Absurdism

[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.