On Camus and Dostoevsky

Upon reading an 'essay' by a fellow 'artist' on DeviantART (Yes, DevianTART, i dont love it either), I found the reasoning involved to be faulty, as it seemed the writer remained rather uninformed to Camus' real intentions and beliefs:

Quote :

Dear Mr. Albert Camus,

I can explain Mr. Fyodor Dostoevsky's reconciliation with the Grand Inquisitor. I have learned that you were quite baffled by this after reading his last, and perhaps one of the greatest novels ever written, The Brothers Karamazov.

First, Camus, I must address your obscured idea of "Existentialism". You are contradicting the very core of Existentialism to force upon anyone the acceptance that "life is devoid of any meaningful purpose". You are, then, Nihilist, my dear sir. And how dare a Nihilist call himself, Existentialist.

To be Existentialist, there are many views, but in the end, we all sit on the fence. This is the fence where people may label us "wishy-washy"; but no! We aren't- we accept absurdity with the possibility of everything, as opposed to nothing. It is a tall fence, and the view is quite beautiful, I might add. Absurdity is beautiful, mystery is beautiful, life is a mystery.

See, Dostoevsky struggled all his life with this mystery and we should revere him as the father of Existentialism and rightfully so due to such a struggle, despite his reconciliation with Russian Orthodoxy.

But we ask ourselves, why reconcile? Why not fight the mystery to the death such as Ivan, the man of reason and Atheism? Well, he was driven insane in the book. And as for dear Alyosha, the gentile-hearted monk, he gave the final message that love, compassion and understanding is our salvation to a group of young children; and those were the basic teachings from Jesus Christ.

Also, Camus, have you ever contemplated suicide? Yes, you have. You considered suicide ideation one of the greatest philosophical conundrums. Should one commit suicide? And you said, "No" because you should ultimately accept life as it is: meaningless. But WHY? Because Sisyphus did? And we should make the most out of our meaningless life by feeling however we want to?

Well, dear Camus, you have contradicted yourself in your bafflement with Dostoevsky's reconciliation. Dostoevsky made the most out of his life by accepting the possibility of God.

I therefore placed the following quotes:

Quote :

Actually, Camus disagrees with existential philosophy - "I am taking the liberty at this pint of calling the existential attitude philosophical suicide."

Also, he does not ultimately deny god's existence.

"For existentials, negation is their god. To be precise, that god is maintained only through the negation of human reason", and to that he adds a footnote:
"let me assert again; it is not the affirmation of god that is questioned here, but rather the logic leading to that affirmation."

I unfortunately believe you have missed the main points: That Camus did not consider himself existential, and did not ever truly deny the possibility of god's existence.

i therefore received the following responses:

Quote :

1)what do you know? you lack your own reasoning

2)and stop being someone else

3)Im so irritated by your callous criticism, are you a 16 years old who stumbled upon a book of quotations?

Somewhat baffled, and irritated, i thus responded in corresponding order:

Quote :

1)I am not reasoning anything; I am merely placing forth quotes i believe to be in contradiction to the above 'essay.' You see, I am not arguing philosophically with you, I am observing your statement and juxtoposing it with that of those made in Camus' own writing. Have you yourself even read "The Myth of Sisyphus" For that matter?

2)It is unfortunate that my simple statement of observation merits such a petulant response, I would have thought better of some one writing on this subject, Apparently I was mistaken.

The reason I posted was not to front an an argument, however point out that Camus was a man who did not in fact deny a meaning to existence, nor deny god. In more of the approach of a cosmicist, he stated that there may be a meaning, but perhaps this meaning is unattainable or hidden to human understanding.

Rather then denying meaning, he said that it was perhaps not the most important essance of human existence, since a meaning would in all likelyhood not prove the absolute. The reconciliation was (as observed in much of Camus' writings, he contemplates living without this 'appeal', as he saw it Philosophical Suicide because the reconciliation threw Dostoevsky's being into a leap of faith.

Dostoevsky thus 'baffled' Camus by this last ultimate reconciliation due to the characters who Dostoevsky had painted in such contradiction (to his final Leap), and perhaps paramount of these Characters is Kirilov, the man who killed himself to enlighten the world as to the absurd struggle.

3)I take it that this was a hasty response to my conjectures, But I was under the impression that this was a open for discussion. I am not in any way criticising your beliefs, merely questioning the reasoning involved.

I hope i have not offended you in doing so, but one can never tell.

What should I make of this? Was i incorrect in my interpretation of Camus' (for those of you who are familiar with his writings) or had he infact negated himself through his belief in Dostoevsky's 'Leap of Faith'?

You went way too easy on this person. Not only was he wrong as regards existentialism and God, but he called Camus a nihilist. Camus. A nihilist. That is so absurdly blind to anything Camus wrote that it doesn't merit a mere response, but murder.

Yeah, my point was merely she missed the entire argument alltogether, and then insulted me on top of it. She tried flashing around her classes in philosophy during 'college' to others who argued with her. Oh well, if she respond to my last few answers, and they are along the same lines, ill see what i can do.

Ok, this is turning into more of a statement about the inability to receive criticism that festers in DevianTART, but these are the following responses i receieved, in corresponding order:

Quote :

1)AH too long I cant read your comment, my cornea's are starting to leak blood and puss

2)AHHH even longer not even reading it daddy-o

To which I responded:

Quote :

1)It is evident that you are not receptive, why not take criticism? This 'essay' or whatever you will call this drivel, is not only incorrect in observing Camus' thoughts and writings, but placed together in a manner of ignorance and extreme pretentiousness, not even supported by necessary eloquence.

So, to get any real response, must I ignore intellect, kiss your feet, and despite all contrary evidence, consider you a skilled a writer, or even thoughtful for that matter?

2)Then dont criticize my 'reasoning.' It is evident you know less on the subject then myself.

Again this more or less verifies the reasoning involved in forming this club, For intelligent debate. it seems more and more like its hard to come about.

BTW, this is the link for any observation http://miafrancesca.deviantart.com/art/Dear-Camus-70028822

Yeah, I'm trying to stop going there because every time I do I just get really angry.

Im just going to go on and flame all the losers, i dont care if i get banned at this point. Or see how far i get just using reason to combat stupidity. But, that hasnt worked, as shown above.