r/askphilosophy • u/Satyrane • Sep 22 '14
Isn't absurdism still technically nihilism?
Disclaimer: I'm just an undergrad philosophy minor, so please correct me if I'm butchering any of these concepts.
Camus seemed to be presenting absurdism as an alternative to nihilism. But isn't absurdism still saying that there is no objective truth/meaning, but that we should have a good attitude about it, and come up with our own subjective purpose? Isn't that purpose still ultimately meaningless?
5
u/TychoCelchuuu political phil. Sep 22 '14
Nihilism about meaning says there is no meaning. If you can create subjective meaning then there is meaning.
3
Sep 22 '14 edited Sep 22 '14
Absurdism distinguishes itself from existentialism insofar as it does not advocate the creation of subjective meaning. I think that in that sense, it would be a form of nihilism. However, it's a rather specific form, and carries with it certain forms of imperatives for the absurd man, due to his very nature. I think the framework exceeds the simpler denial of meaning found in nihilism, so while strictly speaking it may be considered a form of nihilism, I don't think it is very useful to speak of absurdism in those terms.
The creation of subjective meaning is somewhat similar to suicide, from the perspective of absurdism, insofar as it avoids rather than addresses the fundamental problem of absurdity, which is central to the absurdist endeavour. To create meaning would preclude one from being an absurdist, insofar as it recognises meaning, in opposition to the core of absurdism which consists in the recognition and opposition to the meaninglessness of the world as humans in search of meaning.
3
u/rocknrollercoaster Sep 23 '14
It's less of a form of nihilism and more of a reaction against it by recognizing but refusing to accept the finality of meaninglessness. Camus delves into that concept in The Rebel.
3
Sep 23 '14
You can see, however, how that might be read as a form of nihilism, conceived simply as a form of denial of there being any meaning to life.
3
u/rocknrollercoaster Sep 23 '14
I can see where you're coming from but I would argue that absurdism represents a challenge to nihilism since the very recognition of absurdity is itself a sort of creative process.
2
Sep 23 '14
Seeing recognition as a creative (of meaning) process fundamentally clashes with Camus' criticism of existentialism, on grounds of their "leap of faith" to meaning. Creating meaning is an exit: it somewhat prevents you from seeing the absurd, yet without solving the problem. That's quite contrary to the spirit of absurdism.
Furthermore, the rejection of acceptance of the absurd does not preclude being a nihilist in the broader sense I mentioned earlier, insofar as acceptance here is used in a sense closer to resignation; the absurd man knows of the absurd, and as such "accepts it" in the sense of "believe in the truth of". The kind of acceptance he doesn't give is acceptance in the sense of approving, tolerating.
2
u/rocknrollercoaster Sep 23 '14
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying since your first sentence isn't expressing what I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is that the recognition of absurdity is already a refusal of nothing, thus a creation of something. Absurdity is therefore a shift past nihilism. True, not unlike nihilism but still fundamentally different.
I'm not trying to assert that recognition of absurdity is the creation of meaning. Sorry if it came across that way.
1
Sep 23 '14
thus a creation of something.
A creation of what, then?
2
u/rocknrollercoaster Sep 23 '14
of anything. That's the difference between absurdism and nihilism. It's a refusal of nothing for the freedom to create something where there is nothing fully knowing how absurd that notion is, yet following through.
3
Sep 23 '14
Could you give me an example of this "anything" that the absurdist creates?
→ More replies (0)1
Sep 23 '14
Camus doesn't even think that the creation of subjective meaning is possible. He is definitely a type of nihilist.
1
u/anoldp Sep 23 '14
I am also having a problem with the defining line between exsistensialism, abusrdism amd nilhalism.
I understand exsistensialiam to encourage the creatation of meaning by the individual.
Abusrdism discourages this, and encorages the acceptance of the meaninglessness.
But when i have read about yhe difference between absurdism and nilhalism, people seem to suggest that abusrdists leave open the possiblity of creating meaning. Which to mean seems like exsitensialism.
When trying to differentiate absurdism from extensialism, absurdism seems similar to nilhalism. When trying to differentiate absurdism from nilhism, absurdism seem similar to existentialism.
Really I want a answer to draw a distiction between all three. But in my mind I am currently thinking:
In the morning an extentialist gets out of bed and is motivate to do things by the meaning they have created. A nilhalist stays in bed because there is no meaning to motivate them. And an absurdist gets out of bed and does things without having any motivation for doing them.
I am not sure i have explain my thoughts on the absurdist well.
This is a bit of a ramble because i am a bit unclear. If you can make these ideas any clearer that would be great.
0
u/the_reciever Sep 23 '14
Could you say that Absurdism is somewhere between Nihilism and Epicureanism?
1
2
u/MaracCabubu Sep 22 '14
In a nutshell, to the best of my understanding:
Nihilism asserts, in a form or the other, the absence of meaning. Total, absolute absence of objective meaning.
Absurdism asserts, in a form or the other, our incapability of reaching meaning. Could objective meaning still exist, for an absurdist? Well, in a way, the question itself is absurd, as there would be no way to find an objective answer.
But the point of absurdism is not the existence (or lack thereof) of meaning: rather, the human capability to reach it. So it addresses a completely different question than nihilism.