That's some serious delusion right there, it might be true to you but to believe it's true to everyone else is absolutely insane.
- Is there absolute truth?
- Can two contradictory claims be true at the same time
None of the quotes you provided disproves my claim that Camus didn't see life as intrinsically meaningful. He suggested its the individual imbuing meaning in life, but that chosen meaning is a mere illusion just to get one not to self delete - an act he compared to the meaningless toil of Sisyphus. He saw man as being in an equally absurd position and he concluded we must embrace our meaningless endeavors and learn to find happiness in them ("one must imagine Sisyphus happy").
Anyway, I don't get why you're getting salty with me. You've tried calling me out on something I have pretty good knowledge on, I've proven you wrong and you tried deflecting with irrelevant quotes to the argument, attacking my source (as if I believe I'm correct because big think says so) and strawmaning my argument.
Not a pessimist here although I've had a short lived but edgy Schopenhauer phase years ago.
Why is it pessimistic? Do you think man is a perfect being capable of creating perfection? Is man God?
I don't offer anything and it's not valuable because it's mine but because it's true and I can make a strong case about it being the one and only true worldview in a debate. Other worldviews hold pieces of truth but they don't have the full picture. I'm not a gnostic pretending to have revealed some secret truth about the world that only I know of. I hold the Orthodox Christian worldview and adhere to the doctrines and the teachings of the Church of Christ which are available to everyone.
“The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.” ― Albert Camus
The meaning of life Camus makes a rather bold claim on the meaning of life: there isn’t one and we can’t make one either. He argues that it is impossible for us to find a satisfying answer to the question of the meaning of life, and any attempt to impose a meaning on the universe will end in disaster, as whatever meaning we pick will be sent up later. He further denies that science, philosophy, society, or religion could ever create a meaning of life that would be immune to the problem of absurdity.
Do I need to paste the ending of The myth of Sisyphus to make my point clearer?
No but Disney wasn't even alive by then. Early Disney is 30-40s.
Thank you, brother. I'm Eastern Orthodox and we celebrate Easter next month.
That's what Huxley called perennialism. This "wisdom of the ages" philosophy was also heavily promoted by the Royal Society, Tavistock, SRI and CIA (also through eastern influenced theosophy, new age and the hippy movement) as a new world religion of the future man.
The common critique of it would be that there's a limited set of moves one can make in metaphysics, epistemology and ethics (and all three branches of philosophy are interrelated). For example you either believe the world is purely physical and matter in flux or you believe in a metaphysical realm beside it. Or that everything is either ultimately one (monism), two (dualism) or many (polytheism and multiplicity). Here we have a third option which is the trinitarian doctrine of Christianity. It's an either/or binary and your position on it will lead to other consequences down the system. That's why people who choose the pick-and-choose preference based approach for their worldview often hold contradictory ideas. Consistency in the worldview is the lack of such contradictions.
Jesus is at odds with the worldviews of both Voltaire and Camus. Voltaire is obvious because he's very much an atheist and a poster boy for liberal progressivism and secular humanism. Camus, being an existentialist, holds that the life is meaningless, but in spite of that we must struggle to find our own made up meaning, which leads to embracing absurdism. Maybe there's a false image of Jesus reinterpreted as a zen hippy boyfriend type who's all about love and peace, man, but that's a recent invention and an apparent heresy to anyone familiar with Christian theology.
No, it would get too real and concrete and it also would make him sound reasonable. They are inter-dimensional space aliens and hollow Earth-dwelling reptilians, everyone knows that.
How is 1967 early Disney?
I meant it fails achieving absolute perfection, just because humans are not perfect like God is. That doesn't make the art bad but rather it makes it human and not divine.
The Usual Suspects is a great movie. Btw, I watched Adaptation with Nic Cage yesterday and was surprised by how good it was. I recommend it if you haven't watched it.
I don't think having a system prevents your worldview from being full of shit but at least it keeps you consistent in your bs.
I was huge on Nietzsche in my 20's, red all his work, but outgrew him and became a Christian. He has some great and relevant ideas but he's not a systematic philosopher for a reason - his views are not consistent and many of them are based on unjustified assumptions. He has passion and rhetoric though which makes his stuff convincing, and yes he has genius.
His biggest fail is his materialism, naturalism, determinism and denial of absolute truth (which is a self refuting claim). If he were consistent with those his whole Ubermensch raving loses epistemic ground - why should anyone care about his subjective preference of what man should be? And since he's a naturalist and determinist why do ethics (what should one ought to do) matter at all?
He also ignored Hume's destruction of naturalism and basic bitch empiricism ("You can't get an "ought" claim from an "is" claim"). Even if we grant Nietzsche the world is in constant flux and organized around master/slave dialectic (which he got from Hegel), that wouldn't give us any reason to affirm such a world or system as good or desirable just on account of it being natural. In the end, he writes about his subjective preferences and makes a case why someone should care about them any more than someone else's preferences ("I like banana therefore banana good therefore everyone should eat banana"). No attempt at justified true belief there.
I don't know what infinitely simple or infinitely complex means because infinite is a word used to describe something literally beyond our comprehension.
Exactly. Life is beyond our comprehension. Art reaches for that transcendental state, to the eternal divine dimension, and it always fails (but good art fails beautifully). Yet that's what makes it human and relatable.
I don't think art's purpose is the expression of deep emotions, or at least that's not what makes art good in my aesthetics. As for Pollock, I find his art meaningless and degenerate and since we're in a conspiracy sub it'd be appropriate to point out he was heavily promoted by the CIA exactly for that reason (culture creation/subversion). Van Gogh is cool.
It means to tell the truth from falsehood. It could be an intentional lie or it could be ignorance or delusion. Intuition (what I'd call the heart or nous) plays a part but it's always subjective and points to the self. When we're engaging with the external world, I'd refer to rationality and logical argumentation instead because it presents a common ground, being objective and universal. My point was we judge all the time whether something is true or false and judging in that sense is absolutely necessary and everyone does it. This is basic epistemology.
It seems like Jung apprehends the word in a narrow and superficial manner and it ends up reading like something out of a boomer facebook philosophy quotes page. For all his psycho-mystical mumbo-jumbo and some interesting insights here and there, Jung wasn't much of a philosopher.
"Genius is making complex ideas simple, not making simple ideas complex."
Depends on context. As far as art is concerned it works both ways because life itself is both infinitely simple and infinitely complex.
Do you disagree?
Could be right and it could be wrong. What society or mainstream history labels genius is not always real genius. There's a lot of myth creation and PR involved in these matters.
The "eccentric genius" trope is older than that and it spans not just science but other fields like art. It was mostly an organic outgrow of the Enlightenment/Romantic worldview of the 18-19c. It sure was weaponized to serve the scientismo narrative pushed by general education and pop culture in the 20th century though.
"Everything I've been told/red is a lie or a hoax". This is how they muddy the waters and generate confusion and paranoid levels of skepticism. Seems like an MK Ultra drummed up psy op.
Flat Earth is dumb and easily disproven, viruses are a hoax because they've never been proven to exist scientifically, I'm not sure why nuclear explosions would be a hoax but it's possible and the sun could be a star like other stars or it could be in a category of its own (I believe it's the second).
Judging/discerning accurately is even harder.
Next year it will coincide with something even more degenerate like international furry day or maps visibility day. Jews gonna jews.
Low tier atheist cope. Everything God creates is good. Evil, suffering and death entered the world through the fall of man (which is the result of man being created in God's image owning a free will). God is the uncreated light and the absence of that light leaves darkness - that doesn't mean darkness has any existence to it.
Byzantium lasted many centuries longer than most other empires, simply due to its sound-money laws prohibiting usury and coin-clipping, u/SmithW1984.
I agree.
Based and meekpilled.
What reality?
Physical? Mathematical? Metaphysical? Spiritual?