Freedomain Radio

I just took some quiz online about existentialism and I'd say it was mostly retarded, but it did spark a question in me.

What do people mean when they say that "Life is absurd"?  What evidence do they have to support such an idea?  Is the idea of evidence even relevant to someone who thinks life is absurd?  If I see someone say life is absurd and I don't feel like being curious with them, is it likely they're some relativist jackass and in the interests of my own sanity, I should ignore them?

I remember that one Catholic guy on here once said something about the absurdity of life is what made him believe in god.  Does that answer my question?

I think that they mean that the people around them are irrational, petty and immature, but it is easier to define "life" that way as a whole rather than raise the standards for themselves, and those around them.

 i used to like absurdism or existensialism simply because it exposed me to reasoning and logic were the outcome was not already predetermined in order to further propagandize me, at least not to the mainstream opinions i encountered in public school.  It was also convenient to normalize my pain and allow me to dissassociate from it as that is really all i expected, it made a lot of sense that all human interaction is hell and horrible. 

I can see using absurdism as a need for god, so you can have something to live for, but in my case i had already been exposed to the absurdity of religon.

The way I have understood the claim is like this: Life in general, and complex human intelligence especially, is a highly contingent and improbable phenomenon. There are so many interdependent and unlikely circumstances that must take place for us to be here, on this planet, now that lead one to the "life is absurd" stance. Interestingly I have heard people make this claim in support of both nihilism and religion. It seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of science and reason.

I've never been able to get existentialism.  The nihilists and the existentialists seem to have this big problem with the fact that there are no objective external values.  So what?  Such an idea doesn't even make sense anyway.  All value is individual and, in some sense, self-generated.  Nobody can ever have, nor 'need', anything beyond 'because I want to'.  This is why Stirner is much better than the nihilists.  He realises that just because life is ultimately meaningless has no bearing on the fact that it's personally relevant.

 So what?

Well its kinda hard to accept when you've been taught the exact opposite your entire life, and you need that belif to continue so you don't go into dep depression about how crappy your life is.  At leasts thats why, noones saying its a rationale belif and even if people truly belived it, they wouldn't spend much time arguing they would just kill themselves. 

i would have but i didn't have enough courage or something.  When life sucks you want to think that its everyones not just yours.  Especially if you ever acknowledge your life sucks most people just dissassociate from you or mock you even further making life suck even more.

 When someone utters a phrase such as that it seems indicative of that persons inability to understand or comprehend events or people around him.

It might indicate a sign of unhappiness, that they can't fit into society or define their place in it.  Believing in God would be further evidence to me of this as surely someone who ponders the absurdity of life and turns to God is looking for answers or some metaphysical elastoplast for the mind to try and ease their anxiety or pain.

Well its kinda hard to accept when you've been taught the exact opposite your entire life

I do understand this...I believe nihilism often leads to depression and ennui not because of anything inherent to nihilism, but because people have been so long taught that there is and 'must be' some external validation of life and values.  I have the advantage of having always judged my life by what I wanted and not really given a damn what other people thought I ought to be doing with it.  This means that once I consciously formulated nihilism all it did was confirm my prior experience, instead of devastating great fundaments of my philosophy.  I think I am exceptional (in the value neutral sense) because I reach very similar conclusions to both libertarians and nihilists but from a very different intellectual background.  I did not realise one day that everything I believed were lies, but added another to the list of obvious lies I'd been dealing with for a long time.

i would have but i didn't have enough courage or something.

There was a point in my life, not too many years ago, where I felt suicidal.  For me it hinged entirely on feeling alone and lacking any sort of social support or friendship.  So I sold everything I owned and moved to another state to be with my friends.  Since then I've felt a lot better about, well, everything.

It might indicate a sign of unhappiness, that they can't fit into society or define their place in it.  Believing in God would be further evidence to me of this as surely someone who ponders the absurdity of life and turns to God is looking for answers or some metaphysical elastoplast for the mind to try and ease their anxiety or pain.

Fair enough, but the only reasons they feel that need is because they were taught about a god giving innate reasons for life in the first place.

My understanding of existentialism is basically that it is a belief that what is, is. Since there are many individuals, who always bring their own kitsch to the table with them, miscommunications often occur when two individuals interact. This becomes exponential when more individuals get involved, thus creating absurdity, usually used in the sense that with so many counteracting forces in a context, no solution to one particular problem is apparent. I also think that a true existentialist would find god absurd, since it is obviously not present. Existentialism could be labeled nihilism if the person espousing it were negative/depressed/etc. However, it does not have to be. To further investigate, I have just brought my own kitsch to the table which is specifically: "existentialism is not nihilism or belief in God and the reference to absurdity has been misunderstood." If this conversation continues, undoubtedly there will be individuals who disagree with me. There might be individuals who do agree with me. Either way, we are no closer to solving any particular issue, since this is merely semantic back and forth. But to address the specific question at the start of this thread, when I say "Life is absurd" I generally mean that despite the best plans I make and implement, life is still so much out of my control that ridiculous things happen to me for no really good reason, they just happen sometimes. Hmmmmm. Another much simpler way to say this is Existentialism= Shit Happens!

From "Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction", by Thomas Flynn

It is commonly acknowledged that Existentialism is a philosophy about the concrete individual. This is both its glory and its shame. In an age of mass communications and mass destruction, it is to its credit that existentialism defends the intrinsic value of what its main proponent Sartre calls the "free organic individual", that is, the flesh-and-blood agent. Because of the almost irresistable pull toward conformity in modern society [or any society, for that matter - gmg], what we shall call "existential individuality" is an achievement, and not a permanent one at that. We are born biological beings but we must become existential individuals by accepting responsibility for our actions. This is an application of Nietzsche's advice to "become what you are". Many people never do acknowledge such responsibility but rather flee their existential individuality into the comfort of the faceless crowd....

While the supreme value of existentialist thought is commonly acknowledged to be freedom, it's primary virtue is authenticity...

Despite its claim to be novel and unprecedented, Existentialism represents a long tradition in the history of philosophy of the West, extending back at least to Socrates. This is the practice of philosophy as "care of the self". Its focus is on the proper way of acting rather than on an abstract set of theoretical truths...  The philosopher was a kind of doctor of the soul, prescribing the proper attitudes and practices to foster health and happiness...

Of course, philosophy as the pursuit of basic truths about human nature and the universe was also widespread among the Ancient Greeks and was an ingredient in the care of the self. It was this theoretical approach that led to the rise of science...

At issue in this distinction between two forms of philosophy (among other things) are to different uses of "truth": the scientific and the moral. The former is is more cognitive and theoretical, and the later more self-formative and practical, as in "to thine own self be true". Whereas the former made no demands on the kind of person one should become in order to know the truth... the latter kind of truth required a certain self-discipline, a set of practices on the self such as attention to diet, control of one's speech, and regular meditation, in order to be able to access it. It was a matter of becoming a certain kind of person...

It is this larger tradition that existentialism as a philosophical movement can be located. The existentialists can be viewed aas reviving this more personal notion of "truth", a truth that is lived as distinct from and often in opposition to the more detached and scientific use of the term..

The error that Existentialism made, was in mystifying this personal notion of truth, in my opinion, and setting it at odds with "scientific" truth. They made "scientific" truth into something dangerous and wanton - devoid of a conscience. But the two are not enemies, and what makes philosphy at Freedomain so important to me, is the fact that Stef has practically single-handedly reconciled the existentialist's dillema: i.e., genuine care of the self is not possible, without scientific truth, and scientific truth whithers and suffocates in the absense of care of the self.

Just my two cents...

GregG:

 

The error that Existentialism made, was in mystifying this personal notion of truth, in my opinion, and setting it at odds with "scientific" truth. They made "scientific" truth into something dangerous and wanton - devoid of a conscience. But the two are not enemies, and what makes philosphy at Freedomain so important to me, is the fact that Stef has practically single-handedly reconciled the existentialist's dillema: i.e., genuine care of the self is not possible, without scientific truth, and scientific truth whithers and suffocates in the absense of care of the self.

Just my two cents...

 

 

Yes, this jumped out at me as well, when I read what you quoted.  It's amazing how often science and reality are disassociated from each other in today's culture.  I just was talking with a co-worker who seems to be some mix of new-ager, relativist, and existentialist.  It was interesting to watch him react to the realization that the fact is that science is a part of everything we do and we acknowledge it in every action we do, from driving down the street, to eating food.  I felt bad for him a little bit, because I'm sure it was destroying one of his defenses.

nexalacer:

It's amazing how often science and reality are disassociated from each other in today's culture.  I just was talking with a co-worker who seems to be some mix of new-ager, relativist, and existentialist.  It was interesting to watch him react to the realization that the fact is that science is a part of everything we do and we acknowledge it in every action we do, from driving down the street, to eating food.  I felt bad for him a little bit, because I'm sure it was destroying one of his defenses.

I haven't read a lot of existentialist texts through because there never seemed to be much to it.  I could be wrong of course, but my impression that there isn't a lot of intellectual solidity beyond a few points which were themselves derived from post-Enlightenment philosophers and salon intellectuals.  But I would be interested if an existentialist could explain/support his views.

here's a little clip about existentialism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82EV4KBIsNk

Honestly, I really like some of the things he says in this video. Whether it's existentialism or not, it's cool.

StoicSentry:

here's a little clip about existentialism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82EV4KBIsNk

 

Honestly, I really like some of the things he says in this video. Whether it's existentialism or not, it's cool.

I agree to a large extent with his points, but they're hardly unique to existentialism.  Most of philosophy is engaged in the attempt to get people to accept responsibility for their actions by implication, since the whole relevance of ideas is that people act on them.  It only matters what an individual person's ideas are if we realise that we, individually, are casually responsible and existentially tied to our reasoning and actions.  Even accepting something arbitrarily involves some cognition and a habit of confirmation.

 Max Stirner said, "What is freedom? To have the will to be responsible for one's self."  Not simply to realize that one is responsible, but to realise what it entails.  Freedom is putting the circumstances of our life under our power.  The fundamental drive behind desire is always, ultimately, power.  No one can be against personal power even in theory so long as he desires anything. Stirner also made the statement that, "The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss," which of course means a radical willingness to take responsibility and to direct one's life in ways that people, today, are largely ignorant of.  A rational evaluation of social connections is emminently obvious and even vital, but if you talk about your family, your 'family' or your 'country' in this way you are likely to encounter severe flak.  This is an example of the kind of universal conceit that comes about, fundamentally, because people don't take responsibility for their actions or ideas.  Ideology itself centers around what they 'ought' to do as not something they are fit to decide based on actual desires, nor can they control what they 'like' and 'owe' some fealty towards.