The Absurdity of Absurdism (?)

Quote

Joshua can you remind me what you said about the history of the question of the meaning of life?

The phrase meaning of life first appears in the record of English literature in a work of Thomas Carlyle called Sartor Resartus, published in 1833, and in the same text the speaker denounces atheism and hedonism.

Now if we take the telos of the greeks to signify 'meaning', the conversation is of course far older. I think this is a mistaken view of telos, but the real problem is that philosophical systems that value meaning are frequently vague about the term.

In my view, 'meaning' is nothing other than an alleged disease for which one purports to offer a cure. This blog (which I just discovered 5 seconds ago) is a nearly perfect explanation of my own view. Quote;

Quote

I’d maintain that, based on my casual observation, very few people conceive of a “meaning” to their lives, but simply, when asked the question, confect one post facto. That is, if asked that question, I would blather on about science, my friends, teaching evolution, traveling and seeing the world to enlarge my experience, and so on. But what I am doing is simply articulating the things that I like to do. I never think of these as the “meaning” of my life. In fact, I never think about that at all.

The pursuit of "meaning" is itself meaningless, in exactly the same way that repenting of "sin" is meaningless. Meaning isn't real, sin isn't real, the thetans of Scientology aren't real. Don't allow yourself to be made distressed by things that aren't real!

I watched a Youtube video on Camus tonight and i get the impression that interpretation of him is all over the board, all the way from existentialism, which he apparently strenuously denied, to there not being a dimes worth of difference between Camus and Nietzsche. It all seems to hinge on exactly who or what is being labeled as "absurd," and why, and that's where the lack of clarity is so glaring, much like the ambiguity of the legacy of Democritus leaves everyone wondering whether he was laughing "with" humanity or "at" humanity. I tend to think after brief exposure that Camus doesn't deserve to be considered to be on the "nihilist" team, but it also does not seem likely to me that his work could be interpreted so broadly if there were not some smoldering coals that create the smoke that surrounds him. I am thinking (so far) that there is probably a lot to learn from taking apart his views, but probably not much to be gained by holding up any system that he created as a model to emulate.

Quote from Cassius

Please don't take these or my prior remarks as being unfriendly, because I do not mean them in that way at all. All of us have gone through different philosophies in the past and we would not be here now if we have not.

Having said that, this is an Epicurean forum, and not a generalist philosophy group where all philosophies are equally "respected" and discussed dispassionately. And therefore I would say:

Quote from UnPaid_Landlord

As I understand it, it's more about accepting the reality with it's absurd nature and still living passionately

This is exactly the point in issue --- life does NOT have an absurd nature, from my point of view, and from what I read of Epicurus, he would say the same. Giving in on the question of whether "life is absurd" and not challenging that perspective is to give up the issue at the beginning.

Quote from UnPaid_Landlord

but I think it need not be a pessimistic philosophy, I don't why some people just misunderstand many things as negative, for example I have personally met some fellows who think Buddhism is really negative and pessimistic, and I can't understand what them at all,

Same perspective here, but in the reverse. I DO see Buddhism as essentially negative and pessimistic, and I cannot understand at all why someone would view it otherwise.

To repeat, we have all gone through different phases and perspectives and I don't make these statements to be argumentative. If we didn't have discussions with people who come to Epicurean discussion with different views, then we'd never give anyone the opportunity to engage with pro-Epicurean positions and potentially change their minds.

But we would not be an Epicurean forum if we did not --- at the same time that we welcome people who are not currently in tune with Epicuruean views - state clearly how we see Epicurus' views compare with others, and if we did not advocate for Epicurus' position, rather than accept very contradictory positions as if they were equally valid.

In this thread we're focusing on Absurdism and digging directly into the negative aspects, and it is unfortunate that we're doing so without having first engaged with you (talking to Unpaid_Landord) on the commonalities between what you're saying and Epicurus. I hope that you'll not get such an immediate bad impression from this thread that you don't continue to keep an open mind about this forum and Epicurus in general.

I don't think Epicurus would advise starting out tacking divisive subjects immediately, so this turn of discussion is probably unfortunate. But I think Epicurus would say that when clear issues arise, and others are watching (this is a public forum that anyone can read) it's best not to gloss over and defer deep issues for a later time that may never come. That's one reason why so much of the preliminary materials on this website that people go through in the registration process are geared toward putting such issues front and center, so they get discussed early.

Display More

It's fine my friend, I am not upset or anything, I don't actually care all that much about this, the simple reason I follow absurdism or anything for that matter is because it helped me or worked for me, that's it, I am not interested in convincing anyone of my philosophical stance, whether it's my absurdism or my Epicureanism, because I am not a propogator, just a follower, I follow it as long as it works and drop it if it doesn't,

The simple reason I commented earlier and gave a reply to your posts was to give my own point of view regarding what I thought of as 'Absurdism' ,

"Same perspective here, but in the reverse. I DO see Buddhism as essentially negative and pessimistic, and I cannot understand at all why someone would view it otherwise. ;)"

Note :- I don't get how to quote more than once so I am just copying pasting,

for me the best philosophy is the one that works for 'You', if it doesn't work for you, even the most beautiful and logical philosophies are useless, so yeah it seems like Buddhism didn't make sense to you but Epicureanism did, so that's good enough

"I hope that you'll not get such an immediate bad impression from this thread that you don't continue to keep an open mind about this forum and Epicurus in general."

Well no ? I didn't really get a bad impression or anything, so yeah, so don't worry about it, (I am just talking not arguing, I wonder if my posts come across like that ?)

Anyways I like Epicurus and his philosophy a lot, because he has worked so far for me, so not gonna stop learning it anytime soon.

The comments by everyone on the topic has been insightful, I am learning a lot, thanks

Quote from Cassius

I watched a Youtube video on Camus tonight and i get the impression that interpretation of him is all over the board, all the way from existentialism, which he apparently strenuously denied, to there not being a dimes worth of difference between Camus and Nietzsche. It all seems to hinge on exactly who or what is being labeled as "absurd," and why, and that's where the lack of clarity is so glaring, much like the ambiguity of the legacy of Democritus leaves everyone wondering whether he was laughing "with" humanity or "at" humanity. I tend to think after brief exposure that Camus doesn't deserve to be considered to be on the "nihilist" team, but it also does not seem likely to me that his work could be interpreted so broadly if there were not some smoldering coals that create the smoke that surrounds him. I am thinking (so far) that there is probably a lot to learn from taking apart his views, but probably not much to be gained by holding up any system that he created as a model to emulate.

I know right ? It all depends on what he meant by "Absurd" and there are so many different definitions of the same, it can be quite confusing, btw, I would appreciate it if you share the link of the video you watched,

Here is a video from my end, I think he explains it well :-

I am pretty sure the video I watched was this one - although for some reason as I listen to it tonight the voice seems a little different than I remember. But the video background appears clearly the same, so this much be it. Seemed pretty evenhanded as best I could tell:

That is a good video UnpaidLandlord thank you! The video producer seems to know the topic and I expect he is largely expressing it well. On that basis if we conclude that the essence of Camus' advice is to take a radical "WHO CARES?" position, then I have to affirm my earlier disposition that this Camus is about as much a reverse-Epicurean as you can get.

Sounds like the producer is correct that Camus is more like a "Stoic on Steroids" in expanding "indifference" to a whole new level of nihilistic glory. Camus might object to nihilism, but I hear no praise of pleasure or any other justification for going through what pain does exist in life.

In the apparent emphasis on "freedom" as an end in itself, rather than because freedom brings pleasure, I see nothing good at the end of that tunnel at all. Sounds like just another arbitrary "virtue" being elevated without regard as to its foundation or why we should do so.

This video also does a better job of contrasting Camus against Nietzsche. In my mind the issues the producer brings out are to the credit of Nietzsche and demerit of Camus.

What I am hearing is reminding me also of why i have never been a fan of "modern atheism" for example of the Sam Harris type. Pointing out the erroneous nature of supernatural gods is all well and good, but to live happily we have to replace that void with something to organize our lives. Epicurus shows how pleasure and pain fill that role, but I don't see how Camus is doing anything but destroying, and failing to replace it with anything. As Epicurus said, there are indeed worse things than conventional religion. Epicurus put his finger on hard determinism as an example of something worse, but I would not be surprised if he would put radical "Who cares?-ism" at or near that same rank.

All this is why I see it is as so important to embrace a positive and understandable worldview, like Epicurus taught, rather than just act the bull in a china shop running around destroying without ever providing a reasonable basis for hoping to succeed in living a happy life. No one I am aware of comes close to Epicurus in that regard.