Zeno's paradoxes are a series of philosophical arguments presented by the ancient Greek philosopher Zeno of Elea (c. 490–430 BC), primarily known through the works of Plato, Aristotle, and later commentators like Simplicius of Cilicia. Zeno devised these paradoxes to support his teacher Parmenides's philosophy of monism,
which posits that despite people's sensory experiences, reality is
singular and unchanging. The paradoxes famously challenge the notions of
plurality (the existence of many things), motion, space, and time by suggesting they lead to logical contradictions.
Zeno's work, primarily known from second-hand accounts since his original texts are lost, comprises forty "paradoxes of plurality," which argue against the coherence of believing in multiple existences, and several arguments against motion and change. Of these, only a few are definitively known today, including the
renowned "Achilles Paradox", which illustrates the problematic concept
of infinite divisibility in space and time. In this paradox, Zeno argues that a swift runner like Achilles cannot overtake a slower moving tortoise with a head start, because the distance between them can be infinitely subdivided, implying Achilles would require an infinite number of steps to catch the tortoise.
These paradoxes have stirred extensive philosophical and mathematical discussion throughout history, particularly regarding the nature of infinity and the continuity of space and time. Initially, Aristotle's interpretation, suggesting a potential rather than actual infinity, was widely accepted. However, modern solutions leveraging the mathematical framework of calculus
have provided a different perspective, highlighting Zeno's significant
early insight into the complexities of infinity and continuous motion. In the realm of metaphysics,
evidence indicates that the "skeptical method" which Zeno adopted to
analyze his paradoxes, also influenced the manner in which Immanuel Kant attempted to resolve the paradoxes which were identified within his own antinomies. Zeno's paradoxes remain a pivotal reference point in the philosophical
and mathematical exploration of reality, motion, and the infinite,
influencing both ancient thought and modern scientific understanding.
History
The origins of the paradoxes are somewhat unclear, but they are generally thought to have been developed to support Parmenides' doctrine of monism, that all of reality is one, and that all change is impossible, that is, that nothing ever changes in location or in any other respect.Diogenes Laërtius, citing Favorinus,
says that Zeno's teacher Parmenides was the first to introduce the
paradox of Achilles and the tortoise. But in a later passage, Laërtius
attributes the origin of the paradox to Zeno, explaining that Favorinus
disagrees. Modern academics attribute the paradox to Zeno.
Many of these paradoxes argue that contrary to the evidence of one's senses, motion is nothing but an illusion. In Plato'sParmenides (128a–d), Zeno is characterized as taking on the project of creating these paradoxes
because other philosophers claimed paradoxes arise when considering
Parmenides' view. Zeno's arguments may then be early examples of a
method of proof called reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction.
Thus Plato has Zeno say the purpose of the paradoxes "is to show that
their hypothesis that existences are many, if properly followed up,
leads to still more absurd results than the hypothesis that they are
one." Plato has Socrates claim that Zeno and Parmenides were essentially arguing exactly the same point. They are also credited as a source of the dialectic method used by Socrates.
Paradoxes
Some of Zeno's nine surviving paradoxes (preserved in Aristotle's Physics and Simplicius's commentary thereon) are essentially equivalent to one another. Aristotle offered a response to some of them. Popular literature often misrepresents Zeno's arguments. For example,
Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of
terms must itself be infinite–with the result that not only the time,
but also the distance to be travelled, become infinite. However, none of the original ancient sources has Zeno discussing any infinite sum. Simplicius
has Zeno saying "it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of
things in a finite time". This presents Zeno's problem not with finding
the sum, but rather with finishing a
task with an infinite number of steps: how can one ever get from A to B,
if an infinite number of (non-instantaneous) events can be identified
that need to precede the arrival at B, and one cannot reach even the
beginning of a "last event"?
Paradoxes of motion
Three of the strongest and most famous—that of Achilles and the tortoise, the Dichotomy argument, and that of an arrow in flight—are presented in detail below.
Dichotomy paradox
The dichotomy
That which is in locomotion must arrive at the half-way stage before it arrives at the goal.
Suppose Atalanta
wishes to walk to the end of a path. Before she can get there, she must
get halfway there. Before she can get halfway there, she must get a
quarter of the way there. Before traveling a quarter, she must travel
one-eighth; before an eighth, one-sixteenth; and so on.
The resulting sequence can be represented as:
This description requires one to complete an infinite number of tasks, which Zeno maintains is an impossibility.
This sequence also presents a second problem in that it contains no first distance to run, for any possible (finite)
first distance could be divided in half, and hence would not be first
after all. Hence, the trip cannot even begin. The paradoxical conclusion
then would be that travel over any finite distance can be neither
completed nor begun, and so all motion must be an illusion.
This argument is called the "Dichotomy" because it involves repeatedly splitting a distance into two parts. An example with the original sense can be found in an asymptote. It is also known as the Race Course paradox.
In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake
the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the
pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.
In the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, Achilles
is in a footrace with a tortoise. Achilles allows the tortoise a head
start of 100 meters, for example. Suppose that each racer starts running
at some constant speed, one faster than the other. After some finite
time, Achilles will have run 100 meters, bringing him to the tortoise's
starting point. During this time, the tortoise has run a much shorter
distance, say 2 meters. It will then take Achilles some further time to
run that distance, by which time the tortoise will have advanced
farther; and then more time still to reach this third point, while the
tortoise moves ahead. Thus, whenever Achilles arrives somewhere the
tortoise has been, he still has some distance to go before he can even
reach the tortoise. As Aristotle noted, this argument is similar to the
Dichotomy. It lacks, however, the apparent conclusion of motionlessness.
If everything when
it occupies an equal space is at rest at that instant of time, and if
that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any
moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless at that instant of time
and at the next instant of time but if both instants of time are taken
as the same instant or continuous instant of time then it is in motion.
In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that
for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it
occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that at
any one (durationless) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to
where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to
move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there.
In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring.
If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely
composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
Whereas the first two paradoxes divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.
Other paradoxes
Aristotle gives three other paradoxes:
Paradox of place
From Aristotle:
If everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum.
Description of the paradox from the Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy:
The argument is that a single grain of millet
makes no sound upon falling, but a thousand grains make a sound. Hence a
thousand nothings become something, an absurd conclusion.
Aristotle's response:
Zeno's
reasoning is false when he argues that there is no part of the millet
that does not make a sound: for there is no reason why any such part
should not in any length of time fail to move the air that the whole
bushel moves in falling. In fact it does not of itself move even such a
quantity of the air as it would move if this part were by itself: for no
part even exists otherwise than potentially.
This is a Parmenidean
argument that one cannot trust one's sense of hearing. Aristotle's
response seems to be that even inaudible sounds can add to an audible
sound.
The moving rows (or stadium)
The moving rows
From Aristotle:
...
concerning the two rows of bodies, each row being composed of an equal
number of bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race-course as
they proceed with equal velocity in opposite directions, the one row
originally occupying the space between the goal and the middle point of
the course and the other that between the middle point and the
starting-post. This...involves the conclusion that half a given time is
equal to double that time.
An expanded account of Zeno's arguments, as presented by Aristotle, is given in Simplicius's commentary On Aristotle's Physics.
According to Angie Hobbs of The University of Sheffield,
this paradox is intended to be considered together with the paradox of
Achilles and the Tortoise, problematizing the concept of discrete space
& time where the other problematizes the concept of infinitely
divisible space & time.
Proposed solutions
In classical antiquity
According to Simplicius, Diogenes the Cynic said nothing upon hearing Zeno's arguments, but stood up and walked, in order to demonstrate the falsity of Zeno's conclusions. To fully solve any of the paradoxes, however, one needs to show what is
wrong with the argument, not just the conclusions. Throughout history
several solutions have been proposed, among the earliest recorded being
those of Aristotle and Archimedes.
Aristotle remarked that as the distance decreases, the
time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time
needed also becomes increasingly small. Aristotle also distinguished "things infinite in respect of
divisibility" (such as a unit of space that can be mentally divided into
ever smaller units while remaining spatially the same) from things (or
distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their
extremities"). Aristotle's objection to the arrow paradox was that "Time is not
composed of indivisible nows any more than any other magnitude is
composed of indivisibles." Thomas Aquinas,
commenting on Aristotle's objection, wrote "Instants are not parts of
time, for time is not made up of instants any more than a magnitude is
made of points, as we have already proved. Hence it does not follow that
a thing is not in motion in a given time, just because it is not in
motion in any instant of that time."
In modern mathematics
Some mathematicians and historians, such as Carl Benjamin Boyer, hold that Zeno's paradoxes are simply mathematical problems, for which modern calculus provides a mathematical solution. Infinite processes remained theoretically troublesome in mathematics until the late 19th century. With the definition of limit, Karl Weierstrass and Augustin-Louis Cauchy
developed a rigorous formulation of the logic and calculus involved.
These works resolved the mathematics involving infinite processes.
Some philosophers, however, say that Zeno's paradoxes and their variations (see Thomson's lamp) remain relevant metaphysical problems. While mathematics can calculate where and when the moving Achilles will
overtake the Tortoise of Zeno's paradox, philosophers such as Kevin
Brown and Francis Moorcroft hold that mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's
argument, and that solving the mathematical issues does not solve every
issue the paradoxes raise. Brown concludes "Given the history of 'final
resolutions', from Aristotle onwards, it's probably foolhardy to think
we've reached the end. It may be that Zeno's arguments on motion,
because of their simplicity and universality, will always serve as a
kind of 'Rorschach image' onto which people can project their most fundamental phenomenological concerns (if they have any)."
Henri Bergson
An alternative conclusion, proposed by Henri Bergson in his 1896 book Matter and Memory, is that, while the path is divisible, the motion is not.
Peter Lynds
In 2003, Peter Lynds argued that all of Zeno's motion
paradoxes are resolved by the conclusion that instants in time and
instantaneous magnitudes do not physically exist. Lynds argues that an object in relative motion cannot have an
instantaneous or determined relative position (for if it did, it could
not be in motion), and so cannot have its motion fractionally dissected
as if it does, as is assumed by the paradoxes. Nick Huggett argues that
Zeno is assuming the conclusion when he says that objects that occupy the same space as they do at rest must be at rest.
Bertrand Russell
Based on the work of Georg Cantor, Bertrand Russell
offered a solution to the paradoxes, what is known as the "at-at theory
of motion". It agrees that there can be no motion "during" a
durationless instant, and contends that all that is required for motion
is that the arrow be at one point at one time, at another point another
time, and at appropriate points between those two points for intervening
times. In this view motion is just change in position over time.
Hermann Weyl
Another proposed solution is to question one of the
assumptions Zeno used in his paradoxes (particularly the Dichotomy),
which is that between any two different points in space (or time), there
is always another point. Without this assumption there are only a
finite number of distances between two points, hence there is no
infinite sequence of movements, and the paradox is resolved. According
to Hermann Weyl, the assumption that space is made of finite and discrete units is subject to a further problem, given by the "tile argument" or "distance function problem". According to this, the length of the hypotenuse of a right angled
triangle in discretized space is always equal to the sum of the length
of the two sides, in contradiction to geometry. Jean Paul Van Bendegem has argued that the Tile Argument can be resolved, and that discretization can therefore remove the paradox.
In 1977, physicists E. C. George Sudarshan and B. Misra discovered that the dynamical evolution (transitions between discrete states) of a quantum system can be inhibited through measurement of the system. This effect is usually called the quantum Zeno effect as it is strongly reminiscent of Zeno's arrow paradox. This effect was first theorized in 1958.
Zeno behaviour
In the field of verification and design of timed and hybrid systems, the system behaviour is called Zeno if it includes an infinite number of discrete steps in a finite amount of time. Some formal verification techniques exclude these behaviours from analysis, if they are not equivalent to non-Zeno behaviour. In systems design these behaviours will also often be excluded from system models, since they cannot be implemented with a digital controller.
Similar paradoxes
School of Names
Diagram of Hui Shi's stick paradox
Roughly contemporaneously during the Warring States period (475–221 BCE), ancient Chinese philosophers from the School of Names,
a school of thought similarly concerned with logic and dialectics,
developed paradoxes similar to those of Zeno. The works of the School of
Names have largely been lost, with the exception of portions of the Gongsun Longzi. The second of the Ten Theses of Hui Shi suggests knowledge of infinitesimals:That which has no thickness cannot be piled up; yet it is a thousand li in dimension. Among the many puzzles of his recorded in the Zhuangzi is one very similar to Zeno's Dichotomy:
"If from a stick a foot long you every day take the half of it, in a myriad ages it will not be exhausted."
—Zhuangzi, chapter 33 (Legge translation)
The Mohist canon
appears to propose a solution to this paradox by arguing that in moving
across a measured length, the distance is not covered in successive
fractions of the length, but in one stage. Due to the lack of surviving
works from the School of Names, most of the other paradoxes listed are
difficult to interpret.
In popular culture
"What the Tortoise Said to Achilles", written in 1895 by Lewis Carroll,
describes a paradoxical infinite regress argument in the realm of pure
logic. It uses Achilles and the Tortoise as characters in a clear
reference to Zeno's paradox of Achilles.
Sisyphus, the symbol of the absurdity of existence, painting by Franz Stuck (1920)
Absurdism is the philosophical theory that the universe is irrational
and meaningless. It states that trying to find meaning leads people
into conflict with a seemingly meaningless world. This conflict can be
between rational humanity and an irrational universe, between intention and outcome, or between subjective
assessment and objective worth, but the precise definition of the term
is disputed. Absurdism claims that, due to one or more of these
conflicts, existence as a whole is absurd. It differs in this regard from the less global thesis that some particular situations, persons, or phases in life are absurd.
Various components of the absurd are discussed in the
academic literature, and different theorists frequently concentrate
their definition and research on different components. On the practical
level, the conflict underlying the absurd is characterized by the
individual's struggle to find meaning in a meaningless world. The
theoretical component, on the other hand, emphasizes more the epistemic inability of reason to penetrate and understand reality. Traditionally, the conflict is characterized as a collision between an internal component of human nature,
and an external component of the universe. However, some later
theorists have suggested that both components may be internal: the
capacity to see through the arbitrariness of any ultimate purpose, on
the one hand, and the incapacity to stop caring about such purposes, on
the other hand. Certain accounts also involve a metacognitive component by holding that an awareness of the conflict is necessary for the absurd to arise.
Some arguments in favor of absurdism focus on the human insignificance in the universe, on the role of death,
or on the implausibility or irrationality of positing an ultimate
purpose. Objections to absurdism often contend that life is in fact
meaningful or point out certain problematic consequences or
inconsistencies of absurdism. Defenders of absurdism often complain that
it does not receive the attention of professional philosophers that it
merits in virtue of the topic's importance and its potential
psychological impact on the affected individuals in the form of existential crises.
Various possible responses to deal with absurdism and its impact have
been suggested. The three responses discussed in the traditional
absurdist literature are suicide, religious belief
in a higher purpose, and rebellion against the absurd. Of these,
rebellion is usually presented as the recommended response since, unlike
the other two responses, it does not escape the absurd and instead
recognizes it for what it is. Later theorists have suggested additional
responses, like using irony
to take life less seriously or remaining ignorant of the responsible
conflict. Some absurdists argue that whether and how one responds is
insignificant. This is based on the idea that if nothing really matters,
then the human response toward this fact does not matter either.
The term "absurdism" is most closely associated with the philosophy of Albert Camus. However, important precursors and discussions of the absurd are also found in the works of Søren Kierkegaard. Absurdism is intimately related to various other concepts and theories. Its basic outlook is inspired by existentialist
philosophy. However, existentialism includes additional theoretical
commitments and often takes a more optimistic attitude toward the
possibility of finding or creating meaning in one's life. Absurdism and nihilism
share the belief that life is meaningless, but absurdists do not treat
this as an isolated fact and are instead interested in the conflict
between the human desire
for meaning and the world's lack thereof. Being confronted with this
conflict may trigger an existential crisis, in which unpleasant experiences like anxiety or depression
may push the affected to find a response for dealing with the conflict.
Recognizing the absence of objective meaning, however, does not
preclude the conscious thinker from finding subjective meaning.
Definition
Absurdism is the philosophical thesis that life, or the world in general, is absurd. There is wide agreement that the term "absurd" implies a lack of meaning or purpose, but there is also significant dispute concerning its exact definition and various versions have been suggested. The choice of one's definition has important implications for whether
the thesis of absurdism is correct and for the arguments cited for and
against it: it may be true on one definition and false on another.
In a general sense, the absurd is that which lacks a sense, often because it involves some form of contradiction. The absurd is paradoxical in the sense that it cannot be grasped by reason. But in the context of absurdism, the term is usually used in a more
specific sense. According to most definitions, it involves a conflict,
discrepancy, or collision between two things. Opinions differ on what
these two things are. For example, it is traditionally identified as the confrontation of rational
man with an irrational world or as the attempt to grasp something based
on reasons even though it is beyond the limits of rationality. Similar definitions see the discrepancy between intention and outcome, between aspiration and reality, or between subjective assessment and objective worth as the source of absurdity. Other definitions locate both conflicting sides within man: the ability
to apprehend the arbitrariness of final ends and the inability to let
go of commitments to them. In regard to the conflict, absurdism differs from nihilism
since it is not just the thesis that nothing matters. Instead, it
includes the component that things seem to matter to us nonetheless and
that this impression cannot be shaken off. This difference is expressed
in the relational aspect of the absurd in that it constitutes a conflict
between two sides.
Various components of the absurd have been suggested and
different researchers often focus their definition and inquiry on one of
these components. Some accounts emphasize the practical components
concerned with the individual seeking meaning while others stress the
theoretical components about being unable to know
the world or to rationally grasp it. A different disagreement concerns
whether the conflict exists only internal to the individual or is
between the individual's expectations and the external world. Some theorists also include the metacognitive component that the absurd entails that the individual is aware of this conflict.
An important aspect of absurdism is that the absurd is not limited to particular situations but encompasses life as a whole. There is a general agreement that people are often confronted with absurd situations in everyday life. They often arise when there is a serious mismatch between one's intentions and reality. For example, a person struggling to break down a heavy front door is
absurd if the house they are trying to break into lacks a back wall and
could easily be entered on this route. But the philosophical thesis of absurdism is much more wide-reaching
since it is not restricted to individual situations, persons, or phases
in life. Instead, it asserts that life, or the world as a whole, is
absurd. The claim that the absurd has such a global extension is
controversial, in contrast to the weaker claim that some situations are
absurd.
The perspective of absurdism usually comes into view when
the agent takes a step back from their individual everyday engagements
with the world to assess their importance from a bigger context. Such an assessment can result in the insight that the day-to-day
engagements matter a lot to us despite the fact that they lack real
meaning when evaluated from a wider perspective. This assessment reveals
the conflict between the significance seen from the internal
perspective and the arbitrariness revealed through the external
perspective. The absurd becomes a problem since there is a strong desire for meaning and purpose even though they seem to be absent. In this sense, the conflict responsible for the absurd often either constitutes or is accompanied by an existential crisis.
Components
Practical and theoretical
An important component of the absurd on the practical level
concerns the seriousness people bring toward life. This seriousness is
reflected in many different attitudes and areas, for example, concerning
fame, pleasure, justice, knowledge, or survival, both in regard to ourselves as well as in regard to others. But there seems to be a discrepancy between how seriously we take our
lives and the lives of others on the one hand, and how arbitrary they
and the world at large seem to be on the other hand. This can be
understood in terms of importance
and caring: it is absurd that people continue to care about these
matters even though they seem to lack importance on an objective level. The collision between these two sides can be defined as the absurd.
This is perhaps best exemplified when the agent is seriously engaged in
choosing between arbitrary options, none of which truly matters.
Some theorists characterize the ethical
sides of absurdism and nihilism in the same way as the view that it
does not matter how we act or that "everything is permitted." On this view, an important aspect of the absurd is that whatever higher
end or purpose we choose to pursue, it can also be put into doubt
since, in the last step, it always lacks a higher-order justification. But usually, a distinction between absurdism and nihilism is made since
absurdism involves the additional component that there is a conflict
between man's desire for meaning and the absence of meaning.
On a more theoretical view, absurdism is the belief
that the world is, at its core, indifferent and impenetrable toward
human attempts to uncover its deeper reason or that it cannot be known.According to this theoretical component, it involves the epistemological problem of the human limitations of knowing the world. This includes the thesis that the world is in critical ways ungraspable
to humans, both in relation to what to believe and how to act. This is reflected in the chaos and irrationality of the universe, which
acts according to its own laws in a manner indifferent to human
concerns and aspirations. It is closely related to the idea that the
world remains silent when we ask why things are the way they are. This
silence arises from the impression that, on the most fundamental level,
all things exist without a reason: they are simply there.An important aspect of these limitations to knowing the world is that they are essential to human cognition,
i.e. they are not due to following false principles or accidental
weaknesses but are inherent in the human cognitive faculties themselves.
Some theorists also link this problem to the circularity of human reason,
which is very skilled at producing chains of justification linking one
thing to another while trying and failing to do the same for the chain
of justification as a whole when taking a reflective step backward. This implies that human reason is not just too limited to grasp life as
a whole, but that, if one seriously tried to do so anyway, its
ungrounded circularity might collapse and lead to madness.
Internal and external
An important disagreement within the academic literature
about the nature of absurdism and the absurd focuses specifically on
whether the components responsible for the conflict are internal or
external. According to the traditional position, the absurd has both internal and
external components: it is due to the discrepancy between man's
internal desire to lead a meaningful life
and the external meaninglessness of the world. In this view, humans
have, among their desires, some transcendent aspirations that seek a
higher form of meaning in life. The absurd arises since these
aspirations are ignored by the world, which is indifferent to our "need
for validation of the importance of our concerns." This implies that the absurd "is not in man ... nor in the world, but
in their presence together." This position has been rejected by some
later theorists, who hold that the absurd is purely internal because it
"derives not from a collision between our expectations and the world,
but from a collision within ourselves".
The distinction is important since, on the latter view,
the absurd is built into human nature and would prevail no matter what
the world was like. So, it is not just that absurdism is true in the
actual world. Instead, any possible world, even one that was designed by a divine god
and guided by them according to their higher purpose, would still be
equally absurd to man. In this sense, absurdity is the product of the
power of our consciousness
to take a step back from whatever it is considering and reflect on the
reason of its object. When this process is applied to the world as a
whole, including God, it is bound to fail its search for a reason or an
explanation, no matter what the world is like. In this sense, absurdity arises from the conflict between features of
ourselves: "our capacity to recognize the arbitrariness of our ultimate
concerns and our simultaneous incapacity to relinquish our commitment to
them". This view has the side effect that the absurd depends on the fact that
the affected person recognizes it. For example, people who fail to
apprehend the arbitrariness or the conflict would not be affected.
Metacognitive
According to some researchers, a central aspect of the absurd is that the agent is aware
of the existence of the corresponding conflict. This means that the
person is conscious both of the seriousness they invest and of how it
seems misplaced in an arbitrary world. It also implies that other entities that lack this form of
consciousness, like non-organic matter or lower life forms, are not
absurd and are not faced with this particular problem. Some theorists also emphasize that the conflict remains despite the
individual's awareness of it, i.e. that the individual continues to care
about their everyday concerns despite their impression that, on the
large scale, these concerns are meaningless. Defenders of the metacognitive
component have argued that it manages to explain why absurdity is
primarily ascribed to human aspirations but not to lower animals:
because they lack this metacognitive awareness. However, other
researchers reject the metacognitive requirement based on the fact that
it would severely limit the scope of the absurd to only those possibly
few individuals who clearly recognize the contradiction while sparing
the rest. Thus, opponents have argued that not recognizing the conflict
is just as absurd as consciously living through it.
Arguments
For
Thomas Nagel examined the nature of the absurd, considering arguments and responses to it.
Various popular arguments are often cited in favor of
absurdism. Some focus on the future by pointing out that nothing we do
today will matter in a million years. A similar line of argument points to the fact that our lives are
insignificant because of how small they are in relation to the universe
as a whole, both concerning their spatial and their temporal dimensions.
The thesis of absurdism is also sometimes based on the problem of death, i.e. that there is no final end for us to pursue since we are all going to die.In this sense, death is said to destroy all our hard-earned
achievements like career, wealth, or knowledge. This argument is
mitigated to some extent by the fact that we may have positive or
negative effects on the lives of other people as well. But this does not
fully solve the issue since the same problem, i.e. the lack of an
ultimate end, applies to their lives as well. Thomas Nagel
has objected to these lines of argument based on the claim that they
are circular: they assume rather than establish that life is absurd. For
example, the claim that our actions today will not matter in a million
years does not directly imply that they do not matter today. And
similarly, the fact that a process does not reach a meaningful ultimate
goal does not entail that the process as a whole is worthless since some
parts of the process may contain their justification without depending
on a justification external to them.
Another argument proceeds indirectly by pointing out how
various great thinkers have obvious irrational elements in their systems
of thought. These purported mistakes of reason are then taken as signs
of absurdism that were meant to hide or avoid it. From this perspective, the tendency to posit the existence of a benevolent God may be seen as a form of defense mechanism or wishful thinking to avoid an unsettling and inconvenient truth. This is closely related to the idea that humans have an inborn desire
for meaning and purpose, which is dwarfed by a meaningless and
indifferent universe. For example, René Descartes aims to build a philosophical system based on the absolute certainty of the "I think, therefore I am"
just to introduce without a proper justification the existence of a
benevolent and non-deceiving God in a later step in order to ensure that
we can know about the external world. A similar problematic step is taken by John Locke, who accepts the existence of a God beyond sensory experience, despite his strict empiricism, which demands that all knowledge be based on sensory experience.
Other theorists argue in favor of absurdism based on the claim that meaning is relational. In this sense, for something to be meaningful, it has to stand in relation to something else that is meaningful.For example, a word is meaningful because of its relation to a language
or someone's life could be meaningful because this person dedicates
their efforts to a higher meaningful project, like serving God or
fighting poverty. An important consequence of this characterization of
meaning is that it threatens to lead to an infinite regress: at each step, something is meaningful because something else is
meaningful, which in its turn has meaning only because it is related to
yet another meaningful thing, and so on. This infinite chain and the corresponding absurdity could be avoided if
some things had intrinsic or ultimate meaning, i.e. if their meaning
did not depend on the meaning of something else.For example, if things on the large scale, like God or fighting
poverty, had meaning, then our everyday engagements could be meaningful
by standing in the right relation to them. However, if these wider
contexts themselves lack meaning then they are unable to act as sources
of meaning for other things. This would lead to the absurd when
understood as the conflict between the impression that our everyday
engagements are meaningful even though they lack meaning because they do
not stand in a relation to something else that is meaningful.
Another argument for absurdism is based on the attempt of
assessing standards of what matters and why it matters. It has been
argued that the only way to answer such a question is in reference to
these standards themselves. This means that, in the end, it depends only
on us, that "what seems to us important or serious or valuable would
not seem so if we were differently constituted". The circularity and
groundlessness of these standards themselves are then used to argue for
absurdism.
Against
The most common criticism of absurdism is to argue that life in fact has meaning. Supernaturalist
arguments to this effect are based on the claim that God exists and
acts as the source of meaning. Naturalist arguments, on the other hand,
contend that various sources of meaning can be found in the natural
world without recourse to a supernatural realm. Some of them hold that
meaning is subjective. On this view, whether a given thing is meaningful
varies from person to person based on their subjective attitude toward
this thing. Others find meaning in external values, for example, in morality, knowledge, or beauty. All these different positions have in common that they affirm the existence of meaning, in contrast to absurdism.
Another criticism of absurdism focuses on its negative
attitude toward moral values. In the absurdist literature, the moral
dimension is sometimes outright denied, for example, by holding that
value judgments are to be discarded or that the rejection of God implies
the rejection of moral values. On this view, absurdism brings with it a highly controversial form of moral nihilism.
This means that there is a lack, not just of a higher purpose in life,
but also of moral values. These two sides can be linked by the idea that
without a higher purpose, nothing is worth pursuing that could give
one's life meaning. This worthlessness seems to apply to morally
relevant actions equally as to other issues. In this sense, "[b]elief in the meaning of life always implies a scale
of values" while "[b]elief in the absurd ... teaches the contrary". Various objections to such a position have been presented, for example, that it violates common sense
or that it leads to numerous radical consequences, like that no one is
ever guilty of any blameworthy behavior or that there are no ethical
rules.
But this negative attitude toward moral values is not
always consistently maintained by absurdists and some of the suggested
responses on how to deal with the absurd seem to explicitly defend the
existence of moral values. Due to this ambiguity, other critics of absurdism have objected to it based on its inconsistency. The moral values defended by absurdists often overlap with the ethical outlook of existentialism and include traits like sincerity, authenticity, and courage as virtues. In this sense, absurdists often argue that it matters how the agent
faces the absurdity of their situation and that the response should
exemplify these virtues. This aspect is particularly prominent in the
idea that the agent should rebel against the absurd and live their life
authentically as a form of passionate revolt.
Some see the latter position as inconsistent with the idea
that there is no meaning in life: if nothing matters then it should
also not matter how we respond to this fact. Defenders of absurdism have tried to resist this line of argument by
contending that, in contrast to other responses, it remains true to the
basic insight of absurdism and the "logic of the absurd" by
acknowledging the existence of the absurd instead of denying it. But this defense is not always accepted. One of its shortcomings seems to be that it commits the is-ought fallacy:
absurdism presents itself as a descriptive claim about the existence
and nature of the absurd but then goes on to posit various normative
claims. Another defense of absurdism consists in weakening the claims about how
one should respond to the absurd and which virtues such a response
should exemplify. On this view, absurdism may be understood as a form of
self-help
that merely provides prudential advice. Such prudential advice may be
helpful to certain people without pretending to have the status of
universally valid moral values or categorical normative judgments. So
the value of the prudential advice may merely be relative to the
interests of some people but not valuable in a more general sense. This
way, absurdists have tried to resolve the apparent inconsistency in
their position.
Examples
According to absurdism, life in general is absurd: the
absurd is not just limited to a few specific cases. Nonetheless, some
cases are more paradigmatic examples than others. The Myth of Sisyphus is often treated as a key example of the absurd. In it, Zeus punishes King Sisyphus
by compelling him to roll a massive boulder up a hill. Whenever the
boulder reaches the top, it rolls down again, thereby forcing Sisyphus
to repeat the same task all over again throughout eternity. This story
may be seen as an absurdist parable
for the hopelessness and futility of human life in general: just like
Sisyphus, humans in general are condemned to toil day in and day out in
the attempt to fulfill pointless tasks, which will be replaced by new
pointless tasks once they are completed. It has been argued that a
central aspect of Sisyphus' situation is not just the futility of his
labor but also his awareness of the futility.
Franz Kafka's book The Trial (German: Der Prozess) examines the absurdity of life through the lens of an impenetrable judicial system.
Another example of the absurdist aspect of the human condition is given in Franz Kafka's The Trial. In it, the protagonist Josef K. is arrested and prosecuted by an
inaccessible authority even though he is convinced that he has done
nothing wrong. Throughout the story, he desperately tries to discover
what crimes he is accused of and how to defend himself. But in the end,
he lets go of his futile attempts and submits to his execution without
ever finding out what he was accused of. The absurd nature of the world
is exemplified by the mysterious and impenetrable functioning of the
judicial system, which seems indifferent to Josef K. and resists all of
his attempts of making sense of it.
Importance
Philosophers of absurdism often complain that the topic of
the absurd does not receive the attention of professional philosophers
it merits, especially when compared to other perennial philosophical
areas of inquiry. It has been argued, for example, that this can be seen
in the tendency of various philosophers throughout the ages to include
the epistemically dubitable existence of God in their philosophical
systems as a source of ultimate explanation of the mysteries of
existence. In that regard, this tendency may be seen as a form of
defense mechanism or wishful thinking constituting a side-effect of the
unacknowledged and ignored importance of the absurd. While some discussions of absurdism happen explicitly in the
philosophical literature, it is often presented in a less explicit
manner in the form of novels or plays. These presentations usually
happen by telling stories that exemplify some of the key aspects of
absurdism even though they may not explicitly discuss the topic.
It has been argued that acknowledging the existence of the
absurd has important consequences for epistemology, especially in
relation to philosophy but also when applied more widely to other
fields. The reason for this is that acknowledging the absurd includes becoming
aware of human cognitive limitations and may lead to a form of epistemic
humbleness.
The impression that life is absurd may in some cases have
serious psychological consequences like triggering an existential
crisis. In this regard, an awareness both of absurdism itself and the
possible responses to it can be central to avoiding or resolving such
consequences.
Possible responses
... in spite of or in defiance of the whole of existence he wills to
be himself with it, to take it along, almost defying his torment. For to
hope in the possibility of help, not to speak of help by virtue of the
absurd, that for God all things are possible—no, that he will not do.
And as for seeking help from any other—no, that he will not do for all
the world; rather than seek help he would prefer to be himself—with all
the tortures of hell, if so it must be.
Most researchers argue that the basic conflict posed by
the absurd cannot be truly resolved. This means that any attempt to do
so is bound to fail even though their protagonists may not be aware of
their failure. On this view, there are still several possible responses,
some better than others, but none able to solve the fundamental
conflict. Traditional absurdism, as exemplified by Albert Camus, holds that there are three possible responses to absurdism: suicide, religious belief, or revolting against the absurd. Later researchers have suggested more ways of responding to absurdism.
A very blunt and simple response, though quite radical, is to commit suicide. According to Camus, for example, the problem of suicide is the only
"really serious philosophical problem". It consists in seeking an answer
to the question "Should I kill myself?". This response is motivated by the insight that, no matter how hard the
agent tries, they may never reach their goal of leading a meaningful
life, which can then justify the rejection of continuing to live at all. Most researchers acknowledge that this is one form of response to the
absurd but reject it due to its radical and irreversible nature and
argue instead for a different approach.
One such alternative response to the apparent absurdity of
life is to assume that there is some higher ultimate purpose in which
the individual may participate, like service to society, progress of history, or God's glory. While the individual may only play a small part in the realization of
this overarching purpose, it may still act as a source of meaning. This
way, the individual may find meaning and thereby escape the absurd. One
serious issue with this approach is that the problem of absurdity
applies to this alleged higher purpose as well. So just like the aims of
a single individual life can be put into doubt, this applies equally to
a larger purpose shared by many.And if this purpose is itself absurd, it fails to act as a source of
meaning for the individual participating in it. Camus identifies this
response as a form of suicide as well, pertaining not to the physical
but to the philosophical level. It is a philosophical suicide in the
sense that the individual just assumes that the chosen higher purpose is
meaningful and thereby fails to reflect on its absurdity.
Traditional absurdists usually reject both physical and
philosophical suicide as the recommended response to the absurd, usually
with the argument that both these responses constitute some form of
escape that fails to face the absurd for what it is. Despite the gravity
and inevitability of the absurd, they recommend that we should face it
directly, i.e. not escape from it by retreating into the illusion of
false hope or by ending one's life. In this sense, accepting the reality of the absurd means rejecting any hopes for a happy afterlife free of those contradictions.Instead, the individual should acknowledge the absurd and engage in a rebellion against it. Such a revolt usually exemplifies certain virtues closely related to existentialism, like the affirmation of one's freedom in the face of adversity as well as accepting responsibility and defining one's own essence. An important aspect of this lifestyle is that life is lived passionately and intensely by inviting and seeking new experiences. Such a lifestyle might be exemplified by an actor, a conqueror, or a seduction artist
who is constantly on the lookout for new roles, conquests, or
attractive people despite their awareness of the absurdity of these
enterprises. Another aspect lies in creativity,
i.e. that the agent sees themselves as and acts as the creator of their
own works and paths in life. This constitutes a form of rebellion in
the sense that the agent remains aware of the absurdity of the world and
their part in it but keeps on opposing it instead of resigning and
admitting defeat. But this response does not solve the problem of the absurd at its core:
even a life dedicated to the rebellion against the absurd is itself
still absurd. Defenders of the rebellious response to absurdism have pointed out
that, despite its possible shortcomings, it has one important advantage
over many of its alternatives: it manages to accept the absurd for what
it is without denying it by rejecting that it exists or by stopping
one's own existence. Some even hold that it is the only philosophically
coherent response to the absurd.
While these three responses are the most prominent ones in
the traditional absurdist literature, various other responses have also
been suggested. Instead of rebellion, for example, absurdism may also
lead to a form of irony.
This irony is not sufficient to escape the absurdity of life
altogether, but it may mitigate it to some extent by distancing oneself
to some degree from the seriousness of life.According to Thomas Nagel,
there may be, at least theoretically, two responses to actually
resolving the problem of the absurd. This is based on the idea that the
absurd arises from the consciousness of a conflict between two aspects
of human life: that humans care about various things and that the world
seems arbitrary and does not merit this concern. The absurd would not arise if either of the conflicting elements would
cease to exist, i.e. if the individual would stop caring about things,
as some Eastern religions
seem to suggest, or if one could find something that possesses a
non-arbitrary meaning that merits the concern. For theorists who give
importance to the consciousness
of this conflict for the absurd, a further option presents itself: to
remain ignorant of it to the extent that this is possible.
Other theorists hold that a proper response to the absurd
may neither be possible nor necessary, that it just remains one of the
basic aspects of life no matter how it is confronted. This lack of
response may be justified through the thesis of absurdism itself: if
nothing really matters on the grand scale, then this applies equally to
human responses toward this fact. From this perspective, the passionate
rebellion against an apparently trivial or unimportant state of affairs
seems less like a heroic quest and more like a fool's errand. Jeffrey Gordon has objected to this criticism based on the claim that
there is a difference between absurdity and lack of importance. So even
if life as a whole is absurd, some facts about life may still be more
important than others and the fact that life as a whole is absurd would
be a good candidate for the more important facts.
History
Certain precursors to absurdism are found in Ecclesiastes, a book of the Bible, and in the works of William Shakespeare. Absurdism has its origins in the work of the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who chose to confront the crisis that humans face with the Absurd by developing his own existentialist philosophy. Absurdism as a belief system was born of the European existentialist
movement that ensued, specifically when Camus rejected certain aspects
of that philosophical line of thought and published his essay The Myth of Sisyphus. The aftermath of World War II
provided the social environment that stimulated absurdist views and
allowed for their popular development, especially in the devastated
country of France. Foucault viewed Shakespearean theater as a precursor of absurdism.
Immanuel Kant
An idea very close to the concept of the absurd is due to Immanuel Kant, who distinguishes between phenomena and noumena. This distinction refers to the gap between how things appear to us and
what they are like in themselves. For example, according to Kant, space
and times are dimensions belonging to the realm of phenomena since this
is how sensory impressions are organized by the mind, but may not be found on the level of noumena. The concept of the absurd corresponds to the thesis that there is such a
gap and human limitations may limit the mind from ever truly grasping
reality, i.e. that reality in this sense remains absurd to the mind.
Kierkegaard designed the relationship framework based (in part) on how a person reacts to despair. Absurdist philosophy fits into the 'despair of defiance' rubric.
A century before Camus, the 19th-century Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote extensively about the absurdity of the world. In his journals, Kierkegaard writes about the absurd:
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.
—Kierkegaard, Søren, Journals, 1849
Here is another example of the Absurd from his writings:
What,
then, is the absurd? The absurd is that the eternal truth has come into
existence in time, that God has come into existence, has been born, has
grown up. etc., has come into existence exactly as an individual human
being, indistinguishable from any other human being, in as much as all
immediate recognizability is pre-Socratic paganism and from the Jewish
point of view is idolatry.
—Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript, 1846, Hong 1992, p. 210
How can this absurdity be held or believed? Kierkegaard says:
I
gladly undertake, by way of brief repetition, to emphasize what other
pseudonyms have emphasized. The absurd is not the absurd or absurdities
without any distinction (wherefore Johannes de Silentio: "How many of
our age understand what the absurd is?"). The absurd is a category, and
the most developed thought is required to define the Christian absurd
accurately and with conceptual correctness. The absurd is a category,
the negative criterion, of the divine or of the relationship to the
divine. When the believer has faith, the absurd is not the absurd—faith
transforms it, but in every weak moment it is again more or less absurd
to him. The passion of faith is the only thing which masters the
absurd—if not, then faith is not faith in the strictest sense, but a
kind of knowledge. The absurd terminates negatively before the sphere of
faith, which is a sphere by itself. To a third person the believer
relates himself by virtue of the absurd; so must a third person judge,
for a third person does not have the passion of faith. Johannes de
Silentio has never claimed to be a believer; just the opposite, he has
explained that he is not a believer—in order to illuminate faith
negatively.
—Journals of Søren Kierkegaard X6B 79
Kierkegaard provides an example in Fear and Trembling (1843), which was published under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio. In the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis, Abraham is told by God to kill his sonIsaac.
Just as Abraham is about to kill Isaac, an angel stops Abraham from
doing so. Kierkegaard believes that through virtue of the absurd,
Abraham, defying all reason and ethical duties ("you cannot act"), got
back his son and reaffirmed his faith ("where I have to act").
Another instance of absurdist themes in Kierkegaard's work appears in The Sickness Unto Death, which Kierkegaard signed with pseudonym Anti-Climacus. Exploring the forms of despair, Kierkegaard examines the type of despair known as defiance. In the opening quotation reproduced at the beginning of the article,
Kierkegaard describes how such a man would endure such a defiance and
identifies the three major traits of the Absurd Man, later discussed by
Albert Camus: a rejection of escaping existence (suicide), a rejection
of help from a higher power and acceptance of his absurd (and
despairing) condition.
According to Kierkegaard in his autobiography The Point of View of My Work as an Author,
most of his pseudonymous writings are not necessarily reflective of his
own opinions. Nevertheless, his work anticipated many absurdist themes
and provided its theoretical background.
Albert Camus
Albert Camus in 1945
The philosophy of Albert Camus, or more precisely the "camusian absurd" (French: l'absurde camusien), refers with absurdism to the work and philosophical thought of the French writer Albert Camus. This philosophy is influenced by the author's political, libertarian, social and ecological ideas; and is inspired by previous philosophical trends, such as Greek philosophy, nihilism, the Nietzschean thought or existentialism. It revolves around three major cycles: "the absurd (l'absurde)", "the revolt (la révolte)" and "love (l'amour)". Each cycle is linked to a Greek myth (Sisyphus, Prometheus, Nemesis)
and explores specific themes and objects; the common thread remaining
the solitude and despair of the human, constantly driven by the tireless
search for the meaning of the world and of life.
I had a precise plan when I started my work: I wanted to first express negation. In three forms. Romanesque: it was The Stranger. Drama: Caligula and The Misunderstanding. Ideological: The Myth of Sisyphus. I wouldn't have been able to talk about it if I hadn't experienced it; I have no imagination. But for me it was, if you like, the methodical doubt
of Descartes. I knew that we cannot live in negation and I announced it
in the preface to the Myth of Sisyphus; I anticipated the positive in
all three forms again. Romance: The Plague. Drama: The State of Siege and The Righteous. Ideological: The Rebel. I already saw a third layer around the theme of love. These are the projects I have in progress
The cycle of the absurd, or negation, primarily addresses suicide and the human condition. It is expressed through four of Camus's works: the novelThe Stranger and the essayThe Myth of Sisyphus (1942), then the plays Caligula and The Misunderstanding
(1944). By refusing the refuge of belief, Human becomes aware that his
existence revolves around repetitive and meaningless acts. The certainty
of death only reinforces, according to the writer, the feeling of
uselessness of all existence. The absurd is therefore the feeling that
man feels when confronted with the absence of meaning in the face of the
Universe, the painful realization of his separation from the world. The
question then arises of the legitimacy of suicide.
The cycle of revolt, called the positive, is a direct response to the absurd and is also expressed by four of his works: the novel The Plague (1947), the plays The State of Siege (1948) and The Just Assassins (1949), then the essay The Rebel
(1951). Positive concept of affirmation of the individual, where only
action and commitment count in the face of the tragedy of the world, revolt is for the writer the way of experiencing the absurd, knowing our fatal destiny and nevertheless facing it:
"Man refuses the world as it is, without agreeing to escape it." It is
intelligence grappling with the "unreasonable silence of the world".
Depriving ourselves of eternal life frees us from the constraints
imposed by an improbable future; Man gains freedom of action, lucidity
and dignity.
The philosophy of Camus therefore has as its finitude a singular humanism.
Advancing a message of lucidity, resilience and emancipation in the
face of the absurdity of life, it encourages people to create their own
meanings through personal choices and commitments, and to embrace their
freedom to the fullest. Because he affirms that, even in the absurd,
there is room for passion and rebellion; and although the Universe may
be indifferent to our search for meaning, this search is in itself meaningful. In The Myth of Sisyphus,
despite his absurd destiny, Sisyphus finds a form of liberation in his
incessant work: "one must imagine Sisyphus happy". With the cycle of
love and the "midday thought" (French: la pensée de midi), the philosophy of the absurd is completed by a principle of measurement and pleasure, close to Epicureanism.
Though the notion of the 'absurd' pervades all Albert Camus's writing, The Myth of Sisyphus
is his chief work on the subject. In it, Camus considers absurdity as a
confrontation, an opposition, a conflict or a "divorce" between two
ideals. Specifically, he defines the human condition as absurd, as the
confrontation between man's desire for significance, meaning and clarity
on the one hand—and the silent, cold universe on the other. He
continues that there are specific human experiences evoking notions of
absurdity. Such a realization or encounter with the absurd leaves the
individual with a choice: suicide, a leap of faith, or recognition. He concludes that recognition is the only defensible option.
For Camus, suicide is a "confession" that life is not
worth living; it is a choice that implicitly declares that life is "too
much." Suicide offers the most basic "way out" of absurdity: the
immediate termination of the self and its place in the universe.
The absurd encounter can also arouse a "leap of faith," a term derived from one of Kierkegaard's early pseudonyms, Johannes de Silentio (although the term was not used by Kierkegaard himself), where one believes that there is more than the rational life (aesthetic
or ethical). To take a "leap of faith," one must act with the "virtue
of the absurd" (as Johannes de Silentio put it), where
a suspension of the ethical may need to exist. This faith has no
expectations, but is a flexible power initiated by a recognition of the
absurd. Camus states that because the leap of faith escapes rationality
and defers to abstraction over personal experience, the leap of faith is
not absurd. Camus considers the leap of faith as "philosophical
suicide," rejecting both this and physical suicide.
Lastly, a person can choose to embrace the absurd
condition. According to Camus, one's freedom—and the opportunity to give
life meaning—lies in the recognition of absurdity. If the absurd
experience is truly the realization that the universe is fundamentally
devoid of absolutes, then we as individuals are truly free. "To live
without appeal," as he puts it, is a philosophical move to define absolutes and
universals subjectively, rather than objectively. The freedom of man is
thus established in one's natural ability and opportunity to create
their own meaning and purpose; to decide (or think) for oneself. The
individual becomes the most precious unit of existence, representing a
set of unique ideals that can be characterized as an entire universe in
its own right. In acknowledging the absurdity of seeking any inherent
meaning, but continuing this search regardless, one can be happy,
gradually developing meaning from the search alone. "Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable."
Camus states in The Myth of Sisyphus:
"Thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my
freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I
transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I
refuse suicide." "Revolt" here refers to the refusal of suicide and search for meaning
despite the revelation of the Absurd; "Freedom" refers to the lack of
imprisonment by religious devotion or others' moral codes; "Passion"
refers to the most wholehearted experiencing of life, since hope has
been rejected, and so he concludes that every moment must be lived
fully.
Relation to other concepts
Existentialism and nihilism
Absurdism originated from (as well as alongside) the 20th-century strains of existentialism and nihilism;
it shares some prominent starting points with both, though also entails
conclusions that are uniquely distinct from these other schools of
thought. All three arose from the human experience of anguish and
confusion stemming from existence: the apparent meaninglessness of a
world in which humans, nevertheless, are compelled to find or create
meaning. The three schools of thought diverge from there. Existentialists have
generally advocated the individual's construction of their own meaning
in life as well as the free will
of the individual. Nihilists, on the contrary, contend that "it is
futile to seek or to affirm meaning where none can be found." Absurdists, following Camus' formulation, hesitantly allow the
possibility for some meaning or value in life, but are neither as
certain as existentialists are about the value of one's own constructed
meaning nor as nihilists are about the total inability to create
meaning. Absurdists following Camus also devalue or outright reject free
will, encouraging merely that the individual live defiantly and
authentically in spite of the psychological tension of the Absurd.
Camus himself passionately worked to counter nihilism, as he explained in his essay "The Rebel", while he also categorically rejected the label of "existentialist" in his essay "Enigma" and in the compilation The Lyrical and Critical Essays of Albert Camus, though he was, and still is, often broadly characterized by others as an existentialist. Both existentialism and absurdism entail consideration of the practical applications of becoming conscious of the truth of existential nihilism:
i.e., how a driven seeker of meaning should act when suddenly
confronted with the seeming concealment, or downright absence, of
meaning in the universe.
While absurdism can be seen as a kind of response to
existentialism, it can be debated exactly how substantively the two
positions differ from each other. The existentialist, after all, does
not deny the reality of death. But the absurdist seems to reaffirm the
way in which death ultimately nullifies our meaning-making activities, a
conclusion the existentialists seem to resist through various notions
of posterity or, in Sartre's case, participation in a grand humanist project.
Existential crisis
The basic problem of absurdism is usually not encountered
through a dispassionate philosophical inquiry but as the manifestation
of an existential crisis. Existential crises are inner conflicts in which the individual wrestles with the impression that life lacks meaning. They are accompanied by various negative experiences, such as stress, anxiety, despair, and depression, which can disturb the individual's normal functioning in everyday life. In this sense, the conflict underlying the absurdist perspective poses a
psychological challenge to the affected. This challenge is due to the
impression that the agent's vigorous daily engagement stands in
incongruity with its apparent insignificance encountered through
philosophical reflection. Realizing this incongruity is usually not a pleasant occurrence and may lead to estrangement, alienation, and hopelessness. The intimate relation to psychological crises is also manifested in the
problem of finding the right response to this unwelcome conflict, for
example, by denying it, by taking life less seriously, or by revolting
against the absurd. But accepting the position of absurdism may also have certain positive
psychological effects. In this sense, it can help the individual achieve
a certain psychological distance from unexamined dogmas and thus help
them evaluate their situation from a more encompassing and objective
perspective. However, it brings with it the danger of leveling all
significant differences and thereby making it difficult for the
individual to decide what to do or how to live their life.
Epistemological skepticism
It has been argued that absurdism in the practical domain resembles epistemological skepticism in the theoretical domain. In the case of epistemology, we usually take for granted our knowledge of the world around us even though, when methodological doubt is applied, it turns out that this knowledge is not as unshakable as initially assumed. For example, the agent may decide to trust their perception that the
sun is shining but its reliability depends on the assumption that the
agent is not dreaming, which they would not know even if they were
dreaming. In a similar sense in the practical domain, the agent may
decide to take aspirin in order to avoid a headache even though they may
be unable to give a reason for why they should be concerned with their
own wellbeing at all. In both cases, the agent goes ahead with a form of unsupported natural
confidence and takes life largely for granted despite the fact that
their power to justify is only limited to a rather small range and fails
when applied to the larger context, on which the small range depends.
Education
It has been argued that absurdism is opposed to various fundamental principles and assumptions guiding education, like the importance of truth and of fostering rationality in the students.
.jpg)
