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

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.

+Samuli Schroderus Glad the videos have ben useful for you. Yes, indeed, I do get a wide variety of comments

+Ashley Douglas you're welcome -- and I will

You're welcome!

Glad you're finding the videos useful

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.

Glad you enjoy them

You're very welcome!

Glad they're useful for you

Fideism

@@GregoryBSadler thank you, that's really appreciated!

Yes. I guess you don’t understand.

No

+James Tunney You're welcome!

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?

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

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'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

Thanks

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.

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.

Not sure I said -- or Camus said -- "inherent".

Yes. Just having a passion doesn't make you an absurd hero. I'd reread the sections in the book itself

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/

Arjun Moore So some say. Already a topic long ago discussed in comments on other videos.

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?