Absurdism

[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.