Or was it Dan who learned from stem, who may have a long mopologetic history?

Hello Stak,

I want to make sure I fully understand your criticism before agreeing or disagreeing. I did read Dan's piece again and your Part I of Misbehaving. If I might start with the first couple Camus' quotes. I am a little confused on what the exact concern is? Is your general idea of "abuse" (or the start of it here) a feeling that DCP misrepresents Camus because Camus' existentialism (if we are allowed to call him that for practical purposes here) does indeed offer a subjective hope and meaning which Dan seems to ignore? That Dan only quotes the despair? Sincere question.

Dan seems to be saying (to me) that he can understand an honest get your hands dirty atheism, if it is true so be it. But he doesn't understand a celebratory one. So far (this isn't to exonerate the whole piece just this beginning couple quotes) - I have no problem. We always have to understand that with the existentialists (or the existentialists and Camus for this point) without God there is indeed no meaning and life is indeed absurd even after subjective meaning is asserted or affirmed it remains so. There is also something anxiety ridden, even sickening to really come to grips with, there is no God and life is absurd, celebrating that fact is indeed misguided. This seems to me Dan's point - and I find it confusing why Dan would have to point out, elaborate or even care that Camus develops an idea that Camus and Sisyphus say f*** you to the Gods after that sickening fact has come to grips?

The quote that you expand further from the Rebel doesn't seem to me important. The key phrase to me is the next paragraph after Dan's quote "We shall then decide not to act at all, which amounts to at least accepting the murder of others". This is classic from existentialist writing. They aren't nihilists. The act of our will that creates meaning follows the fact of meaninglessness and absurdity but it never denies it. This to me is why Christian apologists make similar arguments. They are in agreement with the objective reality of no God and meaninglessness. It is almost glib or a joke to ask an existentialist is life without meaning and receive the answer yes and no. I find it hard to believe someone who has a bachelor's degree in philosophy and is as well read as we all agree Dan is somehow doesn't understand the creation of meaning and authenticity that follows in existentialist writing.

No devil's advocate just attempting to really understand the exact criticisms?

mikwut

mikwut, I think your point boils down to what is to be celebrated by concluding god does not exist. The question each of us faces each day is, what do I do with the rest of my life? We do not know if there is anything beyond death. We cannot change the past. We can enjoy or begrudgingly endure the present. We can take steps to shape the future, the future to the day we die.

So with the present and the limited, known future, what do I do with them?

If I conclude atheism, then I am freed from the notions that I should live life to seek some hoped for reward in an afterlife. Should I not celebrate my liberation from notions which restricted me (but for which there is no evidence)?

We are all simply agnostics or apathetic. The ace that religionists hold in their hand over agnostics is that eternity is a damn long time. It never ends. Since we don't know, none of us knows, what do you do with the time you know you have left, until death?

Those who celebrate their liberty from the delusion of atheism are drinking that Kool-Aid just as much as those who celebrate their redemption from hell from the delusion of theism (and a savior). I think it ironic either cannot appreciate the celebration of the other.

For me, since I cannot know either way (theism or atheism), I hope to achieve complete apathy. I know many who act consistent with the apathy at which I aim. Therein lies something to celebrate, and not give a s*** what the theist believes or his hallelujahs or what an atheist thinks or celebrates. It is simply live and let live.

Hi Mikwut,



Sure, no problem.



That is the general idea of it, but it gets more specific. Let’s take citation #46 for example, Dan says this:



And then quotes this:



But immediately after this, Camus starts a new paragraph that adds:



This comes from Camus’ introduction to The Rebel, and is Camus explaining in just a few words how one can’t really be nihilist, because even if you embrace that title, murder still takes a privileged position.

So Dan quotes a portion of Camus who is setting nihilism up for failure, but isolates a passage that takes the important context of how an absurdist view of life sweeps away nihilism and tosses it aside, to focus on Camus’ characterization of nihilism.

Let’s say a Christian who is summarizing an atheist viewpoint before explaining where that viewpoint falls into error:



Now lets say I’m speaking at reason rally, and I choose to read a prepared essay, where I mention Christian Author by name and say, “ Even those Christians who do know what the bible says know the silliness of their position, as award winning Christian Author clearly and poetically states…‘If God’s blessings is conditional to how one behaves, which is the main lesson we learn in Deuteronomy, doesn’t this turn God into some kind of Santa Claus who rewards the nice with presents and the naughty with coal? When we grow up, don’t we stop believing in Santa Claus? If there are people who are virtuous but lack blessings, this gives us strong evidence that God does not exist.’”

I’m taking Christian Author’s words out of context, because Christian Author is just setting up his opponent’s viewpoint before addressing it, but I fail to mention that in my speech.

Dan essentially did the same thing with Camus.








But the problem is, this doesn’t accurately reflect any atheist who falls into the Existentialist canon, and it surely does not begin to represent Camus. I’m pretty confident Camus would say that the absurdist rebellion is as objective as you can get,




Again, Camus would strenuously disagree with that:



While there may be anxiety and a sickness for some people, Camus sees it as something that is profound and important, something that is worthy of being celebrated.




If Dan wants to be intellectually honest and use Camus as a foil, he needs to accurately represent Camus’ beliefs. He doesn’t. He knows better.



No! That would be the anti-thesis to Camus, he wants to act, he wants an objective reason to act in the absurd world. What you described isn’t classic existential writing, it is a classic mischaracterization of it that is wildly popular.




I find it very easy to believe, I consider Dan to be philosophically naïve and profoundly shallow when it comes to reading literature and philosophy.




Well, I hope I was able to clear some things up.

I've had my differences with stemelbow, but I don't think he's an idiot.

I do agree with Poe's law, but folks like ldsfaqs and spamLDS (he comments on blogs sometimes) are more of the kind of personalities I think of as being indistinguishable from parodies.

Speaking of Absurdism...

Rather than exemplify the sanctity and sheer uniqueness of this life, the one and only existence we'll ever know, Mr. Peterson uses Camus' own words to support the notion that this life isn't that special, and then segues to the hope that a metaphysical reality is the only way to truly appreciate this life. It's double irony. 1) That Mr. Peterson would quote Camus to support the former's belief that life is meaningless without an assigned meaning. 2) Mr. Peterson admits life is meaningless, but the reality is too disheartening to him, so he uses an Absurdist's own words to legitimize the absurd.

Jesus Christ.

Frankly, I'm not sure Mr. Peterson understands Camus, existentialism, or Absurdism. If he did, he simply wouldn't have attempted to link Mormo-metaphysical nonsense with Absurdism. In fact, I'm getting a headache just thinking about it. I think I'll go look at kittens on Reddit...

- VRDRC

I think there is a choice to be made about stemelbow. Either:

(a) He is a nice guy, but not the sharpest chisel in the box, with a rather poor ability to follow an argument that extends over more than a couple of sentences, and a lack of capacity to distinguish between such statements as "A has made a statement that he knows to be incorrect" and "I hate A".

(b) He is not a nice guy at all, but is in fact a TBM troll who uses a faux-naif act to derail threads by multiple 'distractor' posts along the lines of "Why so much hate? You guys!" and so on, when the issue at stake is a matter of fact or logic, rather than of emotional attitude.

I used to be definitely on the side of (a), but recent stemelbow appearances are making me reconsider.

I was thinking I had a kindred spirit in your Carton. this is too bad. Anyway, don't worry if you were a believing LDS that questioned their tactics, particularly as they often mirror the tactics the intend to critique, they'd demonize the garbage out of you too.

But I can't argue, I beat out every single person who ever existed, in the idiot category.

Shut up, lesser idiot. I win

Hi Stak,

Thanks for the response.

Here is where I remain a bit confused but certainly understanding better where your coming from:



I am not sure if nihilism is essential but I get where your coming from. Dan is referring to atheism. Here is Dan's quote:



On the parts I bolded and italicized Camus certainly believed in unfulfilled potential that Dan mentions, his Nuptials clearly present that. As well as this is it then you'll die. I concede that "nothing good is coming could be argued" but Camus in the Nuptials clearly elaborates that fully and completely living in the present is how to fully appreciate life. Camus believed the reality of our condition is we live briefly, we die and then rot. He was more concerned on how we then live in this condition. Camus's thought is we should embrace the frustration and ambivalence that humans cannot escape. There is no meaning at least prescribed or fundamental in existence.

Camus's Absurdity was that we are forever cursed or blessed whatever your fancy with a unavoidable paradox. We long or strive to answer questions of what is the meaning in life yet whether it be science, religion, metaphysics, etc... no answer is available. Yet we try to answer, no answer available... like Sisyphus. His main concern is in what ways of living our lives make them worth living despite the fact that their meaningless.

To Dan's statement that he is baffled in the celebratory aspect of atheism and he gives a messageboard members statement as an example - he is still well within Camus' thought. Camus gave clear references to Sartre's Nausea to help describe the sense of anxiety and nausea that one experiences when they begin to awaken to absurdity - going to work and coming home, repeat, repeat - this process leads to a consciousness of the absurd not a glib hoorah! which Dan is speaking to. Camus takes that too seriously to be thought of as a frat party because existence ultimately has no meaning. On page 18 of the Myth of Sisyphus he says, “We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart”.

It has been argued and debated regarding Camus seeming shift when he wrote the Rebel. He seems to jump or just shift from skepticism about any truth and nihilism about any meaning to promoting a view that life can be judged to be better or worse. But this is a trick to accept tragedy isn't his philosophy but rather his art. I believe that is Dan's quote, Camus is still insisting on his earlier skepticism when he makes this shift. You have to remember Camus is in full political activist hat with the Rebel and has moved from I to we as society, he has already articulated that a rebel finds his cause and then persuades others.

He doesn't accept as celebratory that the horizon has been eliminated by God's non-existence. He assumes this as the mood of the times and then he writes in regards to given that fact what should we do?

I understand your Deut. example from a Christian author. I don't think it is spot on because Camus did believe life to be meaningless and that fact was found in the umbrella of absurdity. He never repudiated the M of S or the Nuptials.

regards, mikwut

Hello sockpuppet,



Well my post was more of a question than a commitment to a point.



Of course.



This is Camus, yes.



No, you should consistently live with the understanding that this is it, that doesn't entail a celebration. It entails maturity if correct. Do children celebrate the Death of Santa?



I am not. I believe in trusting my basic intuitions and faculties, and that that is warranted towards my beliefs. I find apathy the worst sort of nihilism.



We all have to trust and live in the authentic way we understand.



There still exists good, better and worse - growth toward truth itself isn't just a frat party it includes happiness but also despair.



From a place of care I hope you unsuccessful.



I care not to. I respect care and engagement.



That isn't the same as apathy.

regards, mikwut

I am also becoming more persuaded that (b) is the more accurate choice. Unfortunately, (b) is a more damning indictment of what it means to be an LDS defender of the faith on the internet.

You guys need to stop the ad hom attempts and stop trying to figure me out. Just stick with the other things. Afterall, what has gotten people all up in arms here lately? The very thing you guys do. Sadly, none of ya realize the hypocrisy.

Ad hominem is not a fallacy when a person's behavior and/or character is in fact at issue.

This board started because of the behavior of certain people in the online Mormon community. Observation of, and commentary on, the behavior and characteristics of Mormon apologists (armchair or otherwise) is a substantive topic, not a distraction from something else. LDS leaders have frequently said that the lives and behavior of its members are the biggest commentary on the Church. E.g.,

Gordon B. Hinckley

I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

The hypocrisy is your incessant trolling and attempts to derail threads, then demanding that people stop talking about your behavior when your entire purpose on this board is to run interference whenever there is criticism of your favorite corporation that has a religion on the side (or defenders of same) that you find troubling. Your ongoing demonstration of the mentality and tactics it takes to defend the modern incarnation of Joseph's frontier tall-tales says more about the substance of Mormonism than an army of secular critics ever could.

Blah blah...



So, you are saying no matter the topic of discussion, the issue to you to the behavior of any old Mormon you so choose to hate at the time?

What a delightful one, you!

Yes he does, and I did point this out:



But this isn’t the end point of Camus’ thought, it is just the beginning, it is a basic starting point for Camus, and simply stating that starting point while ignoring everything after that isn’t really being honest to Camus’ entire project.




The issue I have here is that the Nuptials came about in the late 30s, Sisyphus came 5 years later and The Rebel came another 8 years after Sisyphus. Sisyphus and Rebel are the mature forms of Camus’ thought and it’s not entirely wrong for one to skip Nuptials, because Camus’ thought was still very juvenile at the time.

It is also important to point out that all of Dan’s citations of Camus come directly from The Rebel, and none of the citations move past the Metaphysical Rebellion.





I can’t agree with this characterization at all. Camus’ lesson is not that life is in itself meaningless, it is meaningless if you stick to living your life and believing that the world will somehow yield to man’s wishes of eternal life (Religion) or the desire for unity (Utopian philosophies) or worse yet, succumb to the universe itself (Nihilism).

Remember, the universe isn’t absurd, humanity isn’t absurd, Camus thinks both are ontologically distinct, and the absurd rises between the relationship or confrontation of humanity and the world. To be an absurdist is to recognize that relationship and try to abandon it.




I still maintain he is well outside Camus’ thought.




But that isn’t what is happening here. Sartre’s nausea arises when someone (Roquentin
) discovers that existence and being are extralogical, and Camus’ anxiety is part of the coming to terms with the absurdist relation, before moving past it. We have no idea if the glib anonymous atheist on an unnamed message board had gone through these stages, or even agreed with them.




I have no idea what debate you are referring to, Camus was never a skeptic about truth, only about Nihilism being effective. Camus was all about axiology, his two philosophical works are predicated on it.


ETA: Lulu, your PMs are off, I can’t reply to you.

No. That is an accurate statement of the issue. However, given that your cogent arguments consist of the following:

(1) trolling/derailing;
(2) "Nuh-uh!";
(3) "You weren't there! You don't know! Nobody knows!"

it is pretty clear why you wish to characterize anything that does not accept your babbling at face value as "blah blah."



No, and your question returns us to Chap's question. Phrased less charitably than what Chap said, either your reading comprehension is comparable to that of a brain-damaged orangutan, or you are spectacularly disingenuous. The behavior of Mormon apologists and/or internet warriors is a topic over and above the substantive apologetics on behalf of Mormonism. I've got two years' worth of posts on this board addressing both.

Your desire to frame any and all criticism of Mormonism, Mormon apologetics, and the behavior of Mormon apologists as "hate" is simply a particularly ham-handed way of playing the persecution card. And the persecution card is only played for two reasons: in attempt to silence criticism, and in attempt for defenders of the faith to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own insipid behavior.

Oh please.

Your black and white thinking is a troublesome spectacle. DJ to his "enemy" (I guess enemies run rampant in his mind), "You're stupider than any known human has ever been or your a bigger liar than any known human."

That's how he goes about winning arguments it seems. Its pointless garbage. he wants to whine about the behavior of LDS folks all the while he acts like a jackass. When someone questions his tactics he has nothing but a repeat--"You're stupider than any known human has ever been or your a bigger liar than any known human." Sometimes put in different words.

You have nothing. You complain about that which you do and don't even realize it.

That was an excellent breakdown of Dr. Peterson's quotemining. Good job.

I think the next step would be to discuss the state of metaethical theory, which is for all practical purposes exclusively secular, talk about some examples of metaethical theories in a little detail, and point out the flaws with divine command theory. That's a lot of work if you want to write as formally as you did here Stak, but it would be a nice companion piece for your audience. It would something I, and I'm sure many others, would link to illustrate the answer to the question, "What's wrong with DCP's apologetics?" time and time again.

Hi Stak,



Oh I understand. I am suggesting Dan wasn't representing Camus' entire project. He was utilizing part of Camus' assumptions regarding the absurd to demonstrate a point. An assumption I think always remains.



Yes your correct. I am just pointing out he never abandons his initial assumptions or what makes up the absurd throughout all his writing. His projects is always one of given the absurd what are the consequences for our existence and lives? He explores that project throughout all his writings.



I was originally drawing from two sources, The Cambridge Companion to Camus, and my own courses taken nearly twenty years ago. But, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says the same thing I stated here, it is from the article on Camus:





I above bolded the portion of an irresolvable emptiness. There isn't celebration, but a change of a way or attitude that one must look at our existence in the most healthy way. That maturity itself I guess could be celebrated if an individual so develops but the grand understanding of the meaninglessness of remains. Our inner ability of how to respond is our responsibility but it doesn't make the universe meaningful. Sisyphus doesn't celebrate his plight, ever. He does rebel in his plight.



Here is where we slightly dis agree, it could be semantical. I don't believe Camus ever suggests we can "move past" the absurd. The absurd simply is (and Dan utilized that portion of Camus that always remains, in his quotes). Reason demands the absurd - it is the only "reasonable" conclusion. It is the truly philosophical portion of Camus' thought. We agree the remainder is subjective and meta-logical. All I was pointing out was Camus utilized examples from Sartre that are consistent with my labels.



It is mentioned in the Companion and here is another quote from SEP (from part 4 Murder and Rebellion):



I suggest it is continuous. If Dan agrees he is consistent in utilizing quotes that simply refer to a consistent theme found throughout all of Camus' writings.

I do agree with you that Dan could have been more selective with his quotes. Earlier sources would have been less ambiguous.
Regards, mikwut

Hey, Mr. Stak--I thought you might find this interesting:



http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/577 ... 1209123195

So I guess he's admitted to fouling up, eh? Good for him. And he's right: it is possible to "be sweet" and "incompetent" at the same time. Of course, when you're being "incompetent" in the service of a viciously polemical essay that tries to tar and discredit your ideological enemies, I would hardly call that "sweet."

Say what you want about DCP's scholarship, it sure looks to me like it pays damn good to be on the apologists team at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute.

I saw on Peterson's blog that they are hiring for "Director of Publications" at the MI.

Here's the job posting: Director of Publications

Starting pay: $63,000 - $84,000.

For a job that certainly ranks far down on the ladder at the MI, that's not bad pay. I think we can be quite certain that the upper echelon is earning well over six figures. That, my friends, is not bad for doing nothing but sitting around writing "hit pieces" all day long. Not to mention the annual trips to exotic places around the world.



Edit: Link doesn't work as formatted. When you get on the BYU employment page, click the search link in the upper left, then select "full time" and "Director of Publications".