Absurdism

[reverendjeremiah]

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.

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.

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.

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...