Absurdism

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

Well first of all, very few atheists are overcome by despair and commit suicide.

Very few humans do that, never mind atheists. The question is whether a sense of the absurdity of life contributes a motive to commit suicide.

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.

But many people who love their children still commit suicide, so loving the children may well not be a sufficient motive for some to continue an absurd existence. And as I pointed out in earlier posts, having children does not constitute the reason why we exist. There must be some more fundamental reason that sustains us in our existence. Catholics believe that reason is to know God and to serve God and to be happy with God in this world and in the next.

**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. **

This is true. The question of this thread, though, is whether an absurdist philosophy contributes a motive to commit suicide. Camus dealt with this issue head on. Christianity does not contribute a motive to commit suicide. A Christian commits suicide in spite of being a Christian, not because he is a Christian.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

Well first of all, very few atheists are overcome by despair and commit suicide.

Very few humans do that, never mind atheists. The question is whether a sense of the absurdity of life contributes a motive to commit suicide.

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.

But many people who love their children still commit suicide, so loving the children may well not be a sufficient motive for some to continue an absurd existence. And as I pointed out in earlier posts, having children does not constitute the reason why we exist. There must be some more fundamental reason that sustains us in our existence. Catholics believe that reason is to know God and to serve God and to be happy with God in this world and in the next.

**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. **

This is true. The question of this thread, though, is whether an absurdist philosophy contributes a motive to commit suicide. Camus dealt with this issue head on. Christianity does not contribute a motive to commit suicide. A Christian commits suicide in spite of being a Christian, not because he is a Christian.

A minority of people in the world worship an actual God, depending on how you view non-Christian theists. Are all those people living unfulfilling lives?

The point I’d like to make is that there are legitimate, fulfilling ways to live your life without the Catholic God. You might disagree that those are fulfilling or legitimate, but that’s because you’re a Catholic. A Buddhist might say that the only legitimate or fulfilling way to live your life is to follow the Eightfold Path. I doubt that you’re much bothered by their opinions.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

**The point I’d like to make is that there are legitimate, fulfilling ways to live your life without the Catholic God. You might disagree that those are fulfilling or legitimate, but that’s because you’re a Catholic. A Buddhist might say that the only legitimate or fulfilling way to live your life is to follow the Eightfold Path. I doubt that you’re much bothered by their opinions. **

I think Buddhists are less likely to commit suicide than atheists. They have at least a world view. Some of them believe in God, and they believe in a human destiny that transcends being a diet for worms.

Aside from that, are you espousing a kind of happiness relativism? You think people are happy if they think they are happy? If so, that’s pure subjective bunk. The prostitute and the druggie may think they’re making out just fine. I doubt it very much. Look at the incidents of suicide among prostitutes and druggies for your answer. It’s much higher than for law abiding Christians who believe they have a higher destiny than getting high on sex and drugs.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

**The point I’d like to make is that there are legitimate, fulfilling ways to live your life without the Catholic God. You might disagree that those are fulfilling or legitimate, but that’s because you’re a Catholic. A Buddhist might say that the only legitimate or fulfilling way to live your life is to follow the Eightfold Path. I doubt that you’re much bothered by their opinions. **

I think Buddhists are less likely to commit suicide than atheists. They have at least a world view. Some of them believe in God, and they believe in a human destiny that transcends being a diet for worms.

Aside from that, are you espousing a kind of happiness relativism? You think people are happy if they think they are happy? If so, that’s pure subjective bunk. The prostitute and the druggie may think they’re making out just fine. I doubt it very much. Look at the incidents of suicide among prostitutes and druggies for your answer. It’s much higher than for law abiding Christians who believe they have a higher destiny than getting high on sex and drugs.

Are all non-Christians druggies and prostitutes? Why do you feel the need to immediately go to those examples? If your point was true, then you could just use any non-Christian as an example. Are Buddhists happy because they think they’re happy? Are Jews happy because they think they’re happy? For that matter, are dogs happy because they think they’re happy?

And yes, I think happiness is subjective. I thought that was obvious.

 

[Della]

Are all non-Christians druggies and prostitutes? Why do you feel the need to immediately go to those examples? If your point was true, then you could just use any non-Christian as an example. Are Buddhists happy because they think they’re happy? Are Jews happy because they think they’re happy? For that matter, are dogs happy because they think they’re happy?

And yes, I think happiness is subjective. I thought that was obvious.

If you guys don’t mind someone butting in here, happiness is derived from God no matter what we believe or don’t believe about him, just as the sun provides warmth and plant growth whether we want them or not. God gave us a natural ability to be happy in our human state in life. We obey certain natural laws because they are built in, so no matter what we believe, unless it’s self-distructive, we will be naturally happy. This is a gift for which we should be thankful.

Faith in God may or may not make us happy in the purely natural sense of the word. God may ask us to endure things that in our natural state of being we would not want to endure. And with that, we often have to endure things we don’t want to no matter if we believe in God or not.

So then, what is the meaning of life? Are we to simply make the best of what might be a bad situation–poverty, starvation, bad family life, etc. or are we to seek something beyond the natural? Surely, that is the question.

For believers it is yes, we are to seek that which is beyond the natural because the natural cannot give us what we are seeking for in and of itself because we cannot be certain we will be happy. For what is happiness? Is it enough food? Is it a roof over our heads? Is it a loving family? Certainly these are natural goods that no one would say are bad. But, are they enough? That is essentially the question, is it not?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Della
**
For what is happiness? Is it enough food? Is it a roof over our heads? Is it a loving family? Certainly these are natural goods that no one would say are bad. But, are they enough? That is essentially the question, is it not? **

Yes, it is. According to ngill, happiness is subjective. Not sure what he means by that. Does he mean it is an experience we have inside us? Well yes, then it is subjective in that sense. But can we be deluded about happiness? Can the drug addict, the prostitute, be said to be subjectively happy, or rather said to be objectively sad while in denial of the objective sadness? I think so.

The only thing that gets us happiness is the sense that we are objectively more than other tail-wagging animals insofar as our ultimate destiny is concerned. When we get that sense, and then run with it, we truly are able to call ourselves happy even when personal trials and tribulations unfold, because there is God to lean on and to comfort us and help us recover from any disaster we have suffered.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

**And yes, I think happiness is subjective. I thought that was obvious. **

Could you please explain how happiness is subjective?

 

[meltzerboy]

Della
**
For what is happiness? Is it enough food? Is it a roof over our heads? Is it a loving family? Certainly these are natural goods that no one would say are bad. But, are they enough? That is essentially the question, is it not? **

Yes, it is. According to ngill, happiness is subjective. Not sure what he means by that. Does he mean it is an experience we have inside us? Well yes, then it is subjective in that sense. But can we be deluded about happiness? Can the drug addict, the prostitute, be said to be subjectively happy, or rather said to be objectively sad while in denial of the objective sadness? I think so.

The only thing that gets us happiness is the sense that we are objectively more than other tail-wagging animals insofar as our ultimate destiny is concerned. When we get that sense, and then run with it, we truly are able to call ourselves happy even when personal trials and tribulations unfold, because there is God to lean on and to comfort us and help us recover from any disaster we have suffered.

I think what ngill may be suggesting is the question how do any of us know, objectively speaking, that we are not deluding ourselves or in denial regarding our subjective feeling of happiness? For some, namely believers, the only true happiness may be living according to the will of G-d, while for others, namely atheists, happiness may consist only of loving experiences with family and friends, and still others may find their happiness in the pursuit of secular pleasures. How can we say, except according to our own philosophy, beliefs, and worldview, who is objectively happy and who is in subjective denial, who is truly happy and who is not? Positive psychologists who study well being, which includes happiness and life satisfaction, rely on self-report measures because they believe happiness is a subjective experience.

 

[Della]

I think what ngill may be suggesting is the question how do any of us know, objectively speaking, that we are not deluding ourselves or in denial regarding our subjective feeling of happiness? For some, namely believers, the only true happiness may be living according to the will of G-d, while for others, namely atheists, happiness may consist only of loving experiences with family and friends, and still others may find their happiness in the pursuit of secular pleasures. How can we say, except according to our own philosophy, beliefs, and worldview, who is objectively happy and who is in subjective denial, who is truly happy and who is not? Positive psychologists who study well being, which includes happiness and life satisfaction, rely on self-report measures because they believe happiness is a subjective experience.

This is where revelation comes in. According to Catholic beliefs, which I do think of merely in the religious sense but in the sense that some things simply are true and others aren’t, according to our beliefs God has given all men a portion of faith. How he uses this faith is another matter. He may put his faith in family or God or a belief system–and he may delude himself because his intellect is clouded because of the Fall. But this is why God revealed himself first to Adam, then to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Prophets and finally in Jesus–so that we can know and not be deceived. Psychology has its uses and can be very helpful, but it cannot reveal ultimate truth to us because that’s not its function. As a Jew I know you don’t hold to Jesus being God’s final revelation to man, but I think you would agree that God has not simply left us to our own devices but has let man hear him and given him the basis for knowing truth and for having all he needs in himself who created us. Or am I mistaken about that?

 

[ngill09]

ngill

**And yes, I think happiness is subjective. I thought that was obvious. **

Could you please explain how happiness is subjective?

How is an emotional state not subjective?

 

[meltzerboy]

This is where revelation comes in. According to Catholic beliefs, which I do think of merely in the religious sense but in the sense that some things simply are true and others aren’t, according to our beliefs God has given all men a portion of faith. How he uses this faith is another matter. He may put his faith in family or God or a belief system–and he may delude himself because his intellect is clouded because of the Fall. But this is why God revealed himself first to Adam, then to Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Prophets and finally in Jesus–so that we can know and not be deceived. Psychology has its uses and can be very helpful, but it cannot reveal ultimate truth to us because that’s not its function. As a Jew I know you don’t hold to Jesus being God’s final revelation to man, but I think you would agree that God has not simply left us to our own devices but has let man hear him and given him the basis for knowing truth and for having all he needs in himself who created us. Or am I mistaken about that?

I agree with this, Della, and yet I can understand how others may differ in their beliefs and thus seek to find their happiness by other means. Clinical, counseling, and positive psychologists, in other words those psychologists who practice therapy, do not make judgments in this regard. That is not to say these fields are totally devoid of ethical and moral values, or subjectivity, just like any other domain, including theology and philosophy. For example, if a client says they wish to kill themselves or someone else, the clinical psychologist will not simply reply “go ahead, do as you wish.” There are constraints even here: it is not a domain of sheer moral relativism. However, insofar as respect for one’s subjective values are concerned, regardless of what others may believe to be objective truth, healthcare psychologists enable individuals to find their own happiness by exploring their own capabilities and potentials.

 

[Della]

I agree with this, Della, and yet I can understand how others may differ in their beliefs and thus seek to find their happiness by other means. Clinical, counseling, and positive psychologists, in other words those psychologists who practice therapy, do not make judgments in this regard. That is not to say these fields are totally devoid of ethical and moral values, or subjectivity, just like any other domain, including theology and philosophy. For example, if a client says they wish to kill themselves or someone else, the clinical psychologist will not simply reply “go ahead, do as you wish.” There are constraints even here: it is not a domain of sheer moral relativism. However, insofar as respect for one’s subjective values are concerned, regardless of what others may believe to be objective truth, healthcare psychologists enable individuals to find their own happiness by exploring their own capabilities and potentials.

Of course, but the function of psychology is to help people cope with their lives in their situation and culture, not to give them ultimate truths, which it cannot do. That is all I meant to say.

 

[meltzerboy]

Of course, but the function of psychology is to help people cope with their lives in their situation and culture, not to give them ultimate truths, which it cannot do. That is all I meant to say.

That is correct, and not only is it the case that psychologists cannot provide ultimate truths but they have no business attempting to do so. This applies to psychologists who may try to influence their clients to abandon their current belief system, religious or otherwise, or, even more outrageous, adopt their psychologist’s own belief system. I would also add that positive psychologists believe that coping is not the ultimate goal of therapy, as it often is in traditional psychotherapy. Instead, they advocate a state of thriving and flourishing. IOW, one may become free of psychological symptoms and recover from one’s disorder and still not be happy. This situation is referred to as languishing. The role of the positive psychologist is to focus on people’s strengths and help them cultivate those strengths, rather than concentrating primarily on correcting their weaknesses. In this way, it is thought people can learn how to thrive rather than merely cope with their problems.

 

[Della]

That is correct, and not only is it the case that psychologists cannot provide ultimate truths but they have no business attempting to do so. This applies to psychologists who may try to influence their clients to abandon their current belief system, religious or otherwise, or, even more outrageous, adopt their psychologist’s own belief system. I would also add that positive psychologists believe that coping is not the ultimate goal of therapy, as it often is in traditional psychotherapy. Instead, they advocate a state of thriving and flourishing. IOW, one may become free of psychological symptoms and recover from one’s disorder and still not be happy. This situation is referred to as languishing. The role of the positive psychologist is to focus on people’s strengths and help them cultivate those strengths, rather than concentrating primarily on correcting their weaknesses. In this way, it is thought people can learn how to thrive rather than merely cope with their problems.

A noble goal, to be sure. I’ll use an amateur example from real life. On the show “What Not to Wear” many of the women they help dress better don’t just get a new wardrobe, they get to see themselves in a whole new light. Many have self image issues that manifest themselves in dressing like the don’t care and/or they think they will be taken more seriously if they look like a frump. Just the opposite is true, though. If they dress according to their own body type, emphasizing their good points, then they see that they were hiding behind their sloppy or odd clothing to try to escape from a bad self image. So, it’s not just coping with what you’ve got but making the best of what you have. This is all to the good and these women’s lives are changed for the better. As I say, a noble goal and worth the effort. I’m all for whatever improves people’s lives–that’s one of the works of charity–to improve others lives. Still, as good as it is it is not the ultimate good. That needs more than a good psychologist or change in lifestyle, doesn’t it? It’s limited, but it’s a step in the right direction at the least, but cannot be a substitute for ultimate truth and goodness.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

meltzer

**However, insofar as respect for one’s subjective values are concerned, regardless of what others may believe to be objective truth, healthcare psychologists enable individuals to find their own happiness by exploring their own capabilities and potentials. **

I think this discussion has taken a confusing turn with the word subjective. Subjective may of course refer to an individual’s experience of the world, whether true or false, real or fantastical. But we are talking about absurdism here, not about whether you can be happy with your family and not need God to round off your happiness. What happens in the case of a man who loses his whole family in a car crash? Some element of his happiness is gone. He might be inclined to commit suicide if he has put his whole self into his family. But if he has put himself first in God and then in his family, while the suffering may continue through life, there may be some chance of recovering his sense of life being worth living if he has God and his own destiny to fall back on, and of course the hope of meeting his family again in the next world. Without the consoling grace of God, I can well imagine a man becoming an absurdist and contemplate taking his own life.

This is what I mean by the difference between objective and subjective happiness. Subjective happiness resides in putting all our eggs in any basket but God’s. Take that basket away and the subjective happiness is taken away. But if we trust in God, we still have eggs in his basket, and the world does not seem so dark and despairing if we have turned to God for our comfort.

Jean Paul Sartre seemed to take this view as he approached death. A close friend of his reported that during the last suffering weeks of his life he had ceased to be an atheist. If he died reconciled with God, he had at last found that the absurdism he had so long advocated was after all a subjective chimera, and that objective and permanent happiness is to be found in God and nowhere else.

Possibly if Camus had not died in the car crash, he might have evolved in the same direction.

 

[ngill09]

meltzer

**However, insofar as respect for one’s subjective values are concerned, regardless of what others may believe to be objective truth, healthcare psychologists enable individuals to find their own happiness by exploring their own capabilities and potentials. **

I think this discussion has taken a confusing turn with the word subjective. Subjective may of course refer to an individual’s experience of the world, whether true or false, real or fantastical. But we are talking about absurdism here, not about whether you can be happy with your family and not need God to round off your happiness. What happens in the case of a man who loses his whole family in a car crash? Some element of his happiness is gone. He might be inclined to commit suicide if he has put his whole self into his family. But if he has put himself first in God and then in his family, while the suffering may continue through life, there may be some chance of recovering his sense of life being worth living if he has God and his own destiny to fall back on, and of course the hope of meeting his family again in the next world. Without the consoling grace of God, I can well imagine a man becoming an absurdist and contemplate taking his own life.

This is what I mean by the difference between objective and subjective happiness. Subjective happiness resides in putting all our eggs in any basket but God’s. Take that basket away and the subjective happiness is taken away. But if we trust in God, we still have eggs in his basket, and the world does not seem so dark and despairing if we have turned to God for our comfort.

Jean Paul Sartre seemed to take this view as he approached death. A close friend of his reported that during the last suffering weeks of his life he had ceased to be an atheist. If he died reconciled with God, he had at last found that the absurdism he had so long advocated was after all a subjective chimera, and that objective and permanent happiness is to be found in God and nowhere else.

Happiness is an experience. All experiences are subjective, by definition.

From freedictionary.com: “Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world:”

And I want a source for that claim that Sartre had a deathbed conversion. I’m something of a fan of Sartre and the only things I can find about him converting are from propaganda websites.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

Happiness is an experience. All experiences are subjective, by definition.

Say you experience a falsehood, and you experience a truth. Are they equally subjective, or is one subjective and the other objective?

From freedictionary.com: "Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world:"

If you experience a mirage, you are being subjective. If you see a real pool of water surrounded by trees, is that the same subjective experience, or do we call it an objective experience? And what is the point of all science if it only takes place in a person’s mind rather than the person’s mind grasping the objective world objectively?

**And I want a source for that claim that Sartre had a deathbed conversion. I’m something of a fan of Sartre and the only things I can find about him converting are from propaganda websites. **

Months before his death Sartre was observed to take an interest in Judaism and the messianic idea. According to his friend Benny Levy, who interviewed him several times during his last weeks of overwork and declining health, he ceased to be an atheist.

sartre.org/Articles/bennylevy.htm

 

[meltzerboy]

ngill

Happiness is an experience. All experiences are subjective, by definition.

Say you experience a falsehood, and you experience a truth. Are they equally subjective, or is one subjective and the other objective?

From freedictionary.com: "Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world:"

If you experience a mirage, you are being subjective. If you see a real pool of water surrounded by trees, is that the same subjective experience, or do we call it an objective experience? And what is the point of all science if it only takes place in a person’s mind rather than the person’s mind grasping the objective world objectively?

**And I want a source for that claim that Sartre had a deathbed conversion. I’m something of a fan of Sartre and the only things I can find about him converting are from propaganda websites. **

Months before his death Sartre was observed to take an interest in Judaism and the messianic idea. According to his friend Benny Levy, who interviewed him several times during his last weeks of overwork and declining health, he ceased to be an atheist.

sartre.org/Articles/bennylevy.htm

Interesting information about Sartre. It appears Benny Levy underwent a transformation back to his own religious and cultural roots, and perhaps Sartre had one too, or perhaps this was primarily in the (subjective!) mind of Levy, who admired him so much. I’ll investigate further, but thanks for the link.

 

[meltzerboy]

meltzer

**However, insofar as respect for one’s subjective values are concerned, regardless of what others may believe to be objective truth, healthcare psychologists enable individuals to find their own happiness by exploring their own capabilities and potentials. **

I think this discussion has taken a confusing turn with the word subjective. Subjective may of course refer to an individual’s experience of the world, whether true or false, real or fantastical. But we are talking about absurdism here, not about whether you can be happy with your family and not need God to round off your happiness. What happens in the case of a man who loses his whole family in a car crash? Some element of his happiness is gone. He might be inclined to commit suicide if he has put his whole self into his family. But if he has put himself first in God and then in his family, while the suffering may continue through life, there may be some chance of recovering his sense of life being worth living if he has God and his own destiny to fall back on, and of course the hope of meeting his family again in the next world. Without the consoling grace of God, I can well imagine a man becoming an absurdist and contemplate taking his own life.

This is what I mean by the difference between objective and subjective happiness. Subjective happiness resides in putting all our eggs in any basket but God’s. Take that basket away and the subjective happiness is taken away. But if we trust in God, we still have eggs in his basket, and the world does not seem so dark and despairing if we have turned to God for our comfort.

Jean Paul Sartre seemed to take this view as he approached death. A close friend of his reported that during the last suffering weeks of his life he had ceased to be an atheist. If he died reconciled with God, he had at last found that the absurdism he had so long advocated was after all a subjective chimera, and that objective and permanent happiness is to be found in God and nowhere else.

Possibly if Camus had not died in the car crash, he might have evolved in the same direction.

You sound very much like Pascal here, which is not a bad thing.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

Happiness is an experience. All experiences are subjective, by definition.

Say you experience a falsehood, and you experience a truth. Are they equally subjective, or is one subjective and the other objective?

From freedictionary.com: "Subjective: Proceeding from or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world:"

If you experience a mirage, you are being subjective. If you see a real pool of water surrounded by trees, is that the same subjective experience, or do we call it an objective experience? And what is the point of all science if it only takes place in a person’s mind rather than the person’s mind grasping the objective world objectively?

**And I want a source for that claim that Sartre had a deathbed conversion. I’m something of a fan of Sartre and the only things I can find about him converting are from propaganda websites. **

Months before his death Sartre was observed to take an interest in Judaism and the messianic idea. According to his friend Benny Levy, who interviewed him several times during his last weeks of overwork and declining health, he ceased to be an atheist.

sartre.org/Articles/bennylevy.htm

The experience is subjective. By definition. The event may be objective. That I get hit by a rock would be an objective event. The pain I feel as a result is subjectively experienced.

I didn’t realize this was controversial.