Absurdism

[Arizona_Mike]

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who think that the actors are actually the crew that they portrayed on tv, and that the television shows were actually “historical documents”.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.

Excellent post. I like the comparison of Camus to GALAXY QUEST.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I pray for the soul of Camus. In the latter days of my agnosticism, his philosophy was the last non-Christian one to which I was able to desperately cling. His two page essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” is probably the best explanation of his philosophy of absurdism. The man could certainly write: vahidnab.com/sisyphus.pdf

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/132/subj.html

Here you find a brief but pertinent reference to our discussion of objectivism vs subjectivism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

meltzerboy

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



Glad you see the connection.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

home.sandiego.edu/~janderso/132/subj.html

Here you find a brief but pertinent reference to our discussion of objectivism vs subjectivism.

This is not what I’m talking about when I say that emotions are subjectively experienced

What, in your view, would fall under the category of “subjective”? Because I don’t see how there is any distinction between objective and subjective if you’re going to categorize all experience, emotion, and feeling as “objective”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

What, in your view, would fall under the category of “subjective”? Because I don’t see how there is any distinction between objective and subjective if you’re going to categorize all experience, emotion, and feeling as "objective"

Show me where I said all experience is objective.

My favorite ice cream is chocolate. Yours might be vanilla. (subjective)

Dreams. (subjective)

Art (subjective)

Falsehoods (subjective)

Etc. Etc.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

What, in your view, would fall under the category of “subjective”? Because I don’t see how there is any distinction between objective and subjective if you’re going to categorize all experience, emotion, and feeling as "objective"

Show me where I said all experience is objective.

My favorite ice cream is chocolate. Yours might be vanilla. (subjective)

Dreams. (subjective)

Art (subjective)

Falsehoods (subjective)

Etc. Etc.

Oh, I see. You’re conflating subjectivity with opinion. I’ve been using subjective to mean based on or influenced by the mind of the subject, per definitions 3 or 4 from Merriam Webster:

3
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : personal (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli
c : **arising out of or identified by means of one’s perception of one’s own states and processes ** — compare objective 1c

To illustrate this, I need only ask: “Could something be happy if it did not have a mind?” If not, then happiness is dependent on the mind of the subject and is thus subjective.

 

[Della]

But…the Catholic-only therapists I have known do provide “ultimate truths”…in other words, I know two Catholic couples who have gone to the same Catholic therapist…and his therapy was based on the “ultimate truth” that God had put them together…even though both couples were miserable…and that they had to stay together because of that.
He actually did them quite a bit of emotional and mental harm.

I guess you can’t answer without knowing more details…but in general, is this what you are talking about, MB? Would you think his methods are kosher?

Then he was a bad therapist. The Church itself does not teach that couples must stay together no matter how miserable they might be. Sure, they should try to work on their difficulties, but they aren’t bound to live together if the situation is just too bad, especially if one is abusing the other, etc. They should consult another therapist if the one they went to couldn’t help them. It’s not ultimate truth that is the villain of the piece because it brings peace to the heart not conflict even if ones physical circumstances remain the same. Yup, they need another therapist not to abandon ultimate truth.

 

[LaSainte]

Excellent post. I like the comparison of Camus to GALAXY QUEST.

Why, thank you! . It never occurred to me until this thread. I love that movie.

 

[Linux]

What makes or does not make philosophical sense depends on your philosophy and worldview.

Wrong.

 

[Linux]

The third option does seem a bit nonsensical to me. I have been an atheist for about a decade and eventually this whole idea of “creating meaning” started to… lose meaning… for me. It is not even a leap of faith. A leap of faith would be to put your hope in something that might be true; “creating meaning” out of a nihilistic universe is to acknowledge that there is no meaning and then act as if there is anyway. It’s a lie and a deliberate self-deception. For me, the knowledge that my “created meaning” was necessarily arbitrary undermined its capacity to be meaningful.

All honest atheists are dead. I know that sounds harsh, but the naturalistic world-view they aspire to does not allow us to meaningfully engage with reality. All meaningful actions become fundamentally irrational and dishonest to say the least. The very attempt to remain alive becomes irrational because it imbues life with a meaning that doesn’t exist given their world-view.

 

[polytropos]

All honest atheists are dead. I know that sounds harsh, but the naturalistic world-view they aspire to does not allow us to meaningfully engage with reality. All meaningful actions become fundamentally irrational and dishonest to say the least. The very attempt to remain alive becomes irrational because it imbues life with a meaning that doesn’t exist given their world-view.

Agreed.

I think it must be stated (because these sorts of statements are often misconstrued) that this does not mean that atheists should kill themselves or that theists would kill themselves if they did not believe in God. Everything with an animal nature has an instinct for self-preservation, so departure from that instinct is always pathological.

Taking action to avoid death is just what animals generally do. That does not make it meaning, because concordance of will with nature can’t have meaning in a nihilistic model since the satisfaction of anyone’s will does not matter. It is the “creating of meaning” part that is dishonest.

 

[meltzerboy]

Wrong.

What then does it depend on, apart from one’s worldview?

 

[polytropos]

What then does it depend on, apart from one’s worldview?

I think the dispute here is over what “philosophical sense” is. One will judge a philosophical conclusion based on his own philosophical assumptions, ie. his philosophy and worldview. If that philosophy and worldview are wrong, then one will incorrectly judge whether something makes philosophical sense.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

To illustrate this, I need only ask: “Could something be happy if it did not have a mind?” If not, then happiness is dependent on the mind of the subject and is thus subjective.

Yes, happiness depends on having a mind. In that sense all experience is subjective.

However, the epistemological issue is whether every subjective experience is tied to objective reality or to a personal preference only. For example, if I prefer to go around killing people for no reason whatever, that is a subjective moral dictum. But in the real world such a preference is rejected as delusional (purely subjective). There are acts that are objectively right or objectively wrong, regardless of what we prefer.

The absurdist, to the extent that he denies this, is likely to be an unbeliever because he wants reality to have no ultimate meaning imposed on it from above … such as the ten commandments. This is not to say that the unbeliever will necessarily behave in a criminal fashion, but you notice that in the novels and plays of Sartre and Camus, for examples, there is a decided deflation of the moral impulse and a lack of joy and hope in the characters of those novels and plays.

The Christian would argue that this negativism or despair is rooted in a subjective (delusional) notion that nothing really matters very much. But when God is restored in anyone’s life, there is an actual uplift of hope and other positive emotions that are inspired by the objective love of an objective God who loves and cares for us. Even when experiencing a colossal tragedy, the lover of God has a more objective chance of avoiding complete surrender to the suicide impulse than has the cynical skeptic.

 

[Aloysium]

subjective/objective: it all gets very confusing

I prefer the term “reality”, but then one sounds arrogant.

I know what i mean, which is something like: how i imagine that God would view the matter

As i said, it sounds arrogant to say such things, but that is what i am striving for.

Someone who does not believe in God would think me deluded,
but then i would say that most (if not all) people who say they do not believe in God these days are ignorant of Who it is they do not believe in;
so these opinions are easily ignored.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Aloysium

**Someone who does not believe in God would think me deluded, **

Yes, but they would think you are objectively deluded.

So there is no way to avoid our belief in objective truth.

 

[ngill09]

ngill

To illustrate this, I need only ask: “Could something be happy if it did not have a mind?” If not, then happiness is dependent on the mind of the subject and is thus subjective.

Yes, happiness depends on having a mind. In that sense all experience is subjective.

Bingo. Happiness is subjective, as are all emotions, feelings, and experiences. Reality, on the other hand, is objective.

And the Christian worldview is just as meaningless as the non-Christian worldview. Which is to say, that you create your own meaning based on your personal preferences in each. In the Christian worldview, you specfically grant yourself meaning based on your preference to worship God. To me, I don’t see why worshiping God would be more meaningful than, say, raising a child. After all, God doesn’t need my worship. The child needs my guidance. Plus the child is actually there.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ngill

**In the Christian worldview, you specfically grant yourself meaning based on your preference to worship God. **

Here’s the problem. Since you do not know for a fact that God does not exist, you cannot say for a fact that God did not assign my meaning to me. If God exists, your rejection of him as a delusion is itself delusional.

**To me, I don’t see why worshiping God would be more meaningful than, say, raising a child. After all, God doesn’t need my worship. The child needs my guidance. **

True, God doesn’t need our worship. We are all children, so we all need our Father’s guidance.

Plus the child is actually there.

And how do you know for a fact that God is not actually there?

 

[polytropos]

Bingo. Happiness is subjective, as are all emotions, feelings, and experiences. Reality, on the other hand, is objective.

I assume that you favor the figuring of happiness as subjective for some reason. By demonstrating that subjectivity only implies that it is felt only by things with a mind (as opposed to all things), you have not shown that what causes a particular person happiness is arbitrary. What I am saying is that you have trivialized your definition of subjectivity; yes, by the definition you have used, happiness is subjective, but I think you will find, if you think about it, that it does not necessarily prove your larger point.

When we talk about subjective versus objective morality, we are not talking about whether just humans have moral impulses or whether that tree also has moral impulse. Objectivity in this respect refers to universality, and of course we are referring to universality among humans, things with intellects. A morality common to all men is not thought to be subjective (though it could be defined as such, it would not be expedient and would have little implication in conversation). Likewise, happiness for all men is not necessarily subjective. This is the position of the Church.

And the Christian worldview is just as meaningless as the non-Christian worldview. Which is to say, that you create your own meaning based on your personal preferences in each. In the Christian worldview, you specfically grant yourself meaning based on your preference to worship God. To me, I don’t see why worshiping God would be more meaningful than, say, raising a child. After all, God doesn’t need my worship. The child needs my guidance. Plus the child is actually there.

In the Christian worldview, we do not grant ourselves meaning as a result of our personal preferences to worship God. The preference to worship God is not uniquely ours; it is an inclination common to all men as a result of their being made that way. It is the only way to reach true and full happiness.

As for your example, the two things (worshiping God and raising a child) are not at all mutually exclusive. We need God’s guidance to be parents; our children need our guidance and benefit, like us, from being raised in the faith. I know this is not your point, but I think it should be clear that worshiping God is not the only source of happiness. It adds happiness to other areas of life.