I recently bought Camus' book and had an extremely difficult time trying to understand his ideas (I don't know if this the usual experience of anyone who's reading Camus). Now I'm watching your lectures to help me digest his ideas. Thank you so much for making these videos. :)
Yes, for me it's almost impossible to get anything out of it. Even if I'm already well acquainted with the topic. Is this just a because french style of writing
Indifference itself isn't at the core of his ethics -- choice is. He's clear that there's a lot of different ways one might live out an absurd existence.
I totally agree with you on freely choosing on how to live out an absurd existence until of-course some absurd, out of the blue by definition event happens to change your mind or changes your course. Eg. I was about to fly to Cuba for my March Break on March 16/20 but the pandemic shut down the airport just as I was about to leave on the proverbial last plane out of Casablanca. I wasn't pissed just miffed that I was the first plane to be canceled and used Uber for nothing although I had pleasant chats with the drivers! Making the most out the worst is the trick to winning in an absurd existence!
Indifferent seems almost contrary to Camus in many ways. Indifference doesn’t really concern itself with the absurdity of existence. Camus obviously does.
Hahaha! That's good -- and you know, I'm trying to compile a list of the really good videos out there on Existentialism posted by other TH-camrs, so if you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to receive them
"He is talking about a natural state, not commanding that we follow it." No, it's neither of those. It involves a choice, a committment on the part of the person, a decision. Camus is perfectly fine with saying: look, IF you value being consistent, then here's what I think would follow. . . . He's not saying that it's natural to be consistent, nor is he saying one has to be consistent. In fact, at bottom, all that determine whether a person is going to be consistent or not is choice
Very glad of your videos. Also the fact that you answer pretty much every comment that I've seen even though people seem to sometimes argue from wrong framework. Cheers from Finland.
You're welcome! For me, when I first read it -- and that was in high school -- I more or less just skipped what I didn't understand, probably a good half of the essay. So, I'd guess having a tough time with that essay is a typical experience
I read it shortly after I graduated high school. I ran into a crisis of meaning due to the lack of direction in my life. I didn't understand much of it at all that first time, but what I could comprehend was greatly moving because of Camus' literary ability. I've read it twice since then and each time I've gotten more out of it. Thanks for providing further insight.
Hello! I'm a student of English Literature and I study philosophy in my free time. Your lectures are very well-structured, informative and useful for both students and those who study on their own like I do. Thank you very much for the excellent content and the effort :)
You're very welcome. Yes, I think you're right -- it's surprising that so few profs are actually using TH-cam. I've suggested it many times to colleagues, but they just don't seem all that interested in doing this sort of stuff -- not really sure why.
I am about halfway through this book for the first time and this is my introduction to philosophy outside of Plato. These videos are fantastic as a reading companion to really help.
It would be the latter -- science can't adequately address many of the classic "big questions", though it can do a pretty good job with certain of them, say, in cosmology. The results and reigning theories (theories do change quite a bit, over time) science provides can, of course, be misinterpreted to give what are claimed to be adequate answers. Someone like Camus goes further, though -- no humanistic perspective is going to be adequate either! It all ends up in absurdity.
I just don’t see the reason that killing yourself even becomes apart of a conversation about whether life is absurd or not. Death will come soon enough it’s inevitable and everybody will experience it. I guess I just don’t understand where suicide is even on the table in a discussions whether life is absurd or not.
Thanks for clarifying. Although I've got a reasonable amount of education (I'm a university lecturer in Physics), I am a total novice with Philosophy. I found your Camus videos to be extremely clear and well-delivered, and I wanted to say thanks for making your knowledge/education public. If more of us professor-types would take the time to do what you have done, the world would be a better (smarter?) place :) Thanks.
I've basically taught here what it is that Camus actually says in his work. If you want to worry about the "ought-is" distinction, and take it up with Camus, that's quite all right. He really doesn't frame his ethics -- what there is of it -- in terms of imperatives. Struggling without hope is, for Camus, a choice
Not really. Camus does stake out a clearly atheist perspective in his works, at many points. He doesn't simply suspend belief, or hold out the possibility maybe there's a god, maybe not. I've been teaching about this stuff for over a decade, and studying it for more than two, so I suspect by now I might actually have a handle on the "difficult" distinction between agnosticism and atheism -- even if I'm a theist.
Wow I read this seven years ago and thought it was Sartre-lite; reading it again now and there’s so much there. There’s a lot of bad takes on Camus out there- always glad I can come back to your videos for great discussion after reading.
I appreciate the discussion. In the quoted text, Camus does not refer to consistency. That is your understanding of it being applied to his words. I'll have to get some context here when I find my book, but the quote specifically is not telling us we can make a choice (or that we must do something as an imperative). What you believe will actually determine your actions. This must occur because it is natural to the human condition. Unless you cheat.
Love the lectures - starting my philosophy major in September; will be fun to have people to talk to about the subject without encountering that glazed over look in their eyes.
Hi, many thanks for these videos they're incredibly well structured lectures and very helpful. You describe a set of ideas at 27:06 but I can't quite make out the word you use (fatalism maybe?). Can i clarify what it is?
You have to look at his words through the lens of "Camus is not giving us another set of ethics". If you assume ethics in everything, like most philosophers, and approach his statement from that viewpoint, then you can draw those conclusions. I'm looking from Camus's perspective, defending Camus.
Later in the book, Camus elaborates on this concept, demonstrating the interpretation I presented. "There exists an obvious fact that seems utterly moral: namely that a man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted to them, he cannot free himself from them. One has to pay something. A man who has become conscious of the absurd is forever bound to it. A man devoid of hope and concious of being so has ceased to belong to the future. That is natural."
Also, Camus is more aligned with an agnostic than an atheist, as another comment pointed out. Simply because he's grouped with Atheist Existentialists does not make him an atheist. An atheist affirms that there is no god. An agnostic does not know the answer. I realize the distinctions are more difficult for theists to make, but they are significant.
Much thanks for these videos, my native language isn't english so it is pretty hard to say what I mean myself, but in short - these videos really help me on my ethics homework, that way of thinking, pretty much to write one sentence in a whole page. May say that I learn a new way to express my thoughts in my essays. Critical thinking I guess.
"Demontrating" is too strong of a term there. "Supporting" would fit better. In any case, you've got your interpretation of this. I'm going to keep on with mine that Camus is in fact working out an Ethics. Feel free to shoot a lecture video detailing yours, put it as a video response, and I'll approve it.
Hi Gregory, Camus states in his work that the existentialist philosophers commit philosophical suicide by taking a leap of some kind or other. I'm just interested (as I am yet to read more in-depth on him) where Sartre's philosophy stands on this. Does he too commit this philosophical suicide once reaching the absurd? Thanks, Tom.
Yep, I'm reading more into the passage -- from the rest of Camus works -- than is just in the passage. That's what we call, in this business, "exegesis" and "interpretation". You clearly want to work out another interpretation. Shoot a video about it, and set it as a response to this one. I'll approve it.
I ask that you ignore my silly youtube name and contemplate the validity of my retort on it's own merits. Thank you for making these though. Your other insights have been invaluable.
Thank you Dr. Sadler. How does Camus teach indifference? Is it in terms of hope and despair or more on the emotional level? I recall from The Stranger Meursault wanting to be met with a hateful mob on his execution day. Is is fair to say that this is not consistent with indifference? A desire to be hated seems equally as invalid of indifference (pardon the double negative) as a desire to be loved.
I still don't really understand why Camus thinks killing yourself is illogical. It seems to me that he goes into a lot of rigurosity in words to make some kind of trap to his readers. He tells us that the Absurd man needs to live by his truths. Ok. Now since, according to him, commiting suicide means destroying (or as he says more poetically: "engulfs") the Absurd, this would mean suicide is not a logical conclusion based on the ethical principle I mentioned above. Yet in my opinion, this is not a strong counter-argument against the idea of suicide: One form of escapism is DENYING the Absurd, quite a different one is ADMITTING it, and acting accordingly to the conclusions you know of it. If one worded the ethical notion a little bit differently (like, "living and acting solely according to what you know"), then his whole argument falls apart. It was a big disappointment to me that he didn't spend more on this *key* section of his essay. But maybe I'm missing something I didn't quite understand. Could anybody help me out?
Perhaps read through the text again. And keep in mind that Camus is not trying to provide a "strong counter argument" that is simply a logical deduction from what you've reconstructed as an "ethical principle." I have no idea what "rigurosity in words" is supposed to mean. He's actually a very clear writer. Perhaps not to everyone's taste as far as style goes.
Gregory B. Sadler Thanks for the reply, Greg! I actually read through that part of the text multiple times, but couldn't really find any deep explanatory remarks for his argument. Here's the particular key passage: "Now I can broach the notion of suicide. (...) Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully. Now, no one will live this fate, knowing it to be absurd, unless he does everything to keep before him that absurd brough to light by consciousness. *Negating one of the terms of the opposition on which he lives amounts to escaping it. To abolish conscious revolt is to elude the problem.* The theme of permanent revolution is thus carried into individual experience. Living is keeping the absurd alive". The last bit is the one that's not doing the trick for me. Why would the Absurd man care about escaping/eluding the problem if he commited suicide? I understand we conceded that he had to live "solely according to what he knows" (Camus's ethical principle for the Absurd Man) and that the only truth he has is The Absurd. But I just can't see how all that would lead to the rejection of suicide. Yes, if the Absurd Man commited suicide then there would be no Absurd. But why would the Absurd Man care about the Absurd after his death? It's a matter of indifference to him whether the Absurd dies with him or not. When I wrote that Camus was "rigorous in words" I meant to say that he seemed to "play on words": He first makes us accept the ethical principle I mentioned above, then he defines the Absurd as an interrelationship between men and the world, and when we agree to the notion of the Absurd as our only truth... It's problem solved for Camus: Since commiting suicide would also mean the end of the Absurd (as it can't live without Man), then you would reject the only truth you lived by, thus acting against your ethical principle (and so suicide would be an illogical solution to the problem of the Absurd). Is that what Camus's argument consists of, or am I missing something?
+Languagelover24 I wondered about that too, to be honest. Confused me throughout listening to all 3 parts today. A person leaning toward committing suicide isn't likely too concerned with "keeping the absurd alive," especially considering it's the absurdity itself that tends to drive so many folks crazy/depressed to the point of giving up on living. And even if one embraces the absurd, it still seems like it might be a 50/50 gamble that that individual will eventually choose to end their life with suicide. I mean, why not? Why suffer through old age and severe health problems if you see no greater meaning in life other than struggling and tangling with "the absurd"? Doesn't seem like enough to tie most people into the game until the bitter end. The Don Juan (Lover), the Conqueror, and the Actor -- none of those seem like life-long ambitions that will prove sufficiently satisfactory to most of us. And to be straight up about it, they all sound like roles psychopathic types would prefer most. The Actor most especially sounds like the very opposite of living authentically. Seems to me that the act would grow old with time. Personally, Camus' logic lost me along the way too, interesting as this series of lectures was. Always enjoy listening to Dr. Sadler explain and break down these matters pertaining to authors/historical figures I'm not too familiar with. But there was something lacking in what Camus seemed to be trying to argue. Perhaps that logic was enough to keep him satisfied, but it's not sufficient for someone like me (as an agnostic out here in the crowd who can sympathize with his atheist position, right along with sympathizing with the existentialists' "religious" perspectives). I love what Camus had to say about the creator (artist/novelist) and can appreciate the notion of struggling against this reality, though to do so without any greater purpose in mind or any quest for deeper meaning in life leaves me a bit perplexed. To play this game just for the sake of doing so and nothing more can strike one as a daunting, pointless task. But either way, it was interesting to listen to and follow along with.
+Byenia You put it in better words than I did :) Like you, I'm a bit disappointed I couldn't be convinced by Camus' arguments. But now I'm sort of glad I wasn't the only one to notice this weak points in the essay, so thank you for pointing it out too. I really hope Prof. Sadler will eventually reply to this.
Thank you for your reply. I'm a novice, so I hope you'll excuse stupid questions. My understanding is that existentialism took the "unexplainability" of the universe as a given, which is why (I think) you devoted some time in this video to explaining why Camus considers rationality to be a bad response to the Absurd. My question is what this actually means for Camus. Is he denying the entire scientific project, or "only" its usefulness in answering the question of the meaning of our lives?
Given his complaint about atomic physics being nothing more than poetry, would you say that this reflects an anti-science outlook in Camus' philosophy?
Poor Camus. Amazingly articulates the problem, then concludes with valuing a brand of consumerism. Maybe we can take it back to Nietzsche, and use the power of our will to squelch the desire for reason -- sort of resolves the problem in its entirety.
Hey!! I have been reading the Myth of Sisyphus and somewhere in the middle of the reading, I am finding myself apart from Camus. His perspective states that human life is what it is as it seems. No greater meaning, and nothing which is uncertain can be relied upon. Hence, he does not believe in God nor any specific purpose of one's life. For an absurd man, he does not need any justifications of his actions and is technically "amoral". An absurd man believes that his actions are having limited consequences within this world and not beyond. Having thought about it in the ongoing aspects of this world, only chaos would be an outcome of this thinking. He believes that morality, is either by virtue of God or is a creation of man to justify certain acts (Chapter: Absurd Man). My doubt arises henceforth. Why is that he takes affirmatively one particular stance when he himself believes that "there doesn't exist singular truth but many truths". If accepted that an absurd man doesn't believe in God, then the morality can be a creation of man not to justify specific acts but to point of what all acts are unjustified. Moreover, morality for me is a derivative of thinking 'contemplation' and even if not a creation of God, it does involve our consciousness at its core. Camus encourages one to be conscious at every moment in order to live one's life to its fullest. He differentiates morality from integrity but how one can make such differentiation when integrity is what one feels to possess and is in fact for so certain (meta). How can an absurd man be dictated by his integrity when in fact he does not have any value (as he thinks that life is of no purpose). Integrity is a man-made concept which is interdependent on what one's consciousness feels as moral. Validating the existence of morality, Camus can refrain from contradicting his position on the fact that "for a man who does not cheat what he believes to be true (the concept of morality) must determine his action". This is the only value an absurd man can have. The only belief. I am not able to read further with these doubts hovering my mind.
Well, I guess you're screwed then. Most people can read a book even if they disagree with or are troubled by parts of it. If you can't, then I guess you might as well put the book down
@@GregoryBSadler Well we all are screwed someway or the other. Like I said these are doubts and not disagreement as such. As far as most are concerned they might not have a pre-determined way of living or at least its theoretical aspect and are reading just to imbibe his way of living. Not so different what Camus himself has said for people taking a leap (either by way of religion or by agreeing to someone's rules). All I required was sort out the confusion over the portrayal of the concept of morality by Camus making it a subjective criterion and not to universally objective. Alteast not as screwed as most, I guess; as far as self-realization is concerned. I am here, reading this book while in the shoes of a student. And students can only raise doubts and not disagreements.
Why does Camus think it's impossible to know whether there is meaning in the world? I thought I heard you quote him in a passage where he says something like "if there is meaning, I do not know it", but then later there was a quote saying it was impossible to know it. Perhaps this passage is relevant: "For if, bridging the gulf that separates desire from conquest, we assert with Parmenides the reality of the One (whatever it may be), [18] we fall into the ridiculous contradiction of a mind that asserts total unity and proves by its very assertion its own difference and the diversity it claimed to resolve." So is it impossible to know the meaning of the world because simply put, we are not the world, but a particular in it?
For Camus, there is a fundamental disconnect between what we expect or desire of the world and what the world turns out to be like. He approaches this a number of ways in the book - so he doesn't just provide you with one explanation for why there isn't - as far as he can tell - meaning in the full sense to the world. That said, the position that he stakes is not an absolute one.
Can we say there is no clean-cut answer for Camus because he doesn't make the effort to find one? He doesn't seem to make any particular effort to justify his shunning of metaphysics. His claim that we cannot be certain about any rational order or meaning in the universe is not based on careful arguments that show this kind of certainty to be impossible. Rather, this claim comes from the awareness that the greatest minds of the past two thousand years haven't been able to agree on a correct answer, and therefore we are not likely to be able to discover certainty either
Fateh Singh There's a bit more to his thinking than that. I'd read through the text carefully to get a fuller discussion than 2 hours of video are going to provide you. And, I wouldn't make the assumption that because the style of the "Myth" isn't slow, systematic, cover-all-the-bases argumentation that Camus himself didn't think through the positions he's taking and rejecting.
I am open to being completely wrong, but trying to reason on the absurd discord between humans and the world in itself seems to be to be evidence for God. I think Camus’ suggestion to revolt against the absurd is fundamentally in harmony with humans seeking God. This is a point I will have to study and think about much more.
Life becomes an absurdity when rationality is abandoned. Rationality destroys absurdity, which is precisely abandoning of rationality. Rejection of gOd is rational and does not render life meaningless. Life can be meaningful without gOd. Anything can be made meaningful by virture of it's being or existence. A thought is meaningless if it does not have a physical existence. materialism is reality. Thoughts and concepts is meaningless if it has no material reality. Materialism is rationality.
igno ramos what about when rationality doesn't provide meaning? as is usually the case. You either haven't taken the time to understand Camus's perspective and argument, or you are too arrogant in your "rationalism" to try. Don't be pedantic, especially if you don't understand the topic. please.
Hello! Are you familiar with "The Red Pill"? Its defendants say it is a praxeology but its critics claim it is an ideology. It is very prevalent nowadays on the internet as a body of "knowledge" (content) men go to try to understand intersexual dynamics. It has permutations like the MGTOW and the Incel movements you surely heard about. I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. Many men get trapped and radicalized in this "sphere" and judge reality under its absolutes. Thanks a lot for your great content!
@@GregoryBSadler in particular the explanation of the "Don Juan" attitude by Camus made me remember it because being non-committal in relationships is one of the principles of red pill thinking. Have as many women as possible and commit to none of them to fullfil your "mating strategy". Do you have a video on the red pill? I'd love to watch it.
I also don't get the Camus "Absurd" completely. Absurdity comes from men's quest to find "inherent" meaning in an otherwise cold uncaring and meaningless universe. But what's so big deal about "inherent" meaning? All meanings are ultimately man made/ man interpreted. Would it really give life more meaning if there's a god who made us with pre-programmer desires and watching us from above in a virtual reality like video game? Wouldn't life still be meaningless? Just like Schopenhauer says, regardless of how you slice and dice it, our existence to its very essence is "barren and unprofitable".Universe with or without life will not be any more or any less meaningless. So where's the absurd coming from? If it's not about "inherent" meaning, we all can create our own meaning such as making the world a better place in our own small way. Help our fellow sufferers, and make this a more just society, etc. So I guess one can argue meaninglessness is not the problem once we accept the human condition. Problem them becomes more Schopenhaurian....rising above the enslavement of the will.
Sorry, I changed words which might have made it confusing. Specifically, you quoted this: "for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action" to mean this: "so there is a demand for consistency, for following through, etc" He is not demanding consistency, but rather stating that we act according to our beliefs, unless we are cheating. Cheating would be acting against this to prove a point. He is talking about a natural state, not commanding that we follow it.
I don't understand how can morality fit in Camus absurd world? Can a serial killer or a terrorist who have a passion for killing people can be an absurd hero? Am I missing something here?
You are deriving 'ought's from 'is's on the things you call Camus's "ethics". It's not an imperative that you commit to beliefs, but it's natural result of believing that you will act on those beliefs. He says this is true unless you are cheating: acting with this knowledge to prove otherwise. And it's not an imperative to struggle without hope, but the natural result of observing and understanding the absurdity of life without running away from it (via escapism or other existentialist beliefs).
This seems pretty clear to me that he's not laying out an ethical framework, but rather he is stating that these are natural facts of the human condition. The fact is obvious to him, and it is natural.
Gregory B. Sadler because I've read The Myth of Sisyphus & I didn't see any assertions such as "there is no god" as Sartre might say. Could you explain to me where it is clear that he is an atheist?
In discussion after discussion. You've really got two choices here. You can read your way through his works, letters, etc. Or, if you want me to divert time from my current projects, you can book my time. Here's my site, if you're interested in that - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Can this apply to women as well? He doesn't mention a person or man being a "she" ever so is it only an ethics intended for men? I have to write an essay on this, and the videos are really helpful in reading Camus, but I don't want to write "s/he" if it is only "he". Coz Camus and Greg both only ever posit the human being as a "he", and all people as "man". So, do they mean just men or????? This is confusing. Is it a "the default Subject is male" type-thing?
I recently bought Camus' book and had an extremely difficult time trying to understand his ideas (I don't know if this the usual experience of anyone who's reading Camus). Now I'm watching your lectures to help me digest his ideas. Thank you so much for making these videos. :)
Yes, for me it's almost impossible to get anything out of it. Even if I'm already well acquainted with the topic.
Is this just a because french style of writing
Indifference itself isn't at the core of his ethics -- choice is. He's clear that there's a lot of different ways one might live out an absurd existence.
I totally agree with you on freely choosing on how to live out an absurd existence until of-course some absurd, out of the blue by definition event happens to change your mind or changes your course. Eg. I was about to fly to Cuba for my March Break on March 16/20 but the pandemic shut down the airport just as I was about to leave on the proverbial last plane out of Casablanca. I wasn't pissed just miffed that I was the first plane to be canceled and used Uber for nothing although I had pleasant chats with the drivers! Making the most out the worst is the trick to winning in an absurd existence!
Indifferent seems almost contrary to Camus in many ways. Indifference doesn’t really concern itself with the absurdity of existence. Camus obviously does.
Finished this one today need to go over few bits and onto part 3. Again, these are appreciated more than you could imagine 👌
Glad you're finding the videos useful
Hahaha! That's good -- and you know, I'm trying to compile a list of the really good videos out there on Existentialism posted by other TH-camrs, so if you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to receive them
"He is talking about a natural state, not commanding that we follow it."
No, it's neither of those. It involves a choice, a committment on the part of the person, a decision.
Camus is perfectly fine with saying: look, IF you value being consistent, then here's what I think would follow. . . . He's not saying that it's natural to be consistent, nor is he saying one has to be consistent. In fact, at bottom, all that determine whether a person is going to be consistent or not is choice
Very glad of your videos. Also the fact that you answer pretty much every comment that I've seen even though people seem to sometimes argue from wrong framework. Cheers from Finland.
+Samuli Schroderus Glad the videos have ben useful for you. Yes, indeed, I do get a wide variety of comments
This is exactly what I was looking for.
Thank you so much for creating these videos.
You're welcome!
You're welcome! For me, when I first read it -- and that was in high school -- I more or less just skipped what I didn't understand, probably a good half of the essay. So, I'd guess having a tough time with that essay is a typical experience
I read it shortly after I graduated high school. I ran into a crisis of meaning due to the lack of direction in my life. I didn't understand much of it at all that first time, but what I could comprehend was greatly moving because of Camus' literary ability. I've read it twice since then and each time I've gotten more out of it. Thanks for providing further insight.
Hello! I'm a student of English Literature and I study philosophy in my free time. Your lectures are very well-structured, informative and useful for both students and those who study on their own like I do. Thank you very much for the excellent content and the effort :)
Glad you enjoy them
You're very welcome. Yes, I think you're right -- it's surprising that so few profs are actually using TH-cam. I've suggested it many times to colleagues, but they just don't seem all that interested in doing this sort of stuff -- not really sure why.
I am about halfway through this book for the first time and this is my introduction to philosophy outside of Plato. These videos are fantastic as a reading companion to really help.
Glad they're useful for you
It would be the latter -- science can't adequately address many of the classic "big questions", though it can do a pretty good job with certain of them, say, in cosmology. The results and reigning theories (theories do change quite a bit, over time) science provides can, of course, be misinterpreted to give what are claimed to be adequate answers.
Someone like Camus goes further, though -- no humanistic perspective is going to be adequate either! It all ends up in absurdity.
Thanks for uploading these and sharing your knowledge! You rock, keep em' coming!
+Ashley Douglas you're welcome -- and I will
I just don’t see the reason that killing yourself even becomes apart of a conversation about whether life is absurd or not. Death will come soon enough it’s inevitable and everybody will experience it. I guess I just don’t understand where suicide is even on the table in a discussions whether life is absurd or not.
Yes. I guess you don’t understand.
Thanks for clarifying.
Although I've got a reasonable amount of education (I'm a university lecturer in Physics), I am a total novice with Philosophy. I found your Camus videos to be extremely clear and well-delivered, and I wanted to say thanks for making your knowledge/education public. If more of us professor-types would take the time to do what you have done, the world would be a better (smarter?) place :) Thanks.
I've basically taught here what it is that Camus actually says in his work. If you want to worry about the "ought-is" distinction, and take it up with Camus, that's quite all right.
He really doesn't frame his ethics -- what there is of it -- in terms of imperatives. Struggling without hope is, for Camus, a choice
I tend to pass over those sorts of remarks in Camus, to focus on what seems to me more central to his thought.
Not really.
Camus does stake out a clearly atheist perspective in his works, at many points. He doesn't simply suspend belief, or hold out the possibility maybe there's a god, maybe not.
I've been teaching about this stuff for over a decade, and studying it for more than two, so I suspect by now I might actually have a handle on the "difficult" distinction between agnosticism and atheism -- even if I'm a theist.
Wow I read this seven years ago and thought it was Sartre-lite; reading it again now and there’s so much there.
There’s a lot of bad takes on Camus out there- always glad I can come back to your videos for great discussion after reading.
Glad you got back to Camus!
Another wonderful lecture. Thank you very much for these, they definitely help one get more out of these books than on their own!
You're very welcome!
I appreciate the discussion. In the quoted text, Camus does not refer to consistency. That is your understanding of it being applied to his words. I'll have to get some context here when I find my book, but the quote specifically is not telling us we can make a choice (or that we must do something as an imperative). What you believe will actually determine your actions. This must occur because it is natural to the human condition. Unless you cheat.
Love the lectures - starting my philosophy major in September; will be fun to have people to talk to about the subject without encountering that glazed over look in their eyes.
Hi, many thanks for these videos they're incredibly well structured lectures and very helpful. You describe a set of ideas at 27:06 but I can't quite make out the word you use (fatalism maybe?). Can i clarify what it is?
Fideism
@@GregoryBSadler thank you, that's really appreciated!
You have to look at his words through the lens of "Camus is not giving us another set of ethics". If you assume ethics in everything, like most philosophers, and approach his statement from that viewpoint, then you can draw those conclusions. I'm looking from Camus's perspective, defending Camus.
Not really sure how there could be more. Generally, these days, I tie it back
Later in the book, Camus elaborates on this concept, demonstrating the interpretation I presented. "There exists an obvious fact that seems utterly moral: namely that a man is always prey to his truths. Once he has admitted to them, he cannot free himself from them. One has to pay something. A man who has become conscious of the absurd is forever bound to it. A man devoid of hope and concious of being so has ceased to belong to the future. That is natural."
You're very welcome
Well.... it would be better to do both. Hopefully the videos help, in some way
Also, Camus is more aligned with an agnostic than an atheist, as another comment pointed out. Simply because he's grouped with Atheist Existentialists does not make him an atheist. An atheist affirms that there is no god. An agnostic does not know the answer. I realize the distinctions are more difficult for theists to make, but they are significant.
Wonderful and very insightful videos.
Thank you very much for sharing knowledge!
Much thanks for these videos, my native language isn't english so it is pretty hard to say what I mean myself, but in short - these videos really help me on my ethics homework, that way of thinking, pretty much to write one sentence in a whole page. May say that I learn a new way to express my thoughts in my essays. Critical thinking I guess.
"Demontrating" is too strong of a term there. "Supporting" would fit better.
In any case, you've got your interpretation of this. I'm going to keep on with mine that Camus is in fact working out an Ethics. Feel free to shoot a lecture video detailing yours, put it as a video response, and I'll approve it.
Well, I'm glad that the videos help with that. Your English seems pretty good to me, though, I have to say! What's your native language?
Hi Gregory, Camus states in his work that the existentialist philosophers commit philosophical suicide by taking a leap of some kind or other. I'm just interested (as I am yet to read more in-depth on him) where Sartre's philosophy stands on this. Does he too commit this philosophical suicide once reaching the absurd? Thanks, Tom.
No
Yep, I'm reading more into the passage -- from the rest of Camus works -- than is just in the passage. That's what we call, in this business, "exegesis" and "interpretation".
You clearly want to work out another interpretation. Shoot a video about it, and set it as a response to this one. I'll approve it.
Hahaha! That's absurd all right -- when connected with this. Nicely played
I ask that you ignore my silly youtube name and contemplate the validity of my retort on it's own merits. Thank you for making these though. Your other insights have been invaluable.
If I read it right he says Kierkegaard denies the other pole, the need for purpose, not reason.
I'd say that's about right
Thank you Dr. Sadler.
How does Camus teach indifference? Is it in terms of hope and despair or more on the emotional level? I recall from The Stranger Meursault wanting to be met with a hateful mob on his execution day. Is is fair to say that this is not consistent with indifference? A desire to be hated seems equally as invalid of indifference (pardon the double negative) as a desire to be loved.
I still don't really understand why Camus thinks killing yourself is illogical. It seems to me that he goes into a lot of rigurosity in words to make some kind of trap to his readers. He tells us that the Absurd man needs to live by his truths. Ok. Now since, according to him, commiting suicide means destroying (or as he says more poetically: "engulfs") the Absurd, this would mean suicide is not a logical conclusion based on the ethical principle I mentioned above.
Yet in my opinion, this is not a strong counter-argument against the idea of suicide: One form of escapism is DENYING the Absurd, quite a different one is ADMITTING it, and acting accordingly to the conclusions you know of it. If one worded the ethical notion a little bit differently (like, "living and acting solely according to what you know"), then his whole argument falls apart.
It was a big disappointment to me that he didn't spend more on this *key* section of his essay. But maybe I'm missing something I didn't quite understand.
Could anybody help me out?
Perhaps read through the text again.
And keep in mind that Camus is not trying to provide a "strong counter argument" that is simply a logical deduction from what you've reconstructed as an "ethical principle."
I have no idea what "rigurosity in words" is supposed to mean. He's actually a very clear writer. Perhaps not to everyone's taste as far as style goes.
Gregory B. Sadler Thanks for the reply, Greg!
I actually read through that part of the text multiple times, but couldn't really find any deep explanatory remarks for his argument. Here's the particular key passage:
"Now I can broach the notion of suicide. (...) Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully. Now, no one will live this fate, knowing it to be absurd, unless he does everything to keep before him that absurd brough to light by consciousness. *Negating one of the terms of the opposition on which he lives amounts to escaping it. To abolish conscious revolt is to elude the problem.* The theme of permanent revolution is thus carried into individual experience. Living is keeping the absurd alive".
The last bit is the one that's not doing the trick for me. Why would the Absurd man care about escaping/eluding the problem if he commited suicide? I understand we conceded that he had to live "solely according to what he knows" (Camus's ethical principle for the Absurd Man) and that the only truth he has is The Absurd. But I just can't see how all that would lead to the rejection of suicide. Yes, if the Absurd Man commited suicide then there would be no Absurd. But why would the Absurd Man care about the Absurd after his death? It's a matter of indifference to him whether the Absurd dies with him or not.
When I wrote that Camus was "rigorous in words" I meant to say that he seemed to "play on words": He first makes us accept the ethical principle I mentioned above, then he defines the Absurd as an interrelationship between men and the world, and when we agree to the notion of the Absurd as our only truth... It's problem solved for Camus: Since commiting suicide would also mean the end of the Absurd (as it can't live without Man), then you would reject the only truth you lived by, thus acting against your ethical principle (and so suicide would be an illogical solution to the problem of the Absurd).
Is that what Camus's argument consists of, or am I missing something?
+Languagelover24 I wondered about that too, to be honest. Confused me throughout listening to all 3 parts today. A person leaning toward committing suicide isn't likely too concerned with "keeping the absurd alive," especially considering it's the absurdity itself that tends to drive so many folks crazy/depressed to the point of giving up on living.
And even if one embraces the absurd, it still seems like it might be a 50/50 gamble that that individual will eventually choose to end their life with suicide. I mean, why not? Why suffer through old age and severe health problems if you see no greater meaning in life other than struggling and tangling with "the absurd"? Doesn't seem like enough to tie most people into the game until the bitter end.
The Don Juan (Lover), the Conqueror, and the Actor -- none of those seem like life-long ambitions that will prove sufficiently satisfactory to most of us. And to be straight up about it, they all sound like roles psychopathic types would prefer most. The Actor most especially sounds like the very opposite of living authentically. Seems to me that the act would grow old with time.
Personally, Camus' logic lost me along the way too, interesting as this series of lectures was. Always enjoy listening to Dr. Sadler explain and break down these matters pertaining to authors/historical figures I'm not too familiar with. But there was something lacking in what Camus seemed to be trying to argue. Perhaps that logic was enough to keep him satisfied, but it's not sufficient for someone like me (as an agnostic out here in the crowd who can sympathize with his atheist position, right along with sympathizing with the existentialists' "religious" perspectives). I love what Camus had to say about the creator (artist/novelist) and can appreciate the notion of struggling against this reality, though to do so without any greater purpose in mind or any quest for deeper meaning in life leaves me a bit perplexed. To play this game just for the sake of doing so and nothing more can strike one as a daunting, pointless task.
But either way, it was interesting to listen to and follow along with.
+Byenia You put it in better words than I did :)
Like you, I'm a bit disappointed I couldn't be convinced by Camus' arguments. But now I'm sort of glad I wasn't the only one to notice this weak points in the essay, so thank you for pointing it out too.
I really hope Prof. Sadler will eventually reply to this.
Hahaha! I know that look. Good luck with the study!
Thank you for your reply.
I'm a novice, so I hope you'll excuse stupid questions. My understanding is that existentialism took the "unexplainability" of the universe as a given, which is why (I think) you devoted some time in this video to explaining why Camus considers rationality to be a bad response to the Absurd.
My question is what this actually means for Camus. Is he denying the entire scientific project, or "only" its usefulness in answering the question of the meaning of our lives?
Really clear- thxs
+James Tunney You're welcome!
Given his complaint about atomic physics being nothing more than poetry, would you say that this reflects an anti-science outlook in Camus' philosophy?
Poor Camus. Amazingly articulates the problem, then concludes with valuing a brand of consumerism. Maybe we can take it back to Nietzsche, and use the power of our will to squelch the desire for reason -- sort of resolves the problem in its entirety.
Hey!! I have been reading the Myth of Sisyphus and somewhere in the middle of the reading, I am finding myself apart from Camus. His perspective states that human life is what it is as it seems. No greater meaning, and nothing which is uncertain can be relied upon. Hence, he does not believe in God nor any specific purpose of one's life. For an absurd man, he does not need any justifications of his actions and is technically "amoral". An absurd man believes that his actions are having limited consequences within this world and not beyond.
Having thought about it in the ongoing aspects of this world, only chaos would be an outcome of this thinking. He believes that morality, is either by virtue of God or is a creation of man to justify certain acts (Chapter: Absurd Man). My doubt arises henceforth. Why is that he takes affirmatively one particular stance when he himself believes that "there doesn't exist singular truth but many truths". If accepted that an absurd man doesn't believe in God, then the morality can be a creation of man not to justify specific acts but to point of what all acts are unjustified.
Moreover, morality for me is a derivative of thinking 'contemplation' and even if not a creation of God, it does involve our consciousness at its core. Camus encourages one to be conscious at every moment in order to live one's life to its fullest. He differentiates morality from integrity but how one can make such differentiation when integrity is what one feels to possess and is in fact for so certain (meta). How can an absurd man be dictated by his integrity when in fact he does not have any value (as he thinks that life is of no purpose). Integrity is a man-made concept which is interdependent on what one's consciousness feels as moral.
Validating the existence of morality, Camus can refrain from contradicting his position on the fact that "for a man who does not cheat what he believes to be true (the concept of morality) must determine his action". This is the only value an absurd man can have. The only belief.
I am not able to read further with these doubts hovering my mind.
Well, I guess you're screwed then.
Most people can read a book even if they disagree with or are troubled by parts of it. If you can't, then I guess you might as well put the book down
@@GregoryBSadler Well we all are screwed someway or the other. Like I said these are doubts and not disagreement as such. As far as most are concerned they might not have a pre-determined way of living or at least its theoretical aspect and are reading just to imbibe his way of living. Not so different what Camus himself has said for people taking a leap (either by way of religion or by agreeing to someone's rules). All I required was sort out the confusion over the portrayal of the concept of morality by Camus making it a subjective criterion and not to universally objective. Alteast not as screwed as most, I guess; as far as self-realization is concerned.
I am here, reading this book while in the shoes of a student. And students can only raise doubts and not disagreements.
@@amantiwari2350 Nah. . . . you're definitely on your own with this one. Good luck with your studies
Why does Camus think it's impossible to know whether there is meaning in the world? I thought I heard you quote him in a passage where he says something like "if there is meaning, I do not know it", but then later there was a quote saying it was impossible to know it. Perhaps this passage is relevant: "For if, bridging the gulf that separates desire from conquest, we assert with Parmenides the reality of the One (whatever it may be), [18] we fall into the ridiculous contradiction of a mind that asserts total unity and proves by its very assertion its own difference and the diversity it claimed to resolve." So is it impossible to know the meaning of the world because simply put, we are not the world, but a particular in it?
For Camus, there is a fundamental disconnect between what we expect or desire of the world and what the world turns out to be like. He approaches this a number of ways in the book - so he doesn't just provide you with one explanation for why there isn't - as far as he can tell - meaning in the full sense to the world.
That said, the position that he stakes is not an absolute one.
Thanks for your response. What is his strongest explanation for why it is impossible for us to know the meaning in the world?
Can we say there is no clean-cut answer for Camus because he doesn't make the effort to find one? He doesn't seem to make any particular effort to justify his shunning of metaphysics. His claim that we cannot be certain about any rational order or meaning in the universe is not based on careful arguments that show this kind of certainty to be impossible. Rather, this claim comes from the awareness that the greatest minds of the past two thousand years haven't been able to agree on a correct answer, and therefore we are not likely to be able to discover certainty either
Fateh Singh There's a bit more to his thinking than that. I'd read through the text
carefully to get a fuller discussion than 2 hours of video are going to
provide you.
And, I wouldn't make the assumption that because the style of the "Myth"
isn't slow, systematic, cover-all-the-bases argumentation that Camus
himself didn't think through the positions he's taking and rejecting.
I am open to being completely wrong, but trying to reason on the absurd discord between humans and the world in itself seems to be to be evidence for God. I think Camus’ suggestion to revolt against the absurd is fundamentally in harmony with humans seeking God. This is a point I will have to study and think about much more.
By that shaky logic, the discordance could be "evidence" for anything you'd like, I suppose
Life becomes an absurdity when rationality is abandoned. Rationality destroys absurdity, which is precisely abandoning of rationality. Rejection of gOd is rational and does not render life meaningless. Life can be meaningful without gOd. Anything can be made meaningful by virture of it's being or existence. A thought is meaningless if it does not have a physical existence. materialism is reality. Thoughts and concepts is meaningless if it has no material reality. Materialism is rationality.
igno ramos Who are you lecturing here? This certainly isn't how Camus views these matters, so you're probably sounding off in the wrong place
igno ramos what about when rationality doesn't provide meaning? as is usually the case. You either haven't taken the time to understand Camus's perspective and argument, or you are too arrogant in your "rationalism" to try.
Don't be pedantic, especially if you don't understand the topic. please.
Hello! Are you familiar with "The Red Pill"? Its defendants say it is a praxeology but its critics claim it is an ideology. It is very prevalent nowadays on the internet as a body of "knowledge" (content) men go to try to understand intersexual dynamics. It has permutations like the MGTOW and the Incel movements you surely heard about.
I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. Many men get trapped and radicalized in this "sphere" and judge reality under its absolutes.
Thanks a lot for your great content!
I've been critical of red-pill bullshit for over a decade now. What does that remotely have to do with this video, Camus, or his text?
@@GregoryBSadler in particular the explanation of the "Don Juan" attitude by Camus made me remember it because being non-committal in relationships is one of the principles of red pill thinking. Have as many women as possible and commit to none of them to fullfil your "mating strategy".
Do you have a video on the red pill? I'd love to watch it.
@@marianomanto Avoiding commitment is hardly unique to redpill dorks. So, not really relevant.
No videos just on redpill bullshit, no
See the last posted comment. If you think you're better at interpreting Camus, shoot a video.
I also don't get the Camus "Absurd" completely. Absurdity comes from men's quest to find "inherent" meaning in an otherwise cold uncaring and meaningless universe. But what's so big deal about "inherent" meaning? All meanings are ultimately man made/ man interpreted. Would it really give life more meaning if there's a god who made us with pre-programmer desires and watching us from above in a virtual reality like video game? Wouldn't life still be meaningless? Just like Schopenhauer says, regardless of how you slice and dice it, our existence to its very essence is "barren and unprofitable".Universe with or without life will not be any more or any less meaningless. So where's the absurd coming from? If it's not about "inherent" meaning, we all can create our own meaning such as making the world a better place in our own small way. Help our fellow sufferers, and make this a more just society, etc. So I guess one can argue meaninglessness is not the problem once we accept the human condition. Problem them becomes more Schopenhaurian....rising above the enslavement of the will.
Not sure I said -- or Camus said -- "inherent".
Freshman in highschool. I'm having troubles understanding the meaning of the poem. Some one please help explain it to me on a 9th grade level
Well, it's not a poem. I'd say start googling, buddy
Sorry, I changed words which might have made it confusing. Specifically, you quoted this: "for a man who does not cheat, what he believes to be true must determine his action" to mean this: "so there is a demand for consistency, for following through, etc"
He is not demanding consistency, but rather stating that we act according to our beliefs, unless we are cheating. Cheating would be acting against this to prove a point. He is talking about a natural state, not commanding that we follow it.
I think you did a wonderful job otherwise :) Thank you so much for posting!
I don't understand how can morality fit in Camus absurd world?
Can a serial killer or a terrorist who have a passion for killing people can be an absurd hero?
Am I missing something here?
Yes. Just having a passion doesn't make you an absurd hero. I'd reread the sections in the book itself
You are deriving 'ought's from 'is's on the things you call Camus's "ethics". It's not an imperative that you commit to beliefs, but it's natural result of believing that you will act on those beliefs. He says this is true unless you are cheating: acting with this knowledge to prove otherwise. And it's not an imperative to struggle without hope, but the natural result of observing and understanding the absurdity of life without running away from it (via escapism or other existentialist beliefs).
Brilliant
Thanks
This seems pretty clear to me that he's not laying out an ethical framework, but rather he is stating that these are natural facts of the human condition.
The fact is obvious to him, and it is natural.
You said Camus was an atheist but I thought he was agnostic...
Why did you think that?
Gregory B. Sadler because I've read The Myth of Sisyphus & I didn't see any assertions such as "there is no god" as Sartre might say. Could you explain to me where it is clear that he is an atheist?
In discussion after discussion. You've really got two choices here. You can read your way through his works, letters, etc.
Or, if you want me to divert time from my current projects, you can book my time. Here's my site, if you're interested in that - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
Latvian is my native language. :)
Camus wasn't an existentialist
Arjun Moore So some say. Already a topic long ago discussed in comments on other videos.
Can this apply to women as well? He doesn't mention a person or man being a "she" ever so is it only an ethics intended for men? I have to write an essay on this, and the videos are really helpful in reading Camus, but I don't want to write "s/he" if it is only "he". Coz Camus and Greg both only ever posit the human being as a "he", and all people as "man". So, do they mean just men or????? This is confusing. Is it a "the default Subject is male" type-thing?
Of course it can apply to women
We can exhume Camus from the cold cold ground and Force his funky ass to replace 'he' with 'they'...would you be satisfied then?