Talk:Absurdism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

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 5 Absurdism and maths 6 confusion between absurdism and existentialism 7 Colin Leslie Dean?

[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)

In his introduction to The Rebel, Camus talks about the absurd and nihilism while he addresses the issues of murder and suicide. I believe how he asserts absurdism to uphold value in life (as alluded to above) is specifically, "The final conclusion of absurdist reasoning is, in fact, the repudiation of suicide and acceptance of the desperate encounter between human inquiry and the silence of the universe. Suicide would mean the end of this encounter, ad absurdist reasoning considers that it could not consent to this without negating its own premises... absurdism hereby admits that human life is the only necessary good since it is precisely life that makes this [absurd] encounter possible and since, without life, the absurdist wager would have no basis. To say that life is absurd, the conscience must be alive." - Albert Camus, The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower (New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 1971), 6. Qzxtvbzr 04:19, 6 March 2007 (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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.11 (talk • contribs) 02:44, September 29, 2006.

[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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewiscode (talk • contribs) 00:16, October 7, 2006.

[edit] Absurdism and maths

What does absurdism say about mathamatics? Are there any philosophical systems that reject all truth and rational objectivity including mathamatics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caggers (talk • contribs) 16:44, December 26, 2006.

[edit] confusion between absurdism and existentialism

When researching the play "No Exit" or "Huis Clos" by Jean Paul Satre, the article in English calls it existentialist when the article in French calls it absurdist. Yet in this article, it clearly states that the two movements are similar but not the same. I was wondering which one is correct and if the people who are in charge of the English site are in contact with the people who manage the French cite. Might be helpful to have the information consistent throughout the same article in different languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.21.96.82 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

My understanding (which may be completely wrong) in the instance of literature and plays is that the difference between absurdist and existentialist pieces, is primarily the style in which they are done. Contrast Sartre's "No Exit" with Beckett's "Endgame." The latter is clearly a piece of Absurd Theater. However, whereas one could argue (and in my opinion, rightly so) that they point at similar truths (or rather questions about the truth) they are still obviously different styles. It is important to remember that absurdism grew out of the existential movement and the premise that if "existence precedes essence" then what meaning/value does that leave for humans? Also, absurdists and existentialists have been known to blend their literature. I would classify Camus' "Caligula" as a critique of existentialism. I would also say that Camus' "The Stranger" is more of an existential piece than absurdist in that it plays largely with contrasting the tenets of Kierkegaardian alienation versus Heideggerian alienation. That just may be a lone philosophy major's opinion though. Anyone more knowledgeable, please correct me, but to answer the discrepancy in the articles: The English article is correct in calling it existentialist and not absurdist. Qzxtvbzr 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Leslie Dean?

I was about to format the references in the Meaningless section, and realized that all of them are to papers by some Colin Leslie Dean, and were added by a user named the same as the publication in which they all came out.

It seems to me like these papers have never been published anywhere other than at that publication, especially not in any peer-reviewed or otherwise academic source. In fact, it appears the entire catalog [1] of this publisher is composed entirely of books by Dean, on subjects such as philosophy, literary criticism, and Australian erotic poetry...

Therefor I conclude that this entire section is original research, non-reliable source, and possibly in conflict of interest, and thus I am removing it. For more information see Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:COI. If someone other than this author believes I am mistaken, feel free to revert my edit. darkskyz 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am outstounded It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica. It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 16:21, March 10, 2007.

I was considering not even answering your enflamatory response, however I assume you are simply not familiar with what Wikipedia is. I recommend you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Five pillars, and Help:Contents/Getting started to understand what this project is for. This cannot become a reliable encyclopedia if it does not base it's articles on reliable sources. And no, your own writings are not reliable sources, unless they are published in academic, peer reviewed journals or other reliable sources such as mentioned in Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources. You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia, as long as you respect it's rules and guidelines. This message will also be posted on your user talk page. darkskyz 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)