(January 6, 2012 at 2:11 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: The philosophy itself is pretty simple. So simple that some people mistake its meaning, or read too much into it. Sure, it is a philosophy, but it didnt catch on big popular until the artists and performers of the early 20th century picked up on it. Most Absurdist dont call themselves absurdists. Most dispise titles. The modern ones (neo-absurdists) have included anti-genre and Chaos/randomness into the philosophy, which I agree belongs in the philosophy.
The absurdist was typically an anti-hero. Someone who questions every sense and situation, but no matter how much they searched or how deep they searched they could find no meaning in life...which eventually led to meaningless actions and events.
Absurdism is what helped bring about Dadaism as well, which questioned what art really was. The painting "The Treachery of Images" explains some of the basic concepts of the absurd.
I wish justice could be measured by basic needs. Clean water for all could be a very basic justice. The only problem is not everyone will agree with it for many reasons...racism...profit making..."they are my enemy!"...etc...
Perhaps the absurdist answers their question too quickly. Perhaps they found no meaning, but does that necessitate that no meaning is there? Personally I try to appreciate questions which have no answer - although I am all to quick to fill them with subjective responses. Justice based on basic needs is interesting. Would justice only pertain to the basic needs, and who establishes basic needs?
(January 6, 2012 at 2:11 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Well of course thoughts exist. Thoughts are real in the sense that they DO happen in your mind. If I dream I am riding a unicorn then that dream really happened and I experienced it. This to me is the cause of the duality of humanity. The brain is unable to be aware of its own functioning. Sure, you know you are thinking, but you dont realize that you are merely a brain. It is isolated in flesh and bone yet it has sensors to detect everything outside of it. You can choose to trust that sense or not. even if you do 100% trust your senses, it does not mean that what you sense is factual.
Ever had a dream where you thought you woke up? Then walked around in the dream land until you thought you woke up again, etc...etc..etc... The senses can be fooled, thus causing a duality of man in many ways. We are on the inside looking out and we are all lonely.
Perhaps you are stuck on Plato's theory of forms.
Does this then mean that justice is merely a thought which has no real existence outside of the consciousness which creates it? I do find much philosophical knowledge within Plato's theory of forms, but I try to be open minded.
(January 6, 2012 at 2:11 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: It is the duality of man. All of us have inner contradictions. To deny such would be philosophical suicide. We MUST accept that there is a point where love and hate meld together. Thus the absurd. Thus the saying "The absurd must be embraced and rebeled against at the same time."
Dualism fascinates me, but so does monism. Once again, I try to embrace multiple perspectives while comparing their validity.
(January 6, 2012 at 2:11 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Hmm...me and you might talk more about politics soon...
Most certainly my friend. I love healthy debate, especially when the cause is good and the end goal is ideal.
I'm afraid, as I read over what has become of our conversation, we have missed the question entirely while coming to an understanding of subjective consciousness. Perhaps we could attempt to regain control of the direction of conversation, if you are still interested in the topic at hand.
The initial question: what is justice? has been hidden under an overarching question of: does justice exist?
To continue the conversation I'd be happy to assume that justice does exist - regardless of its objective or subjective nature. From here, is it possible to establish what the ideal justice would look like? As peers collaborating on a subject of interest - taking in each other's points of view and melding them to create an ideal?
I'll attempt to offer a very general definition of my ideal justice.
Justice - Equal application of consequence
I'd be interested in hearing what you would have to add or subtract from this, as well as your own definition of ideal justice.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
