.
Sure, the doctor heals a patient who will just die later anyway. So it might look like the doctor is rolling a boulder up a hill. But that fails to recognized the real moments that real people really experience, in this case the moments the patient gets to have, the years they get to live, thanks to the doctor saving them. In other words, the doctor is maximizing moments of flourishing and minimizing moments of suffering, which is perfectly reasonable. No lie needed, "noble" or otherwise.
P.S. - Christians talk about being the "hands and feet of Jesus", of being the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world", and that "faith without deeds is dead." And what is the Christian idea of heaven if not for the perfect maximizing of flourishing? ("There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.")
So it sounds like Christianity, and I'd say other religions as well, operate according to Eudaimonistic assumptions. So Eudaimonism isn't necessarily an exclusive way of being, but a basic way of being that's compatible with, and in common with, all sorts of religions and philosophies of life.
P.P.S. - Coincidentally, this interview with Christopher Watkin was just released, and he comments on Sisyphus from a Christian point of view: ua-cam.com/video/YzBsToGrHt4/v-deo.html.
Those who claim "we can create our own meaning" are not necessarily lying. That is, as long as they do not confuse the meaning we create with any intrinsic, objective, fundamental meaning to all of existence. It would be similar to saying "Yes, the Universe has no intent, but we can have intent." And it seems to me, with your assertion of "rationality" (which I vigorously agree with) for the activity of fostering "flourishing" and minimizing suffering, you are doing precisely that: Projecting meaning--and intent--onto a reality that has neither without us. I fail to see how you are lying about anything in doing so.
I must also say that pessimism should not be equated to realism. Or, at least it should be noted that there is an attitude (which I think can be properly referred to as "pessimism") which naively assumes the worst about reality. And in my experience--sometimes bitter, sometimes joyous--reality itself fails to comply with and routinely flouts the precepts and deductions of "realism." I can often be heard saying that the future will be worse than you feared and better than you hoped. Human optimism and pessimism regularly both overshoot and undershoot their marks.
@@josefkay5013 Thanks for the response ☺️
“…you are doing precisely that: Projecting meaning”
The issue I have with that is that I’m claiming I’m _discovering_ something, not projecting something.
I don’t think I’m coming up with my own subjective, arbitrary meaning of life, but that I’m discovering what’s truly reasonable: to maximize flourishing.
The universe _does_ have laws of logic and argumentation, and following those laws leads to Eudaimonism. It’s not arbitrary, but a feature of reality.
How could we tell “maximizing flourishing” is _objectively_ reasonable?
1) Intuition. The alternative is to say a perfectly reasonable person could strive to maximize suffering, and I can’t believe that.
2) Faculty of reason. I just see, by the light of reason, that it’s reasonable to maximize flourishing. There are good arguments in favor of the idea and no good arguments against it.
3) Convergence. People who are smart, well-informed, virtuous, and with properly functioning faculties _will_ agree with the idea, and agree that there are no good reasons to cause gratuitous suffering.
(I mean… the last part is trivially true. Gratuitous suffering _just is_ suffering for which there are no good reasons for it).
I’m not well versed in Philosophy so forgive me if I sound out of my depth here, but I just wanted to politely dispute your claims.
I can’t see how there are objective laws to maximize flourishing for us and those around us when people throughout history actively have abused positions of power or their innate talent to only only make themselves or a small subset of people with shared values flourish. Look no further than Fascist movements of the past, or Religious Crusades, Racism, Sexism, etc. You might say that these people aren’t reasonable then, but that is purely subjective. Their is no grand hard truth that tells us why suffering is objectively unreasonable. Suffering is subjective. Political violence to obtain liberties is a perfect example of this. If peasants create an uprising in a kingdom to increase their flourish, they are actively taking away flourish from the rulers. Depending on your subjective decisions you can internally make a case for either side of violence or neither side. Or you can subjectively decide that you value yourself more than any collective value and simply try to runaway to another kingdom in this hypothetical.
I think this is why I prefer Sartre look on meaning and how all our actions reflect actions of every person. Our institutions are subjective even in the modern world. We have secular suffering and religious suffering within and outside of nations. Every choice made in the past bleeds into the present, but at the same time the constraints and narrowness of the past seems to paradoxically give us access to so much knowledge to allow each and every one of us to make choices that continue to reshape the human condition.
I just think that their are no objective truths of the human condition, but only evidence of subjective ideals and actions that assert them.
@@andrewb.7917 thanks for the comment 😊
I think what you are getting at are a few issues with my view:
1) What COUNTS as flourishing? Who gets to say? Flourishing for a Nazi is very different than for a typical person.
2) How can we discover what’s true? Who gets to decide what’s true?
To answer 2 first, if you say there are no truths or no paths to truth, then I have no idea how I am meant to change my mind and agree with your view. You admit that you have no way to change my mind. So is intellectual conversation pointless?
In any case, I think this is too skeptical a view of the power of reason. Humans have a faculty of reason which allows them to _see_ certain truths. If I tell you I have orange juice in my fridge AND I have no orange juice in my fridge, you see that doesn’t make sense. It must be one or the other. And so logic is one of our main truthseeking tools.
Then to answer 1, I would have to unpack what I mean by flourishing and suffering. Happiness and pain are at the center of these ideas, and then surrounding them are those structures that give rise to good and bad things. I think to be a Nazi is to suffer, not to flourish, because being a Nazi is a bad thing to be. Nazism contains false beliefs which give rise to harm when acted on.
To flourish is to experience life satisfaction, sustained happiness & contentment over time where the happiness is virtuous in nature (vicious happiness like delighting in cruelty or being lost in drugs is a suffering on my view), and to participate in a web of flourishing (ie, a social community), where you help others and are helped.
It’s reasonable to maximize flourishing and minimize suffering. Flourishing is intrinsically good and thus intrinsically reason-generating.
Prof. Anderson, if we wanna specialise in academic/intellectual areas more than one, do you think reading on only 1 topic/field in a day is the best, or on more? And on the longer run, do ye think we should fovus on an x field for a period of time then move on to another, or shouldwe doing different areas of study consistently over time? Or, can we get a brief of yer studying programme?
Respect
Could you please do a video on The Rebel? Most of the videos about Camus' philosophy on UA-cam mainly focuses on the Myth of Sisyphus.
Great video! I have a question about the third consequence and the lack of a moral code that arises from Absurd. What's Camus' argument regarding situations where we can plausibly know the outcome of an action? For example, in the case of Mersault shooting the Arab in "L'Etranger", can one really say that Mersault didn't know that the consequence of shooting would be the death of the Arab? With the lack of a moral code, would Camus not be saying that Mersault is not guilty (only "responsible"), even in this case of murder, and thus condone his actions?
Oh no, there is no audio. was looking forward to this topic too.
You are amazing
You gotta put the audio in both ears, i spent so long trying to fix my headphones hahah
the absurb is what exists beyond the silence and stillness of the non dual universe. if you step into the silence and stillness, the answer arises. the answer (for me) lies in the resolution of paradox(any paradox will do). this is the resolution of non duality in buddhist thought. this is a lecture on buddhist dzogchen, framed in western philosophical terms. i enjoyed it.
the nice thing is that the universe has an endless amount of time to perfect its humour and to set up the parameters of the joke.
not really time has an end... only God is eternal
@@GODHATESADOPTION from my perspective, in nonduality, time doesn’t exist, that’s why its endless. i have no idea what god thinks of that, but i suspect its very funny.
@@annmorgana2848 Time doesnt exist for God but it does exist, there is a beginning and an end alpha and omega but he is from everlasting to everlasting.
A line from Camus that has stayed with me for some 60 years since I first read it: "Although life is incomprehensible, it is not without meaning." This destroyed Sartre for me.
What evidence did he offer to support that claim?
To fix audio, search up mono audio in your Windows settings and turn it on while you watch the video.
Camus's ideas about revolution and the justification of violence is quite gangster... I mean, it makes sense within the context of his life, the space and time that he found himself in. But I always wondered, in regard to what he emphasized as the ultimate question (to be or not to be): isn't it really just a question like any other? In other words, does anything really elevate this question beyond any other? I'd hate to flip absurdism into nihilism, but the backdrop of silence from which the question comes from could really generate any question, no? After which, the emphasis/importance of the question would be determined by the unique experience of the observer... Is there then a metaquestion, something like, "is there a question worth asking?". Then again, this assumption becomes quite paradoxical...
Could you make a similar summary from Camus' the Rebel?
This book was the book that got me into philosophy.
I understand that near the end of his life Camus struck up a friendship with a Methodist minister. I have often wondered what he gleaned from that.
I imagine the American Methodist was the one who gained most. Doubtless an introduction to good, inexpensive Paris restaurants. American food of the time was dreadful.
Can you do an episode with Stephen West? We would love to hear you going back and forth.
We wish he would respond to our emails! ;)
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy I will keep my fingers crossed :).
The audio is messed up- there is no sound in the Right channel, only the left.
Can you please discuss deeper into the specific concept METAPHYSICAL REBELLION of Albert Camus?
This is all extremely relatable as someone with a crappy job. I don't think it's possible to live a mechanical life if you hate your work.
If you commit suicide because you think there is no reason for anything, you are actually giving meaning to death, suicide, and life, ironically.
My mother always said, "No one is going to slip money through your mail slot. Don't be absurd. You must go create your own life. [Insert life goals] If that's what you want to do, go do it. You can do anything you want to do when you set your mind to it. Decide to do it, and do it. Make it happen. There's nothing absurd about it. Live your life now. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day!!:)"
"... didn't fall in a day, either. Stay centered. Sleep works. Drink WATER! Love you. Now, get out of my house, my movie is coming on and I want to work on my knitting. Give me a hug, see you next time!!:)"
Ma!!:'D
... much appreciate your excellence.
A relational notion? The why is just an imbalance of the scale of good stuff and bad stuff. Is it that the real difference is the knowledge of finite life?
Gosh, do I love the little piles. Ok, is Debt/Existential Phenomenology/Search for a Method some kind of blueprint for reprisal against the flailing liberalism snapping away at our every day? I sure hope so!
Is it just me or is this video left-only for the audio???? can't seem to hear it thru the right side of my headphones (while other stuff plays fine)
Sound only coming out left earphone when wearing a paid.
Tested against other videos, no such issue
Thought you might want to know abt this to fix in future posts?
Makes me think of Comming up for Air
Albert is Awesome!!
A podcast with Andrew Huberman, I imagine would be phenomenal
Circumstances that are beyond the control of all human beings: those have the final say as to what's possible and not possible for human beings.
Just finished it.
great video but we can only hear on one side
Nice jumper
My thoughts on this philosophy.
Camus believes that we bring the question of meaning into the universe itself, and without our existence such a question would or could never have existed. He thinks this fact is worth noting when considering the question of suicide, but that it won't bring us much solace, since we are never given an answer to the question. Therefore, Camus says we should be rebellious pessimists and agnostics, individuals that keep bringing the question into existence, despite no answers.
I think this is actually a major flaw in Camus' argumentation, and one that Heidegger anticipated, for it contains the hidden premise of Cartesian dualism. For although the meaning of being might require consciousness, for it to even be entertained, the mind and world are not two separate entities that need to be brought into relation, but they are one and the same. The universe is a unitary phenomena, so the meaning of being already exists in the world, not just in us. This is why, I think, Heidegger's argument is stronger, because it acknowledges our throwness into the world, as already present in it, and describes dasein and its search for the meaning of being, without recourse to a dualism. Heidegger ends up with a similar pessimism to Camus, but instead of revolting against our condition, we accept the absurd as it is appears to us via our phenomenological investigations.
Me encanta Camus; te quiero😎🖤
This concept of needing, or not having, meaning, and of the world not responding, is foreign to me, i can't recall struggling much with that.
Wonderful Summary, I also made a video on absurdism regarding the works of Camus.
Why does your videos only play in the left ear?
When we realize that the universe truly is silent, when we have the courage to face it head on, accept it, not escape or distract ourselves away from seeing it... we can first be struck by this nothingness. But from that nothingsness we have a new perspective, out of which we can create our own meaning from. When that perspective isnt found it can lead to nihilism and/or suicide instead..
Is this panned all the way to the left? I’m deaf in my left ear and can’t hear shit in my headphones xx
“ beginning to think is beginning to be undermined “
My left ear was not convinced.
Wonderful! 11:48 Hungry?
I think I feel something which is like this idea of the absurd, but in a sense a little more focused on "how" than on "why".
Like, this tension between how natural - automatic, unexamined, simply present - perception is, and how fundamentally incomprehensible it is that there is anything to perceive as well perception itself, let alone any specif thing and this specific perception. It's an almost comic tension at times. Like you're looking at something and past it at the same time and that turns you to your own looking and the nonsensical feeling of looking past it, or something?
Anyway, I think I'm rambling. This video is a nice reminder that I teally ought to read Camus though.
I saw you trying to hide it ( just before 3:30 )