Absurdism/existentialism

[Hegemonicretribution]

It has been a little while since these ideas have been discussed in here, and following a few new members who could conceivably contribute I thought I would start a new thread on this subject.

First off what do you think about the concept of "nothingness?" This is an important aspect of Satre's work at least, yet is seen as one of the more incomprehensible areas of his work.

To me the concept of nothingness is compelling, yet I can't think of a reason why it must necessarily be true or not. It does seem to contradict materialism to some extent however, although the implications are not as damaging as those of idealism.

I find it quite hard to talk about this, or even explain it simply, so feedback would be appreciated. Of course feel free to highlight another aspect, or even philosopher.

[Voulacce]

Great topic!!...I will be back later to express my views =)

[bretty]

I've always wondered about this concept of nothingness, one way I looked at it while reading being and nothingness is that we are both being AND nothingness so the concepts inevitably don't matter. But i'd like to know what sartre really meant behind his idea of nothingness.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 07:05 PM
I've always wondered about this concept of nothingness, one way I looked at it while reading being and nothingness is that we are both being AND nothingness so the concepts inevitably don't matter. But i'd like to know what sartre really meant behind his idea of nothingness.
I think it is necessary to distinguish here between being in itself and being for itself.

Anyway as for nothingness, I understand it as eventualities that we can conceive but do not realise. When choosing a course of action, we can envisage alternative courses that we do not wish to choose. Yet the consciousness and self-surpassing nature that allows this cannot itself be experienced directly, and there is a gap or a nothingness therefore that is a part of us. "If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing."

We are also free to negate our past. So goes the old adgage; "existence precedes essence."

[Mariam]

Thanks Hegemonicretribution, great topic!!

We need to start of with a distinction between those philosophical terms, because they sound the same sometimes.
Absurdism....Existentialism.....Nihilism\nothingne ss.
Here's what i think....
absurdism states the futility of humanity's search for a meaning to their world and all those efforts will fail because there in no meaning in the first place. While existentialism foucs on human anxiety, dread, freedom, awareness of death, and conciousness of existing.However, nihilism indecates that the world and human existence are meaningless...
Talking about Sarter he saw nothingness as a way to absolute freedom, but still leaves every individual isolated in an aline world and has to find a meaning to it!!
He wants us to believe that we are nothing and still try to make a meaning of ourselves and our life. paradoxical..
Any comments...
Even Nietzche thought that nihilism can be overcome by ones own creation of a meaning...saying it's a difficult task and sometime we can not reach that level only on ones death bed!!

I got more to say..but i got a quizz tomorrow.. :huh:

[dislatino]

Existentialism is quite an intersting topic, again i can't put my finger on why it is, i must ask everyone here, Do you believe it?

[FinnMacCool]

I'm an absurdist!

I think 'nothingness' has more to do with 'Nihilism' then absurdism. Absurdism is a much more optimistic way of viewing the world.

Basically, Absurdism says that life is absurd and meaningless. However you can create meaning by action.

There are supposed to be two things you can do in this case.

1) Make life more comfortable for yourself while your living

or

2) Attempt to make life good for everyone

Setting goals for yourself and having aspirations is what gives life it's "meaning" but really there is no overall purpose to human beings.

I actually had these ideas about life before I knew about absurdism. I didn't really have a name for it until I found out what it was.

[Janus]

Absurdism is a much more optimistic way of viewing the world.
Not by much.


There are supposed to be two things you can do in this case.

1) Make life more comfortable for yourself while your living

or

2) Attempt to make life good for everyone
You're creating meaning in those cases and it's not as if anyone stated that you're "supposed" to do that. However, Camus believed that we should distance ourselves from that created meaning lest it takes the place of the absurd. There is always another option that of rebellion.

[Mariam]

There is always another option that of rebellion.
Isn't that a meaning?? to fight against something.


"If nothing had any meaning, you would be right. But there is something that still has a meaning." Second Letter to a German Friend, December 1943.
I found that on wikipedia.
Isn't it contradicted??
:blink:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Nothingness is simply a vacuum. There you go, hours of agonising by some beret-ed philosopher summed up in one handy little sentence. The wonders of scientific thinking as opposed to philosophical navel-gazing.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:18 PM
Nothingness is simply a vacuum. There you go, hours of agonising by some beret-ed philosopher summed up in one handy little sentence. The wonders of scientific thinking as opposed to philosophical navel-gazing.
Satre was French so various words are meant differently, for example "despair" meaning simply an absence of hope, and not as it does in English.

Satre also takes on his own terms at times, or gives a new meaning to an existing word. Nothingness refers to something specific which he spent a lot of time trying to explain. He would likely also refer to what you suggest as nothingness, but it would not be intended in the same way.

[rouchambeau]

I started reading Sartre's Being and Nothingness. It was harder to understand than Kant!

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 02:44 AM
I started reading Sartre's Being and Nothingness. It was harder to understand than Kant!
Sartre is as bad as Hegel in many respects. He uses terminology in a specific way, as I said in my response to Noxion, and this makes even relatively simple texts such as "existentialism and humanism" a little strange to the uninitiated.

Like Nietzsche, it almost seems like Sartre wanted people to misunderstand him. Also his actual ideas leave a little to desired in a few of the pieces I have read. Then again I have not read any major texts in full, what I had read of Sartre turned me off him in favour of better writers, although I still read the odd bit out of his main works. It is strange really, because I generally enjoy reading more obscure or difficult philosophers...just not Sartre.

I would suggest skipping Being and Nothingness, but that is only because I never really got into it. If you get through it, tell me how it was ;)

[Mariam]

Well...i've never read anything by Sarter....i never found him as interesting as Nietzsche.
So Hege. could you explain more about Sarter...im going to do my own reading but if you dont mind giving me something brief.
By the way....is Derrida considerd somehow a nihilist in his attempt to deconstruct any system??

[Face the music]

Camus's character before he gets executed realises that there is no other meaning to life than Life itself. In other words, you don't have to run around like a maniak to look for meaning of Life, simply live it! So, basically you don't have to search for that which you already have. The meaning of life is nothing other than it is - nothing else but existence is a nonsense.

[Mariam]

Yes the whole idea was about the meaning of life as itself, but there is still a difference between living you life and just existing in a futile world.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Adonis I am not the best member to ask, I have studied Sartre in passin, but I wasn't a fan. There are people here that do support Sartre's ideas, and have read a great deal more than me. Existentialism and humanism is poor in my oppinion, but it alright for a Sartrean virgin (Can search for it online, it is about 30 pages long). The problem is that it needs supplemented, and often it his later development towards Marxism that is of interest, I am sure someone can suggest some essays in these areas.

[Mariam]

Well i started a search online, read alot, but still somehow ambigious, though i got the most important stuff.....his main ideas about marxism and existentialism and other thing.
Thanks comrade. :blush:

[Janus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:43 PM
Adonis I am not the best member to ask, I have studied Sartre in passin, but I wasn't a fan. There are people here that do support Sartre's ideas, and have read a great deal more than me. Existentialism and humanism is poor in my oppinion, but it alright for a Sartrean virgin (Can search for it online, it is about 30 pages long). The problem is that it needs supplemented, and often it his later development towards Marxism that is of interest, I am sure someone can suggest some essays in these areas.
Yeah, except Sartre failed in his attempt to reconciliate existentialism with Marxism.

Adonis, as for someone to ask concerning existentialism. I would suggest Monty Cantsin even though his English isn't all that great and the fact that he doesn't visit this board as often (Hegemonicretribution usurped his position :lol: ). But he is quite interested in existentialism.

[travisdandy2000]

I enjoy Satre's novels, but Being and Nothingness might as well have been done in Klingon. Satre was a Marxist, so we if we are going to trudge through difficult texts, I'll just go straight to the source and wrack my brain with Das Kapital instead.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 11:56 PM
Yeah, except Sartre failed in his attempt to reconciliate existentialism with Marxism.
Well I wouldn't deny this in "Critique of dialectical reason" but then again I skipped about 75% of this, and what I did read wasn't always clear.

I never said Sartre reconciled the two philosophies, in fact I don't think he even reconciled existentialism and humanism all that well.

I would suggest that in my opinion, as Sartre moved towards Marxism, he moved slightly from his original position as an existentialist.


I would suggest Monty Cantsin even though his English isn't all that great and the fact that he doesn't visit this board as often (Hegemonicretribution usurped his position :lol: ). But he is quite interested in existentialism.
TAT is an absurdist that is fairly knowledgable as well. If you run a search in this forum there have been a few good debates between these two members around these themes. Both have done (or at least appear to have, I don't know for sure) a lot more close reading than I, and I am guessing the majority of the membership base have in this area.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 07:24 PM
there is still a difference between living you life and just existing in a futile world.
What is is this difference?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 02:51 AM
You're creating meaning in those cases and it's not as if anyone stated that you're "supposed" to do that.
Humanity shares a collective feeling about our existence in as much as we have no real understanding about why we actually exist.

Subjectively you can, as you have pointed out create meaning, but in terms of discovering an objective meaning for our existence, you will always fail.

The only things you will discover are that nature is vicious, unremorseful and unforgiving.


However, Camus believed that we should distance ourselves from that created meaning lest it takes the place of the absurd. There is always another option that of rebellion.

I'm not sure what anyone is supposed to understand from this paragraph? Can you make yourself more clear?

[Mariam]

I mean the distinction between mere existence as if you were trapped in this world and not taking a part of whatever goes around....and living each day of your life through your consciousness to the surroundings, and experience.
When i think about living your life day by day the first literary character that comes to my mind is Zorba the Greek...you know like when he wakes up every morning with a new aspect of the world!!
But i cannot think of a mere existing literary character!!

Heqe. and Janus...thanks!!
Shall i PM Monty Cantsin??
:blush:

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 03:57 PM
Shall i PM Monty Cantsin??

Not necessary, I recognise the existence of this thread.

This is the last great thread we had on Sartre and Marxism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41161&st=0), it deals with Camus as well. geting down to the nuts and bolts of the issue. TAT never replied to me when I reduced Absurdism and Sartrean existentialism down to there basic elements and showed their respective contradictions and how we can move past them. I don’t feel like going through it again unless someone brings something forward I haven’t thought of before and I’ll have to modify my way of thinking about this issue.


as for someone to ask concerning existentialism. I would suggest Monty Cantsin even though his English isn't all that great

LoL, Thanks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 1 2006, 05:17 AM
TAT never replied to me when I reduced Absurdism and Sartrean existentialism down to there basic elements and showed their respective contradictions and how we can move past them.
I've replied in part.

[Janus]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension
I'm not sure what anyone is supposed to understand from this paragraph? Can you make yourself more clear?
I could try. Camus didn't ignore the individual meaning that we have added to our life yet life is still absurd or irrational despite that. In The Rebel, Camus expresses the viewpoint that rebellion is a way to face this absurdity and dissatisfaction in life.

[Mariam]

In camus' absurd world there is two options: suicide, or finding an artificial meaning to fell our life with...but he gives another option: becoming an absurd hero! and that's realizing the absurdity of our life and living with it.
So why rebel if we were meant to accept the absurdity of the world and cope with it??

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 11:28 PM
Camus didn't ignore the individual meaning that we have added to our life yet life is still absurd or irrational despite that.
Added what?


In The Rebel, Camus expresses the viewpoint that rebellion is a way to face this absurdity and dissatisfaction in life.

Thanks.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:01 AM
In camus' absurd world there is two options: suicide, or finding an artificial meaning to fell our life with...
No, that's not the absurd. You will always find some artificial meaning in your life if you exist so that's irrelevant to absurdism except in the context that subjective meaning has no value.

The absurd can be used to describe anything, but essentially it is the choice. Either you accept your demise by killing yourself, or you accept your existence. An existence you neither chose or created, which is unfathamoble, ultimately cruel and in which your life will end regardless: That is the absurd.

To quote Camus (again): "Beauty is unbearable, drives us to despair, offering us for a minute the glimpse of an eternity that we should like to stretch out over the whole of time."


but he gives another option: becoming an absurd hero! and that's realizing the absurdity of our life and living with it.

That's not another option, it's the second half of your choice. What is "heroic" is your relationship and understanding of death and what you do in spite of it.

And again: "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."


So why rebel if we were meant to accept the absurdity of the world and cope with it??

You misunderstand what it means to rebel. Living in revolt is not in revolt of life, it's in revolt of death.

[Mariam]

I got it now!
Thanks for making it clear, I know I post alot of stupid things and I feel clumsy when I ask!!
:blush:
Thanks again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 03:06 PM
I got it now!
Thanks for making it clear, I know I post alot of stupid things and I feel clumsy when I ask!!
:blush:
Thanks again.
:)

You have not asked any stupid questions and you shouldn't be embaressed about wanting to understand anything.

[Mariam]

If we are living in an absurd world, death won't have any meaning, because death can not give life a meaning...so suicide is another absurdity rather than a way to emancipate one's life...
So it's either to reject the idea of total absurdity or ironicaly live with the acceptence of the meaningless life

Question: Camus insists to keep a distance between the invented meaning and the knowledge of the absrdity of one's life..Why??

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:57 PM
They are Question: Camus insists to keep a distance between the invented meaning and the knowledge of the absrdity of one's life..Why??
They are not necessarily compatible, so this makes sense. You will create "meaning" through your choice to affirm life, other actions and choices shape this invented meaning.

[Janus]

Added what?
Personal or subjective meaning to our lives through which we try to affirm life. For example: religion or a belief in a god.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:57 PM
If we are living in an absurd world, death won't have any meaning
But death as an objective fact has allot of meaning. What does it mean to die? How does this acknowledgment influence your life?


so suicide is another absurdity rather than a way to emancipate one's life...

No, suicide is an acceptance of your [objective] inevitability.


Camus insists to keep a distance between the invented meaning and the knowledge of the absrdity of one's life..Why??

I don't think he does insist it. He proposes it, yes, but he doesn't insist it.

Also, imagine if everyone in the world suddenly understood their demise and the absurdness of what they are doing. If the whole world fully grasped the absurdness of their actions and fully grasped their condition, the world would start to crumble and civilisation would collapse.

Nietzsche suggested this to happen, when he said "God is dead."