Talk:Absurdism/Archive 1

Cleanup and removal of original research tag

This talk page needs to be cleaned up by someone more talented and knowledgeable than myself. Also, the section that is flagged as original research should be referenced and verified. It's quite easy to find sources for such general claims, I've added one myself. Taintedstreetlight (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

It would be nice if there was a validated critism section like most of the other philosophy pages have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.173.123 (talk) 02:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is none? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.160.49 (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

the premise of the article seems original. the substance is solutions to the question of absurdity, and it's framed to justify 'Absurdity' as a philosophy. This is terrible. J Civil 17:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan civil (talk • contribs)

The comparison table is terrible. Please consider either removing it or getting a qualified person to completely rewrite it. This is merely the most apparent flaw among many others. 97.77.52.127 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaning

How can one say "life/existence is meaningless" when there is nothing containing "meaning" with which to compare life/existence? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-09-19 05:06

You just said "there is no meaning". ··gracefool |☺ 13:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"mean·ing (mē'nĭng) pronunciation

n.

1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: “But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?” (O. Henry).

adj.

1. Full of meaning; expressive.
2. Disposed or intended in a specified manner. Often used in combination: a well-meaning fellow; ill-meaning intentions."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.92.221 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 June 2006

Comment from Reader

I would just like to say that the table on there really really cleared things up for me. I don't think I would have understood it without that table. I think it would be a good idea to use something similar on other pages related to this. --76.27.233.30 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion imported from The Absurd

Someone with more background in philosophy writing should expand this article, esp. in re other formulations of the thesis and its objections; influential thinkers; and other cultural emanations beyond theater.

I created the page absurdism mostly based on a dictionary definition of it. It had previously been a redirect to the Theater of the Absurd. Since this article seems to be about a philosphy, should its content not be merged with with absurdism page? JesseHogan 22:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Hogan, absurdism is the superior page title. - Vague | Rant 08:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Also agree. Someone should merge the articles at absurdism. I'll add this to my watchlist and do it myself in a couple weeks if nobody eles takes the initiative :P Argyrios 23:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also agree. I'll take point and do the merge now. -- Tenebrae 20:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've done the editing and the redirect, but someone with much more knowledge of philosophy than I might want to go through it and smooth out any rough edges. Cheers! -- Tenebrae 20:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would, but I don't see the point... kidding. I am working on something that I can edit down to wikiese. - mikemayberry

Absurdism's relation to Nihilism? I'm no expert but that seems slightly generalized. Where did this information come from? I see Nihilism as rejection from standard social beliefs. Isn't Absurdism slightly more complex and less reactionary?

Yes I would also like to see a section on absurdism's relation to nihilism. I understand that they both reject the notion that there is ultimate meaning, but nihilism according to Camus promotes death and suicide, while absurdism somehow holds life as the only true value and somehow rebellion fits in to all that, but can someone who has actually bothered to read a couple of books clarify this? How can life have meaning in an absurd world, etc.? Is all this related to anti-trancedentalism? What other philosophical theories hold the premise that there is no meaning and how are they related to absurdism? Alex.g 21:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In his introduction to The Rebel, Camus talks about the absurd and nihilism while he addresses the issues of murder and suicide. I believe how he asserts absurdism to uphold value in life (as alluded to above) is specifically, "The final conclusion of absurdist reasoning is, in fact, the repudiation of suicide and acceptance of the desperate encounter between human inquiry and the silence of the universe. Suicide would mean the end of this encounter, and absurdist reasoning considers that it could not consent to this without negating its own premises... absurdism hereby admits that human life is the only necessary good since it is precisely life that makes this [absurd] encounter possible and since, without life, the absurdist wager would have no basis. To say that life is absurd, the conscience must be alive." - Albert Camus, The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower (New York: Alfred A. Knopf: 1971), 6. Qzxtvbzr 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does this page have a link to the Hitchhiker's Guide? I don't see the connection

The language of this article is at times substandard, or just awkward. I suspect it was written (though admirably well) by a non-native speaker of English. It could really use a bit of stylistic pruning though.

I agree with the above in that this article could be much more concise. Also I agree that the question "How can life have meaning in an absurd world?" should be discussed and clarified. The current synopsis: The absurd hero should revolt against the hope of the supernatural and a higher meaning existing. He should then live for the present passion. But how is this different than living for a meaningless purpose that the individual creates himself? Seems like Camus defeats himself here. Clarification needed.--HSampson

Ok in general, let me run through this as throughly as possible.

Step 1: You realize that your freedom is limitless since:

A: nothing truly compels you to act in a certain way (aside from the laws of physics)

B: nothing truly prevents you from acting in a certain way (aside from physics)

Step 2: You realize that your freedom is without bounds, that nothing actually limits your ability to choose to act in whatever arbitrary way you want. (not even coercion)

Step 3: Thus, by the problem of theodicy, there is either no God or is a God permissive of evil (since people are free to act in an evil way). Either way, there cannot be a structured system of transcendent values (because God's word is either fictitious or non-binding).

Step 4: Thus, there is no transcendent meaning of life. Everything that you do has no bearing on your "goodness", because "goodness" is a an empty term. There is no ultimate justification for any of your actions because the final end of everything will be death. All actions are thus meaningless in view of this inevitability.

Step 5: If this life is the only life, then our actions in this life are the only chance to do what we want to do. Happiness can only be attained in this world, and we only have one shot at it.

Step 6: We must recognize the above as the "Problem of the Absurd". In keeping this in mind, we realize that we can never truly escape this problem. We must live and cope with it as we do with the finality of death. Attempts to forget or elude this problem are circular, since we will always come back to realizing this by our situations (ie. on our deathbed, or through our death itself).

Step 7: Referring to step 5 and 6, we can only possibly be happy in life. We must then live it as we see fit, seeking to enrich our experiences. This is justified due to human preference to live happy. To reject all action as meaningless is to embrace the absurd to end the problem of the absurd (ie. suicide). Camus rejects suicide as meaningless in itself, and that it effectively cuts off any chance for happiness.

Thus Camus outlines a system in which individuals can live "well". As long as the passion is not seen as the ultimate meaning to existence, living with passion is an appropriate vehicle with which to acquire happiness. It is different from the meaningless purposes that ultimately appeal to a non-existent transcendent value. Seeking happiness can be regarded as a "meaning of life" insofar as it is not put in transcendent terms, because it cannot transcend death. Eventually, I'll probably rewrite something explicating what I have just summed up. --MasonicLamb

Absurdist examples

I agree that The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series is borderline. Although the meaning of life (and the question of the meaning of life) does figure prominently throughout and the humor in the series is also largely based on absurd events and interactions (eg. a whale and a bunch of posies being brought into being suddenly, several miles above a planet's surface), the question of whether HHGG is truly an absurdist work is worth raising. I say leave it, as it is a widely-known and -available work and even if it's not truly absurdist in the sense of Waiting for Godot it is as worthy of inclusion here as is something like Candide (not truly absurdist either).

A bigger problem for me is Tom Goes to the Mayor. (I admit I'm not at all a fan of the show, which I can find to be anywhere from excessively infantile to nauseating, sometimes both.) From what I've seen of it, it is more of an example of the humor of pathos (or maybe bathos) than it is absurdity. A better example of Adult Swim absurdity, to me, would be Aqua Teen Hunger Force or 12 oz. Mouse. Maybe even Perfect Hair Forever, though that's more parody than anything else. --Andymussell 00:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed Tom Goes to the Mayor but it was replaced with no real explaination. I actually like the show alot but it would be nice if somebody explained why it is an example of absurdism since more than one editor is confused. I don't get why ATHF would be

absurdism however.JesseHogan 05:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adult swim is not absurdist, it is non-sequitur. They neither point out life's meaninglessness nor assert anything beyond "Wouldn't it be funny if...?" For absurdism in art, look at film noir.

The point (ha) of HHGG being there is that the 'answer to life, the universe and everything' is '42', a completely irrelevant and useless number. Douglas Adams was depressed when he wrote it.

You've all got to realize that absurdism is essentially a philosophical movement and not a cultural one. These things that people take to be absurd would fit very well under "surreal humor" or "non-sequiturs", but not "absurdism". Absurdism attempts to bring into focus the fundamental questions of the meaning of life and the nature of man's freedom. It does not involve Adult Swim or HHGG, or all of the other works of literature and art listed as examples of absurdism. Absurdism at its very heart is a philosophical system that makes sense. So theres your rule of thumb, and if you dont believe me, read Camus's Myth of Sisyphus because nowhere in there does he invoke non-sequiturs.
-MasonicLamb 18:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Aren't absurdism and non-sequitur humor inherently linked? - Mellesime 13:04, 29 April 2006

Potato. The Real Walrus 11:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Absurdist Humor

What about absurdism as a type of humor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.137.11 (talk • contribs) 02:44, September 29, 2006.

Try surreal comedy or something like that, or absurd comedy - this article is in relation to the absurdist philosophy.

Absurdism Definition

I have found a lot of articles that link here citing themselves as Absurdist, but they do not apear amoungst the examples. It seems to me that the definition as is would aparently exclude many of these non-litterary examples. So I wonder if some sort of clear cut division can't be made between Absurdism and Absurdity so as to make things easier. I myself don't know that I'm fit to make a desicions of this kind without this happening. For example I have always heard of Monty Python as being Absurdist(the article itself claims this is so), but now I'm confused as to weither it's Absurdist or just Absurd. Another thing that bothers me is that some have held that if it dosen't apear in a book by Camus it's not Absurdist, which seems like a fairly strict definition. Especially given that there are other authors listed in the examples. Quite a bit to digest I know, but it would be nice to make progress towards an answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lewiscode (talk • contribs) 00:16, October 7, 2006.

Absurdism and maths

What does absurdism say about mathamatics? Are there any philosophical systems that reject all truth and rational objectivity including mathamatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caggers (talk • contribs) 16:44, December 26, 2006

It is funny you ask - Camus does not explicitly talk about math, however he does relate to it when talking about the universe: he mentions several times "the bloody mathematics of the universe" in the sense that the universe is chaotic and does not show signs of any inherent value or meaning: it does not care, it will let anything happen no matter how horrible from a human point of view. (the quote is from "the first man") String42 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, mathamatics is not exactly rational, and either objective everytime. but is certanly an issue of (or language of) logical syntax, applied to concretism, yes, most of it... but far of objectivism.

When writting "Le Mythe de Sisyphe", for example declared cleary several times that the essay was only written using logical parameters.

but when it comes specificaly about the "all truth and rational objectivity" the absurdism never denied, it, as similar to it's oppose. but the absurdism claims that both cases are only validated in conflict of the 'collision' of both, thefore both sides are not valid, but essencially needed to the absurd, and, at the same time, in no one of those.

confusion between absurdism and existentialism

When researching the play "No Exit" or "Huis Clos" by Jean Paul Satre, the article in English calls it existentialist when the article in French calls it absurdist. Yet in this article, it clearly states that the two movements are similar but not the same. I was wondering which one is correct and if the people who are in charge of the English site are in contact with the people who manage the French cite. Might be helpful to have the information consistent throughout the same article in different languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.21.96.82 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

My understanding (which may be completely wrong) in the instance of literature and plays is that the difference between absurdist and existentialist pieces, is primarily the style in which they are done. Contrast Sartre's "No Exit" with Beckett's "Endgame." The latter is clearly a piece of Absurd Theater. However, whereas one could argue (and in my opinion, rightly so) that they point at similar truths (or rather questions about the truth) they are still obviously different styles. It is important to remember that absurdism grew out of the existential movement and the premise that if "existence precedes essence" then what meaning/value does that leave for humans? Also, absurdists and existentialists have been known to blend their literature. I would classify Camus' "Caligula" as a critique of existentialism. I would also say that Camus' "The Stranger" is more of an existential piece than absurdist in that it plays largely with contrasting the tenets of Kierkegaardian alienation versus Heideggerian alienation. That just may be a lone philosophy major's opinion though. Anyone more knowledgeable, please correct me, but to answer the discrepancy in the articles: The English article is correct in calling it existentialist and not absurdist. Qzxtvbzr 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe, but humans must have faith to believe there is" - this is a tautology, so I doubt that it fully explains the theistic existentialist view on the matter. Stratman07 (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Colin Leslie Dean?

I was about to format the references in the Meaningless section, and realized that all of them are to papers by some Colin Leslie Dean, and were added by a user named the same as the publication in which they all came out.

It seems to me like these papers have never been published anywhere other than at that publication, especially not in any peer-reviewed or otherwise academic source. In fact, it appears the entire catalog [1] of this publisher is composed entirely of books by Dean, on subjects such as philosophy, literary criticism, and Australian erotic poetry...

Therefor I conclude that this entire section is original research, non-reliable source, and possibly in conflict of interest, and thus I am removing it. For more information see Wikipedia:Attribution and WP:COI. If someone other than this author believes I am mistaken, feel free to revert my edit. darkskyz 12:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I am outstounded It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica. It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs) 16:21, March 10, 2007

I was considering not even answering your enflamatory response, however I assume you are simply not familiar with what Wikipedia is. I recommend you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Five pillars, and Help:Contents/Getting started to understand what this project is for. This cannot become a reliable encyclopedia if it does not base its articles on reliable sources. And no, your own writings are not reliable sources, unless they are published in academic, peer reviewed journals or other reliable sources such as mentioned in Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable_sources. You are welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia, as long as you respect its rules and guidelines. This message will also be posted on your user talk page. darkskyz 19:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Pray excuse me Darkskyz, for removing your incorrect apostrophes. The Real Walrus 11:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

original research

I added the original research tag. The Kierkegaard part was misleading, it seems that the author based his view of Kierkegaard by what Camus wrote instead of using -at least sufficient- scholar sources. I added the last paragraph in the Kierkegaard section in an attempt to soften the previous claims. In my opinion, this whole article needs revision and heavy rewriting. I would even consider merging it somewhere.

meaning of life section

"For some, suicide is a solution when confronted with the futility of living a life devoid of all purpose, because ending, suicide is only a means to quicken the resolution of one's ultimate fate."

this sentence doesn't seem to make sense...

Existentialism chart

I think the Existential section is wrong because existentialists believe the a person creats meaning in their life, not that a meaning exists.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.21.57 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 April 2008

The Section on Kierkegaard's Philosophy Ought to Be Removed

The section on Kierkegaard does not belong in an article on absurdism. The quotes included are taken out of context, and certainly were not intended by their author to argue that the existence of God is absurd, or that to try to create meaning in one's life is absurd. Kierkegaard does argue is that to have faith in God is "absurd," but by this he means that to have faith is to think irrationally. To this effect, he argues that to have faith in God is to believe in contradictions. To use the example of Abraham, Kierkegaard points out that his faith was in believing simultaneously that (1) Isaac would be the father of nations and (2) Isaac would be sacrificed, by virtue of the fact that everything is possible for God.

Furthermore, Kierkegaard argues in The Sickness Unto Death that God does in fact provide meaning to our lives, which is obvious enough in the fact that he describes the "sickness" as not recognizing that one has been created by God.

Barticus G (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think there are problems with the Kierkegaard section. For instance, in the paragraph about The Sickness Unto Death, it describes the three traits of the Absurd man that is written, apparently, at the beginning of the article. I believe whoever wrote that was referring to: "Despair is the Sickness unto Death: Despair is a Sickness of the Spirit, of the Self, and Accordingly Can Take Three Forms: in Despair not to be Conscious of Having a Self (not despair in the strict sense); in Despair not to Will to be Oneself; in Despair to Will to be Oneself." I think the connection between this and the traits of the Absurd Man, as proposed in the Sickness Unto Death paragraph, are fabricated. Jescapism (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Too heavy on K. Kierkegaard did establish the absurd, as it was a necessary precondition for the leap of faith, but he regarded its awareness as akin to the call of grace. In Protestant theology, the sinner hits "bottom" and then "converts" (see John Knox), and in RCC theology, grace takes a person to a moment of decision. For K., the absurd is the gaping "paradox" (Concluding Unscientific Postscript) that can never be solved. It propels the person only into Either/Or. Either a person becomes writer A, the aesthete, who immerses himself in the senses (and the absurd, and "A" anticipates Camus and Hesse), or writer B, the ethicist, who relies on laws. No, K. should not be removed, but I don't think he'd be happy being called the father of Absurd-ism in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.127.134 (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for corrections...

References

^ Silentio, Johannes de. Fear and Trembling. (1843) Penguin Classics (YEAR OF PENGUIN TRANSLATION?) p.17 ^ Anti-Climacus. The Sickness Unto Death. (1849) Princeton University Press (1941) pg.?^ Ibid. pg.? (Kierkegaard wrote about all four viewpoints in his works at one time or another, but the majority of his work leaned toward what would later become absurdist and theistic existentialist views.) THIS IS A GREAT PIECE OF INFORMATION;SHOULD PERHAPS BE IN BODY,NEAR CHART - IT USED TO BE A PICTURE CAPTION... PERHAPS REVERT AND USE THE [3] CAPTION IN THE SK BODY... ^ Dru, Alexander. The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard, Oxford University Press, (1938) ^ Silentio, Johannes de. Fear and Trembling, Denmark (1843) IS THIS THE ORIGINAL DANISH, AS OPPOSED TO #1 ABOVE? ^ The Sickness Unto Death, Ch.3, part B, sec. 2 ^ Camus, Albert. Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. (1942) Vintage Books. (1955,1983,1991) ISBN 0679733736. ^ a b "The Kierkegaardian Leap" in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard. ^ Ibid. p.41 ^ Ibid. p.55 ^ Ibid. p.64

If one uses parenthesis, commas before and periods/full stops are unnecessary. This section just needs some consistentcy. Great job in general, though. I found only one error in the text: "opportunity to create his own meaning and purpose, to decide himself. The individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, as he..." ("the" is unnecessary preceding "existence")...

Nemo Senki66.213.22.193 (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Relationship Table

In the table "Relationship with Existentialism and Nihilism", I would exchange the columns "Atheistic existentialism" and "Theistic existentialism", because Atheistic Existentialism is nearer to Absurdism and Nihilism than Theistic. Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The table also seems to be adapted from Bigelow's classic "A Primer of Existentialism," which is available on the web. (I know: those are the only "real" references at Wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.127.134 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sooooooo confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus See end of paragraph 9: "However, the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation, constant revolt." To deal with it well, should I ACCEPT absurdity (as is mentioned many times in this article) or REVOLT against it (as is contradictorily mentioned twice)? I think the wording needs to be changed: Camus ACKNOWLEDGED the Absurd, ACCEPTED its reality and advocated REVOLT against it. The 'authors' of this page and the one cited above seem to be at odds; I am assuming they are done by two different people/groups. What did Camus, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche have to say about this subject? Are there any other philosophers who have addressed this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain: Camus said to ACCEPT absurdity and by that REVOLT against SUICIDE, either the physical or spiritual (religion) one. Not revolt against absurdity but against your situation by not escaping from it. Let me add, that he thought that this revolt could only be worth living if fueled by love.. String42 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen a more entirely incorrect wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.52.151 (talk) 22:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Starts off as "Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail " then the chart says yes to "There is such a thing as "meaning" or "value" to be found in life". What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.174.152 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a mistake, it should read 'There is such a thing as "meaning" or "value"'; Absurdists are not Nihilists, as they do accept that there is such a thing as "meaning". Poor Yorick (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Quotation

This is regarding a quotation from Kierkegaard regarding absurdism:

What is the Absurd? It is, as may quite easily be seen, that I, a rational being, must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act... The Absurd, or to act by virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith ... I must act, but reflection has closed the road so I take one of the possibilities and say: This is what I do, I cannot do otherwise because I am brought to a standstill by my powers of reflection.

Can someone here provide an analysis of what this exactly means? I understand that he's referring to our ability to do one thing just as easily as we can do another, but I'd like a more specific analysis. Xeraxes (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Absurdism, as mentioned in the brief blurb, inspires three options: suicide, faith, and acceptance. Both Kierkegaard and Camus reject suicide. Kierkegaard considers both faith and acceptance, while Camus only considers acceptance. Regarding the second option, the Absurd can propel faith ("in virtue of the absurd"), which Kierkegaard discusses at length. Poor Yorick (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand the part about suicide, faith, and acceptance; but I was hoping for an actual break down of the quotation ("this line here means..."). One part I'm not sure about is "...must act in a case where my reason, my powers of reflection, tell me: you can just as well do the one thing as the other, that is to say where my reason and reflection say: you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act..."". I don't understand this transition from being able to do one thing just as easily as being able to do another, and the part in italics where he suddenly says "that is to say...you cannot act and yet here is where I have to act...".

Also, in the last part about his reflection having "closed the road", is "reflection" his sense of reason? Xeraxes (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's indecision. You can do one thing or another or another; reason tells you one path is just as good as another path, and thus reason cannot say for sure which path to take (a standstill). But you've got to act, because the moment of decision is at hand. You take a leap and choose one option, closing the road for all the other options. Poor Yorick (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion please

I've tried to connect "the fundamental disharmony between the individual's search for meaning and the apparent meaninglessness of the universe" to evolution here. In my view, this breaks down the fundamental disharmony.

Please let me know your opinion!

Best regards - --tbressers (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help me out pls . It's my assignment

"To try and fail is at least to learn; to fail to try is to suffer the inestimable loss of what might have been"

Here is the instruction for above quatation . Please at least guide me 1 Can you relate the quote to the concept of ABSURD? show the relationship

2give a little introduce the topic give explaination of the quote discuss the truth of the quote with example from your life conclusion.

Please i need it a.s.a.p. and really nothing for me about this!!! HelpMe Thankyou very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loacker1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd be better off asking at the humanities reference desk where more people will see it. Be aware that people don't like doing your homework and if you haven't tried to tackle it yourself you are unlikely to get much assistance. Smartse (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(Simplified) Relationship between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism?

Shouldn't that section rather be called "Simpletonized relationship between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism" ?!? IIIIIIIII (talk) 15:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This chart should honestly be removed. It's highly misleading and confusing. For one, the entire section on nihilism is over-simplified. The author makes a qualification between two popular forms of existentialism, but speaks of nihilism without the same grace. Secondly, the claim that Absurdism does not pursue constructed meaning is later contradicted in the Meaning of Life section under Personal Meaning. I am inclined to agree with the Personal Meaning section. Not only that, but the third tenet of the chart says that human beings can create meaning in their life under Absurdism; someone explain to mean how an individual can create meaning but not construct it? MonsieurGodot (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Although the chart should be worked(particularly the Absurd column), sure the section on nihilism is terse and simplified, but it still provides an accurate overview on what nihilism is, the belief that value doesn't exist and can't be created. Yes there are different flavors that approach the problems differently, but I think it gives the user the general familiarity with the subject. I like the idea of a chart here. Dark567 (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discordianism and Erisianism

It seems to me there should be a link here to pages about Discordianism and Erisianism as they are of similar paradigms. -- Davidkevin (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is Dada?

Where is Dada? (that's a serious question about this article, or the absense of another article that would include it) PPdd (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of life - God

I think that this section could use some revising as it is very difficult to comprehend.

"Even with a spiritual power as the answer to meaning, another question arises: What is the purpose of God? Kierkegaard believed that there is no human-comprehensible purpose of God, making faith in God absurd itself. Camus on the other hand states that to believe in God is to "deny one of the terms of the contradiction" between humanity and the universe (and therefore not absurd), but is what he calls "philosophical suicide". Camus (as well as Kierkegaard), though, suggests that while absurdity does not lead to belief in God, neither does it lead to the denial of God. Camus notes, "I did not say 'excludes God', which would still amount to asserting"."

Many of the sentences seem to be incongruent and incomprehensible Benstordy (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)