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."
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."
