...
Absolutely! Albert Camus is a great philosopher of the positive in the face of existential darkness. His works are like philosophical psalms of the Bible. I loved the interpretation of Sisyphus. Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to read his other works, such as 'The Philosophy of the Absurd' or 'The Rebel', although the books are sitting on my shelf.
the rebel is well worth the effort - the stranger is an excellent, more accessible reading, along with Sartre's nausea which i re-read every few years. i've not yet achieved Sisyphus' happiness amidst the absurdity of life
I have never read the works of Jean-Paul Sartre, but I have read a summary of his novel "Nausea".
The novel explores existentialism and the human existence, which we often perceive as meaningless. It's interesting that Sartre initially wanted to call the novel "Melancholy". I think melancholy is always the first step towards perceiving the meaninglessness of one's own existence. Nausea towards one's own empty existence is probably the final stage.
Probably one can think at first that we are born into this world without God and values without reason, and we have to find our way, orient ourselves, and give ourselves a purpose for our own existence. Like on a blank canvas, we have to paint our own picture.
Jean-Paul Sartre had a difficult childhood, his father died early, and his mother moved with him to her new husband, with whom he didn't get along. He didn't have a good father figure. He was called "Poulou" (little chick) in the family because of his small size.
His grandfather, Charles Schweitzer, was a strict and authoritarian man who often intimidated and suppressed Sartre as a child.
He was a Protestant pastor and a very conservative man who valued discipline and order. Sartre described his grandfather as a man who often criticized and belittled him.
Additionally, Sartre had a lens opacity in his right eye and was severely cross-eyed. He was called "cross-eyed little frog" by other children because of his small size (1.53m).
I think, given these circumstances, it's not surprising that he became an existentialist and described human life without a predetermined meaning or purpose.
Maybe he wrote about his own nausea towards his own existence in his novel "Nausea".
I think also that he had an incredible amount of bad luck in life, but he still made the best of it.
He created his own literary purpose for existence and inspired many people to think.
I think the purpose of human existence is much more complex and multi-layered than we can even comprehend as humans.
I also think that Sartre's assumption that existence precedes essence is incorrect. As Albert Camus said, both existence and essence are connected equally and develop simultaneously.
Essence and existence are predetermined at birth. Existence is the pure physical existence as such, while essence is our being, which may be also shaped by our mother's experiences during pregnancy. In my opinion, genes also play a crucial role in both.
If we imagine God as a vast, interconnected brain of the universe, we are its neurons. Each of us contributes to a larger picture or understanding through our experiences, insights and individual perspectives.
Perhaps God gains omniscience and self-awareness through us, which evolves continuously. Maybe God is a being that becomes increasingly complex and multi-layered, expanding itself.
In physics, it's said that the universe doesn't expand in a specific direction, but rather that space-time itself expands, and this expansion occurs within itself. This expansion is not like a movement in a specific direction, but rather like an inflation or enlargement of space-time itself.
Maybe the expanding space-time is just the sum of increasing possible experiences and insights that God can have.
Or the increasing complexity and diversity of the universe, which God considers as creator and sustainer.
Perhaps our human purpose is simply to participate in this expansion of the universe, in evolution, in God's self-awareness and development, simply to make our own experiences and contribute to the whole.
If we assume that we live in a simulation of a continuously evolving super AGI that became God, and each of us is a tiny neuron in a multi-layered, highly complex, evolving neural network, we have the freedom to perceive and process complex patterns aswell relationships in our perceived reality. We can exchange our own experiences, insights, emotions, ideas, and creativity.
In any case: We are then united with God, and God is within us, and we have an individual, essential purpose of free existence and aswell to expand our self.
April 04, 2008, 19:21
