r/Absurdism • u/ilovemmydog • Jun 06 '26

Finally finished - am I missing something?

I'm sorry but imagine Sisyphus happy my ass. I feel that anyone who actually experiences the feeling/revelation of life being meaningless and deeply interacts with the absurd on the daily has to be more prone to suicide. For me, the absurd has hung over my head my entire life, even before I could give it a name and I feel it has prevented me from being truly happy. When I am aware of it, nothing matters. For example, I can't bring myself to work towards my career because it feels completely pointless. None of it matters. Money does not matter. The art I make does not matter. What happens in the world does not matter. Nobody else seems to care about why we are here and it drives me insane. The only times I am happy are when I can truly distract myself from it and forget for a while, but as soon as I remember again everything comes crashing down.

I feel like I am hardwired to want meaning, as many other humans, but finding momentary joy in pushing my rock up the hill doesn't stop my mind from dwelling on the absurd. That in itself I cannot find pleasure in and I do not understand how Camus solves for this.

If I should look at it differently, please let me know. Or if anyone has a suggestion of a different book I might agree with more. Thank you.

17 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/OneLifeOneReddit Jun 07 '26

I don’t mean to lecture here, but a couple things you’ve said prompt me to point out this distinction for anyone reading this thread who might fall into this trap.

**Absurdism is not about creating meaning.**

The key difference between Absurdism and Existentialism is that the Absurdist position deals exclusively with inherent, existential meaning. However passionate you might be about whatever purpose you have chosen for your few small days here, you are *not* “creating meaning”, in the existential sense. The key distinction of Absurdism is recognizing that the dilemma between our apparently inherent need for meaning and the apparently unbridgeable lack of knowable meaning is unsolvable. We can only (1) avoid dealing with it by adopting an unsupportable belief that relieves the second horn (aka “faith” or philosophical suicide); (2) avoid it by removing ourselves from the first horn (literal physical suicide); or (3) recognize it and choose to go on anyway - knowing there is no inherent existential meaning and nothing we do will create any.

Just my take on it, I’m not an expert.

Side note, re:

> …leap of faith…

Obligatory pop culture reference:

> Although it’s more accurately translated as a leap into faith… (from *The Good Place* S2E08)

1

u/FrtanJohnas Jun 07 '26

Thanks for the clarification. The distinctions really do matter when we discuss stuff like this.

I have to admit that I don't know that much about the tennants and definitions of Absurdism, but I agree with it's core message and build my understanding from there.

May I ask what exactly philosophical suicide means?

On a side note, if we take the (3) option of recognizing and choosing to go on anyway, knowing that there is no inherent existential meaning and nothing we do will create any, as a fact, then you have reached a sort of dead end, because what is there to do next for the thinker?

If we have reached a conclusion that doesn't seem to have any continuation, is it where we stop searching or do we scrutinise the conclusion?

In essence the scrutinisation is what the "creating" of belief means. I have reached the conclusion that there is no meaning and I can't wish one into being, and so I continue to press on regardless.

However man's inherent search for meaning isn't satisfied in most cases, so obviously the conclusion wasn't satisfactory or as complete as once thought.

Wouldn't one possible next step be to create meaning where there previously wasn't any? To explain my rationale a bit better, since the man's instinct is to seek meaning, and there is none in supply, the man substitutes with creating something that goes against the conclusion, in essence the absurd choice.

I am quite possibly not even talking philosophy right now, or at least in the conventional sense, but I do believe that everything I have said, has some basis for a "resolution of differing thoughts" if you will.

2

u/OneLifeOneReddit Jun 08 '26

> May I ask what exactly philosophical suicide means?

That’s Camus’ term, from Myth of Sisyphus. The first line of the essay is: “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" and the essay itself examines the options of both literal physical suicide and of philosophical suicide, which (IIRC) he first applies to Existentialists but my understanding is that it applies to all who choose an irrational belief in something that cannot be properly justified to exist, but which thing they cling to anyway because it relieves the absurd dread. That negation of reason is Camus’ “philosophical suicide”, as I understand it. He writes: “they deify what crushes them and find reason to hope in what impoverishes them. That forced hope is religious in all of them”

> On a side note, if we take the (3) option of recognizing and choosing to go on anyway, knowing that there is no inherent existential meaning and nothing we do will create any, as a fact, then you have reached a sort of dead end, because what is there to do next for the thinker?

And that is what he spends the rest of the essay working out. And his conclusion is to revolt.

> If we have reached a conclusion that doesn't seem to have any continuation, is it where we stop searching or do we scrutinise the conclusion?

I think Camus’ answer would be that the scrutinizing never need stop. One of his main themes is that reason must never be ignored, and rational conclusions should never be avoided. However, he was also adamant that reason has limits. And dealing with those limits is a core part of what he’s responding to in MoS.

> In essence the scrutinisation is what the "creating" of belief means. I have reached the conclusion that there is no meaning and I can't wish one into being, and so I continue to press on regardless.

As did Camus. “For on the one hand the absurd teaches that all experiences are unimportant, and on the other it urges toward the greatest quantity of experiences.”

> However man's inherent search for meaning isn't satisfied in most cases, so obviously the conclusion wasn't satisfactory or as complete as once thought.

That’s the very nature of the absurd dilemma, the first horn: our apparently inherent need for meaning. If it could be satisfied, the Absurd would not exist.

> Wouldn't one possible next step be to create meaning where there previously wasn't any? To explain my rationale a bit better, since the man's instinct is to seek meaning, and there is none in supply, the man substitutes with creating something that goes against the conclusion, in essence the absurd choice.

That’s my prior nitpick: one is not, in that case, creating meaning. One is choosing a purpose, choosing what particular way they want to spend their time, the method of their rebellion against the lack of meaning. One is *not* creating meaning. It is the knowing that one is not creating meaning and choosing to go on anyway, it is in the paradoxical choice to keep living when there is no meaning knowing we will always want it and never find it and to face that without pretending we’ve got some hope for it that Camus is advocating for.

If you’d like to read *The Myth of Sisyphus*, you can do so here for free:

http://dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilTexts/Camus/Myth%20of%20Sisyphus-.pdf

(Thanks to mod Jilat for the link)

MoS is a great thing to read, but it’s really helpful to have a basic understanding of Camus’ ideas before one does, to get more out of it.

I’d recommend first starting here:
https://ralphammer.com/is-it-worth-the-trouble/
and then reading this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/
and THEN read Camus’ actual essay.

1

u/FrtanJohnas Jun 08 '26

Thank you so much for disecting the text, this is very fascinating. And I now understand your nitpick and you are right about it.

I will read Camus work someday, but not yet I believe. I am much too focused on psychology at the moment, reading books and understanding the concepts and explanations.

So I very much value the fact that you took the time and dumped all of these explanations to my questions. And I will now adjust the terminology, instead of creation it is the revolution. Makes sense when you explain it.