An incredible eye opener, thank you so much! Now well into reading the Myth of Sisyphus thanks to your explanations above, and it's directly contributing to my own growing concept of a living philosophy. Great series, please do keep going, thanks!
While I think that absurdism would be a better way of living for me, I find myself acting and behaving as an existentialist. I find it difficult to imagine Sisyphus happy. How can one be happy in misery? How can one be happy in pain, in despair, in agony, in fear.... ? Emotions and feelings are part of our "essence" and to deny them is -so it seems to me- a form of self deception. Can anyone explain to me how to imagine happiness when there is none without resorting to magical thinking?
I think what stops it becoming magical thinking is that it is based in reality. It needs to be a genuine attention to the joy of life around you. It is gratitude. If I was able to lug a massive boulder up a hill every day, I would only have to focus on the true magnificence of the strength of my muscles and I could be quite happy. Imagine how someone in a wheelchair feels about that story? It is all perspective.
The emotions are there, but like the Buddhist philosophy of non-attachment, you don't have to attend to them or dwell in attachment to them. That isn't denying them, it just isn't giving them the centre stage. I think of it like parenting a screaming child. You have to see past the emotional experience to see what is happening for the person underneath. We grow as adults and learn to regulate our emotions (ideally) which isn't the same as suppressing them, it is just giving them their appropriate place.
“There's a difference between the fact that the universe is inherently unfair on a cosmic level, and the fact that life is unfair because people are actively making it so.”
I took a few months to mull over your reply. I keep coming back to the above quote by John Scalzi. You say "It is all perspective" which can also be translated as "it depends on what you think is important; what your values are" which is just another form of magical thinking (value is a construct).
The problem I have with your reply is that some things are inherently natural (reality/the universe) and other things are made up. If someone suffers you should look at what the cause of that suffering is and if it is caused by "the universe" you could try and help them "changing their perspective". But if the cause is a construct (read: other people) then the only help should be to eliminate the cause. Why would mental abuse be treated anything else than physical abuse?
When you have a fever, a doctor will look for the cause and treat it. If you are depressed, they tell you to learn te live with it. To make Sisyphus happy is to take away his boulder. If you don't, you are just enabling his torturer and are part of the problem.
Satisfaction in the moment over a job well done despite pain or sorrow, surety about your place in an objective eternity, and focusing on your locus of control
Great article. We could add a fourth option to nihilism, existentialism, and absurdism: nondualism, which is the realization that meaning is not something to be sought externally but already there, effortlessly, in our being
Fantastic essay. It’s difficult not to use these terms interchangeably even to describe myself. When I say I’m a Nihilist that connotes hopelessness and ingratitude that I don’t generally experience. When I say I’m an Existentialist, people think I believe the “meaning” I create for myself is the same thing as their Meaning. And most don’t know what Absurdism is. But I agree most with Camus that suicide is the logical choice but to truly embrace the absurd we must choose revolt and live in spite of it. Thanks for writing this; I’ll definitely be restacking.
I loved this piece. I kept getting drawn away from it yesterday but finally finished it this morning. So glad I persisted. I agree with Matt...it really flowed in a way that was really understandable. I am curious what influence Buddhism, especially the concept of non-attachment, may have had on Camus in his Absurdism philosophy?
Excellent article! I will be sending this to anyone who wants to understand Existentialism and Absurdism and their answers to Nihilism.
As a side note, I can’t help but think that Existentialism and Absurdism are not as incompatible as Camus thought they were.
Especially if we go with Sartre’s philosophy, isn’t giving ourselves our own essence after we are thrown into this world an escape from philosophical suicide and an act of defiance?
Thank you for clarifying the distinctions between these schools of thought, I had always been curious about the actual differences between them. Well structured and well written article.
Absurdism seems to be the ultimate "toughen up" statement. What does absurdism prescribe regarding striving for goals that we have? I can see the existentialist finding meaning in aspiring to accomplish their dreams. Is the absurdist allowed to pursue their dreams? If so, wouldn't that just be going against the absurdist realization that doing so is meaningless?
Thank you. I wonder what is integrity according to the Absurdists like Camus? You wrote, "We meet the Absurd as it is, without escape, and with integrity, and we maintain the tension of the Absurd in us without turning away."
But Don't we need a philosophical basis/argument for defining "integrity" and if so, then where does that come from? Integrity for one might mean deception while for another it might mean pacifism. Might the arbitary nature of the absurdist conception of integrity make Absurdism absurd?
The other quote from Camus seems to present the same problem; i.e., what is "free?" He said,
“the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
What is more free than not eating, for example? What is more free than not thinking? Or one might say that doing whatever comes to mind is freedom. Does that create a better life, gain anything for the Absurdist, over just simply embracing a faith in an ultimate meaning beyond death? For certainly there is and never will be any proof that this is not possible, that death will certainly be the end of consciousness.
From your description of the Absurdist it seems logical to fit him or her under the existentialist umbrella. You wrote "Absurdism on the other hand says that we shouldn’t seek to create our own meaning but we should stare into the face of the Absurd and rebel against this meaninglessness."
Isn't it obvious that this enjoyment of the struggle/the meaninglessness is the very definition of what the existentialist seeks to do? Doesn't the existentialist affirm his or her own creative/intellectual power to find happiness despite the objective meaninglessness? Isn't that Camus's integrity? How can we say that this perspective is NOT meaningful to Camus?
Nihilism is not the answer; Existentialism, well, you exist in a world but that does not mean you are going to like what the world offers, no matter how hard you try to fit in; Absurdism, then, rebellion, being who you are and living life as you see fit, despite what others think, sounds like the way to go. I'm going to go there right now. Catch you later.
Really well structured article. I've never seen the differences between nihilism, existentialism and absurdism put so succinctly.
Thanks Matt!
An incredible eye opener, thank you so much! Now well into reading the Myth of Sisyphus thanks to your explanations above, and it's directly contributing to my own growing concept of a living philosophy. Great series, please do keep going, thanks!
Ah no way! That's awesome Bruce! Thanks for reading and thanks for the kind words!
Sad boy vs. Bad boy vs. Mad boy
No room for girls, unfortunately we’re actually sane
While I think that absurdism would be a better way of living for me, I find myself acting and behaving as an existentialist. I find it difficult to imagine Sisyphus happy. How can one be happy in misery? How can one be happy in pain, in despair, in agony, in fear.... ? Emotions and feelings are part of our "essence" and to deny them is -so it seems to me- a form of self deception. Can anyone explain to me how to imagine happiness when there is none without resorting to magical thinking?
I think what stops it becoming magical thinking is that it is based in reality. It needs to be a genuine attention to the joy of life around you. It is gratitude. If I was able to lug a massive boulder up a hill every day, I would only have to focus on the true magnificence of the strength of my muscles and I could be quite happy. Imagine how someone in a wheelchair feels about that story? It is all perspective.
The emotions are there, but like the Buddhist philosophy of non-attachment, you don't have to attend to them or dwell in attachment to them. That isn't denying them, it just isn't giving them the centre stage. I think of it like parenting a screaming child. You have to see past the emotional experience to see what is happening for the person underneath. We grow as adults and learn to regulate our emotions (ideally) which isn't the same as suppressing them, it is just giving them their appropriate place.
“There's a difference between the fact that the universe is inherently unfair on a cosmic level, and the fact that life is unfair because people are actively making it so.”
I took a few months to mull over your reply. I keep coming back to the above quote by John Scalzi. You say "It is all perspective" which can also be translated as "it depends on what you think is important; what your values are" which is just another form of magical thinking (value is a construct).
The problem I have with your reply is that some things are inherently natural (reality/the universe) and other things are made up. If someone suffers you should look at what the cause of that suffering is and if it is caused by "the universe" you could try and help them "changing their perspective". But if the cause is a construct (read: other people) then the only help should be to eliminate the cause. Why would mental abuse be treated anything else than physical abuse?
When you have a fever, a doctor will look for the cause and treat it. If you are depressed, they tell you to learn te live with it. To make Sisyphus happy is to take away his boulder. If you don't, you are just enabling his torturer and are part of the problem.
Satisfaction in the moment over a job well done despite pain or sorrow, surety about your place in an objective eternity, and focusing on your locus of control
Great article. We could add a fourth option to nihilism, existentialism, and absurdism: nondualism, which is the realization that meaning is not something to be sought externally but already there, effortlessly, in our being
idk why this article just popped up randomly on my feed but i’m happy it did :) thank you so much for this well structured post <3
Reading this with the satisfied smile of one who has found his people. 🙂
Fantastic essay. It’s difficult not to use these terms interchangeably even to describe myself. When I say I’m a Nihilist that connotes hopelessness and ingratitude that I don’t generally experience. When I say I’m an Existentialist, people think I believe the “meaning” I create for myself is the same thing as their Meaning. And most don’t know what Absurdism is. But I agree most with Camus that suicide is the logical choice but to truly embrace the absurd we must choose revolt and live in spite of it. Thanks for writing this; I’ll definitely be restacking.
I loved this piece. I kept getting drawn away from it yesterday but finally finished it this morning. So glad I persisted. I agree with Matt...it really flowed in a way that was really understandable. I am curious what influence Buddhism, especially the concept of non-attachment, may have had on Camus in his Absurdism philosophy?
Excellent article! I will be sending this to anyone who wants to understand Existentialism and Absurdism and their answers to Nihilism.
As a side note, I can’t help but think that Existentialism and Absurdism are not as incompatible as Camus thought they were.
Especially if we go with Sartre’s philosophy, isn’t giving ourselves our own essence after we are thrown into this world an escape from philosophical suicide and an act of defiance?
Thank you for clarifying the distinctions between these schools of thought, I had always been curious about the actual differences between them. Well structured and well written article.
Absurdism seems to be the ultimate "toughen up" statement. What does absurdism prescribe regarding striving for goals that we have? I can see the existentialist finding meaning in aspiring to accomplish their dreams. Is the absurdist allowed to pursue their dreams? If so, wouldn't that just be going against the absurdist realization that doing so is meaningless?
https://open.substack.com/pub/clementpaulus/p/the-essence-of-liminal-abstraction-a6e?r=5c1ys6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you. I wonder what is integrity according to the Absurdists like Camus? You wrote, "We meet the Absurd as it is, without escape, and with integrity, and we maintain the tension of the Absurd in us without turning away."
But Don't we need a philosophical basis/argument for defining "integrity" and if so, then where does that come from? Integrity for one might mean deception while for another it might mean pacifism. Might the arbitary nature of the absurdist conception of integrity make Absurdism absurd?
The other quote from Camus seems to present the same problem; i.e., what is "free?" He said,
“the only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
What is more free than not eating, for example? What is more free than not thinking? Or one might say that doing whatever comes to mind is freedom. Does that create a better life, gain anything for the Absurdist, over just simply embracing a faith in an ultimate meaning beyond death? For certainly there is and never will be any proof that this is not possible, that death will certainly be the end of consciousness.
From your description of the Absurdist it seems logical to fit him or her under the existentialist umbrella. You wrote "Absurdism on the other hand says that we shouldn’t seek to create our own meaning but we should stare into the face of the Absurd and rebel against this meaninglessness."
Isn't it obvious that this enjoyment of the struggle/the meaninglessness is the very definition of what the existentialist seeks to do? Doesn't the existentialist affirm his or her own creative/intellectual power to find happiness despite the objective meaninglessness? Isn't that Camus's integrity? How can we say that this perspective is NOT meaningful to Camus?
This is the first time I've thoroughly enjoyed a philosophical analysis of any kind. Thanks for it!
Nihilism is not the answer; Existentialism, well, you exist in a world but that does not mean you are going to like what the world offers, no matter how hard you try to fit in; Absurdism, then, rebellion, being who you are and living life as you see fit, despite what others think, sounds like the way to go. I'm going to go there right now. Catch you later.
Recently I have gotten interested in philosophy and this piece explained and broke down the meanings behind them perfectly, thank you so much!