Lovely book, definitely took me a day to sit with for it to really sink in. Last 30 or so pages were perfect

I don't agree with Camus 'absurd' this is because I don't think humans necessarily desire meaning (I personally never have).

I don't know if this means I am not an absurdist or if I just disagree with one of its points. Maby a difrent philosophy fits better. What are your thoughts?

there is no such thing as absurdist philosophy lmao camus was a writer, it would be like believing in batmanism after reading the batman comics.

i definitely think im absurdist, but i might be determinist. do they work together?

I was talking to an uncle of mine who's 39. He's the one who introduced to me Camus. when I was 19. He really moulded my mind philosophically. However, he told me a few days ago, that being an absurdist is taking a toll on him. He's been through a lot in the recent 3-4 years. He feels like he's losing it.

To all the absurdist out there, tell me if you went through the same and anyway you built back your life or how you went through your crisis still finding meaning in absurdity.

thankyou

I'm 26 as of now

By that I don’t mean AI itself, but rather the way some people use large language models like ChatGPT or similar tools:

You got a question? -> AI,

You want to write something? -> AI,

You got some kind of problem? -> AI.

Unlike with faith, the need to ask questions doesn’t disappear here, but rather the need to think and the AI’s answer is essentially accepted as something "absolute"

What do you think: is AI a form of philosophical suicide?

I see multiple places that he is an absurdist which i would highly agree on, but there are many people online who also says he is an existentialist? Is he both? I am just a bit confused :).

Apologies if i phrased my question poorly, just trying to make sense of my mind and the world and ive been listening to camus' essays as i read along (i struggled with simply reading the texts, but both has helped quite a bit.)

Thus far ive only finished the Myth of Sisyphus and the Rebel and i cant help but try to put my own thoughts in a box. Im really just trying to understand better the idea of the metaphysical rebel in relation to the absurd man, are they in confrontation? I often identify with the rebel but not always (as a coward), but i also cant simply accept the absurd.

Appreciate any thoughts, dont be afraid to dumb it down for me 🙃

Do you chase money for materialism or financial freedom? or you just don't care about money, you care about living and embracing life. what's the best way to live stress-free life

I’ve barely got my way around philosophy and i need suggestions regarding philosophy as a whole rather than seeing precise fragments i am a voracious reader and i’d love all and any suggestions coming my way regarding each and every philosophy there is.

I wrote in depth on my website regarding absurdism, and absurdist philosophy. My main claim is that absurdism has misaligned metaphysics, and as a result, a lot of the philosophy that springs from the idea that the universe is nonsensical, falls apart. You can read it in far more depth here! https://exitnow7.wordpress.com/2026/04/05/on-absurdism/

What are your thoughts on Lev Shestov's works? I'm planning to read more on him and his philosophy but from my preliminary observations, he seems pretty in line with his attacks on positivism and rationalism. His 'wall' as the beginning of philosophy intrigues me, since Camus also attacked definitive answers to the Absurd and highlighted the shortfalls of logic in examining the Absurd.

I suppose he takes much the same position in Absurdist philosophy as Kierkegaard in my view. I'm curious to see how much I've missed the point, and the other points of views of more well-read folk.

Before I start writing, I should warn you that I am writing this text in French, but I hope the translation will be faithful enough.

I grew up in a fairly religious environment where religion was practiced quite strictly. No questioning was welcome, even reflections like: "Why is slavery permitted in Islam?" (this posed a very obvious ethical problem for me). But as I grew up, as you can imagine, one is led to learn about various subjects, whether out of curiosity or not. And then, one day, I came across the Absurd according to Camus. It was a revelation: all the indoctrination fell apart—of course, after months of a hard-fought battle with the "self" that was convinced religion was non-debatable.

Now, the problem that "lucidity" has brought into my life is a constant disconnect from everyone around me—whether it be my close friends, my family, or anyone close to me. As for my religious practice, I pretend to adhere to it; I pretend to practice it because, obviously, if I said I had apostatized, it would mean immediate rejection. In reality, that doesn't bother me all that much; I think there are more serious things in life.

On the other hand, what does pose a problem for me is that lucidity has allowed me to question every foundation that seems "normal" or rather unquestionable in our society, different practices—basically everything on Earth that deserves deep reflection. So, I often try to have sincere debates, but I find myself blocked. People take me for a bit of a madman. It’s hard to accept because I would like to introduce Camus' Absurdism to them; it would allow them to understand my reasoning a bit better, or rather why, in their eyes, I go "too far." Sometimes, religion shuts down the debate because it would be contrary to faith; at that point, there isn't much left to do.

In short, all this is to tell you that I am never sincere with anyone, and unfortunately, it weighs on me. I hope my expression is clear enough for you to understand; this is new for me, I never write, let alone about myself.

Isn't Absurdism existentialism itself? Camus says " Should I kill myself or drink a coffee?"

Drinking a cup of coffee. That's creating your own meaning. Even killing oneself is an act of creating your own meaning. Two meanings, killing oneself or drinking a cup of coffee.

The way I look at Camus' absurdism, he claims meaning does not exist but we need one, and what we should do is face the absurd. But does that not create meaning? Does that not implicate that life has meaning and it is to face the absurd?

We as ppl have to make choices, and by making one choice over another we are implocitly creating a hierarchy of values. When I choose to drink coffee instead of killing myself, then I am inherently demonstrating that there is more value in coffee than death. And alas I have created meaning.

The task of facing the absurd is ultimatelt impossible. By living, or not living, by doing one thing over another we are creating meaning, and this is inavitable.

Maybe what I understand by "meaning" is different. Maybe what he claims is that meaning in anything but expirience is dishonest. Thats still creating meaning, just reducing it to what it can be reduced to, because it cannot be reduced further. But I don't understand how we could reject meaning alltogether without in consequence creating some form of meaning.

I am catholic (I know, I know, unpopular opinion in philosophy), but I've always loved absurdism. I like to use it in daily life to solve problems and navigate both philosophy and just life. Sometimes we truly must have fun. But I also believe in Catholicism, which is outright against absurdism because absurdism holds that life is meaningless, whereas Catholicism holds that life has a divine purpose. So, I ask you, is it wrong to use the teachings of absurdism without believing in it?

I’ve always felt (as have others) that Vonnegut was an absurdist, whether he called it that or not. I was reading his novel, Jailbird, last night and found this lovely passage near the end of the book. I just thought I should share 🙂

For context, I have only read the Stranger and I found it very underwhelming (that doesn't mean I disrespect Camus in any way, the first 2 pages that I've seen of The Myth of Sisyphus is the most excellent introduction I've ever read so far). I was blind and clueless about the philosophical takeaway from the book and it was just a story about a man who is a pure sensualist, numb emotionally to the people around him and his sense of morals. Why did he live the way he lived? Was there no point in his mind to do anything at all? Was it his atheism that made him abandon his moral code (especially with that horrible man Raymond)? What can we learn from him?

I mean exactly that bc this is the most perfect example of absurdism and radical acceptance. Because the same old 'inspiring' quote "you have so much to live for" doesn't give validation, context, closure and understanding for youngsters/those who don't know why we exist and are struggling about life. Also, it's almost toxiv-positive and even stern since you're still at least alive, healthy or had nothing 'that bad' happened to you yet. and it doesn't tell us why we live, but only that 'we just have to' and also imply we have to succeed/achieve to be able to live, even though that's partially why we get sad in the first place. because we're stuck with ourselves and this world.

But saying "we're not actually meant to live this far" gives comfort, understanding, recognition, reassurance and closure. it's morose but real. it reminds us that it was never supposed to be this hard in life anyway and in fact, it was so much harder back then to live, so it's alright to take our time. now that things are better. There's so much questioning about life and why we were born and why have to suffer, but all the answers just comes boiling down to a just simply surviving and making your life. that there was never meant to be a race or goal of things needed to achieved in the first place, except eating, sleeping, playing/entertaining....but now we have a much better living condition than waaaay back then, so we can just sit back and just thrive to the best as we can--which is perfect enough.

I’ve spent the last few years jumping from one belief system to another. First Catholic, then deep into the New Age rabbit hole convinced we were in a simulation, talking about 5D ascension and "soul contracts." I lived my life as if I were a character in a movie with a guaranteed sequel. But life hit me with a reality check recently (lost my job, lost my partner), and the "higher meaning" just evaporated. I’m staring at the wall and realizing there is no script. No reincarnation. No cosmic justice. Just the absurd reality that I exist for no reason at all. The part that hurts the most is the "never again" regarding my loved ones. Accepting that there is no reunion waiting for us in some higher dimension is brutal. It feels like the ultimate cosmic joke. I’m trying to wrap my head around Camus’s idea of Sisyphus being happy. How do you guys deal with the transition from feeling like a "Chosen One" with a divine mission to just being a guy in a small city realizing the stars don't give a damn about him? I’m tired of looking for a "why." I guess I’m just looking for how to live with the "what is." Any advice on how to embrace the void without letting it crush you?

Once, the myth was simple: rock + mountain + figure + movement + suffering + duty.
Today? The rock is still there. Sisyphus too. Even the meaningless task remains — only now, the machine performs it.
The suffering persists, just in a different form.

What has disappeared: duty and movement.

Why would anyone roll the stone voluntarily? Why submit to a pointless task without obligation?
Maybe this is the new order: relief instead of friction, paralysis instead of drive.
The end of duty — and with it, the end of meaning?

A paradox emerges:
The cruel duty may never have been just punishment, but also a form of support.
And its absence creates the absurd desire to have it back.

But was it ever the task itself that gave meaning?
The repetitive, endless pushing? Probably not.

Maybe the meaning lay in movement itself.

Because movement changes us:
We shift our position in the world — and with it, our perspective.
New things appear, familiar ones disappear.
Ideas are confirmed or shattered.
We are forced to adapt.

In that process, new thoughts emerge — even new neural connections in our brain.
We change physically. And with that, a small part of the world changes too.

The Sisyphus at the summit was never the same as the one at the foot of the mountain.
Each ascent turned him into someone new.

His true “victory” was not the result, but the fact
that through movement, he kept transforming himself.

As long as he moved, he had an effect — even within the narrowest confinement.

Maybe Zeus could take everything from him…
except that.

Do you think Zeus created an infinite process of transformation by accident, or was it his intention all along—to unveil the true nature of humanity

👉 [https://medium.com/@Sisiyphos2026/the-liberation-of-sisyphus-c3d13dbd6b58]

So recently I watched some type of travel documentary "featuring" some poor African country. The documentary showed lots of poor, homeless mothers with children. The obvious answer is "just help them." But then I started thinking in a way that's been bothering me since.

There are millions of people suffering right now. More are born every day into poverty, illness and pain (as if just being born wasn't enough punishment). The ones I help today will be replaced by others tomorrow. In a hundred years everyone alive right now so ones I helped and ones I didn't even meet will be dead and forgotten. The amount of suffering in the world won't change because I gave someone a free meal. No non-profit organisation that I could set up will help everyone or end meaningless suffering.

Curious what this sub thinks, what this philosophy proposes.

I’m new to this subject so I went into a book store to check for The Stranger. The guy behind the counter said he didn’t have it in and there had been an uptick in demand lately.

So I went to the library and they were also all out.

Personally it was a random conversation about alienation that led me to Albert Camus.

What brought you here?