Talk:Absurdism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

How can one say "life/existence is meaningless" when there is nothing containing "meaning" with which to compare life/existence? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-19 05:06

You just said "there is no meaning". ··gracefool |☺ 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"mean·ing (mē'nĭng) pronunciation

n.

  1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
  2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
  3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
  4. Inner significance: “But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?” (O. Henry).

adj.

  1. Full of meaning; expressive.
  2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions."

Contents 1 Discussion imported from The Absurd 2 Absurdist examples 3 Absurdist Humor 4 Absurdism Definition

[edit] Discussion imported from The Absurd

Someone with more background in philosophy writing should expand this article, esp. in re other formulations of the thesis and its objections; influential thinkers; and other cultural emanations beyond theater.

I created the page absurdism mostly based on a dictionary definition of it. It had previously been a redirect to the Theater of the Absurd. Since this article seems to be about a philosphy, should its content not be merged with with absurdism page? JesseHogan 22:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Hogan, absurdism is the superior page title. - Vague | Rant 08:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Also agree. Someone should merge the articles at absurdism. I'll add this to my watchlist and do it myself in a couple weeks if nobody eles takes the initiative :P Argyrios 23:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also agree. I'll take point and do the merge now. -- Tenebrae 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've done the editing and the redirect, but someone with much more knowledge of philosophy than I might want to go through it and smooth out any rough edges. Cheers! -- Tenebrae 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would, but I don't see the point... kidding. I am working on something that I can edit down to wikiese. - mikemayberry

Absurdism's relation to Nihilism? I'm no expert but that seems slightly generalized. Where did this information come from? I see Nihilism as rejection from standard social beliefs. Isn't Absurdism slightly more complex and less reactionary?

Yes I would also like to see a section on absurdism's relation to nihilism. I understand that they both reject the notion that there is ultimate meaning, but nihilism according to Camus promotes death and suicide, while absurdism somehow holds life as the only true value and somehow rebellion fits in to all that, but can someone who has actually bothered to read a couple of books clarify this? How can life have meaning in an absurd world, etc.? Is all this related to anti-trancedentalism? What other philosophical theories hold the premise that there is no meaning and how are they related to absurdism? Alex.g 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page have a link to the Hitchhiker's Guide? I don't see the connection

The language of this article is at times substandard, or just awkward. I suspect it was written (though admirably well) by a non-native speaker of English. It could really use a bit of stylistic pruning though.

I agree with the above in that this article could be much more concise. Also I agree that the question "How can life have meaning in an absurd world?" should be discussed and clarified. The current synopsis: The absurd hero should revolt against the hope of the supernatural and a higher meaning existing. He should then live for the present passion. But how is this different than living for a meaningless purpose that the individual creates himself? Seems like Camus defeats himself here. Clarification needed.--HSampson

Ok in general, let me run through this as throughly as possible.

Step 1: You realize that your freedom is limitless since:

A: nothing truly compels you to act in a certain way (aside from the laws of physics)

B: nothing truly prevents you from acting in a certain way (aside from physics)

Step 2: You realize that your freedom is without bounds, that nothing actually limits your ability to choose to act in whatever arbitrary way you want. (not even coercion)

Step 3: Thus, by the problem of theodicy, there is either no God or is a God permissive of evil (since people are free to act in an evil way). Either way, there cannot be a structured system of transcendent values (because God's word is either fictitious or non-binding).

Step 4: Thus, there is no transcendent meaning of life. Everything that you do has no bearing on your "goodness", because "goodness" is a an empty term. There is no ultimate justification for any of your actions because the final end of everything will be death. All actions are thus meaningless in view of this inevitability.

Step 5: If this life is the only life, then our actions in this life are the only chance to do what we want to do. Happiness can only be attained in this world, and we only have one shot at it.

Step 6: We must recognize the above as the "Problem of the Absurd". In keeping this in mind, we realize that we can never truly escape this problem. We must live and cope with it as we do with the finality of death. Attempts to forget or elude this problem are circular, since we will always come back to realizing this by our situations (ie. on our deathbed, or through our death itself).

Step 7: Referring to step 5 and 6, we can only possibly be happy in life. We must then live it as we see fit, seeking to enrich our experiences. This is justified due to human preference to live happy. To reject all action as meaningless is to embrace the absurd to end the problem of the absurd (ie. suicide). Camus rejects suicide as meaningless in itself, and that it effectively cuts off any chance for happiness.

Thus Camus outlines a system in which individuals can live "well". As long as the passion is not seen as the ultimate meaning to existence, living with passion is an appropriate vehicle with which to acquire happiness. It is different from the meaningless purposes that ultimately appeal to a non-existent transcendent value. Seeking happiness can be regarded as a "meaning of life" insofar as it is not put in transcendent terms, because it cannot transcend death. Eventually, I'll probably rewrite something explicating what I have just summed up. --MasonicLamb

[edit] Absurdist examples

I agree that The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series is borderline. Although the meaning of life (and the question of the meaning of life) does figure prominently throughout and the humor in the series is also largely based on absurd events and interactions (eg. a whale and a bunch of posies being brought into being suddenly, several miles above a planet's surface), the question of whether HHGG is truly an absurdist work is worth raising. I say leave it, as it is a widely-known and -available work and even if it's not truly absurdist in the sense of Waiting for Godot it is as worthy of inclusion here as is something like Candide (not truly absurdist either).

A bigger problem for me is Tom Goes to the Mayor. (I admit I'm not at all a fan of the show, which I can find to be anywhere from excessively infantile to nauseating, sometimes both.) From what I've seen of it, it is more of an example of humor of pathos (or maybe bathos) than it is absurdity. A better example of Adult Swim absurdity, to me, would be Aqua Teen Hunger Force or 12 oz. Mouse. Maybe even Perfect Hair Forever, though that's more parody than anything else. --Andymussell 00:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed Tom Goes to the Mayor but it was replaced with no real explaination. I actually like the show alot but it would be nice if somebody explained why it is an example of absurdism since more than one editor is confused. I don't get why ATHF would be

absurdism however.JesseHogan 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adult swim is not absurdist, it is non-sequitur. They neither point out life's meaninglessness nor assert anything beyond "Wouldn't it be funny if...?" For absurdism in art, look at film noir.

The point (ha) of HHGG being there is that the 'answer to life, the universe and everything' is '42', a completely irrelivant and useless number. Douglas Adams was depressed when he wrote it.

You've all got to realize that absurdism is essentially a philosophical movement and not a cultural one. These things that people take to be absurd would fit very well under "surreal humor" or "non-sequiters", but not "absurdism". Absurdism attempts to bring into focus the fundamental questions of the meaning of life and the nature of man's freedom. It does not involve Adult Swim or HHGG, or all of the other works of literature and art listed as examples of absurdism. Absurdism at its very heart is a philosophical system that makes sense. So theres your rule of thumb, and if you dont believe me, read Camus's Myth of Sisyphus because nowhere in there does he invoke non-sequiters.
-MasonicLamb 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Aren't absurdism and non-sequitur humor inherently linked? - Mellesime 13:04, 29 April 2006

[edit] Absurdist Humor

What about absurdism as a type of humor?

[edit] Absurdism Definition

I have found a lot of articles that link here citing themselves as Absurdist, but they do not apear amoungst the examples. It seems to me that the definition as is would aparently exclude many of these non-litterary examples. So I wonder if some sort of clear cut division can't be made between Absurdism and Absurdity so as to make things easier. I myself don't know that I'm fit to make a desicions of this kind without this happening. For example I have always heard of Monty Python as being Absurdist(the article itself claims this is so), but now I'm confused as to weither it's Absurdist or just Absurd. Another thing that bothers me is that some have held that if it dosen't apear in a book by Camus it's not Absurdist, which seems like a fairly strict definition. Especially given that there are other authors listed in the examples. Quite a bit to digest I know, but it would be nice to make progress towards an answer.