Absurdism

[BlackUnicorn]

:-)........

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.

Well under a true anarchist system so long as people kept to their groups and people were allowed to leave those groups and join/create others without persecution or punishment, then the conflict in theory between religion and atheism would not exist as the religious would have no power/control over atheists and atheists no power/control over the religious. But the economic system* poses a problem in this case, as it is more than likely groups would have to interact and trade with each other for survival, so if in a community a religious group gained dominance over trade it could impose its will on other groups, including atheists through simple economics.

*Whether its Capitalist or Communist.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well under a true anarchist system so long as people kept to their groups and people were allowed to leave those groups and join/create others without persecution or punishment, then the conflict in theory between religion and atheism would not exist as the religious would have no power/control over atheists and atheists no power/control over the religious. But the economic system* poses a problem in this case, as it is more than likely groups would have to interact and trade with each other for survival, so if in a community a religious group gained dominance over trade it could impose its will on other groups, including atheists through simple economics.

*Whether its Capitalist or Communist.

Im not sure if a "true" anarchist model even exists. Please dont think of this post as me putting words into your mouth either. I think humans, being the social creatures that they are, eventually create groups and try to dominate the lesser groups in the process. I dont see human groups, or most of them, standing by and allowing other groups to dwell... there is a sense of threat involved and that tends to create a reaction. Since we as humans allow our emotions to control us rather than logic (which is inhuman and sometimes contrary to our wants, intents and desires), we will never have a one nation govt. For the most part I agree with you on your post. I just disagree with you using the words "true anarchist model", as such a thing would equate that humans would do what they want, and many of them want to be the supreme authority of everything. Anarchy, like all other govt models, is still just as absurd. I think it may be less absurd in some cases and some times, but I imagine other absurdists may say it is more absurd. Anarchy is not immune to the absurd human condition when compared to this cosmos.

Because of this absurdity, I focus less on nebulous words such as "good and evil" and focus more on words such as "benevolent and malevolent". Intent can be either benevolent and malevolent. Good and evil are mere opinions. Benevolent being that which heals and supports life, Malevolent being that which harms and takes lives. And even this is faulty.. is it malevolent that humans must kill plants and animals to devour them in order to survive? This, to me, is a glaring proof that absurdity reigns.

SO I try to stick with Malevolent or benevolent as compared to humanism. Even then the philosophy is not perfect.

[BlackUnicorn]

Well under a true anarchist system so long as people kept to their groups and people were allowed to leave those groups and join/create others without persecution or punishment, then the conflict in theory between religion and atheism would not exist as the religious would have no power/control over atheists and atheists no power/control over the religious. But the economic system* poses a problem in this case, as it is more than likely groups would have to interact and trade with each other for survival, so if in a community a religious group gained dominance over trade it could impose its will on other groups, including atheists through simple economics.

*Whether its Capitalist or Communist.

Im not sure if a "true" anarchist model even exists. Please dont think of this post as me putting words into your mouth either. I think humans, being the social creatures that they are, eventually create groups and try to dominate the lesser groups in the process. I dont see human groups, or most of them, standing by and allowing other groups to dwell... there is a sense of threat involved and that tends to create a reaction. Since we as humans allow our emotions to control us rather than logic (which is inhuman and sometimes contrary to our wants, intents and desires), we will never have a one nation govt. For the most part I agree with you on your post. I just disagree with you using the words "true anarchist model", as such a thing would equate that humans would do what they want, and many of them want to be the supreme authority of everything. Anarchy, like all other govt models, is still just as absurd. I think it may be less absurd in some cases and some times, but I imagine other absurdists may say it is more absurd. Anarchy is not immune to the absurd human condition when compared to this cosmos.

Because of this absurdity, I focus less on nebulous words such as "good and evil" and focus more on words such as "benevolent and malevolent". Intent can be either benevolent and malevolent. Good and evil are mere opinions. Benevolent being that which heals and supports life, Malevolent being that which harms and takes lives. And even this is faulty.. is it malevolent that humans must kill plants and animals to devour them in order to survive? This, to me, is a glaring proof that absurdity reigns.

SO I try to stick with Malevolent or benevolent as compared to humanism. Even then the philosophy is not perfect.

It depends who is dominant in the society, if a religious group was dominant then it is likely that anarchy would be based more around that religious group in how it functions. I prefer systems that make divisions between the economic system and the political system, and ideologies and religions, which is why my ideal is some adaption of Anarcho-Capitalism/Anarcho-Communism (with the end result of the end of the state, corporations and the worst of the economic system, and a new set of social contracts to replace the laws we are now governed under, education and all other functions of government including welfare would become the role of non-for profit community organizations).

As for humans in general, there will always be people who want to control or hurt others, unfortunately in order to restrain them they might have to be harmed in the process, there is no way to deal with it except education, punishment or exile. As for slavery and oppression they will always exist, slavery is after all relative to the individual and the group, same with oppression, so really I think you need a system that allows people to group among themselves and rule themselves (you can't really have that without light handed or loose government), but if you wanted to go so far as actual independence and form your own state, then so long as its your property and not other people's (or people) I don't see why not. The way I see things is that authority and the power that comes with it is there to be abused (there are very few kind hearted people), so it has to be limited as much as possible to provide a just system.

[reverendjeremiah]

It depends who is dominant in the society, if a religious group was dominant then it is likely that anarchy would be based more around that religious group in how it functions. I prefer systems that make divisions between the economic system and the political system, and ideologies and religions, which is why my ideal is some adaption of Anarcho-Capitalism/Anarcho-Communism (with the end result of the end of the state, corporations and the worst of the economic system, and a new set of social contracts to replace the laws we are now governed under, education and all other functions of government including welfare would become the role of non-for profit community organizations).

If a religious group was dominant, it would not be anarchy. It would be theocracy. There is a difference. If a corporation ruled, it would be fascism. If communism was the factor, no matter how much Marx said it would be the end result, it would not be "anarcho-marxism". It would be communism, not anarchy. To me, anarchy is a complete lack of any law or any guiding govt or economic principle. Anarchy would have no social contracts or laws. anarchy would, to me, be the "law of the jungle" for one brief moment in time before the alpha human decided to create a system in order to keep his (or hers) and his people in perpetual power while the rest are held in lower stations.

Could you produce an historical group of people who stayed in pure anarchy for longer than one generation? I ask this because I have a "war lord" hypothesis when it comes to pure anarchy. My "war lord" hypothesis says that if true anarchy was ever established, a war lord would eventually collect followers and dominate the niche and officially end the anarchy with whatever said warlord supports for government/social/economic pleasures. If my "war lord" concept is true, then absurdism strikes HARSHLY again..that politics, just like religion, are in a state of constant flux because of the human inability to find inherent meaning in the cosmos.

As for humans in general, there will always be people who want to control or hurt others, unfortunately in order to restrain them they might have to be harmed in the process, there is no way to deal with it except education, punishment or exile. As for slavery and oppression they will always exist, slavery is after all relative to the individual and the group, same with oppression, so really I think you need a system that allows people to group among themselves and rule themselves (you can't really have that without light handed or loose government), but if you wanted to go so far as actual independence and form your own state, then so long as its your property and not other people's (or people) I don't see why not. The way I see things is that authority and the power that comes with it is there to be abused (there are very few kind hearted people), so it has to be limited as much as possible to provide a just system.

How do you educate people with out inserting human intent into it? How do you restrain people and also be an anarchist? Wouldnt a TRUE anarchist not do anything to anyone unless he or his family members were directly threatened? Perhaps my idea of anarchy is skewed. I agree with your quotes on power and authority.

By the way, I appreciate the in depth discussion on this topic. I have always said that "absurdism LOOKS simple on the surface, but it encompasses much more than we think it does. If it is human created, the chances of it being absurd go through the roof." Of course that is not an absolute statement, as many human advancements have done good, like scientific and other such advancements. That is why absurdists focus on words such as "probably", and "maybe", and "more than likely".

[Violet]

I would like to introduce the members to my philosophy; Absurdism.

I'm an existential nihilist... it's going down ^_^

*wikipedia explains it pretty good*

In philosophy, "The Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible," but rather "humanly impossible." The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

I seek to attribute meaning to things in a way that make sense to me... but do people really seek to find an "inherent meaning" to life/universe/whatever? Scientists look for a testable and intersubjectively verifiable meaning to life/universe/whatever.... religious people seek to find a meaning that makes sense according to their faith. Who looks for an "inherent meaning"? 0.o

Absurdism, therefore, is a philosophical school of thought stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual. As a philosophy, absurdism also explores the fundamental nature of the Absurd and how individuals, once becoming conscious of the Absurd, should react to it.

I would agree that a search for objective meaning (which if it exists is horribly convoluted and quite incomprehensible when viewed in full) is a silly endeavor, I'd even go so far as to declare it absurd

Absurdism is very closely related to existentialism and nihilism.

Kind of... I for one do not believe existentialism and nihilism can exist without each other. If all aubsurdism does is declare the search for inherent meaning absurd, then really one can't avoid being all three of these if they understand subjectivity. There is no objective meaning behind the universe, therefore we attribute meaning to everything, and to presume this interpretation to be the same for all is absurd.

In absurdist philosophy, the Absurd arises out of the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the apparent meaninglessness of the universe. As beings looking for meaning in a meaningless world, humans have three ways of resolving the dilemma. Kierkegaard and Camus describe the solutions in their works, The Sickness Unto Death (1849) and The Myth of Sisyphus (1942):

The universe is not meaningless so long as there are things to attribute meaning unto it. It is quite impossible for the meaningless to have meaning, therefore (as the universe does have meaning, even though it is subjective) this dilemma is false. If we consider it to be a search for an objective meaning in a world which has none, then we are getting somewhere. But logic can't contradict itself.

-Suicide (or, "escaping existence"): a solution in which a person simply ends one's own life. Both Kierkegaard and Camus dismiss the viability of this option. Camus states that it does not counter the Absurd, but only becomes more absurd, to end one's own existence.

Death is peace... it stops all meaning and the ability to search for meaning, and therefore counters the very premise of aubsurdism.

-Religious, spiritual, or abstract belief in a transcendent realm, being, or idea (or, "escaping reality"): a solution in which one believes in the existence of a reality that is beyond the Absurd, and, as such, has meaning. Kierkegaard stated that a belief in anything beyond the Absurd requires a non-rational but perhaps necessary religious acceptance in such an intangible and empirically unprovable thing (now commonly referred to as a "leap of faith"). However, Camus regarded this solution, and others, as "philosophical suicide".

Nothing is beyond the absurd (if only regarding the objective meaning, and not the subjective meaning that counters its very existence otherwise), I agree with Kierkegaard in this instance. Taking something on faith is not philosophical suicide... for even logic is taken on faith. Faith is inescapable when one accepts anything, consciously or not. Only the thoughtless (ie: rocks) and incapable of doing anything of their own are faithless.

-Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believing that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve absolute freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, regarded this solution as "demoniac madness": "He rages most of all at the thought that eternity might get it into its head to take his misery from him!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

Absolute freedom? We are all free to do anything that is possible for us to do. How can it get more absolute that that?

With Kierkegaard here as well... it is really quite silly to try to separate absurdity from existentialism.

---

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.

But it would be a silly thing to not understand our certainty as a position of faith that may infact be incorrect. Certainty of a thing is not truth of a thing... but what else could we interpret truth to be?

---

:-)........

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.

Philosophy can always be applied to politics. I like Machiavelli's works a great deal, and am not so dissimilar in my understandings (rather, i have advanced philosophically along those same lines). People that attack others for being different are rather silly... when you attack someone: it should be to get ahead. I don't care if they are actively flying planes into tall buildings and killing a relatively small number of people... it is not worth going to war if you've nothing to gain or too much to lose. I really think more people should play Master of Orion on Impossible difficulty until they understand this concept.

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.

If a government must exist, it should be a powerful entity that can actually control the lesser entities within it. If it is not sufficiently powerful, i posit that it should be destroyed or put to use by the more powerful entities. For a weak government is as vulnerable as any weak animal, and the land/people within it might well be worth adding to a powerful government.

I am entirely against the existence of the United Nations, as you can see... me not believing in alliances that don't let one get themselves ahead. Far too restricting.

Treatment of a government's citizens is almost irrelevant to the formation of government, excepting when so badly they are treated that they effectively revolt against the government. Anarchy does not exist, for it is always so that the most influential/dominating/powerful will be in control. Anything else is an idealism that I would be happy to take advantage of.

[BlackUnicorn]

It depends who is dominant in the society, if a religious group was dominant then it is likely that anarchy would be based more around that religious group in how it functions. I prefer systems that make divisions between the economic system and the political system, and ideologies and religions, which is why my ideal is some adaption of Anarcho-Capitalism/Anarcho-Communism (with the end result of the end of the state, corporations and the worst of the economic system, and a new set of social contracts to replace the laws we are now governed under, education and all other functions of government including welfare would become the role of non-for profit community organizations).

If a religious group was dominant, it would not be anarchy. It would be theocracy. There is a difference. If a corporation ruled, it would be fascism. If communism was the factor, no matter how much Marx said it would be the end result, it would not be "anarcho-marxism". It would be communism, not anarchy. To me, anarchy is a complete lack of any law or any guiding govt or economic principle. Anarchy would have no social contracts or laws. anarchy would, to me, be the "law of the jungle" for one brief moment in time before the alpha human decided to create a system in order to keep his (or hers) and his people in perpetual power while the rest are held in lower stations.

Could you produce an historical group of people who stayed in pure anarchy for longer than one generation? I ask this because I have a "war lord" hypothesis when it comes to pure anarchy. My "war lord" hypothesis says that if true anarchy was ever established, a war lord would eventually collect followers and dominate the niche and officially end the anarchy with whatever said warlord supports for government/social/economic pleasures. If my "war lord" concept is true, then absurdism strikes HARSHLY again..that politics, just like religion, are in a state of constant flux because of the human inability to find inherent meaning in the cosmos.

As for humans in general, there will always be people who want to control or hurt others, unfortunately in order to restrain them they might have to be harmed in the process, there is no way to deal with it except education, punishment or exile. As for slavery and oppression they will always exist, slavery is after all relative to the individual and the group, same with oppression, so really I think you need a system that allows people to group among themselves and rule themselves (you can't really have that without light handed or loose government), but if you wanted to go so far as actual independence and form your own state, then so long as its your property and not other people's (or people) I don't see why not. The way I see things is that authority and the power that comes with it is there to be abused (there are very few kind hearted people), so it has to be limited as much as possible to provide a just system.

How do you educate people with out inserting human intent into it? How do you restrain people and also be an anarchist? Wouldnt a TRUE anarchist not do anything to anyone unless he or his family members were directly threatened? Perhaps my idea of anarchy is skewed. I agree with your quotes on power and authority.

By the way, I appreciate the in depth discussion on this topic. I have always said that "absurdism LOOKS simple on the surface, but it encompasses much more than we think it does. If it is human created, the chances of it being absurd go through the roof." Of course that is not an absolute statement, as many human advancements have done good, like scientific and other such advancements. That is why absurdists focus on words such as "probably", and "maybe", and "more than likely".

Depends how extreme the religious or ideological group is, some might be prepared to peacefully exist and others not (thus imposing their will on others), could it cope in such a crisis and repel a group determined enough to construct a theocracy or state system of some kind, unlikely unless the group involved was small and could be set upon by the others before it becomes stronger than the others (in a kinda pack mentality).

I never believe in straight anarchy, it needs a proven system to run it aka capitalism (or communism to an extent), so the goal in my mind would be to restrain human behavior only when humans inflict harm on others (physically or financially), courts would still exist, so would police (as privately funded security for business and community police made up of trained volunteers). But I can't deny that funding and education quality would differ, not to mention if the individuals in the community are total layabouts and get hooked on bad drugs and alcohol, then it won't work, but exiling members of the community to other communities would still be an option then.

[reverendjeremiah]

I'm an existential nihilist... it's going down ^_^

Thats cool. I like most of what Nihilism says. I just disagree with them on how 100% certain they are about the universe having absolutely no inherent meaning. I think you are forcing your human intent upon something that is not human and quite possibly beyond human understanding. I find that absurd.

I seek to attribute meaning to things in a way that make sense to me... but do people really seek to find an "inherent meaning" to life/universe/whatever? Scientists look for a testable and intersubjectively verifiable meaning to life/universe/whatever.... religious people seek to find a meaning that makes sense according to their faith. Who looks for an "inherent meaning"? 0.o

I also seek to attribute meaning to things in a way that makes sense to me, but there in lies the absurdity. I admit that PROBABLY any meaning I attach to things is ultimately absurd. Absurdism has no problem with "logically possible". As far as "inherent meaning", lets look up the words..shall we..

Inherent - existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
Meaning - what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. The end, purpose, or significance of something.
So you can say "inherent meaning" can also mean "The inseperable element of significance", or "The quality and attribute of purpose". Absurdism claims there is PROBABLY no inherent meaning in the universe, but meaning can be found in the JOURNEY. Intent is very important in absurdism, being what is called "the human condition" which is the problem when added to a non-human cosmos. when you ask "who looks for an inherent meaning" you misunderstand the point I think. So far science has only explained mechanical, materialistic functions. They have yet to find any inherent meaning. Absurdism has no problem with science in this function, calling it "logically possible, just not HUMANLY possible". In other words, you will more than likely NOT find inherent HUMAN meaning in the cosmos...but that is not a guarentee.

I would agree that a search for objective meaning (which if it exists is horribly convoluted and quite incomprehensible when viewed in full) is a silly endeavor, I'd even go so far as to declare it absurd

I agree.

Kind of... I for one do not believe existentialism and nihilism can exist without each other. If all aubsurdism does is declare the search for inherent meaning absurd, then really one can't avoid being all three of these if they understand subjectivity. There is no objective meaning behind the universe, therefore we attribute meaning to everything, and to presume this interpretation to be the same for all is absurd.

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..
I disagree with the 100% chance of there being no inherent meaning. I say that there PROBABLY is no inherent meaning. absurdism is like strong agnosticism on steroids. Trust me, I would get along better with nihilist than I would theists.

Absolute freedom? We are all free to do anything that is possible for us to do. How can it get more absolute that that?

Yeah, the wikipedia article isnt perfect. It could have been worded better.

[Violet]

Thats cool. I like most of what Nihilism says. I just disagree with them on how 100% certain they are about the universe having absolutely no inherent meaning. I think you are forcing your human intent upon something that is not human and quite possibly beyond human understanding. I find that absurd.

Even if there was an objective meaning, it would be irrelevant to me (a subjective being).... so I treat it as if there is not and get on with my life ^_^

I also seek to attribute meaning to things in a way that makes sense to me, but there in lies the absurdity. I admit that PROBABLY any meaning I attach to things is ultimately absurd. Absurdism has no problem with "logically possible". As far as "inherent meaning", lets look up the words..shall we..

Inherent - existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute
Meaning - what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word. The end, purpose, or significance of something.
So you can say "inherent meaning" can also mean "The inseperable element of significance", or "The quality and attribute of purpose". Absurdism claims there is PROBABLY no inherent meaning in the universe, but meaning can be found in the JOURNEY. Intent is very important in absurdism, being what is called "the human condition" which is the problem when added to a non-human cosmos. when you ask "who looks for an inherent meaning" you misunderstand the point I think. So far science has only explained mechanical, materialistic functions. They have yet to find any inherent meaning. Absurdism has no problem with science in this function, calling it "logically possible, just not HUMANLY possible". In other words, you will more than likely NOT find inherent HUMAN meaning in the cosmos...but that is not a guarentee.

I'm nuts, and i don't find it absurd that everyone else sees something different from the same location as me... infact i consider that entirely natural and key to enjoying my life ^_^ There is no right and wrong when it comes to our interpretation of the universe that we do not invent. The universe is unfeeling and cares naught about right and wrong, correct or incorrect, or as to whether or not it is having fun.

Inherence is not possible... the neutron passes through empty space where the ant is climbing the mountain in front of which the man is sitting at his computer as the giant glances carelessly over the pebble that the invisible pink unicorn created for her children to admire from another dimension that several aliens are aware of and war over the control of the empty space mountain computer pebble creation for admiration and ultimate power.

Such inseparable elements do not exist unless you create them yourself... A seed changes to a sprout to a tree to a table and chair to ashes to fertilizer into the next trees. Everything that experiences change is in flux... with nothing solid behind it guiding its path of existence. What one sees as the seed by which to grow a tree, another sees food. What one sees as the beginning of a tree, another sees as a home. What one sees as a towering tree, another sees as firewood. What one sees as a table and chair, another sees as a blunt object. What one sees as ash, another sees as a weapon. What one sees as fertilizer, another sees as trash. What is a fire if you do not state what it is, and that anything less no longer a fire? Such is the arbitration of applied meaning, and there is no meaning save it... for if there were then all would follow that understanding.

If meaning can be found on the way to the end of a book, then so too can meaning be found without ever reading the book, and so meaning at the close, and also meaning in the middle that someone randomly flipped to without a care in the world to read the rest. I hardly meant to suggest that anyone could find inherent meaning... because I really don't think i misunderstand what people look for: nobody cares about inherent meaning that isn't a philosopher specifically trying to figure out just what such a thing entails. The scientists aren't looking for it... they have other things to look for... things that matter to them. The religious don't need to search for such a thing, for they have found something they deem better than it. My fellow resourcists are too busy getting ahead to be sidetracked by something that doens't matter to them at all. I am stating precisely that even if inherent meaning exists: almost nobody will gain from the knowledge, the only ones I can think of being the philosophers that may now focus on other matters

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..
I disagree with the 100% chance of there being no inherent meaning. I say that there PROBABLY is no inherent meaning. absurdism is like strong agnosticism on steroids. Trust me, I would get along better with nihilist than I would theists.

Well, if absurdism doesn't work with subjectivism, then it can hardly work with existentialism and nihilism, which are positions that require an understanding of subjectivity Objectivity either doesn't exist or is completely irrelevant to us subjective beings. Absurdism, then, is not a thing that requires one to believe in objective meaning or not... and thus an absurdist may be either. If the objective cannot be discerned, then it follows that absurdism is necessarily related to subjectivism, as else humans could not filtrate any information regarding it, as there is none.

Im a gnostic in regards to the existence of gods (they don't), but I am quite comfortable with understanding that is only my position of faith, and it is as untenable logically as faith alone in any other thing that isn't logic itself (why is logic logical? Because it says it so. Whee! ^_^). I am also 100% certain there is no objective meaning, unless one defines this as the net total meaning granted subjectively, which is still useless.

Yeah, the wikipedia article isnt perfect. It could have been worded better.

Not a problem with Wikipedia, that's a problem with what the guy said.

[reverendjeremiah]

As I said before, absirdism and nihilism is closely related. You clearly understand the problem with human intent when connected with the cosmos (and you did a SUPURB job of giving some examples of it). The only difference I have seen between Nihilism and Absurdism is how strong the wording is. Nihilism says "there is no inherent meaning, and to ask for one is irrelevant" where the absurdist says "there PROBABLY is no inherent meaning, and to ask for one is more than likely absurd." Otherwise, Nihilism and Absurdism pretty much see eye to eye.

You seem to pretty much have a grasp on the concepts. As I said before, I am no professional or expert on Absurdism, but if I were to sum up the entire Cosmos in a sentence:

"There is something really fucked up going on here!"

That pretty much covers it for me in one sentence. Perhaps you agree, perhaps not. Too many unturned stones, too many unanswered questions, too many chances that human imagination has replaced reliable data, too many chances that reliable data may actually be unreliable. Talk about an uncertainty principle.

I used to preach against universal skepticism, but it seems the older I get, the more it seems to make sense with everything I see and learn.

[reverendjeremiah]

A random musing on absurdism that floated across my mind today:

An Absurdist is someone who looks at the evidence of everything around them and comes to the conclusion that "life more than likely, or does not, have any inherent meaning or value" but at the same time comes to the conclusion that "my life DOES have meaning and value, as well as others." This is the confliction that the absurdist must embrace. If he does not embrace this, then he leaves himself open to either becoming a nihilist and will honestly consider the option of suicide, wether physical or intellectual, to be on the table of personal options. If he does not become a nihilist and takes his lifes meaning away from the absurd and into idealistic realms, he will commit intellectual suicide by ignoring the conclusion he came to by saying "Even though I see no inherent meaning in this universe, I will escape it by believing otherwise." Nihilism and Idealism are NOT options that sit on the table of the absurd even thought the absurdist recognizes these options to be available. With that said, the absurdist is in constant conflict and acceptance with the absurd. How can someone be in conflict with, and also embrace, something? If I may be so bold, I will give you an example:

The nuclear combustion that creates a star. I have always considered combustion to be a good example of embracing something that is in conflict. The star wants to blow outwards, yet its own mass pulls it back into itself. One would imagine if the star had an intellect, that it would have an inner conflict of wanting to blow up but stay together at the same time. One would think the star, if questioned about its conflicting and embracing nature, would retort: "That is my nature. If I were to blow up, I would have commited suicide and destroyed myself. If I ceased trying to combust then I would no longer be a star and that is suicide as well. By embracing the conflict I exist."