How absurd?

I wonder how others feel about the consequences of atheism, from a philosophical standpoint. More generally, I wonder how many religious or non-religious people would identify with an absurdist's world view.

Absurdism "is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning in the universe will ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual. "The Absurd," therefore, is commonly used in philosophical discourse to refer to the clash between the human search for meaning and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible," but rather "humanly impossible." (from Wikipedia)

It was this sentiment that caused existential philosophy to be realised. If the world is viewed as inherently meaningless, the philosophers Camus and Kierkegaard suggest three possible outcomes to resolve this personal state; suicide, leap of faith towards religions, or acceptance of the absurd. Seemingly, Camus and Kierkegaard disagreed over the best way of dealing with such dilemmas, but both did agree that suicide was not a viable option.

There are associated philosophies that deal with the concept of no inherent meaning in the universe, but deal with it's absurdness differently, such as; Nihilism, Atheistic Existentialism and Theistic Existentialism. They are tabulated below, showing the points of agreement and disagreement. Perhaps these divisions are simply degrees of absurdity.

The table also does not show the theistic absolutists (as I'd call them) or believers in deeply held religious certainty. Perhaps the theistic existentialist category above does extend to include the newer forms of progressive Christianity.

Would you rate yourself as anything particular from this data? Are there any categories you think I've left out that deal with other forms of absurdism, belief, or philosophical consequences to atheist viewpoints?

I kind of flip flop between atheistic existentialism and absurdism. Both are valid views I think and it's more up to the individual and what works for them as to which they accept.

I'm just wondering, what does embracing the absurd entail exactly? I get the feeling as if I do this daily because I'm always having a laugh at the relationship between our expectations and what reality actually involves. Is this what an absurdist does or do you embrace the absurd differently.

I kind of flip flop between atheistic existentialism and absurdism. Both are valid views I think and it's more up to the individual and what works for them as to which they accept.

I'm just wondering, what does embracing the absurd entail exactly? I get the feeling as if I do this daily because I'm always having a laugh at the relationship between our expectations and what reality actually involves. Is this what an absurdist does or do you embrace the absurd differently.

domatron23

Absolutely - that's the problem. Its quite intangible - like "opening your heart to God", or "being enlightened". That in itself is an absurdity, which is kind of fitting really.

I think absurdism it is an abstraction of reality and a gaining of some sort comfort from the amoral. I see it as a triumph of personal responsibility and free thinking skepticism, but all those words are probably quite meaningless to most other people.

But according to that chart at least, the let-off about life not necessarily having meaning and the vague suggestion that there may be some big thing going on that I don't know about have moved me away from existential atheism philosophy towards absurdism (or fence-sitting atheism).

You're right, the fact that embracing the absurd is in itself an absurdity is very fitting. It's still not particularly helpful though. I mean if you're deciding between killing yourself and religion it doesn't help that the third option is so abstract.

I think I know what you mean about gaining comfort from the amoral though. When you understand that your existence has no purpose to the universe it makes the connections that you do have with other people and indeed with yourself, all the more enjoyable.

Well, from the questions provided:

1. Yes, absolutely.  One may disagree on what has meaning and what has value, but if someone perceives something as having meaning or value, then almost by definition it does indeed have meaning or value for that person.

2. Maybe, but I'm not sure how we would know it if we found it.  This is much like the concept of objective morality - maybe there is an objective right and wrong, but how would we know what it was if we saw it?

3. Yes; I have often said that the meaning of life is to find the meaning of life.  I would, in a way, say that it should incorporate God, but in the sense that is implied in the parable of the sheep and the goats: "Whatever you do for the least of these brothers of mine, you do for me."  I don't think just finding meaning in life is enough; it must also allow others to do the same, or else it is untenable.

4. Yes, of course the pursuit is possible; I don't understand how it couldn't be.

5. Absolutely.

6. Pretty much my answer to #3 applies here as well. 

I think that puts me mostly in the theistic existentialist camp, but some of the answers I found a bit inadequate as they stood.

1. AE/TE/AB
2. AB
3. AB
4. TE
5. AE/TE/AB
6. AE

That is how I would answer those six questions. I'm am not a philosopher per se, so I can't tell you if you are "missing" anything from such a definition.foxhound_fox

I quite agree with your analysis. For Q4, I guess it may depend on what pursuit means, but I'd veer towards TE myself as well. For Q6, none of the answers fit me well, so the possible limited extent of any meaning created puts me more in the AB camp.

Does this mean 2 more sub-categories are needed? Is this the start of another rift in atheism?

I must admit that I don't understand why the possibility of the pursuit of meaning is exclusive to theistic existentialism.GabuEx

The pursuit is possible with Absurdism too, to some degree, with the ultimate realisation must be that it will most likely fail. I'll try and look up "intrinsic", "extrinsic" and "constructed" forms of pursuit in this context, then report back.

Atheist-existentialism might be a sort of early, derived, moribund philosophy, as tabulated there. I wouldn't expect another atheist to really deny value in the pursuit of meaning either. So I'd say you are right and the pursuit of meaning is not exclusive in a general sense. I'm interested in the differences of these types of meaning and how they relate here though.

I am assuming that "meaning in the universe" has something to do with there with being more than just this life so I will go with AE as most closest to my thoughts.

And why is it absurd if there is no ultimate meaning in life? I never look for any meaning in life that extends beyond this life so for me it's not absurd, more like harsh reality.

I'm none of those options. I don't have a solid "faith" in that I take things without evidence or reason on most issues and the issues I do, I'm simply not aware of it. I'm not an existentialist, theistic or atheistic. I'm not an absurdist and I'm certainly not a nihilist. However, after looking at those options, I am most closely an atheistic existentialist. However, I do think that there is an intrisic meaning to the universe. I call it an adaptive purpose. It's essentially up to the conscious individual to assign an object's meaning by evaluating its usefulness in its application in various ways. You may think that this depends on the conscious individual, but it does not. The objects' usefulness in a situation is independent of any being conceiving it. It's just that the individual is necessary to conceive of this relationship and to put it into use. That is, essentially, the meaning of the universe, which is to assign meaning, objectively, based on each objects' relationship to the universe as a whole and how it is useful for the individual perceiving it. The meaning of the universe is to experience it.

I am assuming that "meaning in the universe" has something to do with there with being more than just this life so I will go with AE as most closest to my thoughts.

And why is it absurd if there is no ultimate meaning in life? I never look for any meaning in life that extends beyond this life so for me it's not absurd, more like harsh reality.

Gambler_3

Absurism, I believe, posits that a belief in a meaning in life is absurd, not the belief there is no meaning in life.

I suppose I'm none of the above.

1. There is such a thing as meaning or value. Yes

2. There is inherent meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God).  Yes, regardless of whether or not a person even realizes it.

3. Individuals can create meaning in life themselves. Yes, but any created meaning is false. Only the meaning defined by the Creater is true.

4. The pursuit of intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe is possible. Yes.

5. The pursuit of constructed meaning is possible. Yes, but it's not the intended and ultimate meaning for life.

6. There is a solution to the individual's desire to seek meaning. Yes, but many arive at the wrong conclusion.

In answering these questions, it seems as though I assume there are two meanings for an individual: the meaning defined by God and the meaning defined by self.  If those two meanings contradict, the latter is false.