On Absurdism

[Lord Raziere]

Absurd by what standard? Wouldn't it be better to say that many people have unreasonable expectations for the world which make it look absurd?

Maybe we should start a new thread for this...

New thread started.

standard? Hm, not really. I just look at the world, if I see something absurd, I say "The world is absurd" and get on with my life.

and yes, sometimes I think people do have unreasonable expectations of the world.

as for absurdism itself, I find myself disagreeing with it on a few points as I prefer to seek out my own meaning in life in addition to accepting that the world is absurd, that accepting that the world is absurd is one of the first steps to finding meaning, and that its less finding meaning and more creating it and that this is normal and good.

[PirateMonk]

After skimming the Wikipedia article, it seems like they're using "absurd" in an unconventional sense. Silly philosophers.


standard? Hm, not really. I just look at the world, if I see something absurd, I say "The world is absurd" and get on with my life.

What makes you say that? What exactly does it mean for something to be absurd?


and yes, sometimes I think people do have unreasonable expectations of the world.

as for absurdism itself, I find myself disagreeing with it on a few points as I prefer to seek out my own meaning in life in addition to accepting that the world is absurd, that accepting that the world is absurd is one of the first steps to finding meaning, and that its less finding meaning and more creating it and that this is normal and good.

That sounds reasonable enough. The idea of intrinsic meaning seems metaphysically silly to me, regardless of your religious assumptions.

[Tebryn]

After skimming the Wikipedia article, it seems like they're using "absurd" in an unconventional sense. Silly philosophers.


They are? How would you define Absurdity because...they're using it in the classical sense.


utterly or obviously senseless, illogical, or untrue; contrary to all reason or common sense; laughably foolish or false: an absurd explanation.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

A subset of absurdist theatre.

I dare you to read this play (it's very short) without just flat-out saying "wut." or a variation of a statement that you have no clue what's going on.

La Coeur de Gaz, or the Heart of Gas (http://www.english.emory.edu/DRAMA/TzaraGas.html). by Tristan Tzara, translated by Michael Benedikt

[PirateMonk]

They are? How would you define Absurdity because...they're using it in the classical sense.

Your definition looks good. However:


In philosophy, "The Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. In this context absurd does not mean "logically impossible," but rather "humanly impossible."[1] The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

This is clearly related to the conventional meaning, there are important distinctions, so it's not just "the world is absurd."

[Lord Raziere]

After skimming the Wikipedia article, it seems like they're using "absurd" in an unconventional sense. Silly philosophers.



What makes you say that? What exactly does it mean for something to be absurd?



Can't really make generalizations. I know it when I see it. each case of absurdity is unique and its own flavor of absurdity, its less of a universal thing and more like naturally occurring art that you walk by, see some construct made out of absurdity, painted with stupidity and sprinkled with some foolishness and perhaps even some insanity which produces the most wonderful of reactions like "WHAT!?" "What." "EH?" "What is this I don't even." or speechless incoherence and a distraught face.

and of course "wut.", now let me take a look at that play…

Edit: my reaction: thats not absurdity thats just complete nonsense. there is no context, no relation to real life to compare the events to and wonder how did that absurd thing ever possibly happen, it lacks the dissonance between reality and the expectations of reality that is supposed to accompany it, its too far removed.

[Weezer]

I'm with Lord Raziere in finding the world absurd. The universe is cold and uncaring, void of meaning, it is our job to laugh at the world, to take up our limited existence and create our own meaning. What I'm drawing on isn't purely absurdism, I also rely a lot on existentialism and Heideggerian phenomenology to inform my view of the world.

For those who want to get a quick and dirty introduction to absurdism read the essay Myth of Sisyphus (http://dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm) by Camus. It's not a rigorous philosophical work by any means but captures the feel of absurdism perfectly for me. The key line is the final one: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

[Lord Raziere]

I mostly built up my philosophy from existentialism as well, after that I just added a bunch of little pieces of wisdoms and such onto it until I got what I have today.

[llamamushroom]

Regarding the Heart of Gas play, that is fantastic absurdism, almost because there is no context. It is futile to try and draw any meaning from it, because there's no way it can have any inherent meaning.

Also, it's funny. Not Waiting for Godot levels of hilarity/depression, but very, very amusing.

(I feel the need to point out that my initial "that looks like absurdism" post was directed at the way Lord Raziere said that the initial 'social experimenter' had abandoned the experiment, and it would be futile to try and draw any conclusions from the 'data' presented)

[Lord Raziere]

No I said that its futile that we have no way of knowing if the experiment has been abandoned or not. It could in fact still be going on and we would have still no knowledge either way. Its futile to draw any information, because unless the person who first started it in the first place came right here and told us, we have no way of knowing what the nature of the experiment was no matter how much we speculate.

simple logic, not really philosophy.

[Mx.Silver]

After skimming the Wikipedia article, it seems like they're using "absurd" in an unconventional sense. Silly philosophers
'Conventional meanings' tend to be a bit vague. Since good philosophy demands that meanings be as clear as possible a lot of words take on very specific meanings in philosophical discussion. Nothing silly about it. Hell, it's less silly than a lot of ways the word 'philosophy' gets misunderstood and misused.

[Smokin Red]

For those who want to get a quick and dirty introduction to absurdism read the essay Myth of Sisyphus (http://dbanach.com/sisyphus.htm) by Camus. It's not a rigorous philosophical work by any means but captures the feel of absurdism perfectly for me. The key line is the final one: "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
This! +1

I always understood it as accepting the absurdity of hour existence and simply roll with it...

[Telonius]

I wouldn't say that "the universe" is cold and uncaring. After all, I'm part of the universe, and I don't consider myself cold and uncaring.

[pendell]

My issue with absurdism, as discussed in this thread, is that it is a postulate, an axiom. It asserts there is no meaning or value in life. I raise two objections:

1) Just because I haven't found one doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Atoms were postulated in the time of ancient Greece but not proven to exist until modern times.

2) Perhaps there is a corollary to Descartes' "Cogito, Ergo Sum" . Perhaps "I believe there is meaning to life, therefore there is meaning to life." Even if the universe is itself is absurd, what if humans aren't? To create meaning where there was none sounds to me like "value added", and perhaps justifies the existence of humans and similar species. To give meaning to a meaningless world.

To put it more simply : If human beings assign meaning and value to the universe, does the universe not have meaning and value, if it didn't before?

3) Lastly, there is the fact that so many millions, if not billions , of people in the world who have succeeded in either seeking or finding meaning to life. While the number of people believing something doesn't logically prove a fact, the mere fact that so *many* people believe there is meaning to life implies that the thesis is worth a second glance.

For myself, I adhere to an older motto: "Seek and you will find. " In other words, if you believe there is meaning to life and seek for it, you'll find it. But you can't find anything if you don't seek.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Weezer]

My issue with absurdism, as discussed in this thread, is that it is a postulate, an axiom. It asserts there is no meaning or value in life. I raise two objections:

1) Just because I haven't found one doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Atoms were postulated in the time of ancient Greece but not proven to exist until modern times.

2) Perhaps there is a corollary to Descartes' "Cogito, Ergo Sum" . Perhaps "I believe there is meaning to life, therefore there is meaning to life." Even if the universe is itself is absurd, what if humans aren't? To create meaning where there was none sounds to me like "value added", and perhaps justifies the existence of humans and similar species. To give meaning to a meaningless world.

To put it more simply : If human beings assign meaning and value to the universe, does the universe not have meaning and value, if it didn't before?

3) Lastly, there is the fact that so many millions, if not billions , of people in the world who have succeeded in either seeking or finding meaning to life. While the number of people believing something doesn't logically prove a fact, the mere fact that so *many* people believe there is meaning to life implies that the thesis is worth a second glance.

For myself, I adhere to an older motto: "Seek and you will find. " In other words, if you believe there is meaning to life and seek for it, you'll find it. But you can't find anything if you don't seek.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The thing to remember about absurdism is that it only rejects that life has some inherent, objective meaning, some meaning that you can point to and say "this is why all humans exist". They do not reject the idea that it is possible to create a meaning for yourself (or for others). A good bit of Heidegger (who isn't an absurdist per say, he came first but absurdists drew on a lot of his ideas) is talking about what he terms "projects" which are the things in life that we do that provide us with a meaning. Nothing of what you said directly contradicts absurdism.


Also, bringing up "Cogito Ergo Sum" in the context of absurdism, existentialism and phenomenology probably isn't the best idea, all three of these schools were very opposed to Descartes idea of the cogito aka the subject, which held man's consciousness as completely divorced from the world in every way. According to Descartes the world could not effect the cogito in any way, this is anathema to the phenomenologists and those who followed them. In fact Heidegger invented a new word (Dasein) to refer to humanity in order to separate his thoughts from those of Descartes and the like.

[PirateMonk]

My issue with absurdism, as discussed in this thread, is that it is a postulate, an axiom. It asserts there is no meaning or value in life.

It seems to more say that humans will never find intrinsic meaning.


2) Perhaps there is a corollary to Descartes' "Cogito, Ergo Sum" . Perhaps "I believe there is meaning to life, therefore there is meaning to life." Even if the universe is itself is absurd, what if humans aren't?

Leaving aside the problems with Descartes, read the part of the Wikipedia article I posted. The Absurd allegedly arises from the conflict between human expectations and the universe, so human value is irrelevant to the absurdist thesis. (This is badly worded.) Absurdism seems to advocate creating your own meaning


To create meaning where there was none sounds to me like "value added", and perhaps justifies the existence of humans and similar species. To give meaning to a meaningless world.

What do you mean 'justifies'? If there is some moral standard intrinsic to the universe by which human existence can be justified, doesn't that undercut your point? If there is not, why must we value our values for their own sake?


To put it more simply : If human beings assign meaning and value to the universe, does the universe not have meaning and value, if it didn't before?

Absurdism claims, to some extent correctly, that people for some reason want intrinsic meaning and value. Such people probably won't be satisfied with this.

[pendell]

The thing to remember about absurdism is that it only rejects that life has some inherent, objective meaning, some meaning that you can point to and say "this is why all humans exist".


Okay. Roll back to zero. Why should I accept this fundamental postulate? From a lower down response:



Absurdism claims, to some extent correctly, that people for some reason want intrinsic meaning and value. Such people probably won't be satisfied with this.

Perhaps the reason people want meaning and value to life is because there is such a thing, and we grasp it intuitively. Why would we even have the words for it in our language if it didn't exist?

It seems to me that we humans are more imitators than creators ex nihilo. We make airplanes because we observe the flight of birds and wish to imitate them. And many of our stories are subcreations -- imitations of the real world as we wish it to be rather than what it is.

I submit that if the universe had no meaning or value, we humans could not make stories that had meaning or value. And human stories do. Going back to Aesop's fables, most of our stories have some point or lesson. That's why we go on telling them. Even if the story is devoid of plot or obvious anvilicious message , it still is trying to communicate something, some emotion or feeling or idea or impression.


I ask, which is more likely: That humans could exist in a meaningless universe and create meaning? Or that humans could observe meaning in the universe and imitate it?

It seems to me that human stories could not have meaning if humans *themselves* do not have meaning. If the universe is meaningless, then our stories and our ideas are equally meaningless. Therefore, if we are to derive any profit or utility from communicating stories or ideas, it must follow that we must *assume* that both the ideas and the universe those ideas describe have meaning. Otherwise what's the point?

... I'm not communicating this very well, am I? :)

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Mx.Silver]

Perhaps the reason people want meaning and value to life is because there is such a thing, and we grasp it intuitively. Why would we even have the words for it in our language if it didn't exist?
Most languages have words for concepts like 'fairness' and 'justice', which are also intuitively grasped as well. You'd be hard pressed to say these things objectively exist in the physical world though, rather than just as human constructs we impose on our societies. It's at least as likely that having a belief that life carries some 'purpose' is/can be beneficial to humans - in the same way that beliefs in fairness and justice seem to be. Note that it is often the case that motivation to complete a task suffers if someone does not believe there is any point to said task in the first place. One who is better motivated will frequently out-perform his/her competitors, hence there is a pragmatic reason for why a belief in purpose could emerge without it being present as an intrinsic property of the universe.
Then you get into things like numbers, all languages have a word for the number 1 yet we do not assume that somewhere in the universe there exists a '1'. Consider also the word 'dragon'.

Appealing to things which are 'intuitively grasped' is problematic in and of itself anyway, given that intuition has no guarantee of being correct. There have been a number of very common intuitions (sun goes around the earth, for example) that have been shown to be wrong.



It seems to me that we humans are more imitators than creators ex nihilo. We make airplanes because we observe the flight of birds and wish to imitate them. And many of our stories are subcreations -- imitations of the real world as we wish it to be rather than what it is.
Note that bolded part in relation to this debate. Furthermore, this imitation idea works both ways, especially when it comes to inventions. It is entirely possible that humans can take the purpose they place on their creations - or the sense of purpose they feel when working towards a goal - and than imagine it applies to life and the universe as well.



I submit that if the universe had no meaning or value, we humans could not make stories that had meaning or value.
Then by the same logic one must also assume that the universe also contains justice, fairness etc. independent of, and prior to, humanity. This is rather difficult to square with the fact that nature does not operate in a manner that suggests this.


Going back to Aesop's fables, most of our stories have some point or lesson. That's why we go on telling them. Even if the story is devoid of plot or obvious anvilicious message , it still is trying to communicate something, some emotion or feeling or idea or impression.
No one is denying this. The point being that it doesn't follow from the fact that human stories have meaning to other humans that the universe has mean and purpose objectively - i.e. regardless of whether humans ascribe meaning to it.



I ask, which is more likely: That humans could exist in a meaningless universe and create meaning? Or that humans could observe meaning in the universe and imitate it?
Neither position is inherently flawed. However, the second requires an additional assumption - that the universe has meaning independent of humanity (or any other sapient life). The first does not since the fact that humans can ascribe meaning to is obvious.


It seems to me that human stories could not have meaning if humans *themselves* do not have meaning. If the universe is meaningless, then our stories and our ideas are equally meaningless. Therefore, if we are to derive any profit or utility from communicating stories or ideas, it must follow that we must *assume* that both the ideas and the universe those ideas describe have meaning.
.
This seems to be in danger of conflating two different definitions of 'meaning', specifically intelligibility of communication ("what do you mean?") and teleological significance ("What is the meaning of this?"). From what I understand of Absurdism (which admittedly isn't a lot) when it says that the universe is 'meaningless' it is referring to teleological meaning. Without this conflation, we have no reason to assume that the utility of language implies that the universe has an objective fundamental meaning or purpose, regardless of whatever humans ascribe to it.

[Telonius]

Most languages have words for concepts like 'fairness' and 'justice', which are also intuitively grasped as well. You'd be hard pressed to say these things objectively exist in the physical world though, rather than just as human constructs we impose on our societies.

Would dogs and monkeys (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97944783)count? It might just exist among earth animals living in "cooperative societies," like the scientist suggests. But if the study is correct, it's not 100% exclusive to humans.

[Kneenibble]

Edit: my reaction: thats not absurdity thats just complete nonsense. there is no context, no relation to real life to compare the events to and wonder how did that absurd thing ever possibly happen, it lacks the dissonance between reality and the expectations of reality that is supposed to accompany it, its too far removed.

The Gas Heart is Dada, not Theatre of the Absurd, just for the record: a different creature. But also you can't make that judgement based purely on the text because it is, as you see, a play. Having played The Eye, I will tell you that the piece can be quite relevantly and delightfully interpreted through performance (as it is meant to be). The Dada freedom from the tyranny of linear narrative and dialogue structure enables unprecedented newness in play and meaning.

I believe the position Mr. Pendell approaches is quite similar to that in C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity: without broaching the theology therein, it is to say that if we have an appetite for something, even an idea, it is because the object exists.

[pendell]

I believe the position Mr. Pendell approaches is quite similar to that in C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity: without broaching the theology therein, it is to say that if we have an appetite for something, even an idea, it is because the object exists.


Spot on. That was what I was feeling my way towards without quite being able to put my finger on it. We have hunger; there is such a thing as food. We have lust. There is such a thing as sex. We have thirst; There is such a thing is water.

So if humans have an appetite, a strong desire to make sense of the world, is it not because the world makes sense? If we have a hunger, an appetite, for meaning, is it not because there is such a thing as meaning?

I'll set up a bit of a devil's advocate to my own position , just to follow it where it logically leads.

Humans can also have an appetite for something if an original appetite is twisted or trained into something else. For instance, tobacco is an acquired taste. No one can smoke it or chew it without tremendous revulsion. But if you keep at it, your body can not only grow to accept it, your body can come to crave it to the point you feel physical pain if you don't get it.

So .. do human have an appetite for meaning? If they do is it an original appetite, like thirst for water, or an acquired appetite, like thirst for Coca-cola?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Weezer]

@Pendell
The thing is that there are many, many things human can think about and talk about that don't exist. The classic example is Unicorns, I can think about unicorns, talk about unicorns and you will know exactly what I am talking about. That doesn't mean that unicorns exist. The same thing goes for meaning, just because I have a conception of it doesn't mean it exists.

Kant has a very good refutation of this line of reasoning in one of his critiques of Descartes. Descartes uses this form of logic as a proof of the existence of god and Kant refutes it (followed by forming his own proof, but that is neither here nor there).

The thing is that absurdism draws it's roots from phenomenology, whose key tenant is ''to the things themselves'', meaning that when you're looking for something look to the phenomenon for answers. I ask you, do you see objective meaning in the universe? The kind of meaning that would still be present if you removed all humanity, all sentient life, from the universe? I know that I don't, which is why I'm an absurdist/existentialist. If you do see it, then congratulations, honestly it'll make your life a lot easier.

I often wish I could see that kind of meaning, absolute certainty in my life's purpose would be incredibly comforting.

@Telonius

I'm wary about these kinds of studies, they tend to anthropomorphize animals to a degree not truly supported by the facts.

[pendell]

I ask you, do you see objective meaning in the universe? The kind of meaning that would still be present if you removed all humanity, all sentient life, from the universe?


To my mind, the idea of a universe having objective meaning if that meaning does NOT include its inhabitants is .. well, it doesn't seem to follow.

Imagine a house. Does a house have meaning if there aren't people to live in it?

Picture a car. Does a car have meaning if there are no people to drive it?

Picture a book. Does a book have meaning if there are no people to read it?

Likewise the universe. Yes, the universe has no meaning without people just as a house without people has no meaning. But a house is specifically designed for people . It has no meaning without people because people are a fundamental requirement for the construct .

It's like saying a car has no meaning without an engine. Well, of course. But what daft person builds a car without an engine?

What I'm trying to say in my faltering way is that if people are central, a fundamental key component of the meaning of the universe, then it's pointless to say that the universe has no meaning without them. It's like saying a movie theater has no point if you take away the movies. Well, yes. If you take away the central , fundamental thesis, the primary requirement, out of the equation, of course everything topples like a house of cards. It's a tautology -- true but also meaningless.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Lord Raziere]

that is assuming that humans are even the central thesis.

the central thesis, could be beans for all we know. we will never know, for we won't even exactly find the objective meaning of life- the meaning could be in beans this entire time and we will never know. that is what absurdism is all about.

[Weezer]

A house and a car don't have meaning without humans to provide that meaning. That is my point.

The thing is that to an absurdist the house has no inherent meaning or purpose. If I walked up to the house and instead of seeing it as a place for me to dwell in see it as the perfect place to stable a horse, the meaning of the house would be a place for horses to be stabled. You are ascribing singular, unchanging meanings to thing that don't have singular, unchanging meanings. What meaning we find in the concept 'house' doesn't have some objective existence, but instead is something completely constructed by humanity.

Also you are assuming that the universe was made for humanity, which is a really big assumption. The universe was in existence for billions of years before life, let alone humans, came into existence on earth and will exist for billions, if not an infinite number of, years after humanity has passed away. We hold no privledged position in the universe, to paraphrase Sagan we are but a speck of dust floating in the void.

Why is it that you think humanity are ''central'' to the universe? If by some evolutionary fluke all of the apes died off 10 million years ago, then there would have been no humans, but would the universe care? Would it be changed it any fundamental way? No. The reason we are here is blind luck, events just happened to occur in such a way to lead to humanity.

It seems like this is the point that forms the fundamental disconnect between our outlooks on meaning.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

The Gas Heart is Dada, not Theatre of the Absurd, just for the record: a different creature. But also you can't make that judgement based purely on the text because it is, as you see, a play. Having played The Eye, I will tell you that the piece can be quite relevantly and delightfully interpreted through performance (as it is meant to be). The Dada freedom from the tyranny of linear narrative and dialogue structure enables unprecedented newness in play and meaning.

That is true, my bad.
A better example of Theatre of the Absurd is Marat/Sade, also one of my favourite plays ever.

[PirateMonk]

Spot on. That was what I was feeling my way towards without quite being able to put my finger on it. We have hunger; there is such a thing as food. We have lust. There is such a thing as sex. We have thirst; There is such a thing is water.

So if humans have an appetite, a strong desire to make sense of the world, is it not because the world makes sense? If we have a hunger, an appetite, for meaning, is it not because there is such a thing as meaning?

If we had desires for things that didn't exist, how would we ever know? It could just manifest as general dissatisfaction with life, which at least some people certainly have.


To my mind, the idea of a universe having objective meaning if that meaning does NOT include its inhabitants is .. well, it doesn't seem to follow.

Imagine a house. Does a house have meaning if there aren't people to live in it?

Picture a car. Does a car have meaning if there are no people to drive it?

Picture a book. Does a book have meaning if there are no people to read it?

Likewise the universe. Yes, the universe has no meaning without people just as a house without people has no meaning. But a house is specifically designed for people . It has no meaning without people because people are a fundamental requirement for the construct .

It's like saying a car has no meaning without an engine. Well, of course. But what daft person builds a car without an engine?

What I'm trying to say in my faltering way is that if people are central, a fundamental key component of the meaning of the universe, then it's pointless to say that the universe has no meaning without them. It's like saying a movie theater has no point if you take away the movies. Well, yes. If you take away the central , fundamental thesis, the primary requirement, out of the equation, of course everything topples like a house of cards. It's a tautology -- true but also meaningless.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Lord Raziere and Weezer are correct about this. Furthermore, a better phrasing of the original question might be, "Do you see any objective purpose in the universe outside of human minds and creations?" Intrinsic value may be about humans, but it must exist somewhere out there or it's not really intrinsic.