Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
The notion of the "Absurd" has always fascinated me. Throughout my self-study of philosophy - which includes mainly lectures (via audible) from universities I’m not rich and smart enough to attend - I found myself regularly returning to thinkers who addressed the clear and present absence of a "natural ontology" - thinkers such as Kierkegaard, Sartre, Camus, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and Schopenhauer.
I first encountered the idea of the Absurd in lectures on Existentialism by Professor Robert C. Solomon, and then later in Albert Camus' 1942 essay The Myth of Sisyphus. I was struck immediately by the definition. I know of very few concepts defined in this way.
The Absurd is understood by Camus to refer to the fundamental conflict between what we human beings naturally seek in the universe and what we find in the universe. The Absurd is a confrontation, an opposition, a conflict, or a "divorce" between two ideals: On the one hand, we have man's desire for significance, meaning and clarity; On the other hand, we're faced with the formless chaos of an uncaring universe.
As such, the Absurd exists neither in man nor in the universe, but in the confrontation between the two. We are only faced with the Absurd when we take both our need for answers and the world's silence together. Recognition of the Absurd is perhaps the central dilemma in the philosophical inquiry of Existentialism.
And while phenomenologists, such as Husserl, attempt to escape from the contradiction of the Absurd, Camus emphatically insists that we must face it. This paradox affects all mankind equally, and should merit our undivided attention and sincere efforts.
In his attempt to approximate a "solution" for the Absurd, Camus elaborates three options over the course of The Myth of Sisyphus:
1. Suicide: Camus notes that not only does suicide compound the absurdity, it acts as an implicit confession that life is not worth living. Additionally, he declares that suicide is of little use to us, as there can be no more meaning in death than in life.
2. Faith in God: In the face of the Absurd, other authors propose a flight towards religious doctrine. Chestov asserts that the Absurd is God, suggesting that we need God only to help us deal with the impossible and incomprehensible. Dostoyevsky hints at similar conclusions. Kierkegaard is famous for making the "Leap of Faith" into God, where he identifies the irrational with faith and with God. However, Camus retorts that this blind acceptance of supposed, yet elusive high meaning is akin to "philosophical suicide," or abdicating one's will in exchange for an existential analgesic.
3. Revolt: Finally, Camus proposes that the only way to reconcile with the Absurd is to live in defiance of it. Camus' Absurdist Hero lives a fulfilling life, despite his awareness that he is a reasonable man condemned to live a short time in an unreasonable world. The Absurdist Hero may choose to create meaning, but he always maintains an ironic distance from his arbitrary meaning. Always, the conflict between our desire and reality is present-most in the mind of the Absurdist Hero, and so he lives, defiantly content, in a state of perpetual conflict.
Here I should clarify. Absurdity does not entail a certain style of life, but a certain frame of mind. An office clerk or a politician can also live an absurd life, so long as they maintain an awareness of the futility and meaninglessness of all their struggles and remain determined to live consistently and with integrity in the present moment. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus concludes by remarking that the seducer, the actor, and the conqueror are only three examples of the Absurd Man, and that other models must surely exist.
Camus follows Descartes' example in doubting every proposition that he cannot know with certainty, but unlike Descartes, Camus does not attempt to impose any new metaphysical order. Rather, he forces himself to find contentment in uncertainty and insecurity. Uncertainty about the future, insecurity about your place.
The broad majority of our social conventions and frameworks have been implemented with the promise of a "better tomorrow"; of less uncertainty and less insecurity. Every revolution, every new religion, and every new political movement has proposed a morality which would create a better future. And they certainly have. Must this continue inevitably? or could it all be doomed to end? This kind of concern; concern about the uncertainty of the future is ever-present.
There is something more fundamental behind this concern, however. Something that isn't contingent on particularities. There doesn't need to be a collapse of society, or global warming pandemic, for this concern to apply to each individual, since the demise of each individual is certain, and from the perspective of our own lives, as catastrophic and philosophically problematic as any grander narrative.
Heidegger, for example, is correct when he argues that the fundamental element of human concern is death, and that death hangs over us, threatens and defines our very being. Even if you become a scientist and successfully prevent global warming, or succeed in a grand revolution against capitalism, the possibility of your own death, the death of everyone you love, still exists, and with it, all the challenges of nihilism pertaining to our existential condition. Heidegger shows that the fundamental problems of our existence cannot be worked out, solved, fixed, or avoided. They follow us everywhere and define who we are at our core.
Provided you agree with the axioms from which Camus and these authors operate (which are largely allegorical), it becomes clear that his synthesis of a "solution" is cogent, realistic, and most likely practicable in our individual lives. After all, if life offers no inherent meaning, what choices lie beyond suicide, religion, and revolution?
Being myself a somewhat reasonable man struggling with the knowledge of my ever so brief existence in an irrational world, I am confronting the chaos of the universe with yet another play-through of the Skyrim Special Edition, combined with the rather judicious application of gin martinis.