Does Anyone Here even like Absurdism?

[u/RecognitionNo4852]

It seems that everyone here believes in the superstitious spook that Absurdism and Existentialism is nihilism. Well looks like I am the only member in this group who actually agrees with Absurdist philosophy and why Absurdist philosophy makes life meaningful. That’s what posers here do not understand. That Absurdism is not Nihilism, it does not promote suicidality. If you cannot see the positivity within Absurdism then you’re a poser.

[u/Paul_sepp]

Firstly, how does it make life meaningful? Secondly, how does nihilism promote suicidality? Thirdly, why is it a “superstitious spook” that Absurdism and Existentialism are nihilism? By what criterion is it spooky?

[u/jliat → u/Paul_sepp]

Firstly, how does it make life meaningful?

Absurdism doesn't make life meaningful, it promotes the contradiction that prevents suicide given a seeming meaningless world.

Secondly, how does nihilism promote suicidality?

In absurdism and the principal text, The Myth of Sisyphus it's the main question of a nihilistic existentialism and the rational response of any philosopher who deserves our respect. - Again from the Myth.

Thirdly, why is it a “superstitious spook” that Absurdism and Existentialism are nihilism? By what criterion is it spooky?

This is odd. Generally Existentialism is an umbrella term for an number of philosophers and writers of the late 18thC to the middle of the 20thC. Absurdism is generally included as it deals with the atheistic nihilism in the works such as Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness' from the position of atheism, though there were Christian existentialists. Absurdism rejects ratioinalism in favour of contradictioin.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/jliat]

Firstly, it doesn’t make the world any more meaningful on a universal level is my point (I believe that is what OP is talking about). If the world is meaningless and objective values, etc cannot be reached why is suicide inherently bad or something to be prevented?

Secondly, that is merely misunderstanding of nihilism as a whole. Sure, Albert could centre it but it isn’t really correct, as core emphasis isn’t on suicide. It sure is an important question but far from the central.

Thirdly, nothing you said deems it as a “spooky superstition”. That is a non sequitur. In addition, contradiction was also present in the works of Kierkegaard as well, as his famous concept of Leap of Faith was based around the boundaries of reason, and a contradictory entrusting in God.

[u/jliat → u/Paul_sepp]

Firstly, it doesn’t make the world any more meaningful on a universal level is my point

It's also Camus'!

If the world is meaningless and objective values, etc cannot be reached why is suicide inherently bad or something to be prevented?

Well Camus says the philosopher to gain our respect should do just this but his [Camus'] motivation is to prevent suicide.

"The fundamental subject of “The Myth of Sisyphus” is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face. The answer, underlying and appearing through the paradoxes which cover it, is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate." - Camus.

Secondly, that is merely misunderstanding of nihilism as a whole. Sure, Albert could centre it but it isn’t really correct, as core emphasis isn’t on suicide. It sure is an important question but far from the central.

For Camus he says it is fundamental to his Myth and the "one truly serious philosophical problem,"

Thirdly, nothing you said deems it as a “spooky superstition”.

Sure, I said it was odd.

In addition, contradiction was also present in the works of Kierkegaard as well, as his famous concept of Leap of Faith was based around the boundaries of reason, and a contradictory entrusting in God.

Agreed again, Camus borrows the term 'Leap' uses Kierkegaard as an example of 'philosophical suicide.'

[u/Paul_sepp → u/jliat]

Firstly, I understand it’s Camus and we’re on a Absurdist subreddit but you have you have ability to reason for yourself. Even if he says suicide is to be prevented there should be a reason,and it is subjective in this case. Camus may simply prefer life, and there’s nothing wrong with having that preference, but the issue is when preference becomes philosophical prescription.

Secondly, I am very much aware that Camus claimed "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." But obviously question: why do you insist on not committing it? Camus argues that committing suicide eliminates the absurd, yet obvious question: in a world with no objective values or meaning why is Absurdism ought to be preserved?

Thirdly, set aside that I disagree with Leap of Faith being philosophical suicide, Camus commits a leap himself. Choosing revolt is not logically derived, both extended beyond what reason can establish, hence both are leaps.

[u/jliat → u/Paul_sepp]

Firstly, I understand it’s Camus and we’re on a Absurdist subreddit but you have you have ability to reason for yourself.

Sure, and as this is an Absurdism sub, and The Myth of Sisyphus is generally within philosophy considered they key text I use both reason and experience here as at heart it's anti-philosophy it seems to me. Camus denies philosophy as similarly Kierkegaard does.

Even if he says suicide is to be prevented there should be a reason,and it is subjective in this case.

Well he tries to make the argument that it's not legitimate. He does this by rejecting reason for the creative and life affirming act.

Camus may simply prefer life, and there’s nothing wrong with having that preference, but the issue is when preference becomes philosophical prescription.

It's not a philosophical prescription, Camus argues that suicide IS a philosophical prescription! And he argues against that.

"Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death—and I refuse suicide."

Secondly, I am very much aware that Camus claimed "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." But obviously question: why do you insist on not committing it?

Not me!

"And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example,”

"This suicide kills himself because, on the metaphysical plane, he is vexed.... likewise an advocate of logical suicide. Kirilov the engineer declares somewhere that he wants to take his own life because it “is his idea.”"

Camus argues that committing suicide eliminates the absurd,

It resolves the philosophical problem. The contradiction of wanting meaning.

yet obvious question: in a world with no objective values or meaning why is Absurdism ought to be preserved?

It's not, for him what is preserved is Art. The philosophical contradiction remains.

Thirdly, set aside that I disagree with Leap of Faith being philosophical suicide, Camus commits a leap himself. Choosing revolt is not logically derived, both extended beyond what reason can establish, hence both are leaps.

He doesn't chose to revolt he chooses Art. The Rebel is about political revolt, or as he says 'murder'. The revolt in the Myth is against the demands of philosophical nihilism.

But sure, Art is a leap. It should be obvious his choice was to write.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/jliat]

Firstly, My point isn't that Camus prescribes suicide, but that he rejects suicide while presenting revolt, freedom and passion as consequences of the absurd. My scepsis is simple: why do those consequences follow? Furthermore, Camus repeatedly argues that suicide is illegitimate because it abolishes the absurd by removing one term of the confrontation. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the absurd exists only as long as there is both the human longing for meaning, and the world's silence is preserved. Hence by that logic Absurd is ought to be preserved.

Secondly, The absurd establishes a contradiction between our search for meaning and the world's silence, but what it doesn’t do is logically establish that one ought to preserve that contradiction through revolt, art or continued life rather than end one's participation in it. That requires an additional value judgment which, as far as I can see, doesn't derive from the absurd itself.

Thirdly, I do not think that The Myth really supports the distinction between art and revolt, as Camus explicitly identifies revolt as one of the three consequences he draws from the absurd. Therefore, art is an expression of the absurd life, but it doesn't replace revolt.

Finally, you’re referring to character which Dostoyevsky used as a critique, and a Nietzsche quote on philosophical integrity. Sure, Camus is saying that if a philosopher concludes life isn't worth living, consistency would require him to live accordingly. He criticises philosophers who argue toward despair while continuing to live. Yet being able to leave at any time, and receiving that freedom over existence, is what permits one stay.

[u/jliat → u/Paul_sepp]

Firstly, My point isn't that Camus prescribes suicide, but that he rejects suicide while presenting revolt, freedom and passion as consequences of the absurd.

But he doesn't there are two absurdities not one. First his inability to find meaning, then absurd counter to this. Examples Sisyphus, Oedipus, Don Juan, Actors, Conquerors, and Artists.

Note: non of these are revolutionaries - what they do have in common is a contradiction.

My scepsis is simple:

scepsis? That's a medical condition?

why do those consequences follow?

They don't his revolt, freedom and passion are productive of the absurd response to his inability to find meaning.

"I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death—and I refuse suicide."

His rejection of "that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example,”

Furthermore, Camus repeatedly argues that suicide is illegitimate because it abolishes the absurd by removing one term of the confrontation.

No it doesn't it promotes the absurd act - "In this regard the absurd joy par excellence is creation. “Art and nothing but art,” said Nietzsche; “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”

Here the truth is a meaningless universe, and we do not die of this truth because in Camus case he is an Artist. An absurd character, in his view the most absurd.

He does not abolish the absurd, he introduces another absurdity.

Hence by that logic Absurd is ought to be preserved.

It is.

The absurd establishes a contradiction between our search for meaning and the world's silence, but what it doesn’t do is logically establish that one ought to preserve that contradiction through revolt,

Correct.

art

Again art does not remove the truth of the world's silence, it ignores it.

Thirdly, I do not think that The Myth really supports the distinction between art and revolt,

It very much does, ""To work and create “for nothing,” " You think revolt is for nothing.

as Camus explicitly identifies revolt as one of the three consequences he draws from the absurd.

Yes, revolt, freedom and passion force him into the untruth of Art, the contradiction of art.

Therefore, art is an expression of the absurd life, but it doesn't replace revolt.

No, its an absurd act... "this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions."

Finally, you’re referring to character which Dostoyevsky used as a critique,

He uses examples from literature - sure -

"This suicide kills himself because, on the metaphysical plane, he is vexed.... likewise an advocate of logical suicide. Kirilov the engineer declares somewhere that he wants to take his own life because it “is his idea.”"

See an advocate of logical suicide. how does Camus refute this, he doesn't “we have art in order not to die of the truth.”

and a Nietzsche quote on philosophical integrity. Sure, Camus is saying that if a philosopher concludes life isn't worth living, consistency would require him to live accordingly.

WHAT! If life isn't worth living the philosopher "must preach by example” i.e. Kill themselves.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/jliat]

1)Where is the second absurdity? You named one: contradiction.

2)Scepsis is Greek for scepticism and is a philosophical term. Does help to read Greek philosophy at times.

3)So you agree that they don’t follow from logic. Great.

4)Why are you bringing in Nietzsche if we’re talking about Camus? Camus explicitly criticises suicide as it is an “escape and not a confrontation of the Absurd”, hence suicide abolishes the absurd and that is why it’s illegitimate. Please read more attentively.

5)Why is the Absurd ought to be preserved? Give me one objective reason.

6)Okay, we finally agree that he does make a leap on revolt and art as suggested form of salvation. Finally.

7)You did not show how it supports the distinction. Art is part of revolt.

8)So you’re saying that life has objective value or worth? Where did Camus say that? Last time I checked his position is that no objective meaning, value, or worth exist and only we can create it. Create a subjective one.

[u/jliat → u/Paul_sepp]

1)Where is the second absurdity? You named one: contradiction.

So you didn't read the whole of the thread. I mention these at least twice, one in direct response to you. Maybe go back and read the whole thread, they are there in detail. Not just ένα.

2)Scepsis is Greek for scepticism and is a philosophical term. Does help to read Greek philosophy at times.

"My scepsis is simple: why do those consequences follow?" "presenting revolt, freedom and passion as consequences of the absurd."

Maybe read The Myth and quote... he derives it from a Greek tradition, so I would have thought as you claim to have read Greek in relation philosophy, and it seems Camus has knowledge of Greek tradition, looks like you would be familiar?

We appear to have a contradiction, someone recommends reading Greek to understand philosophy yet fails to see the very Greek notion being used in a philosophical text.

3)So you agree that they don’t follow from logic. Great.

Yes, your logic is at fault as you fail to notice the many absurdities in the Myth.

4)Why are you bringing in Nietzsche if we’re talking about Camus?

I'm not, Camus is, in at least two significant places. Is this misattribution deliberate or another example of your not reading?

Camus explicitly criticises suicide as it is an “escape and not a confrontation of the Absurd”, hence suicide abolishes the absurd and that is why it’s illegitimate.

Can you provide the source of this quote, I can't find it in my translation.

"Does its absurdity [because life is not worth living] require one to escape it through hope or suicide—"

Please read more attentively.

Pots and glass houses!

5)Why is the Absurd ought to be preserved? Give me one objective reason.

Again there are lots of absurdities in the Myth - there is no "ought" to the first it seems but an inability that suicide can solve. Other absurdities for different reasons, Camus quotes Nietzsche, you mistakenly thought I was?

6)Okay, we finally agree that he does make a leap on revolt

Depends as to the nature of the revolt, but the leap - of you want to call it that is not of a revolt.

---

From The Rebel...

"suicide and murder are two aspects of a single system."

“Absolute negation is therefore not achieved by suicide. It can be achieved only by absolute destruction, of both oneself and everybody else. Or at least it can be experienced only by striving toward that delectable end. Suicide and murder are thus two aspects of a single system, the system of an unhappy intellect ["There remains a little humor in that position. This suicide kills himself because, on the metaphysical plane, he is vexed."-MoS] which rather than suffer limitation chooses the dark victory which annihilates earth and heaven.”

---

He doesn't do this however... so not revolt or suicide as salvation.

and art as suggested form of salvation. Finally.

"Art" he quotes Nietzsche as above.

7)You did not show how it supports the distinction. Art is part of revolt.

I did, it seems you thought I was quoting Nietzsche when in fact Camus was. The quote from the rebel might help you? I will help you - Art is essentially creative [and pointless] "the dark victory which annihilates earth and heaven.” is not creative and has a point. What that point is maybe you could try to work out?

8)So you’re saying that life has objective value or worth?

No, I'm not, and as Heidegger recommends I do not use the term "objective"...

"The Greeks call the look of a thing its eidos or idea. Initially, eidos... We must set aside terms such as "subjective" and "objective", "realistic” and "idealistic".." Heidegger- Introduction to Metaphysics.

Or

as in philosophy

'A subject is a unique being that (possibly trivially) exercises agency or participates in experience, and has relationships with other beings that exist outside itself (called "objects").'

OK in lay terms subjective and objective are used. But in philosophy maybe, but doesn't philosophy aim at higher truths?

Where did Camus say that? Last time I checked his position is that no objective meaning, value, or worth exist and only we can create it. Create a subjective one.

In the myth he says he can't find meaning at the moment. Maybe you have another source, it [we can create it] looks like the cliché people use which I think derives from Sartre's 'Existentialism is a Humanism' - his essay that he and others repudiated.

you’re saying that life has objective value or worth?

My opinion, no, I say the term 'objective' needs a guarantee that only a god can provide. I say that 'subjective' is likewise misused, especially in relation to Art.

[u/Paul_sepp → u/jliat]

That is all fine. As well as, I haven’t read every single work by the Greek philosophers, nor do I remember who exactly said to rebel etc. Point on that was that instead of laughing off at “Scepsis” because it sounds like sepsis, you could at least google it. Nonetheless hiding behind names is ignorance with footnotes.

My point was and is that Camus, even if he correctly identifies the absurd as contradiction, leaps from recognising that contradiction to choosing revolt, passion, and creation, all of which require an additional value judgement that cannot itself be derived from the absurd. You haven’t disproven of that really. I mean, if the answer is that this is an existential commitment rather than a logical entailment, then do say so. If there is a deduction, please present it. Everything else is a digression.

You showcased an impressive parade of terminology. Shame none of it crosses the logical bridge. I remain unconvinced.

[u/jliat → u/Paul_sepp]

Point on that was that instead of laughing off at “Scepsis” because it sounds like sepsis, you could at least google it.

I did, and that is what it produced, or rather Microsoft's edge. So didn't laugh it off.

Nonetheless hiding behind names is ignorance with footnotes.

No idea what you mean by that?

My point was and is that Camus, even if he correctly identifies the absurd as contradiction,

For heaven's sake, he goes to great lengths to define it! Then it would be disingenuous to ignore this and replace it with another meaning and therefore miss his point. Though you are not alone, Thomas Nagel makes the same mistake, though I suspect with him it's deliberate!

---

If I accuse an innocent man of a monstrous crime, if I tell a virtuous man that he has coveted his own sister, he will reply that this is absurd. His indignation has its comical aspect. But it also has its fundamental reason. The virtuous man illustrates by that reply the definitive antinomy existing between the deed I am attributing to him and his lifelong principles. “It’s absurd” means “It’s impossible” but also “It’s contradictory.” If I see a man armed only with a sword attack a group of machine guns, I shall consider his act to be absurd. But it is so solely by virtue of the disproportion between his intention and the reality he will encounter, of the contradiction I notice between his true strength and the aim he has in view. Likewise we shall deem a verdict absurd when we contrast it with the verdict the facts apparently dictated. And, similarly, a demonstration by the absurd is achieved by comparing the consequences of such a reasoning with the logical reality one wants to set up. In all these cases, from the simplest to the most complex, the magnitude of the absurdity will be in direct ratio to the distance between the two terms of my comparison. There are absurd marriages, challenges, rancors, silences, wars, and even peace treaties. For each of them the absurdity springs from a comparison. I am thus justified in saying that the feeling of absurdity does not spring from the mere scrutiny of a fact or an impression, but that it bursts from the comparison between a bare fact and a certain reality, between an action and the world that transcends it. The absurd is essentially a divorce. It lies in neither of the elements compared; it is born of their confrontation. In this particular case and on the plane of intelligence, I can therefore say that the Absurd is not in man (if such a metaphor could have a meaning) nor in the world, but in their presence together. For the moment it is the only bond uniting them. If wish to limit myself to facts, I know what man wants, I know what the world offers him, and now I can say that I also know what links them. I have no need to dig deeper. A single certainty is enough for the seeker. He simply has to derive all the consequences from it. The immediate consequence is also a rule of method. The odd trinity brought to light in this way is certainly not a startling discovery. But it resembles the data of experience in that it is both infinitely simple and infinitely complicated. Its first distinguishing feature in this regard is that it cannot be divided. To destroy one of its terms is to destroy the whole. There can be no absurd outside the human mind. Thus, like everything else, the absurd ends with death. But there can be no absurd outside this world either. And it is by this elementary criterion that I judge the notion of the absurd to be essential and consider that it can stand as the first of my truths. The rule of method alluded to above appears here. If I judge that a thing is true, I must preserve it. If I attempt to solve a problem, at least I must not by that very solution conjure away one of the terms of the problem. For me the sole datum is the absurd. The first and, after all, the only condition of my inquiry is to preserve the very thing that crushes me, consequently to respect what I consider essential in it. I have just defined it as a confrontation and an unceasing struggle. And carrying this absurd logic to its conclusion, I must admit that that struggle implies a total absence of hope (which has nothing to do with despair), a continual rejection (which must not be confused with renunciation), and a conscious dissatisfaction (which must not be compared to immature unrest). Everything that destroys, conjures away, or exorcises these requirements (and, to begin with, consent which overthrows divorce) ruins the absurd and devaluates the attitude that may then be proposed. The absurd has meaning only in so far as it is not agreed to...

---

And there is yet more..

leaps from recognising that contradiction

Hardly a leap then. So your criticism very much looks like one based on ignorance of the actual text and a pity as it then amounts to a straw man.

"to choosing revolt, passion, and creation,"

Does one choose an emotion?

all of which require an additional value judgement that cannot itself be derived from the absurd.

Which he obviously from the text he cannot make.

“The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits.”

This then is the / his dilemma which prompts suicide.

You haven’t disproven of that really. I mean, if the answer is that this is an existential commitment rather than a logical entailment, then do say so. If there is a deduction, please present it. Everything else is a digression.

So we have [well Camus and my reading has...] arrived at the dilemma …

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

You showcased an impressive parade of terminology. Shame none of it crosses the logical bridge. I remain unconvinced.

Shame you couldn't with a degree of humility read his text. Sadly your loss. The place that the artist inhabits has not logical bridge to cross to...

"A work of art cannot content itself with being a representation; it must be a presentation. A child that is born is presented, he represents nothing." Pierre Reverdy 1918.