(February 19, 2011 at 10:38 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: :-)........

Not only does it work for religious views, but it makes good points when applied to political views. Mankind will more than likely never find a political system that makes everyone happy. So ultimately politics is an absurd proposition, but that does not mean we should not try..who knows.. someone may actually succede. Until then Humanity is doomed to bicker and cut each others throats over even some of the smallest differences in politics.

This does not mean I am an anarchist, but being an absurdist makes it very easy for me to just say "fuck it, its not going to work and its all a waste of time" and sometimes I find myself fighting anarchist tendencies because of it. For the most part I am a progressive. If govt MUST exist, it should bring people together for everyones basic benefit and support. From my POV, if govt cant help its citizens, and actually holds them down, then anarchy is much better.

(February 16, 2011 at 4:06 am)theVOID Wrote: I agree a great deal with Absurdism as far as meaning and value is concerned, I firmly believe that all values that exist are the products of or are in relation to desires and there is therefore no intrinsic value in the universe, but as far as Metaethics is concerned I tend to disagree, I do believe that there are objective facts to be determined about what desires are good/bad in terms of their ability to promote or thwart other desires and we can therefore make meaningful and useful claims about moral right and wrong that are based solely on phenomenon that we are certain exists.

I don't want to turn this into a debate about meta-ethics, but I'd point out that the meaningfulness of moral claims in this case would depend on our accepting the view that promoting the fulfillment of people's desires is good, in the sense that we ought to do it, irrespective of our own wishes (a categorical imperative, as opposed to a hypothetical one, to use Kant's language). I happen to agree with desirism for the most part, but it's still only a view, and the objectivity of moral claims therefore depends on a non-objective assumption.

As for Absurdism, I find it highly appealing, although I'd question whether objective meaning is a coherent concept. Whether God exists or not makes no difference; any meaning assigned to us from an external source is still not objective, any more than if some parents had a child in order to raise him or her as a chimney sweep; this meaning would not be objective for the child.

(February 22, 2011 at 7:55 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: I don't want to turn this into a debate about meta-ethics,

By all means lets debate it, as long as it is in topic with absurdity, and absurdity covers a great deal of topics, so I doubt you will go off topic.

(February 22, 2011 at 7:55 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: but I'd point out that the meaningfulness of moral claims in this case would depend on our accepting the view that promoting the fulfillment of people's desires is good, in the sense that we ought to do it,

And that is what seperates absurdism from Nihilism. Absurdism floats between existensialism and Nihilism, agreing with some of both philosophies and disagreeing withthe rest. Nihilism sees no point in anything where absurdism says "there may be no point in the end, the journey may have meaning." Absurdity says "there might not be goal posts" while nihilism says that "there is no goal post" on the field. Where the nihilists would refuse to play the game, the absurdists may or may not depending on the integrity they have vested in the game. Some may say "the journey is half the fun", the absurdists might say; "the journey is all it is, for better or for worse.". Absurdism focuses more on INTEGRITY instead of morals, as there is probably no base for morals. To the absurdist, one mans morals can be another mans downfall. So instead, the absurdist, by realizing this, typically minimalizes things and stands by them strictly through integrity. If a society is giving me a good life, then I should have the integrity to consistantly try to do good for that society. Forgive me for being simplistic. Absurdism leaves plenty of room to play, so it is on an individual to individual basis.

(February 22, 2011 at 7:55 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: irrespective of our own wishes (a categorical imperative, as opposed to a hypothetical one, to use Kant's language). I happen to agree with desirism for the most part, but it's still only a view, and the objectivity of moral claims therefore depends on a non-objective assumption.

Because absurdism says there is PROBABLY no meaning of life does not mean you can not give yourself one. Absurdism also warns you not to get so caught up in that meaning, as you are more than likely wrong. That means any morals you come up with is more than likely wrong, regardless of your or others wishes. That doesnt mean that embracing absurdity means you go out killing your fellow citizens. To go on a killing rampage because "there is probably no meaning in life" is just as absurd as commiting suicide. This is one of the reasons why suicide is spoken of so often in absurdist circles, as it helps point you towards what you should have integrity for. Killing yourself for "no meaning in life" is absurd. Just because you embrace the absurdity, and admit that absurdity is there, does not mean you should hasten the end of life. Physical and intellectual suicide are the two major things absurdists must AVOID, and base their integrity on. Commiting an "intellectual suicide" by going on a killing rampage because "the world is absurd" is forcing others into a "physical suicide"..its a double whammy that absurdists would very much frown upon. Remember, absirdity is about "humanly possible", not "logically possible". So absurdists would encourage you to try new things. Perhaps you may find the meaning of life...but I doubt it.

(February 22, 2011 at 7:55 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote: As for Absurdism, I find it highly appealing, although I'd question whether objective meaning is a coherent concept. Whether God exists or not makes no difference; any meaning assigned to us from an external source is still not objective, any more than if some parents had a child in order to raise him or her as a chimney sweep; this meaning would not be objective for the child.

I agree that wether god exists or not makes no difference. In fact absurdism allows for a belief in a supreme being, but it gives strong warnings that you have more than likely commited intellectual suicide. Needless to say you will not find many absurdists who believe in deities, except for the following:
- Some deists may hold it, but I have yet to meet any.
- ALL (or most) of the adherents of Discordian religions, SubGenius, etc..espouse absurdist philosophies wether they know it or not. I realize some of their members are atheists with a good sense of humor, but those religions are strongly based on absurdism, and even give strict commandments not to take the religion seriously, which reflects the absurdist warnings of religion being intellectual suicide.
- Perhaps a few gnostic or pagans may base their beliefs in absurdism. Worshipping Loki you would find it hard to not be absurdist I would think.
For the most part absurdists are pretty much atheists and agnostics who keep an open mind (like me), but will refuse to fall for bullshit presented as fact. Remember, absurdism reminds its adherents to stay up with logic and beware the human condition.

Example: Discordian religion law of fives:

The Law of Fives is summarized in the Principia Discordia:

The Law of Fives states simply that: All things happen in fives, or are divisible by or are multiples of five, or are somehow directly or indirectly appropriate to 5

The Law of Fives is never wrong.

—Malaclypse the Younger, Principia Discordia, Page 00016
At its basic level, the Law of Fives is a practical demonstration that perception is intent-sensitive; that is, the perceiver's intentions inform the perception. To whatever extent one considers that perception is identical with reality, then, it has the corollary that reality is intent-sensitive.


As far as objective or subjective?

Let me hear what you want to ask, and I will try to answer them. I am no expert on absurdism, but I have put much thought into it. I can say that subjectivism will not work very well with absurdism, and objectivism might have some problems as well. Remember, wether objective of subjective, absurdism claims it is the human condition+mechanical cosmos = absurdity..and both objective and subjective can be subject to filtration by human emotions, wants, and needs. I would say objectivism would work better with absurdism than subjectivism, but they probably both do not work..hmm..good question

Lets hear more from you...

(February 19, 2011 at 6:21 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Not only does it work for religious views, but it makes good points when applied to political views. Mankind will more than likely never find a political system that makes everyone happy. So ultimately politics is an absurd proposition, but that does not mean we should not try..who knows.. someone may actually succede. Until then Humanity is doomed to bicker and cut each others throats over even some of the smallest differences in politics.

I would think this is an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that political change (or conservation) is difficult does not mean it is not worth the effort -- unless you embrace absurdism to the point that getting shipped off to the gulag doesn't matter to you. I think most of us would rank living under Obama, GW Bush, Hitler or Stalin in a definite order; some political circumstances are definitely preferable to others, if only from a personal comfort standpoint.

Regardless, per absurdism in particular, I can't help but suspect that absurdism as stated is somewhat self-contradictory. I don't have a complete handle on the question, but it seems that you are making a value judgment about value judgments in general -- namely that they are meaningless; if so, then your observation itself falls prey to the same objection it is making about other value systems. There is a philosophical position that displays the same quixotic nature, unfortunately I'm coming up empty at the moment. I suppose, if I think of it....

Regarding your indifference to gods and the afterlife, I recently asked theists in a theist oriented forum whether the absence of an afterlife, provably so, would change the way they live this life. The question was turned around on me, would I change if an afterlife was proven? I can't think that I could avoid changing -- the cost is simply too high. I think it would be profoundly irrational not to do so. And I think the same motivations which prompt one to leave a burning building, exit a tub of scalding hot water or remove one's hand from a hot stove would apply. In the case of an eternity of suffering, even more so. Perhaps I'm just morally weak. Perhaps, but I think there's more involved.

In a sense, the question of absurdism reminds me of the question of why some people -- who lack a belief in a god -- identify themselves as atheist, while others having the same attitude towards gods either don't identify as atheist (wouldn't do so for reasons aside of stigma), or identify as agnostic. I have to wonder a) what the function of the label is (for you), and b) what the function of your absurdist beliefs serve. I guess the question could be summed up in asking whether you behave differently as a self-conscious absurdist, than you would if you didn't have this "idea" of the way things are. If you behave differently because of absurdism, then I would suggest that you aren't fully absurdist. I don't think, anyway.

In terms of the overall question of absurdism, I discount it for myself in two ways. First, as a Taoist, I don't believe the universe is "indifferent" to our actions (either in terms of itself, nor in terms of the consequences for ourselves); in some sense, I'm not a "good" Taoist in that I depart in some substantial ways from what I see as paradigm Taoist behavior, and perhaps that has consequences for my values and behavior (if I were in the classic Taoist painting of The Vinegar Tasters, I would probably not be smiling). Second, I believe that evolution has hard-wired us such that we are not fundamentally indifferent to our existence. Whether we find the dictates of our biology meaningful in some larger sense, they are meaningful in a more immediate and local sense. This is not to say we shouldn't either encourage or discourage certain biological imperatives, but that our doing so ultimately reduces to satisfying one particular imperative or another; even ascetics deny themselves for "dirty" reasons. (I'm not going to launch off into questions of zen or wabi sabi, I've babbled enough -- especially for one who sees little contradiction in talking about the ineffable )

(February 24, 2011 at 4:18 am)apophenia Wrote: I would think this is an example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The fact that political change (or conservation) is difficult does not mean it is not worth the effort -- unless you embrace absurdism to the point that getting shipped off to the gulag doesn't matter to you. I think most of us would rank living under Obama, GW Bush, Hitler or Stalin in a definite order; some political circumstances are definitely preferable to others, if only from a personal comfort standpoint.

Remember, this is merely a base philosophy that others can stack on. I also support liberalism. It is very easy to stack anarchy on top of absurdism as well. In the matter of being shipped off to the Gulag, a typical absurdist hero would not ball his fist up and shake it at the Cosmos for being "unfair", nor would he commit suicide in that situation. From there it all depends on what the absurdists OTHER philosphies are that he holds that are not compromising to his acknowlegdement that there is probably no inherent meaning in the cosmos. I am against Gulags because they are harsh treatments of citizens upon their fellow citizens. At the same time what happens happens, and many times there is nothing you can do about it. remember, absurdism does NOT say that you should give up.

(February 24, 2011 at 4:18 am)apophenia Wrote: Regardless, per absurdism in particular, I can't help but suspect that absurdism as stated is somewhat self-contradictory. I don't have a complete handle on the question, but it seems that you are making a value judgment about value judgments in general -- namely that they are meaningless; if so, then your observation itself falls prey to the same objection it is making about other value systems. There is a philosophical position that displays the same quixotic nature, unfortunately I'm coming up empty at the moment. I suppose, if I think of it....

Of course there is a contradiction. The contradiction is the human mind itself when it comes into contact with a cold, inhuman mechanical universe. I am not saying that value judgements are meaningless. I am saying that all value judgements are PROBABLY meaningless. Who knows, maybe one day someone WILL find some inherent meaning in the universe that will convince all of mankind. Until then we bicker about EVERYTHING large and small. The only exception to this is the knowledge of the bare basic mechanics of the universe (logic) which can be either accepted or you can commit intellectual suicide. Human intent is where this posible contradiction begins, and thus absurdity results.

(February 24, 2011 at 4:18 am)apophenia Wrote: Regarding your indifference to gods and the afterlife, I recently asked theists in a theist oriented forum whether the absence of an afterlife, provably so, would change the way they live this life. The question was turned around on me, would I change if an afterlife was proven? I can't think that I could avoid changing -- the cost is simply too high. I think it would be profoundly irrational not to do so. And I think the same motivations which prompt one to leave a burning building, exit a tub of scalding hot water or remove one's hand from a hot stove would apply. In the case of an eternity of suffering, even more so. Perhaps I'm just morally weak. Perhaps, but I think there's more involved.

I would not change my position in that situation. An absurdist, in the face of proof that a god and afterlife exists, would admit that there is proof that an afterlife and god exists, but would then ask "what is the inherent meaning for it?" To be tortured for all eternity in fire for not worshipping a god? Wether hell exists in reality or not it is STILL absurd. To me, it doesnt matter wether a god exists or not. If a god created humanity in this condition withinin the universe then that god would be the greatest absurdity. A god who allows many religions to exist, but only a single "correct" religion? Absurd! Wether proof comes up for one religion being right or not will not change the past nor will it change the reality that other false religions were "allowed" to exist. Same thing with politics. Any god who would have created humanity and allowed it to have so many differing governments would be the epitomy of absurdity.

(February 24, 2011 at 4:18 am)apophenia Wrote: In a sense, the question of absurdism reminds me of the question of why some people -- who lack a belief in a god -- identify themselves as atheist, while others having the same attitude towards gods either don't identify as atheist (wouldn't do so for reasons aside of stigma), or identify as agnostic. I have to wonder a) what the function of the label is (for you), and b) what the function of your absurdist beliefs serve. I guess the question could be summed up in asking whether you behave differently as a self-conscious absurdist, than you would if you didn't have this "idea" of the way things are. If you behave differently because of absurdism, then I would suggest that you aren't fully absurdist. I don't think, anyway.

Now this is a SERIOUS discussion of absurdity. Absurdity is usually best approached from a sense of humor. The contradiction of humanity is so overwhelming that many go into fits of laughter when confronted with it. George Carlin was a very popular absurdist. Most comedians use absurdity, both real and imaginary, as the punchlines of their jokes.

As far as "belief statement", I have no problem with people calling me an atheist, or an agnostic. Both of those terms I do not mind. I dont think they fit me 100%, but they come pretty close. To me I dont care if a god exists or not. I will not worship it regardless because it would be absurd. It would be the source of the absurdity, and therefore should be scoffed and mocked. I wouldnt mind people calling me a Discordian or a SubGenius as well. I have no problem with those titles as well. Absurdists embrace that idea that a deity is absurd and then sometimes create "religions" like The Church of the Subgenius, or Discordianism, etc. ..its not that they are really worshipping the deities. They are merely enforcing (from the absurdist view point) that any kind of god or goddess would be absurd, and they stress to prove it in their "religious" writtings of whatever god they make up. For all I know, an infinite amount of infinitely powerful deities exist and they fight each other constantly over things we humans consider trivial..like the placement of sand pebbles on the beach everytime the waves roll in..while we humans think we are special in their eyes, the deities couldnt care less about us...just the sand grain they have in their ward. THAT, is the absurdist approach on religion.

(February 24, 2011 at 4:18 am)apophenia Wrote: In terms of the overall question of absurdism, I discount it for myself in two ways. First, as a Taoist, I don't believe the universe is "indifferent" to our actions (either in terms of itself, nor in terms of the consequences for ourselves); in some sense, I'm not a "good" Taoist in that I depart in some substantial ways from what I see as paradigm Taoist behavior, and perhaps that has consequences for my values and behavior (if I were in the classic Taoist painting of The Vinegar Tasters, I would probably not be smiling). Second, I believe that evolution has hard-wired us such that we are not fundamentally indifferent to our existence. Whether we find the dictates of our biology meaningful in some larger sense, they are meaningful in a more immediate and local sense. This is not to say we shouldn't either encourage or discourage certain biological imperatives, but that our doing so ultimately reduces to satisfying one particular imperative or another; even ascetics deny themselves for "dirty" reasons. (I'm not going to launch off into questions of zen or wabi sabi, I've babbled enough -- especially for one who sees little contradiction in talking about the ineffable )

Ive been meaning to study Taoism more indepth. An absurdist would approach the idea of ancestor spirits and immortals as something to laugh at as absurd. They would point out the lack of "furniture spirits" of past furniture your ancestors owned, and ask why they were not being revered as well? How about those Dinosaur spirits? Dont see many religions popping up about those. Perhaps we should invent one? Biologically speaking its all cut and dry as long as it is mechanical in terms, but once you start suggesting things like "My penis has a Muladhara chakra", then the Absurdists will laugh, and ask what is the meaning for it. They will more than likely mock the concept, and invent newer concepts to add onto it showing the absurdity of such beliefs. Example: "The only thing I can see good coming out of Zen is that the person will be well rested..and at least when he is meditating he isnt hurting anyone." or "The only thing baptism is missing is a bar of soap." or "Christian communion is great, especially with some cheese on it."

(February 16, 2011 at 3:07 am)reverendjeremiah Wrote:

(February 16, 2011 at 3:01 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Owwch!!! Wall of text!!

You can just post a linky ...in fact see our http://atheistforums.org/forum-40.html for a complete list of the preferred dos and don'ts. And BB codes

Sorry..let me edit it down some...new to the forum, will get the hang of the do's and dont's ASAP.

What would be better: explain what absurdism means to you and why (presumably you do) take comfort in that strain of thought. Oh, I see you already have to some degree in a later post. My bad.

I know Camus demurred the labels and all, but I tend to think of absurdism as a branch of existentialism. I know there's debate about that. I think "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" are two of the most inspiring works I've ever read.

(February 24, 2011 at 5:25 pm)everythingafter Wrote: I know Camus demurred the labels and all, but I tend to think of absurdism as a branch of existentialism. I know there's debate about that. I think "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" are two of the most inspiring works I've ever read.

Yeah, he didnt care much for labels. Neither do I. Thats why I dont mind if someone calls me an atheist, or an agnostic. Both are fine and close enough for me. Yes, I agree, there are many close relations between absurdism and existentialism and absurdism and nihilism...mostly in how strong the language is. Absurdists use the word "probably" alot, pointing out they are not 100% sure, and that it is okay to be in suspension of a conclusion.

(February 24, 2011 at 4:50 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: Ive been meaning to study Taoism more indepth. An absurdist would approach the idea of ancestor spirits and immortals as something to laugh at as absurd. They would point out the lack of "furniture spirits" of past furniture your ancestors owned, and ask why they were not being revered as well?

It's important to understand that there are essentially three separate Taoisms, and blends of them.

1) The lesser Tao, which is primarily based upon the Laozi and the Zhuangzi, which many people consider more a philosophy than a religion. Ancestor worship, saints and gods are not really a part of this (and spirits, ala the Shinto kami are quite foreign).

2) The greater Tao, which formed over the centuries through incorporation of monastic heirarchies, alchemy, "hygiene" [the use of foods and herbs to achieve immortality], gods and saints, and all manner of whatnot. The official canon of greater Taoism consists of nearly 1500 texts, and I doubt whether many have read or embraced the entire corpus, outside of churches and monasteries.

3) Folk Taoism, being that segment of Chinese folk religion which is based on the greater and lesser Tao. It is here, if anywhere, you will find gods, saints and "the immortals" being given prominence. Chinese folk religion tends to blend Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism together in much the same way that a health consumer would go to a different specialist depending on what's troubling them.

Anyway, I follow the lesser Tao, and while I consider it a religion because of the normative nature of its metaphysics, spooks, gods and dead ancestors are not really a part of it. As a historical matter, Tian [roughly translated as 'heaven'] is mentioned in the Laozi, but not as a foundational concept, and given the vagueries and complexity of the concept in Chinese philosophical tradition preceding the hundred schools period (when Taoism initially flourished), it's best not to read too much into it.

Re: absurdism, I guess I would need a fuller exposition to consider. I'm unconvinced that you would so cavalierly dismiss the adjusted reality that eternal suffering might present. And to be more philosophically precise, I'm not certain that what I understand absurdism to be given your presentation does not commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. Regardless, such considerations will have to await another day; I have committed myself to conducting a round table discussion on the various philosophies of truth next week, and I barely understand them myself. (Oy vey, what did I get myself into!)

(February 24, 2011 at 7:53 pm)apophenia Wrote: absurdism, I guess I would need a fuller exposition to consider. I'm unconvinced that you would so cavalierly dismiss the adjusted reality that eternal suffering might present.

Yeah, I get that one alot. This is why I so cavalierly say it that way. Would you convert to communism (if you arent already one) because someone threatened to torture you for the rest of your life? Or would you act like you converted to avoid punishment? If you heard me telling people "worship me or I will take you down to my torture chamber and torture you." Would you trust any promises I made about anything else? This is all about integrity. I would NEVER trust any promise of salvation that had a threat of eternal hellfire tagged onto it. I think most people are affected by it this way, and most of those who are Christian are Christians for many different reasons, but mostly for two main reasons; Family tradition and fear of Hell. Fear of hellfire is the first thing thrown in my face when I tell people I do not believe, yet when asked they will swear up and down that they are not afraid of it.

(February 24, 2011 at 7:53 pm)apophenia Wrote: And to be more philosophically precise, I'm not certain that what I understand absurdism to be given your presentation does not commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.

- Self-refuting ideas (stolen concepts) are ideas or statements whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true. - What is there illogical about the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Have you discovered the inherent meaning in life?

(February 24, 2011 at 7:53 pm)apophenia Wrote: Regardless, such considerations will have to await another day; I have committed myself to conducting a round table discussionon the various philosophies of truth next week, and I barely understand them myself. (Oy vey, what did I get myself into!)

ARGH..just condense it and say something like; "I have discovered that the taste of an empty bowl of rice is the same as the sound of one hand clapping! Meditate on that BITCHES!!"

(February 16, 2011 at 4:06 am)theVOID Wrote: I do believe that there are objective facts to be determined about what desires are good/bad in terms of their ability to promote or thwart other desires

How does desires being able to promote or thwart other desires constitute them being "good" or "bad"?

The most popular music that gets to the number one position in the music singles and album charts tends to promote more people's desires and thwart less. Does this mean that popular music - and usually pop music - should be considered "better" than other music?

Doesn't this whole concept of goodness - that isn't proved to be better than any other concept of goodness - often lead to an appeal to popularity?