Absurdism

[meltzerboy]

This. Camus couldn’t handle how absolutely bleak Sartre’s world was.

Sartre’s perspective I thought was actually beautifully illustrated in the highly underrated movie GalaxyQuest. The movie is about a group of actors from a sci-fi tv series(like Star Trek) who end up in space with a group of aliens who think that the actors are actually the crew that they portrayed on tv, and that the television shows were actually “historical documents”. The aliens have based their entire society around this stupid tv series from the 90s, including their ships and how they operate. Anyway, Sigourney Weaver (who is hilarious in the movie) plays the token attractive female on the show. Her ONLY job on the ship is to interface with the ship’s computer by asking it questions. So whenever someone asks a question, she simply repeats it, saying “Computer, how much fuel do we have left?”
Then, when the computer answers, she turns to the crew and repeats exactly what the computer just said.

Well, when they are taken into space by the aliens to help save their planet, the ship is designed to only respond to her voice, so the actress must take on her role from the television series. So she is continuously repeating the questions from the crew to the computer, and then repeating the answers back to the crew. It is, in a word, ABSURD. One of the crew members (Camus in this analogy) realizes this and says, “You know, this is really getting annoying”, to which Weaver (Sartre, here) hilariously replies, “Look, I have ONE job on this lousy ship. It’s STUPID, but I’m gonna do it, okay?”

Weaver realizes the absurdity of her existence, but she continues on the same path anyway. It’s totally pointless, but if she doesn’t do her job, what WILL she do? Sartre just keeps going, knowing that nothing really matters. Camus can’t stand this. He would go crazy, and rightfully so. Camus found Sartre’s philosophy to be intolerable because it just accepts that life is totally pointless.

Camus’ theory doesn’t really require a leap of faith because it doesn’t rely on any outside agent. It relies solely on the individual, which is how it differs from religion. Camus relies on himself alone to attempt to establish meaning for his existence, whereas with religion, we rely on an unprovable God who may or may not exist to somehow imbue us with meaning.

For Camus, both Sartre and Religious individuals are taking the lazy way out. Sartre because he realizes life has no meaning and so denies the need for any real sort of morality or attempt at making sense of it all, and the religious because they just assume their life has meaning because they are created by God and that automatically gives life meaning. Both philosophies require no effort to give meaning to life, because it either has meaning or it doesn’t, period.

Camus doesn’t believe in God, but he can’t cope with a meaningless world, so he decides that the meaning of life is to try to give meaning to a meaningless life. It’s not really a leap of faith, because life is meaningless and he knows this, but the REVOLT is not.

The REVOLT is the meaning. Men are slaves to the meaninglessness of life. We can never escape that meaninglessness no matter how hard we try. BUT, we CAN resist it. We have 3 choices: live as a slave (Sartre), kill ourselves, or die in revolt. Camus saw dying in revolt as the only moral option, as well as the only one that makes life tolerable.

To understand Camus’ position ask yourself this question: would I rather be in prison for my entire life, from birth to death and accept it, or would I rather spend all of my time planning and trying to escape even though I know logically that the prison is inescapable?

For Sartre, the answer is just accept it and move on, but for many real-life prisoners, the only thing that makes prison tolerable is patiently and meticulously planning their escape, even if that escape is pretty much impossible.

It’s actually a little more complicated since not only did Camus evolve in his philosophy but Sartre as well. The latter came upon the notion of engagement, derived from Gide’s authenticity, in which one is morally bound to engage with the world and its social ills. Further, Sartre spoke about the moral culpability individuals must accept for their actions or lack of actions. I think, in a sense, the philosophies of Sartre and Camus converged toward the end of their lives although there are still significant points of difference between them.

 

[Della]

Some said it was a suicide, but then that would have gone against his entire philosophy.

I didn’t look into the cause, still if a person becomes depressed to the point of hopelessness, even his philosophy might not save him. It’s not philosophy alone that keeps us going when life becomes difficult.

 

[ngill09]

I agree as well that it is up to the “operator.” We have free will and while belief is not so easily forced, one can actively reject belief systems that they don’t like. I did that for many years. I do believe (as you do not) that the only true meaning is belief in Christ, so other arbitrary assigned meanings are less than ideal.

Could you elaborate more on why belief in Christ leads to “true meaning”?

For sake of argument let’s accept that all the facts regarding Christianity are true. We were created by God to worship Him in specific ways. Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior will result in the greatest possible happiness for anyone who does so.

None of this makes belief in Christ the one true “objective” meaning to life. It is still completely arbitrary and subjective. It is dependent on one’s subjective valuing of happiness, doing what your Creator wants, etc.

To illustrate this, let’s change some of the parameters. Now suppose that God created us out of a sadistic desire to see us in pain. Suppose that the objective Purpose God gives us is to suffer. Suppose that Christ promised that all those who fulfilled His purpose for them by accepting Him as Lord would be rewarded with endless agony after death, and those who ignored Him would be annihilated upon death.

 

[meltzerboy]

Could you elaborate more on why belief in Christ leads to “true meaning”?

For sake of argument let’s accept that all the facts regarding Christianity are true. We were created by God to worship Him in specific ways. Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior will result in the greatest possible happiness for anyone who does so.

None of this makes belief in Christ the one true “objective” meaning to life. It is still completely arbitrary and subjective. It is dependent on one’s subjective valuing of happiness, doing what your Creator wants, etc.

To illustrate this, let’s change some of the parameters. Now suppose that God created us out of a sadistic desire to see us in pain. Suppose that the objective Purpose God gives us is to suffer. Suppose that Christ promised that all those who fulfilled His purpose for them by accepting Him as Lord would be rewarded with endless agony after death, and those who ignored Him would be annihilated upon death.

Changing SOME of the parameters? It seems to me you’re changing ALL of them. We can play around with the ideas regarding what is “objective” and “subjective” for quite a while, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say by this example.

 

[meltzerboy]

Perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I’ve never understood how God solves the arbitrary nature of meaning in one’s life. Yes, you can say that the meaning of your life is to do whatever God wants you to do, but that’s just as arbitrary as any other meaning you might assign yourself. Yes, it gives you some perks, but I don’t think those are any more real than, say, the happiness of your family or any other tangible basis for meaning.

You might say that God’s meaning is more valid than other meaning because it is the purpose for which we were created, but isn’t it just an arbitrary preference to assign your life the meaning for which it was created? In the film “The Matrix”, the humans were created for the purpose of providing energy for their robot overlords. Does this mean that their only legitimate meaning is to provide energy for robots?

I think I understand what you mean now. Interesting argument.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Suppose that the objective Purpose God gives us is to suffer. Suppose that Christ promised that all those who fulfilled His purpose for them by accepting Him as Lord would be rewarded with endless agony after death, and those who ignored Him would be annihilated upon death.

God wills what is best for us and in Him we find meaning, happiness and fulfillment.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Meaning must be assigned or it is not meaningful. We assign meaning or purpose to other things. The meaning or purpose of a hammer is to hit a nail. The hammer cannot assign that purpose to itself. We cannot assign meaning to ourselves any more than a dog can assign meaning to himself. Thus, if someone says my meaning in life is to love my wife, protect and nurture my children, and work at a job, that only describes what I do. It is not the meaning I assign to myself any more than the meaning of a dog is to have puppies and bark at intruders.

If anything in this world has meaning, it is the meaning assigned to it by God: namely, to know, love, and serve God, and be happy with him forever. That is what we are meant for, and the purpose is assigned by God, not us.

In the world of the godless man there is no meaning assigned to anything. Things just are. There is no soul, no everlasting life, no divine end toward which our living is ordered. And so it is no surprise that in such a meaningless world, the incidence of suicides among atheists is appreciably higher than suicides among theists. Camus was spot on when he detected in the problem of suicide the logical consequence of a meaningless existence.

 

[ngill09]

Meaning must be assigned or it is not meaningful. We assign meaning or purpose to other things. The meaning or purpose of a hammer is to hit a nail. The hammer cannot assign that purpose to itself. We cannot assign meaning to ourselves any more than a dog can assign meaning to himself. Thus, if someone says my meaning in life is to love my wife, protect and nurture my children, and work at a job, that only describes what I do. It is not the meaning I assign to myself any more than the meaning of a dog is to have puppies and bark at intruders.

If anything in this world has meaning, it is the meaning assigned to it by God: namely, to know, love, and serve God, and be happy with him forever. That is what we are meant for, and the purpose is assigned by God, not us.

In the world of the godless man there is no meaning assigned to anything. Things just are. There is no soul, no everlasting life, no divine end toward which our living is ordered. And so it is no surprise that in such a meaningless world, the incidence of suicides among atheists is appreciably higher than suicides among theists. Camus was spot on when he detected in the problem of suicide the logical consequence of a meaningless existence.

A hammer does not have consciousness or free will, and is thus disanalogous to humanity.

 

[Aloysium]

A hammer does not have consciousness or free will, and is thus disanalogous to humanity.

man fabricates a hammer
God creates beings with consciousness and free will, beings who participate in their destinies; if you want what is best for yourself, you will do what God wills, but the choice is yours

 

[ngill09]

man fabricates a hammer
God creates beings with consciousness and free will, beings who participate in their destinies; if you want what is best for yourself, you will do what God wills, but the choice is yours

“Best” is a subjective proposition. Do you mean what will make me most happy or satisfied? Those are subjective values. The fact of the matter is that purpose is necessarily subjectively defined. However, it may be objectively informed by the qualities of our existence and experience. Thus, it would be very difficult (but not impossible) for someone to subjectively define their purpose to be the acquisition of pain.

 

[Aloysium]

“Best” is a subjective proposition. Do you mean what will make me most happy or satisfied? Those are subjective values. The fact of the matter is that purpose is necessarily subjectively defined. However, it may be objectively informed by the qualities of our existence and experience. Thus, it would be very difficult (but not impossible) for someone to subjectively define their purpose to be the acquisition of pain.

What is God’s will? To love Him completely and each other, as ourselves. In carrying out these commandments in our unique fashion, we come ever closer to Him. We become who we truly are, as we were intended when He created us. That is our goal; that is our purpose.

It is not in fact, uncommon to find people who define their purpose to be the acquisition or the administration of pain; mental illness is a very real source of much human suffering. Assisting people who find themselves at the mercy of these “demons” is one way in which some of us are called to help our neighbour.

 

[LaSainte]

It’s actually a little more complicated since not only did Camus evolve in his philosophy but Sartre as well. The latter came upon the notion of engagement, derived from Gide’s authenticity, in which one is morally bound to engage with the world and its social ills. Further, Sartre spoke about the moral culpability individuals must accept for their actions or lack of actions. I think, in a sense, the philosophies of Sartre and Camus converged toward the end of their lives although there are still significant points of difference between them.

True. One might even propose that authenticity was the only moral necessity for Sartre. Everything else was more or less permissible. And nowhere was the necessity of accepting culpability more poignant than in the play “Les Mouches”, the idea being that unless we accept culpability, we all suffer collectively. Basically for Sartre, we can all do whatever we want as long as we are willing to take the rap for it I always preferred Camus, because he was less bleak about it all. For Meurseult at the end of “L’Étranger”, he almost found joy in his revolt against the absurd, which is more than we can say for Sartre’s unlucky characters. Sartre was just so darned depressing!

 

[snarflemike]

That’s what strikes me as odd about atheism (and again, I’m Catholic and may be misunderstanding atheism here)…it seems that any attempt to create meaning is pointless, but it also highlights another important point: Humans have a need for meaning and purpose (it’s in our very being as humans).

I’d like to say that this yearning for meaning can be taken as a sign that God exists, but I fully realize that that statement may not be philosophically sound.

CS Lewis argues that all human appetites correspond to a thing that can fill those appetites. We get hungry, and there is food that can satisfy. We get thirsty and there is water. Etc, etc. From this he argues that it is reasonable to infer that our appetite for meaning, for something beyond ourselves, also corresponds to something that can satisfy: God.

 

[ngill09]

CS Lewis argues that all human appetites correspond to a thing that can fill those appetites. We get hungry, and there is food that can satisfy. We get thirsty and there is water. Etc, etc. From this he argues that it is reasonable to infer that our appetite for meaning, for something beyond ourselves, also corresponds to something that can satisfy: God.

Ah, but is God the only thing that can satisfy one’s desire for a meaningful life?

 

[polytropos]

Could you elaborate more on why belief in Christ leads to “true meaning”?

For sake of argument let’s accept that all the facts regarding Christianity are true. We were created by God to worship Him in specific ways. Accepting Christ as Lord and Savior will result in the greatest possible happiness for anyone who does so.

None of this makes belief in Christ the one true “objective” meaning to life. It is still completely arbitrary and subjective. It is dependent on one’s subjective valuing of happiness, doing what your Creator wants, etc.

It is true meaning in the sense that it brings us to eternal life in the goodness of God, our creator. There is no way to come in contact with actual, full goodness except through Christ.

I understand the argument you are making. My desire for “goodness” is still subjective, you might say. But in Catholic theology (and in philosophies compatible with it), it is not. Goodness is that which humans strive for and true goodness is only in God. Other manifestations of “goodness” are incomplete. Goodness is not something that I define; it is a quality of the universe.

To illustrate this, let’s change some of the parameters. Now suppose that God created us out of a sadistic desire to see us in pain. Suppose that the objective Purpose God gives us is to suffer. Suppose that Christ promised that all those who fulfilled His purpose for them by accepting Him as Lord would be rewarded with endless agony after death, and those who ignored Him would be annihilated upon death.

For philosophical reasons, an omnipotent God would not create people for the purpose of suffering. God cannot have a malevolent will.

So you are proposing that we invert logic and demonstrating that, if we do so, we reach an illogical conclusion. I do not think that should surprise either you or me.

 

[ngill09]

It is true meaning in the sense that it brings us to eternal life in the goodness of God, our creator. There is no way to come in contact with actual, full goodness except through Christ.

I understand the argument you are making. My desire for “goodness” is still subjective, you might say. But in Catholic theology (and in philosophies compatible with it), it is not. Goodness is that which humans strive for and true goodness is only in God. Other manifestations of “goodness” are incomplete. Goodness is not something that I define; it is a quality of the universe.

For philosophical reasons, an omnipotent God would not create people for the purpose of suffering. God cannot have a malevolent will.

So you are proposing that we invert logic and demonstrating that, if we do so, we reach an illogical conclusion. I do not think that should surprise either you or me.

The Universe seems a lot more neutral than good. Moreover, I think it is patently obvious that “goodness” (at least in the Catholic sense) is not what everyone strives for.

I don’t see how God couldn’t have a malevolent will, but He doesn’t even need one for the purpose of my thought experiment. He could be using the idea that suffering brings one closer to God, and that therefore people must be subjected to intense, eternal suffering in order to bring about the ultimate “good” which is closeness to Himself.

 

[snarflemike]

Ah, but is God the only thing that can satisfy one’s desire for a meaningful life?

Yes. Anything else is pretend. Animated bags of chemicals can have no true meaning.

 

[polytropos]

The Universe seems a lot more neutral than good. Moreover, I think it is patently obvious that “goodness” (at least in the Catholic sense) is not what everyone strives for.

Right, everyone strives for what they think is good. Not everyone is correct about what is good. There is true goodness and there are false attempts to fill the void. My point was more to say that you see my selection of “goodness” as something to strive for as arbitrary; I was saying that it is not, within Catholic theology, because goodness is essentially defined as what one ought to strive for. I understand that from the outside you have very little reason to accept this, but I am arguing that Catholicism is internally consistent, i.e. that Catholics can have true meaning contingent on their being right about God, whereas atheists cannot be right and therefore cannot have true meaning.

As for the universe, I don’t mean that it is wholly good. Humans, having imperfect intellects, also cannot apprehend all goodness. Humans do recognize some goodness in the universe, though.

I don’t see how God couldn’t have a malevolent will, but He doesn’t even need one for the purpose of my thought experiment. He could be using the idea that suffering brings one closer to God, and that therefore people must be subjected to intense, eternal suffering in order to bring about the ultimate “good” which is closeness to Himself.

God’s omnipotence makes what he wills True. Accordance with it would not be suffering. The problem I am having with your example is that, if God created this alternative universe where suffering is good, then suffering would be good - but your conception of suffering as bad would also be invalid. You are trying to lay out a new definition for what is good while maintaining your suppositions about what is good in this universe. A universe where eternal suffering brings about closeness to God is an entirely different universe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

The Universe seems a lot more neutral than good. Moreover, I think it is patently obvious that “goodness” (at least in the Catholic sense) is not what everyone strives for.

Yes it is. Goodness in the Catholic sense is God, who is good. When people are diverted from striving for God, they substitute anything else they can find in God’s place, often with tragic results. It needs to be remembered that if we strive for anything less than God we are not achieving the purpose for which God made us. We can set our desires on this or that diversion, we can occupy ourselves with this or that pleasure, we can love our wives and our children, we can have a successful career, but these are not the reasons for our existence. Nature, which in a godless world is blind to all our desires, sets no purpose for us. This is why in a godless world the emptiness of our meaning overwhelms us to the point that suicide becomes a viable option. That is because all the diversions from God, while they may occupy our minds and bodies, cannot really occupy our souls, which belong to God alone.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

The Universe seems a lot more neutral than good. Moreover, I think it is patently obvious that “goodness” (at least in the Catholic sense) is not what everyone strives for.

Yes it is. Goodness in the Catholic sense is God, who is good. When people are diverted from striving for God, they substitute anything else they can find in God’s place, often with tragic results. It needs to be remembered that if we strive for anything less than God we are not achieving the purpose for which God made us. We can set our desires on this or that diversion, we can occupy ourselves with this or that pleasure, we can love our wives and our children, we can have a successful career, but these are not the reasons for our existence. Nature, which in a godless world is blind to all our desires, sets no purpose for us. This is why in a godless world the emptiness of our meaning overwhelms us to the point that suicide becomes a viable option. That is because all the diversions from God, while they may occupy our minds and bodies, cannot really occupy our souls, which belong to God alone.

Well first of all, very few atheists are overcome by despair and commit suicide. Suicide is an anomaly in any population, and while the rate may be higher for atheists, it’s still a very small fraction. I, for one, think there are lots of good reasons to live without the commands of a God. In fact I’m astounded by the assertion by many theists that they would have no reason to live if they found out God didn’t exist. With or without God, we still love our children.

And I hate to bring it up, but Rick Warren’s son, who was a devout Christian, thought suicide was his only escape. There are other Christians that agree. Suicide is by no means a phenomenon unique to atheists.