RE: If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?
August 30, 2021 at 4:37 pm
(This post was last modified: August 30, 2021 at 4:46 pm by vulcanlogician.)
(August 30, 2021 at 4:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It must be contingent on the strength of camus' arguments, if camus argues such a view into consideration, right?
Life is absurd - if you accept the arguments to that effect - but why anyone would accept any argument to any effect is a good question - if life is indeed absurd.
Similarly, any truth claim which states that finding the truth is a waste of time is, itself - and by it's own metrics....a waste of time.
Ultimately, I'm sure that we can find useful insight pretty much anywhere - I just don't find it in absurdism. I don't find the arguments compelling, and there wouldn't be any utility in my life even if I did.
There is a contradiction in Camus. Yes.
But he is an absurdist. Contradictions don't bother his position like they bother other positions. He is pointing out that logic can "lead out of itself" sometimes... and he explains this logically. So what? Logic needs to be consistent. If it isn't, that troubles the very thing at its foundations. If something troubles its own foundations, that worth pointing out. Camus isn't saying logic itself is inconsistent. He's saying that logic as a means through life is inconsistent. And thus, by logic, is dismissible in some instances. I love this point. As much as a Platonist as I am, and maybe precisely because I'm a Platonist, I see merit to this view. After all, the only way to convince a Platonist that life is absurd is to put the thesis in Platonic terms. Can you really fault an anti-Platonic theory for doing that?
When you also consider that axiomatic truths, like "happiness is important," don't depend on logic per se, you are brought to a place where your axioms compete with your logic. In that space, Camus's insights take form.