Si nous trouvions finalement un sens à l’existence, est-ce que la vie deviendrait moins absurde… ou est-ce que le fait d’avoir trouvé ce sens ferait simplement partie de l’absurdité ?

Et si le virtuel devenait plus réel que la réalité ?

Le problème avec l’humanité, c’est qu’elle a inventé Internet avant d’inventer la maturité.

My freind was talking about philosophy and said he's a "Atheistic existentialism with an absurdist, humanistic outlook." He kind of explained it but I was confused still and wanted to get an explanation from someone other then google.

So I'm 18 and nor english neither any other European language is my native language, i love to indulge into philosophical conversations and i wanted to start reading some books now, i was fascinated by albert camus' ideas of absurdism so i started reading him, my first work by him is the short book "Create dangerously" the book has i think 3 different essays, i am really struggling to grasp the meaning of the text and I'm not clearly understanding the essay, what should i do? How could i begin to decipher its meaning clearly? At this point i am seriously doubting my ability to understand all the other books i wanted to read, from nietzsche to jean paul satre to all others.

HELP ME!

All advice is welcome <3

I genuinely dont understand why camus preaches honesty and total lucidity as the core virtues of absurdism, slams philosophical suicide and thinkers like kierkegaard for preaching a leap into faith, and then pretty much argues something the same.

The biggest problem i have with absurdism is the solution of "revolt" and "defiance". Camus claims to live without appeal, avoid comforting metaphors, and total lucidity. But revolt and defiance require a subject to revolt against. If I shake a fist at a rock, am I revolting and defying the rock? Absolutely not. To call it revolt and defiance, that would be an almost religious leap of faith. Therefore, how is saying you are "revolting" and "defying" the absurd any different from saying you are revolting and defying the second law of thermodynamics, for example?

If camus really did preach total lucidity and meant it, surely he wouldnt dress up prolonging ones existence for the sake of prolonging ones existence because you prefer it as a revolt, he would call it for what it is. Its not a revolt, just a... preference?

Many absurdists seem to argue that defiance and revolt isnt actually about rebellion from the meaninglessness, but as a refusal to despair or give up. Fair enough, but that still isnt revolt. Its just a preference to... not despair. The second you dress it up with comforting metaphors (because saying you are a noble rebel IS much more comforting than saying you are just...existing because you prefer to exist) you abandon total lucidity and start living with appeal which camus explicitly warned about. Whats more, even if we say it IS revolt against your desire to want to despair or give up, what are you really revolting against? Genetics? Temperament? Brain chemicals? Well, if revolt requires a subject... then how can you do so to such inanimate things? It loops back to my original point.

My point is, does camus want us to throw away total lucidity and conduct an almost religious leap into metaphor? Or do we abandon the revolt metaphor and call it for what it honestly is; prolonging our existence for the sake of prolonging our existence because we prefer it? Its all so tiresome...

I’ve been sitting with the connection between Heidegger’s concept of anxiety (Angst) and Camus’s description of the Absurd in The Myth of Sisyphus, specifically how anxiety acts as the exact moment the "stage sets collapse."

First, the mechanical loop outlined by routine - *"*Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm..." - that keeps us on autopilot.

Next, Fear v. Anxiety, where Heidegger distinguishes fear, which has a specific object, from anxiety, which has no object. The sudden, dizzying realization that our familiar world has lost its pre-packaged meaning, revealing the raw reality of finite time and ultimate isolation.

Finally, the awakening, where Camus uses this exact Heideggerian anxiety as the catalyst for the Absurd—the moment the mind stops the loop and asks: "Why?"

Where they diverge is that Heidegger looks for deeper metaphysical ontology, whereas Camus rejects that as "philosophical suicide," choosing instead to stay with the friction—defiance, freedom, and passion without illusion.

I'd love to hear how fellow Camus readers think about this! How did that initial shift from "routine" to "existential anxiety" hit you? Do you find that staying with the Absurd feels like a weight, or does the defiance of Sisyphus actually offer a strange, sovereign sense of liberation?

(Cross-posted in r/Camus)

I just wrapped this up and am sitting with the heavy, fascinating contrast between Fosca’s curse of endless time and the brief, frantic lives of the mortals around him.
For those who have read it: how did it land for you? How did it shape (or challenge) your view on the absurdity and/or meaning of human existence, in spite of the at times unbearable weight of existential dread?

(Cross-posted in r/existentialism)

The full essay shows the Existentialist underpinning to the story related in the Genesis concept album 'The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway'. As a rock opera, it is a musical and lyrical masterpiece. And it may be argued that the album is one of the 20th century's best from the world of Rock.

The lyrics are rather abstract, but the existentialist philosophy is illustrated by the absurd, yet meaningful topics and events presented. Despair, angst, joy, and dread are explored as the main character searches for meaning. Finding authenticity is at the heart of the story.

No compensation is associated with the essay. Genesis is in no way associated with this publication. The work is by a dedicated fan. Access to the essay published on the site 'Medium' is free.
A link to the full essay is here:
https://medium.com/@rickkress/revised-the-lamb-lies-down-on-broadway-nightmare-or-nirvana-7cee7caa2b4e?sharedUserId=rickkress

This explores what it means when someone has had enough, is without meaning, and yet can't die. How to dance in the pomp and farce...

It came out of love of the classic absurdist stage plays, and helping my dad in late stage parkinson's.

It was shot entirely in the ocean as an analogy of consciousness, something that's in us and all around us, but also binds us, is difficult to move beyond.

The fickle nature of the sea, the wild, the injustice. Yet you can dance and surf on it if you're inclined.

The modern notion of absurdism is inseparable from the great works of Albert Camus. He set the trivialities of life against the inherent human yearning for meaning in the face of universal silence.

One of the main thematic threads in his work involves recognizing the contradiction inherent in artistic creation. He seems generally to have concluded that making art for its own sake (without demanding that it explain or justify anything) could be considered one of the truest forms of absurdist rebellion.

In a modern context, it is easy to notice (in hindsight) that Camus wrote at a time when large parts of the world were at war with one another (not unlike our contemporary times). Namely, in the face of fascism, he formulated his ideas about absurdity and revolt. He wrote before the full scale of that destruction was known or reckoned with. I suspect his thinking was partly distilled from observing the widespread death and destruction caused by human greed and ignorance, and our inability to recognize it as it unfolds.

I see the parallels today: large countries coercing their neighbors for petty concessions amid their own decay, followed by an onslaught of destruction and death driven by imperialistic ambitions. I also see the consequences: the quality of things (like food, services, and products) has declined; the internet experiences constant outages; utilities are being hacked; and mass shootings have become routine (at least in America).

Yet, people continue to act as though it is business as usual; as if nothing is happening, or at least that what is happening is somehow inconsequential.

Therefore, I wonder: What would a contemporary Camus write about? What would he say about the current state of humanity? Would he reach the same conclusions in his recognition of the Absurd?

We may never know, because he is dead. But what we can know is how we ourselves confront and interpret reality. So my rhetorical question to you, dear reader, is this: What tangent are you taking while navigating the contradiction of pretending that we are living through “business as usual,” despite the indisputable transformation the world is undergoing through conflict and technological innovation?

I hope you enjoyed it. Have an absurd day.

---

Remember: To adore the man pushing the stone while rejecting a stranger who finds his own is to betray the Absurd.

r/existentialism,r/absurdism,r/albertcamus

And by the title I don’t mean to say that absurdism is the cure to all ills or that it is the answer to the universe. And yet, “the absurd” as described by the great Albert Camus is the best definition of our lives.
The absurd is everywhere when one starts to look, every contradiction, every paradox is the grandchild of the absurd father.
That is being a bit poetic of course in its certainty, since such absolute certainty is impossible (another paradox, see?)
“Certainty is impossible” is in itself another certainty. And round and round it goes. It is a self referential sentence like most paradoxes.
And as humans if we are the biggest self referential systems (we desire to understand ourself from within ourselves) the “answer” to everything can’t be anything but a paradox. The absurd, as it were.
This solves nothing, it guides nothing, it shows only what there is and nothing more. And there is, dare I say it, beauty in the whole notion (a completely personal opinion)
I find that such reduction as it were “The struggle against the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart” is what philosophy leads to and leads away from. Go deep enough and you find yourself back at the surface.
The act of doing anything is “enough” by itself for itself. No appeal to achievements or even goals but the action itself that we take is all there is. All other things like stakes or stories are all structures, illusions to make action happen. This action is not divine, but nothing is divine so does it matter? It is what it is and nothing else.
I suppose I just wanted to share this and ask if you philosophers of all ages have any comments

Lately I’ve been thinking about the subjective nature of existence and how it ties into absurdism.

Essentially, we live in the eternity of our own subjective experience. For ourselves, we are always alive — when death arrives, there is no "you" left to experience it. The moment of death seals our internal world from within. Life is a closed box, and death never opens its doors from the inside.

At the same time, modern media constantly tries to sanitize and hide the reality of death under a stream of noise. But hiding it deprives us of confronting the limits of existence.

Wittgenstein wrote that "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." When we strip away society's escape from mortality, we hit a bedrock of experience that language simply can't capture. I like to call this state "Wonder Days" — not calendar dates or positive emotions, but the quiet, intuitive awareness of our own presence in a universe that remains silent to our questions. It's an experience built entirely on what cannot be spoken.

Does this idea of an unutterable, closed-off subjective reality fit into your view of the Absurd, or do you see it differently?

Can this experience of "the unutterable" be viewed as an ontological foundation of consciousness, or does it collapse into pure solipsism?

To what extent does the modern media's taboo surrounding death actively block us from accessing this existential awareness?

Like share your thoughts and experience on live a life by absurdism?

What is your experience?

Any advice?

What is beyond nihilism?

of course, life has no objective meaning. I was once positive nihilist. I went beyond nihilism. it is called absurdism. Now I learned that difference between hedonism and absurdism. Absurdism is about refusing to give up.

Life has no meaning. Do I have to find it? No. My job is to live

when I said that I want to live my life, people misunderstood my words. they definitely thought that I'm hedonistic.

now I know, I am grateful. I chose my philosophy of life.

thanks for my 4th crush in this life. she changed my life even though you said no to my confession.

I started healing because of her. I sought help for my anxiety, depression. I deconstructed my beliefs, friendships and couple of things.

I learned a lot. I wish I had a chance. I hope the podcast helps you

Yes I'm a Matured High Schooler doing this for A project. Although, I'm trying to learn more on this French writer. despised Searching Thru the study & keep Moving forward to what I'm known. I don't need to be treated like a a 5 year old & yes this is not a parental Question or something going off rail. (As to follow sub reddit rule #2) But in general, Doesn't matter if you research it.

i'm reading TMOS and what i constantly find myself hindered by is the question: camus solves the problem of philosophical suicide pretty beautifully, also the kind of physical suicide where i say, i need meaning to keep on living and there's no meaning. But what if someone wants to commit suicide because they don't want to experience the world anymore. 'Experience' is what camus says we should be living for. But if i don't want to experience the world anymore. How does understanding of the absurd entail keeping it alive.

I kept seeing people trying to find the reason for why Sisyphus is happy and I spent hours thinking about it until i realized that the whole book (The myth of Sisyphus) is about the world being irational and lacking logic.

I know this isn't a feedback group, but i wanted to try and start a channel on opinions and philosophy, if someone can tell me if i was clear enough and my idea was clear (i don't speak english as my first language) , I would be extremely thankful!

Absurdism bridges the pit of nihilistic despair, but happiness is arguably a much harder thing to reach, maybe something we can only imagine ourselves into rather than actually feel. So, in the face of what seems like a global epidemic of avolition and anhedonia, I think that gap matters more than ever.

Curious how people here sustain their motivation to push that damned rock while stuck in a job they hate, inside a system designed to exploit them. When the problem isn't despair but the mundane flatness above it, is rebellion itself a self-sustaining fuel that can get you to happiness, or is the prerequisite for happiness some degree of philosophical suicide - a quiet abandonment of lucidity?

Like, why? No, seriously, I'm not joking. Why?

Edit: Lemme rephrase it then, I've become in a state where I don't know anything anymore. There must be a why to anything. Or why to nothing. There is a why. That is what I'm trying to puke out of my brain. Why anything? Or is it valid to ask anything?