A Poisoned Peace, part 2.

““I realize that if through science I can seize phenomena and enumerate them, I cannot, for all that, apprehend the world. Were I to trace its entire relief with my finger, I should not know any more. And you give me the choice between a description that is sure but that teaches me nothing and hypotheses that claim to teach me but that are not sure. A stranger to myself and to the world…”

Sure, Camus is taken as a sort of philosopher/Artist/playwright, And when you read about existentialism Inevitably you are to read Albert Camus. I’m not entirely sure why except that he falls into certain category of philosophy-art.

But look at that quote again. To me it looks like a kind of pathology, like representing a certain psychology.

So, The point of my last post, the conclusion I forgot to supply, is that his statement reflects a false choice, and then I have to then wonder about the mood or tone of his prose. Because it seems to me that he’s drawing a conclusion from this fast choice that is making his tone a little bit sardonic and feeling hopeless.

Why is the description teaching him nothing? And why is the hypothesis that claims to teach him something show him something that is not sure about?

To me this isn’t reflecting any sort of truth but is reflecting psychology, And a psychology that is not noticing that he’s actually making a living for himself through this kind of depressing paradoxical exitstencil literacy, it would seem.

Because I would have to ask: why so depressed?

And this is not to say that I do not understand Camus, rather, that I understand him fully.

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

6 thoughts on “A Poisoned Peace, part 2.”

  1. …but I am Also suggesting (referring to your link) that the phenomenological view privileges itself, to thus have the paradox. I am suggesting that the paradox is self fulfilling. And not a ubiquitous human trait.

    1. …sorry, more explanation: that science does not give us ‘neutral data’ but the neutrality is a reflection of the view that is already occurring. I am suggesting that The scientific data is not ‘neutral’ in the sense of phenomenology. But only in the sense that phenomenology is already excluded from science as an exclusionary knowledge, as a contradiction reflective of its own sense of privilege.

    1. Interesting. I think I am indicating how the decision is already invested in the view.

      I have always gotten a feeling from Camus and those “hardcore” existentialists that is kind of depressing. Lol

      Do you think my feeling is misplaced ?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s