I'm 26 and in the past few weeks have been going through my first major existential crisis, not understanding the meaning of a world we cannot change and a life we are destined to lose, until I discovered Albert Camus on a whim. I needed to find a anchor to keep going and this is it. I don't need to find the meaning of life if meaning itself is impossible to find, and I cried after I understood that. I don't have anyone, much less anyone to talk to about this so I'll just leave this here. I've found my purpose

If, as Albert Camus argues, life has no inherent meaning and we must create our own, how can we achieve it? What is the true value of a 'rebel' life according to Camus – is it a constant striving, or perhaps a form of acceptance?

It can most definitely be overruled.

Also keep a mental note, as an absurdist I have been finding it meaningful when saying something is absurd is not a symbol of insult, but an expression of praise.

You see the absurd thing reckons that the meaninglessness is the meaning:
"The absence of something is not necessarily the absence of everything"

Nihilism is just as important as Existentialism and all of these things are just as important as the next and accepts both of these premises.

It doesn't take out the absurd importance of them both, but it does dilute them. You see the acceptance of the absurd things doesn't diminish the meaning it creates, but rather it creates its own from the tail sides of those philosophies that made the foundation. When a house is made, no one looks at the concrete foundation that was made to create the house "oh man! what kind of concrete did you use" not every detail is seen fully. However, that's what makes it beautiful. It leans you in to see the details closer and somewhat personal details. What made this thing that captivates me? How was it made? How absolutely absurd it would be if one of these elements were by itself! Imagine a concrete slab in a very familiar and usual spot. We would glance and go about our day.

However, place this concrete slab in a forest where no society lives and now you have an unsolved mystery and somehow you have turned into an investigator as you search the finer details of every moment. You search the leaves for concrete bags maybe even find a wallet with a name and as you put the story together you find something (Existentialism) or nothing at all (Nihilism).

In existentialism the story begins as you put the pieces together to find a sweet story or an anticlimactic narrative. In the case of the latter, it brings you to dread, but for the nihilist this was expected and so he/she is not hurt by the outcome, but he/she is hurt by the experience itself or for not having the experience at all.

An absurdist might see it for what it is and see it as a mystery that might be anticlimactic, and yet; peruses it anyway! How ridicules! How dumb! How absolutely Absurd!

Thoughts?

It wouldn't be suffering if Sisyphus had an companion that he could share the burden with, things would have been much better for him.

Can someone explain the following text:

"If I were a tree among trees, a cat among animals, this life would have a meaning, or rather this problem would not arise, for I should belong to this world. I should be this world to which I am now opposed by my whole consciousness and my whole insistence upon familiarity. This ridiculous reason is what sets me in opposition to all creation. I cannot cross it out with a stroke of the pen."

First question: how does Camus come to the conclusion "this life would have a meaning"?

Second question: Why is he is opposition to all creation? Absurd chiefly concerns itself with the divorce between the mind and the world or nature. So, why is he opposed to nature, for the existence of nature had no role to play in the birth of the absurd? Or, does he mean everything in the universe when he refers "all creation"?

Absudrism is a counterconditional process or ending to a story. By the word "Absurd" tells us that the universe is chaotic and messed up but the meaning of life itself is nothing. It's not finding meaning through suffering or finding meaning in nothingness. It's also not about hope because it talks about despair. Hope is not ours to find or to begin with but by our 3rd person view or in the back of our mind shall exist. It's like leaving a bad day at work and you saw a new convenience store near your street and you buy your favorite food. It's about SILVER LINING. It's not about hoping things will work out but some of it does and you don't need to hope for it, just go or ride with it.

I'll try comparing nihilism and (absurdism) here.

1. The leaf falls to the ground and it's completely dead and no longer part of a tree (but it benefits the soil by it's nutrients so it makes the soil healthy).

2. The dead soldier's flesh is rotten and he will be forever gone for eternity( soon the dead man became a tree because the soil received the body's nutrients)

The tree and the dead soldier doesn't know the brightside because they're gone. Absurdism is just like that. Maybe there is hope but we can't sense it because it's far beyond us.

Idk what to do.

It did not help, but I may have been too doped up to get it. 4.5 hours in the ER reading it and I still had to get a case of beer after leaving. Because a bottle in front of me is better than a frontal lobotomy.

I read Man's Search For Meaning, Johnathan Livingston Seagull, and Tuesdays with Morrie the following week.

All helped.

Now that I'm "no longer in crisis", I'm trying to understand all of this.

Can someone please help compare and contrast Camus with Frankl?

I'm trying to figure out where I fit. Also, what to read, hopefully not too academic. Movie suggestions?

Thanks in advance guys.

Are there any qualification that differs free will and absurdism? I'd like to know more about this

I’ve been deeply influenced by Albert Camus and his philosophy of absurdism. I’ve embraced the idea that life is inherently meaningless and that we must create our own meaning. I try to live authentically, fully aware of the absurdity of existence, and yet…I still procrastinate.

If I accept that there’s no ultimate meaning and that my choices are what give value to my life, why do I keep putting off things I care about? Shouldn’t I, in theory, be more motivated to take action and live fully in the present?

Maybe procrastination is a way of avoiding the responsibility of creating meaning. Or perhaps it’s a struggle with the tension between knowing life is absurd and actually acting with purpose anyway.

Anyone else grapple with this? How do you reconcile procrastination with living authentically in an absurd world?

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfmEMCZxyEDUSnD8Xnfgjq3U_DMHf6NpzeloxhW3BabMJrlOA/viewform?usp=header

Please follow this link for my gppw project, I am from Kazahkstan

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdowqXNc4n_5zQtLXVXVdCM3nbvekM0Dbe5wl-1hDX1GTFQcA/viewform?usp=header

And this form tooks 1-2 minutes

We know the drill, life is meaningless and nothing matters, including the fact that nothing matters, so we defy life by imagining Sisyphus happy.

Thing is Camus does not set a clear moral compass of what is right and wrong (to my knowledge at least) and that can lead to many different interpretations of his work, none of which could be judged as not aligned with his ideas.

That said, since contradiction is a keystone for absurdism, I can’t find a line of philosophy that is utterly incompatible with his work. Can you?

All interactions with other lines of thinking seem like a Venn diagram.

Hey all, just finished reading the rebel, so please excuse me if my questions are self explanatory and I just haven’t given myself enough time to digest the ending. I’m a bit confused on the whole moderation idea and how we can actually use the rebel ideology in real times. I understand that Camus ideas is to never give in to the absurd ideas found in many revolutions, which deviate from the concrete foundations of love which they were built upon. I also get that to rebel is to help people and the world despite themselves not helping themselves, and instead of giving everything to a promised future, it is the present that we must love and give our all. What I’m struggling with is what he means by moderation in rebelling and how in current times I can use this ideology to help bring change. Camus talks on supporting trade unions, but is that it? And another thing, what should we do with the people who cross the boundaries set by the rebel, is their punishment or simply love and try to help them come back? For example, what would Camus say about trump or Netanyahu and how to deal with them? Sorry if this is all a muddle of words that aren’t that coherent, I’m just throwing all my thoughts out.

In the vast expanse of the cosmos, we find ourselves adrift in a sea of indifference. The universe, silent and impartial, offers no inherent purpose or meaning. Yet Stoics can find profound liberation in this apparent void. The absence of cosmic dictates frees us to shape our own destinies, to create meaning through our choices and actions.

If the universe neither praises nor condemns, then we are not pawns in a celestial game, but actors with true agency. Our lives become blank canvases, waiting for the brushstrokes of our virtues - justice, courage, wisdom, and temperance. In this light, the absurdity of existence transforms from a burden into an opportunity. We are challenged to live with intention, to find beauty in the chaos, and to create purpose where none is given.

Anybody else apply stoicism in the face of absurdism? Any related books or essays you recommend? I’m currently working on a video essay exploring this topic in greater depth. Looking forward to your insights!

I would like to hear from those who have experience with or have ever considered how to deal with disabilities from an absurdist perspective.

I do not have a disability, but I have been injured for the last four months, preventing me from doing things I enjoy. These things helped me to support life's weight (Sisyphus's boulder), and without them, it is hard to keep smiling.

(hello everyone it's my first post in this subbredit) After 2 months of depressed thoughts and self sabotage, I started to get these things out of my head for several reasons, my mental health and a good mood and I started thinking about philosophy, specifically absurdism and nihilism, I think absurdism is a good philosophy and it understands my personal thoughts, I was thinking of buying the book (the myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus) is it a great choice to starting the philosophy of absurdism?

When Camus referenced Sisyphus pushing the boulder with a smile on his face, does that mean rebelling the absurd is embracing it and still going on with our lives with content and happiness, even if it angers the gods?

It’s not an easy book.

Like a lost city with billions of people in search of some way to think, to understand what all this is about. But the only thing we know is that we can never be certain. Yet certainty is what we crave. We hear about lands where people can actually decide, and we drool like dogs.

For every question and its answer, there’s always another question, and so on. Calling it meaningless or meaningful is ultimately the same. It’s either ignorance or insanity

(Excuse my bad english)

Didn’t Mr. Frankl say those with a why can bear any how. Ok well, I’m bearing how without a why…

Why should you live? Word to Camus. So you can ‘how.’ But isn’t the ‘how’ of living dependent on a ‘why’? And if there’s no solid ‘why,’ how do we create a why which is the how, the action that follows from a why without a why?

Everything about existence can be seen as the enacted how—the daily motions, choices, and actions we take. But the question lingers: how are we doing all this howing without a foundational why? Does the how eventually generate its own why, or are we just endlessly spinning in the void?

Camus argue that we must embrace the absurd—the tension between our need for meaning and the universe’s silence. But does this answer the question, or just sidestep it? How do you personally reconcile this circularity?

I’d love to hear how others grapple with this. Do you live for a purpose you’ve created? Or is your ‘how’ just a way to keep going despite the lack of a clear ‘why’? Isn’t that what Sartre calls bad faith?

Ok, any why will do. Why so many hows?

How, which requires a why, did you why without a why to begin with?

Apologies English is not my first language, Gibberish is.

Even the war within ourselves. All of us, together in an absurd war. Suffering. - I think of a warrior, a true warrior. Not the warrior that is best at fighting. The one out of a thousand that is clearly beaten amongst the rest in the center of a battlefield. Dying with the rest. The one that knows they never wanted to be here. But they are, from their own choosing. I think to be a warrior, you must become a philosopher, which does not correlate with a warrior’s philosophy. So let us become warriors if must be. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

I mean it in a intuitive and syllogistic nature of absurdism and I would appreciate the reasons why it appeals to you.

Thank you any reply is much appreciated!!

(Apologies for my first post)

I was wondering if someone can explain how Kafka's novella, the Metamorphosis, falls under Absurdist literature?

I haven't finished the whole novella yet with how small the texts are in my physical book, but so far from the summaries I've read, I only understand the concepts of Alienation and Capitalism in it.

Do you live any different? Enjoy living more or less? Care less?

When I say mental health, i mean specific things like lazyness, perfectionism, depression, all that kind of stuff. If you struggel with something everyday like anxiety for instance, is saying to yourself "well in the grand scheme of things this is absurd and I should stop doing it" then does it stop? Im curious cuz it did happen to me back when I first started high school and I used absurdism to calm myself down and get more confidence in myself to talk to new friends.

I am an absurdist, finding my own meaning in self-actualization; living the best subjective experience possible. I wish I could get by in this inherently meaningless world finding a super easy way to get by financially and just spend my time observing and appreciating life. I find myself wondering what the point/meaning of work is. Any advice on what to do or how to shift my mindset, because although my life might be inherently worthless overall I still don't wish to experience homelessness etc if I never get a job.

I'm starting to think that it really might have some sort of sophisticated relation to th absurdisim philosophy, th way the memes don't make sense on purpose yet I laugh at them fully aware that I don't understand th meaning of it, kinda reminds me of how similar that is with life's meaning as an absurdist, how unnecessary it is in life to be able to enjoy it, isn't that what weirdcore brainrot memes are trying to prove? by braking all kinds of meme formats and comedy structures, only to portray th ultimate absurdity of th human condition with th weirdest most ridiculous images ever? orr perhaps it's just weird zoomers stuff I can't get.

Absurdism leads to true freedom.

When you don’t care about recognition, other people’s opinion of you, wealth accumulation or popularity; a profound sense of freedom occurs.

I used to care endlessly about the above and it suffocated me, to say the least.

How did I get to the place of absurdity in the first place? By losing close-to everything at one point. It reminds me of the quote by Tyler Durden: “Once you’ve lost everything, you’re free to do anything.”

What are your thoughts on the benefits of absurdity and how do people reach this state?