Change the word sincerity to accuracy, and then you've got it. MB is simply wrong about absurdism.

What do you mean by 'relative meaning'? (I'm not joking because I used the word 'mean', it's a hard word not to use and that might be adding the confusion)

I didn't interpret it that way. I don't think Camus is advocating revolt, he sees it as one consequence of the absurdity but actually advocates acceptence, and he rejects Nihilism. I think he's saying 'you want meaning, there is none, don't let that paralyse or distract you just accept the absurdity and get on with a fulfilling life'.

Not for the first time.

I'm not really 'labeling' myself with philosophies yet, I don't know enough. This thread is just exploring one particular philosophy because I thought it was related to religious belief and this is RGT. I'm checking out most of what people are recommending at this point in time.

Perhaps he's wrong in that he mislabeled himself, I think he can still salvage his beliefs though. The truth is that to embrace nihilism without resorting to existentialism is nearly impossible. Look at Nietzsche.

Right, which is why many philosophers started calling him an existentialist, which he himself denied. Once again, labels can get you in trouble.

I agree with this. But when the entire premise of his OP is "Look! I've embraced the absurdity! I always have!" (when he really hasn't even grasped what it means), it's just very hard for him to continue the conversation in a meaningful sort of way. And he's very slow to understand and accept his errors.

LOL -- Here comes the slow backpedal into nonsensical gibberish.

What can it possibly mean when you say "I've embraced the absurdity as described by Camus" yet you're not labeling yourself?

And that, if I've understood correctly, is because he simply rejected metaphysics because of the uncertainty. Where his friend Descartes tried to take it back to a first principle so that he could seek absolute truths, Camus just said 'nuts to that, none of it is certain so just ignore it'.

Honestly, that appeals to me.

Oh boy... How many ways is it his wrong?

Ok, maybe relative meaning is a bit confusing

rather, we could use

objective meaning ( coming from outside, eg the universe, god,your boss at work, your wife, etc)

subjective meaning( what you decide means something)

edit to add, even with objective meaning, you are still deciding that that objective meaning "means" something to you. You accept its premise, or say "yes, that does have meaning"

Mightyboosh if you are a weak or agnostic atheist and are not sure God exist or not. And we are going with there is no intrinsic meaning without God. Shouldn't you be unsure whether there is intrinsic meaning?

hmmm maybe my definitions of subjective and objective are a little off...

Imo yes. Objective meaning is as much of an oxymoron as "objective emotion"... Meaning isn't the sort of thing we have to go out and look around to check if it doesn't exist objectively (much less intrinsically) we just need to understand the definitions of the words. That said, mightycamus clearly disagrees so ymmv.

(Oh, and I think wellnamed is onto a much better approach with talk of "transcendental" meaning. Not that I think it exists but it at least isn't an oxymoron)

thats what Ive been saying the whole time though, that I dont see any difference between ultimate (or objective if you like) meaning, and relative ( or subjective) meaning. And you still have to place meaning onto ultimate meaning, you still have to decide that "it means something". You could for instance, find out that theres a god, and he had a plan and your purpose was to build a society or something. You could still then go, "well I dont find much meaning in that"

I think you're probably right--it's been many years since I've read Camus. The point I was trying to make is that "embracing absurdity" for Camus doesn't mean just acknowledging that life is meaningless. This is why Aaron W. is correctly pointing out Mightyboosh is not really talking about embracing absurdism, but rather something closer to embracing nihilism. Or, he isn't waiting for Godot, he knows that Godot isn't coming and so is getting on with his life.

An absurd situation is where we treat something trivial as if it were profound and of great depth. For instance, imagine taking a serious literature class where instead of reading and analyzing Shakespeare or Goethe you analyze trashy romance novels or Dick and Jane readers. The idea is similar here: our lives are objectively* trivial and of no real value, but we can't help but treat them as of great significance. Thus, it is a necessary ingredient of the absurdist outlook that you feel the lure to magnify your own significance--that you do feel that sense of self-importance that leads to feeling like the universe has some special purpose just for you. Mightyboosh says in his OP that he doesn't really have this feeling (which is fine--I'm not criticizing him for this) and so, I would say, doesn't actually have the sense of absurdity that comes from feeling like his life is really important and meaningful while at the same time realizing that it actually is not.

*not addressing zumby's points here about the objective/subjective senses of meaning, just trying to present my understanding of Camus's thought, which is admittedly a bit distant in my reading.

Edit: Here is SEP on Camus's absurdism, which also endorses my reading of the image of Sisyphus:

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing here by "absurdity," so I don't really know if I agree with you here.

^^^just for SNGS

MB, below is a good overview vid of Nihlism. The fella is a bit stiff in his narration but the content is good. I am interested to hear your feedback on it. What do you think the moral implications are?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ajv-RrQs4o

To a point, sure. There's a difference though between saying 'I could be wrong' and that being strong enough to have me wavering on an issue or having strong doubts or uncertainty. If I had to commit to being on one side of the fence on the 'are there any gods' issue, it really wouldn't be much of a choice.

At this point, I think I reject Moral and Epistemological Nihilism (I think I have morality even if it's not absolute or objective and I think that there must be absolute 'truths') whilst accepting Cosmic and existential Nihilism. Is that a consistent position? If so, I wouldn't say I was a Nihilist.

If 'absurdism' and 'absurdity' both mean 'The belief that human beings exist in a purposeless, chaotic universe.', then I think we're talking about the same thing, if that's the absurdity that Camus is referring to. (I actually thought that the absurdity was the feeling that arose, or a way of describing the situation we find ourselves in, when we want/need there to be meaning whilst accepting that there isn't, and that's how I interpreted what Camus was saying).

Perhaps I haven't 'embraced the absurdity' then because I've never felt it if I don't really feel a strong urge for my life to be meaningful, or I may have done when I was younger and by embracing that feeling rather than continuing a search for meaning, I simply don't feel that way anymore and now can't remember feeling differently. Or I could be wrong about how I'm weighing the strength of that urge and I actually feel it as strongly as anyone else. I'm struggling to measure the level of 'meaning' that's required to 'feel the absurdity'.

Thanks! Very interesting and it helped me formulate my answer to OrP in my previous post.

Can you be more specific?

Dont you bust on theist for saying pretty much this all the time. They say they believe but are not certain and you go into your thing...

Either way it sounds like you are sure there is no meaning and less sure the is no God. But ok.

Not any more.

It may not be interesting but I do feel its an important question to ask.

There is no meaning to life which I'm sure you would agree but people must act, people must do something and if someone like myself who has absolutely no idea what I should do with my life leaves me in a state anxiety. Life no longer is interesting because it now feels like a burden and I'm just dragging this thing out for no reason other than I'm this chemical biological thing who has this intrinsic motivation that I must live on. I must survive. And to even ask science to explain why I must go on, or what I should do with life, science doesn't even take the question seriously.

MB,

lets reason together. I am not intending to corner you...

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

If we agree life has no meaning in a broad sense then how can we somehow ascribe (aka "mattering") meaning to morality?

It is not sufficient to say "oh well morality is not objective or absolute but I still maintain a subjective and relative form of morality". Nihlism takes us well beyond this point. Whether we maintain a form of relative morality is irrelevant.

Morality simply doesn't matter. It is no different than people disagreeing on what their favourite color is. All of life is meaningless and without intrinsic value.

Ok but I would have no problem if that actually was your intent, it's the manner in which you do it that matters to me.

Ok, but I may come back to this when I've finished reading the book Zumby recommended. What about Epistemological Nihilism though? I think that there are absolute truths. Whether god exists or not is one isn't it?

What book are you reading?

Absolute truths about morality? If yes, who decides what they are? You?

Secondly, "who cares" from a nihilistic point of view. There is no mattering to what you think about morality.

Life is meaningless and without intrinsic value. Not to beat a dead horse here but just saying..Once we submit to Nihlism there is no mattering to life, conversation, morality, or anything really...