How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free • Hacker News Board

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#51

Post by ihaveahadron » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 5:07 AM UTC

lngnmn wrote: post #8

dylanfw wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those guys were writers, not philosophers in the first place. It's interesting that you begin with a comment like this to seemingly dismiss Satre and Camus as not being real philosophers, and then you proceed to put forward your own terribly unfounded philosophy with no supporting argument.

Show me a flaw in my logic before judging my style. Speculations is not a substitute for philosophy. Philosophy, originally, was the quest for "reality as it is", which eventually destroyed religious dogmas and was a precursor for specialized sciences. Arguably, with Hegel, at least in the West, the term philosophy lost any meaning and became mere abstract fancy speculations, similar to theology and mysticism. Fortun…

Reality as it is is what science is moron, moron fuck why am even wasting time replying something has gone really fucking wrong somewhere holy fuck

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#52

Post by ZenoArrow » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:16 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #40

ZenoArrow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"A whole new layer of public policy institutions and media outlets feeds off and disseminates the half-baked ideas. There's never any time or energy to winnow the chaff. And so it's effectively poisoning the social and political culture." Can you name one cultural meme that's emerged from academia in the last 10 years? I certainly can't. I simply don't think academic debates have that great a cultural impact in our…

Cultural memes aren't really the measure of progress, or worth, of academia. And "academia" itself is a pretty broad term: are you referring to Philosophy, or the Social Sciences or what?

>"Cultural memes aren't really the measure of progress, or worth, of academia."

I didn't say they were a measure of the worth of academia. However, they are a way to track the evolution of public debate. For example, the '1%' meme (about the top 1% owning more than the remaining 99%) has shaped public debate around wealth inequality. If academia has been a big influence on public debate, my argument is that we should see this play out in cultural memes. Cultural memes are just ideas which are commonly known in our shared culture. The GP indicated that the restlessness of academia was damaging public debate, my argument was that the general public was largely indifferent to this activity.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#53

Post by ZenoArrow » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:29 AM UTC

wahern wrote: post #41

ZenoArrow wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"If suicide is cowardly then suicide isn't much of a choice at all and then there really isn't any freedom at all." A cowardly choice is still a choice, it's still a possibility. Freedom is freedom to choose, it imposes no limits on what motivates you. Aside from this, cowardly doesn't seem to fit suicide, if we're going for negative connotations then self-absorbed seems more appropriate IMO. >"The lack of freedom i…

One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom. But the limitation I was specifically referring too was that suicide isn't like other personal choices because your body and mind act in concert against self-agency. And thank goodness that they do, but the point is that like infants we're trapped in an environment that is constitutionally hostile to any ca…

>"One freedom I lack is the freedom from the limitations of my brain, limitations which I can barely even fathom."

Okay, let's play along with this. If you feel your brain is holding you back, you must have an idea of what it's holding you back from, otherwise you wouldn't see it as limiting. In other words, it's only limiting in comparison with another way of being.

With this in mind, if your consciousness could expand beyond your brain, what would you hope to experience? What knowledge or experience would you hope to gain?

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#54

Post by ZenoArrow » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 7:49 AM UTC

wahern wrote: post #45

ZenoArrow wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"A whole new layer of public policy institutions and media outlets feeds off and disseminates the half-baked ideas. There's never any time or energy to winnow the chaff. And so it's effectively poisoning the social and political culture." Can you name one cultural meme that's emerged from academia in the last 10 years? I certainly can't. I simply don't think academic debates have that great a cultural impact in our…

At the core of earnest arguments behind climate change denialism are legitimate studies and critiques of not only climate science, but of modern modeling and statistical analysis techniques. A core underlying meme would be "lies, damn lies, and statistics". And more technical one would be "overfitting". Those critiques are necessary and valid and healthy, but only in the realm of professional discourse. As they leake…

Some good examples, thank you.

Taking one example...

"Social darwinism is a classic example of the abuse of science by both scientists and laymen. It just seems more common and more pervasive."

Perhaps this sort of misunderstanding arises as there's a layer of abstraction between scientific inquiry and the results that are produced. The layman only sees the conclusions, not the subtleties and caveats that are part of the wider truth. Social darwinism seems to be an example of what happens when knowledge loses its original context. I suspect it's common as humans seek to find patterns in the world around them. The problem comes when people find patterns backed up from a source perceived to have greater authority, as it has a chilling effect on further exploration.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#55

Post by marklgr » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 8:08 AM UTC

sien wrote: post #42

narrator wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtler arguments against socialism are not amenable to sound bites. The one that was initially penned in the 1920s and has stood the test of time the best is "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"[1]. This kicked off the Socialist calculation debate[2] which was on-going during the 20th century. It was largely settled in favor of the anti-central planners with the collapse of communism and Deng Xia…

It is remarkable how little attention this gets. Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever. The assumption of perfect knowledge and that wise central planners can beat bottom up and local knowledge is wrong. It's interesting what a common assumption it is too. Even though government and large organisation inefficiency is of…

In the same vein, very little attention is given by capitalism to the details of what is the value of things that don't have a price, like, ecosystems, or human dignity.

The assumption of perfect efficiency and that the free market magically leads to the best outcome for all is wrong. It's a very common assumption too. Even though the absurd level of inequalities or the ultra short-sighted plundering and wreaking of natural resources are often remarked about.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#56

Post by coldtea » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:02 AM UTC

lngnmn wrote: post #31

coldtea wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is contradiction. No, it's really not. Philosophy is just inquiry, if the inquiry leads you away from rationalism, you can still follow it, and several philosophers have done so.

It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is. As soon as you ceased to follow the method and start to pile up nonsense it could not be called an inquiry anymore. Some other definition is needed, and the word speculation is better candidate or a dogmatic theology. At least, ceasing to rigorously follow the scientific method disqualifies o…

>It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is.

Only assuming reality is rational. Which is a pre-conceived notion -- and that's even more in contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor.

Though, even scientists can get it wrong (e.g. "God doesn't play dice", when apparently, she does).

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#57

Post by coldtea » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:05 AM UTC

Nomentatus wrote: post #33

coldtea wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the communists wasn't the "oversimplification of marxist economics", after all capitalist policies are based on similar oversimplifications. It was the power struggles, and the controlling party elites.

Other than human nature, it had everything going for it.

If capitalism (and more merely wanting to make a profit when you can) was so great fit for human nature, one has to wonder why people were forced out of their villages, beaten, trained, enslaved in colonies, and policed, to adopt it in any large numbers. Compared to these processes, Stalin was a small-time crook.

Humans have lived and thrived without capitalist economies and with other priorities (from moral to religious and to civic duty) presiding over markets and profit for millennia.

The mere presence of commerce is not the same as capitalism (whose start is estimated at the 15th or 16th century, and it's total, often cancerous, spread over traditional communities in the 20th century).

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#58

Post by coldtea » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:07 AM UTC

sien wrote: post #42

narrator wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subtler arguments against socialism are not amenable to sound bites. The one that was initially penned in the 1920s and has stood the test of time the best is "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth"[1]. This kicked off the Socialist calculation debate[2] which was on-going during the 20th century. It was largely settled in favor of the anti-central planners with the collapse of communism and Deng Xia…

It is remarkable how little attention this gets. Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever. The assumption of perfect knowledge and that wise central planners can beat bottom up and local knowledge is wrong. It's interesting what a common assumption it is too. Even though government and large organisation inefficiency is of…

>Marxism has nice slogans, but very little attention is given to the details of what is the value of good quality paper clips or whatever.

Even less attention is given to those (and more important things, like the environment) by liberal capitalism. The market will sort it all out.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#59

Post by polarisrising » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 9:32 AM UTC

samirillian wrote: post #18

I always thought the real intellectual differences related to Marxism were between Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, the former having introduced Sartre to Marxism and later publicly breaking with him for his "ultra-bolshevism." Camus and Sartre seemed to have more personal differences, viz., Sartre generally being an asshole. Among other things, he considered Camus a notch beneath him intellectually, and Ive always personal…

WW2: Heidegger is the premier, German philosopher. And he's a Nazi. So the question is: what does it mean for the projector of philosophy that the leading light is also a fascist? Enter Satre who "rejects" Heigger but "keeps" with Hegel.

Being and Nothingness, as far as I understand, was a response in part to Heidegger's Being and Time.

My philosophy may be rusty, but to answer the question you asked, I think history is the reason why others held him in regard.

Re: How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free

#60

Post by lngnmn » Tue, Jan 31, 2017, 10:55 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #56

lngnmn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is. As soon as you ceased to follow the method and start to pile up nonsense it could not be called an inquiry anymore. Some other definition is needed, and the word speculation is better candidate or a dogmatic theology. At least, ceasing to rigorously follow the scientific method disqualifies o…

> It is contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor - the search for ultimate reality, of what is. Only assuming reality is rational. Which is a pre-conceived notion -- and that's even more in contradiction with the original meaning and purpose of the whole endeavor. Though, even scientists can get it wrong (e.g. "God doesn't play dice", when apparently, she does).

Come on, rationality as a concept of the mind is unapplicable to reality. Reality just is.

Genetic patterns, for example, are not rational or irrational. Some of them encode genes for proteins, so they are preserved by the evolution processes (mutations in, say, hemoglobin would be selected out). Some of them are random noise. The whole thing is stochastic - random mutation occur, so God plays a dice, but some patterns managed to propagate itself, so here is some determinism within stochasticity. That is basic life.

And then everything builds up upon it, up to french existentialists, speculating about abstract freedom.