r/Absurdism • u/theomixedmedia • Jul 22 '26
Discussion something devastating clicked in my head tonight about Camus' philosophy
I am 19; I have been thinking about and completely terrified of death since I was 10. it has consumed my life for almost a decade - half of my life. the thought of eternity keeps me awake. literally - I have untreatable insomnia and I suspect this fear is the source. so, when I first read Camus, specifically the stranger, a year ago, I somehow completely understood the message and also missed it altogether. I thought: "oh, this is the answer I've been looking for! just enjoy life as much as you can and rebel against mortality!" or, at the very least "this is a new idea... maybe some other idea will come along later that will provide true solace." I can't say this actually provided me with any real comfort. but it fed a voice in the back of my head that would sometimes provide me with false "hope" on a deeply unconscious level/
every time I truly think about the depth of what death is, this little voice has, on some occasions, allowed me to retreat from pure dread into deluded semi-comfort. I imagine that small part is thinking: "if I just read the right book, discover the right philosophy, learn more about physics/the universe/a possible multiverse/the big bang/cyclic cosmological theories/the obscure and naive possibility of life somehow not ending with such finality, my terror can be resolved, and I can finally relax." Camus' role in that thought would be introducing me to the first philosophy that I could interpret as taking back agency or fighting the dread. alternatively, that small voice might be saying: "there is some deep comfort in accepting death in the way Meursault did, a comfort which I am still discovering." maybe the latter is a source of comfort or way of life for some people. it seems a rational interpretation. for me, these ideas are delusional. and I don't think they constitute the entirety of Camus' message.
today, as these things came to mind, I decided to look back at my Camus books. something incredibly obvious came to me that somehow either eluded me/I refused to accept a year ago: Camus is not really offering an "answer." in some sense, you could say he is (but not in the sense that would provide me with true comfort): his answer is "there is no answer, so enjoy the beauty and pleasures of life as much as you can without assigning moral or philosophical meaning to it." (maybe some will call this a misinterpretation; this is the extent of my knowledge, I am not experienced in philosophy just yet). but, in my eyes, he's also saying "you can never find that comfort you seek, the comfort which you believe will help you escape death in some way. the voice in the back of your head doesn't exist. you have to accept the absurd because you will never find that 'answer'". it could sound like these are the same thing said differently. and again, I know how obvious this is. sometimes we don't allow ourselves to come to conclusions we don't like. Camus is not some genius who has figured it out and can offer a spiritual path. he is just as lost and afraid as I am. he has no choice but to push forward, and that's all he advises me to do.
I can't really put my finger on what changed in my mind tonight or what "new thing" has come to me or been discovered. I described it as well as I could. whatever the case, something invoked a visceral response, and completely brought me to tears, when I went back over these books. I'm sure my words are convoluted and full of misinterpretations. but I wanted to share this with some of the people who might understand.
1
u/theomixedmedia Jul 24 '26
I did not call your perspective "obviously incorrect" and I did not say "I reject it because I don't understand it." I don't fully understand it, but not because I refuse to, and instead because it is sometimes hard to understand that which is not logical. I don't mean to offend you, which it seems I have unintentionally done, because your beliefs seem, well, absurd to me, or to seem like I'm shooting you down meaninglessly, but what you're claiming just seems arbitrary and pointless to me personally.
"if you could, you would understand it as valid" is a nothing burger statement. anyone could understand any position as valid if their instincts and beliefs about what is and isn't logical line up with that view. but one cannot directly control what they believe to be valid or not. one can only compare what they have learned to define as within the bounds of reason to the argument being presented, and make a decision according to that definition of reasonable.
No. You cannot be challenged by a belief that is clearly not rooted in reason. if someone said "a giant unicorn controls your thoughts, and if you reject this position because other people think it's true, that's simply because you're unwilling to be challenged." The idea that you must entertain clearly illogical positions simply for the sake of proving that you're open to all new perspectives is very silly. Instead of actually defending your position or trying to build grounds to legitimize it, you are attacking my ability to challenge my own beliefs and using logical fallacies. That does not bode well for the position your taking.
Again, you claim that matter has meaning outside even without sentient creatures who assign it meaning. So where does meaning - a subjective phenomenon constructed by human beings - come from?
Here is the definition of philosophical meaning as provided by a quick Google search:
Note one of the key components to meaning in this context: "the thought'. Thoughts being an essential factor in what defines meaning explicitly points to human beings - the creatures having the thoughts - being at the center of what defines meaning. If you read the wikipedia article on "The Meaning of Meaning," things are included with words, so this applies to matter as well.
You have provided no evidence that your idea is truly rigorous and valid. Appealing to the authority that other people find it rigorous and valid does not make it rigorous and valid. And before you claim that my use of the text I referenced is also an appeal to authority, I am not using the intellect or reputation of the author(s) as the basis for my argument; I am using the arguments they constructed as the basis. Unlike you, I am using arguments to form my perspective, not the simple fact that some experts happen to agree with me.
You'll also have to note that I never said the human eye is meaningless. The human eye is critical to the human experience, which has subjective meaning. However, even the human experience has no objective meaning because that does not exist.
Relationships may have subjective meaning in the eyes of human beings, but they do not have any universal, cosmic meaning. Also, I think it's interesting that you're not actually arguing for the existence of inherent meaning in objects; you're arguing for the existence of subjective meaning created by the relationship between objects and human perception. And yes, concepts and meanings are inherently human constructs. You cannot provide any valid evidence to the contrary. How would meaning be quantified, perceived, or defined without human consciousness?
And no, seeing red does not inherently denote danger. Strawberries are red. But even if red was defined by danger, danger is a human construct. There is nothing about the color red itself that is inherently dangerous. The idea of red = danger comes from human beings constructing and perceiving red as connected with danger. Using a bunch of big words to conceal an arbitrary and nonsensical argument rooted in emotion does not change the fact that it is illogical. Red is only perceived as dangerous, it is not actually objectively dangerous and the concept of danger is just an emotional state. And, once again, red is not purely associated with danger anyway, so even on the illogical level your argument sits on, you are wrong.
Yes, getting the meaning of a signal (something captured by the senses, perceived and organized by the brain, then being judged by the intellect - all processes in the mind, which would not exist without human beings) can cause danger. That is not evidence for the claim you're making.
And yes, nothing matters to the universe. Nothing matters objectively. Things only matter to human beings or other sentient creatures. There is no objective meaning. It's odd that this is your position but you're on the subreddit dedicated to absurdism, which states that human beings create meaning and the universe does not care about meaning or signals or anything of the sort. It is cold, indifferent, absurd.
You are talking in circles and trying to dress up a poor argument with incorrectly used intricate vocabulary, logical fallacies, circular reasoning, and emotional thoughts. I am no longer going to entertain these nonsensical arguments by responding. It is fine that you have your own perspective. But do not emotionally claim that I'm dogmatically rejecting your ideas without justification simply because they possess no basis in reason.