I have a crap ton of homework but came across this juicy quote I will leave you with for now:
appearedtoblogly.wordpress.com/ … quote-xvii
I would say that what Camus had concluded is as well embedded in the murky muddle that encompasses someone’s philosophy of life [out in a particular world understood in a particular way] and the set of circumstances that one finds oneself in that sustains a measure of both pleasure and pain. If one’s philosophy of life comes to revolve around the glass being more half full than empty and one’s set of circumstances provides considerably more pleasure than pain, suicide is not likely. Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, one’s philosophy of life is considerably more in sync with the glass being half empty than half full, and one’s set of circumstances provides considerably more pain than pleasure, suicide may well become inevitable.
My point is that we all fall in somewhere along this spectrum.
But: Based on sets of variables that are only so much able to be fully understood and controlled. And that it does not appear reasonable to suggest that philosophers can pin down what the most rational approach to suicide ought to be.
Let alone what either is or is not absurd in regard to what we do choose.
And that’s before we factor in the theistic existentialists [like Kierkegaard and Buber] who broach the possibility here of existential leaps of faith to God.
Here, for me, calling someone defective in regard to their reactions to stars and pounding waves and mountains and rain forests and wild flowers and sunsets and all the rest is like calling them absurd.
There are things that are defective. Cars, appliances, internet connections, things we buy and use from day to day. But our aesthetic reaction to the things above?
That, in my view, is embedded more in dasein. Biologically/genetically we come into this world hardwired to find these things “beautiful” or “inspiring” or “awesome”…or in other contests “ominous” or “frightening” or “overwhelming”.
But to pin down [philosophically or otherwise[ how one ought to react to them? Aesthetically?
Sorry for the delayed reply. I’ll have to delay it further. I have another question to ask.
Those who say we make reality…
… And say God doesn’t exist because of evil…
My son wants to know why you don’t solve the problem of evil.
And if you are a nihilist…no right or wrong…
…why do you turn around and claim you did nothing wrong? Why try to justify?
Every breath you take, you sign God’s terms of service.
Let there…
waves
This is due to bracketing contingency in relation to necessity.
Although God’s existence is necessary to an absolute nihilization of evil; the nihilization of man in terms of how he creates reality is contingent on the axiom that his absolute evolution is irreversible to the only choice left ; that such reduction is irreversibly Hass no remaining choice between Good andevil- hence his conducive choices, if he has created them in the first place are reduced to having absolutely no choice in the matter, is non -negotianible and are beyond his capacity.
Therefore he does make a choice from this irrevocable state and that is to accept that which is beyond hiscapacity ( tochoose)
Therefore he can not make a choice to leap, and accepts his fate.
But in fact Camus did commit suicide, so he did make a leap unchosen and determined.
Turns out he died in a car accident after conversion.
So he did not loose his reason to live in amor fati
good thing
I believe it was Sartr who converted, Camus was raised a Catholic but remained pagan until the end . Easy mistake through memory lapse.
Good night Ichstus. It’ late at night here in the city of angels.
They both did.
OK
Ok within a shadow of doubt(jungian) there is conversion as that is necessitated at times as a defensive tool. ( for existential reasons)