Talk:Absurdism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drinkcoffee25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(Simplified) Relationship between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism? Table order

I switched the left to right order of the header topics for the table in the "Relationships with existentialism and nihilism" section. To me, it made more sense to have the philosophies the article and section are discussing (Atheistic Existentialism, Absurdism, and Nihilism) first from the left, and the topic that's just there for comparison's sake and not really discussed in the article (Theistic existentialism) last. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.159 (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing the absurdism table

Setting aside the problem of WP:SYNTH, the information on the table seems dubious on a number of counts. If some of this isn't sourced, the entire table will need to be removed:

• 2. Existentialists (i.e., atheistic/Sartrean ones) are less agnostic than absurdists about whether "there is inherent meaning in the universe".
• 3a. Absurdists don't consider it "essential" that individuals "create meaning in life themselves".
• 3b. Existentialists don't believe that subjective meaning "must face the Absurd and it must be individual by the 'absurd creation' in order to have meaning and sense".
• 4a. Existentialists are less agnostic than absurdists about the possibility of "The pursuit of gaining intrinsic or extrinsic meaning".
• 4b. Existentialists, unlike absurdists, think that the pursuit of objective meaning "itself is [objectively? subjectively?] meaningless".
• 5a. Existentialism has a "goal", and this is "The pursuit of constructed meaning".
• 5b. Existentialists disagree with the absurdist claim that "there is no way to verify whether one's constructed meaning conforms to the intrinsic or extrinsic meaning of the universe".
• 6. Existentialists disagree with the absurdist claim that constructed meaning "is based on the individual's personal meaning since it's impossible to know the inherent meaning in the universe (if one exists)".

Rows 3, 5, and 6 also seem to be saying exactly the same thing. These three lines must be consolidated, unless there is evidence for a distinction between 'created' and 'constructed' meaning. -Silence (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I've deleted the table. It can be restored if someone wants to work with me to fix the errors and cite the claims. -Silence (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Absurdist table

I was wondering if it was possible to place the table back up again, I understand that to some there may be a few errors in it but it was useful for my research and work, thematically anyway, I would greatly appreciate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incognito17 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You can still view and link to the table in the history. Here it is, too:

(Simplified) Relationship between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism Atheistic existentialism Absurdism Nihilism Theistic existentialism 1. There is such a thing as meaning or value Yes Yes No Yes 2. There is inherent meaning in the universe (either intrinsic or from God) No Maybe, but humans can never know it No Maybe, but humans must have faith to believe there is 3. Individuals can create meaning in life themselves Yes, it is essential that they do Yes, but it must face the Absurd and it must be individual by the "absurd creation" in order to have meaning and sense No, because there is no such meaning to create Yes, but that meaning must incorporate God 4. The pursuit of gaining intrinsic or extrinsic meaning in the universe is possible No, and the pursuit itself is meaningless Maybe, and the pursuit itself may have meaning No, and the pursuit itself is meaningless Yes, and the pursuit itself may have meaning 5. The pursuit of constructed meaning is possible Yes, thus the goal of existentialism Yes, but there is no way to verify whether one's constructed meaning conforms to the intrinsic or extrinsic meaning of the universe No Yes, thus the goal of existentialism 6. There is resolution to the individual's desire to seek meaning Yes, the creation of one's own meaning Yes, but it is based on the individual's personal meaning since it's impossible to know the inherent meaning in the universe (if one exists) No Yes, the creation of one's own meaning before God

But why would you want to help your research using a completely unreferenced table containing a large number of falsehoods and misleading claims? -Silence (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I nearly deleted it again before realizing it was disputed. It misrepresents and overgeneralizes some important points and frankly, though tables are generally helpful, this one needs to be removed or completely rewritten. 97.77.52.127 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The book of Ecclesiastes

If anyone is monitoring this page, would it possibly be beneficial to this article to reference the book of Ecclesiastes from the Bible?

The writer of Ecclesiates, self-designated as "the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem" (1:1), asserts the position that all of life and all accomplishments of mankind are "vanity" (i.e. meaningless or "Absurd") but then concludes that faith in and obedience to Jehovah is the only hope for any real meaning: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil" (12:13-14).

-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Absurd introduction

I was alright till I came to "because the sheer amount of information as well as the vast realm of the unknown make certainty impossible." If that made anything absurd, it would be first of all science, because the greatest sources of vastness are quantum mechanics and astronomy. The absence of an objective path to value (I object to "meaning" being used in this sense, because I am dyslexic.) is a totally different problem. David R. Ingham (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

More direct lede opening

I noticed that a Google search synopsis showed the beginning of the second paragraph, not the first. Smart Google. It reveals a problem with the current text: too much definitional foreplay. Yawn.

I'm just throwing this out here as a template for how the lede might be refactored to postpone the quibble just for a breath, beginning perhaps like this:

Absurdism is a philosophical school of thought stipulating that the efforts of humanity to find inherent meaning are absurd, in human terms, given that certainty is unattainable against the vast realm of the unknown. And yet, though our quest for meaning will fail, some absurdists maintain that we should nevertheless embrace the absurd nature of this task and persevere undaunted in the pursuit of meaning we do not and can not expect to ultimately realize.

As I see it, the opening paragraph needs to provide the nutshell with fewer exploding shell fragments.

I would follow this with "Absurdism is very closely related to existentialism and nihilism ... " then perhaps close the lede with "As a philosophy ..."

I would place the definitional grass clippings in a new section ==Terms== before the Overview.

This is just my drive-by suggestion of the moment. Good luck to whomever takes this on. — MaxEnt 20:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference to William Lane Craig (undo requested)

I don't see the point in the addition of a paragraph in 'God' section referring to William Lane Craig. First, this is totally irrelevant (see last phrase of the previous paragraph and [17]). Then, William Lane Craig is known for being a propagandist and a Christian apologist: this addition is simply here to add another reference to him. This page is discussing philosophy not believes...

That doesn't sound right. The quote is relevant. I think your term "propagandist" displays the real reason you wanted the revert.--2601:0:B080:49C:54A3:215E:8621:F67A (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice how the word 'Atheism' is only mentioned in this addition. The relationship of absurdism with belief in God is treated in the above paragraph and alluded to in the paragraph on 'leap of faith' in Camus section. Relationship with the 'meaning of life' is dealt with in the next subsection. This is totally irrelevant to the philosophy of absurdism: all religions claim to provide some meaning to life, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life. The real breakthrough of absurdism is to say that the meaning of life is a personal thing and not exogenous. This edit is indeed propaganda or some form of advertising, I don't know how to put it otherwise. You might add a 'Criticisms' section but the point raised by Craig is already dealt with and dismissed in Camus work. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Absurdism/Archive_1 too Xavatar (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kierkegaard

(Text is as follows) Kierkegaard provides an example in one of his works, Fear and Trembling. In the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis, Abraham is told by God to kill his son Isaac. 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"). In this particular case, the work was signed with the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio.

(The following was placed by user 47.208.124.198 and is worthy of a place in the Talk page. Perhaps it may engender discussion) "[I don't know where to put this so I am adding it here. Remove as necessary. I disagree with this interpretation of Kierkegaard and Abraham. Abrahams's salvation does not come from "defying all reason and ethical duties." That would be easy because God has ordered him to do as much. Abraham's salvation, his insight, comes from the realization that whatever he does, he is condemned. For instance, if he believes God really has ordered him to murder his son, then he must violate his worldly, ethical and moral duties, plus the law itself, become a murderer, and suffer those consequences. If he does not murder his son, then he violates what he perceives to be God's will, and he must suffer that consequence. That is truly the absurd. He is doomed either way he acts. The belief in God is what gets him out of the dilemma of absurdity. Put another way, Abraham's salvation comes from understanding the absurd, not in blind obedience to God: His salvation from absurdity comes from a leap of faith, but only after he realizes that he is doomed to absurdity.]" Neils51 (talk) 01:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 October 2019 and 6 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bayconic. Peer reviewers: PaulTafler, Lovepreetry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition of Absurdism

We need to establish a definition of Absurdism. There have been a series of edits by 46.39.35.72 changing the definition of Absurdism (often with grammar and spelling errors) by adding phrases such as “because no such meaning or value exist.” I do not believe that this is appropriate for the definition of Absurdism, which allows for the possibility of meaning. We can live meaningful lives within an absurd universe. (This is the way I learned it when I studied Philosophy at university). I realize there is a great deal of confusion, even among scholars, on the differences between Existentialism, Absurdism, and Nihilism.

Some definitions found online are: “Absurdism is a philosophical perspective which holds that the efforts of humanity to find meaning or rational explanation in the universe ultimately fail (and, hence, are absurd) because no such meaning exists, at least to human beings.” - New World Encyclopedia

“a philosophy based on the belief that the universe is irrational and meaningless and that the search for order brings the individual into conflict with the universe” - Merriam-Webster

Personally, I feel that the definition in the article should be left as it stands, (as it has a citation) but if others feel it needs changing I would be happy to assist with an improved definition with appropriate citations. - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

- I've been doing some further reading and I get the impression that modern views of Absurdism are much closer to Nihilism than when I studied it. - Epinoia (talk) 16:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and the afterlife?

Is it possible to briefly explain Kierkegaard's understanding of the afterlife or lack thereof? I thought Christian theologists generally believed that consciousness persists after death, but if so, how could suicide be a solution to the absurd?__Gamren (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Is "nihilism" really a distinct category?

I personally find the table on this page quite helpful, particularly in relation to the differences between existentialism and absurdism. But should "nihilism" really be its own category? My understanding is that nihilism is merely the notion that life has no inherent meaning — a premise that existentialists and absurdists would agree with, making both existentialism and absurdism various responses to nihilism. For the final category in the table, perhaps "passive nihilism" would fit better? While not exactly its own philosophical school, I've heard this term used to refer to the form of nihilism currently shown in the chart — one that rejects both an inherent meaning for life as well as any attempts to find one's own meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:41:4080:5B60:E07D:8064:7932:C222 (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Meditation

response to absurdity? David Nur Hidayat (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source that explicitly mentions meditation as a possible response in relation to absurdism. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Table "Basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism"

Hello Basjuc, I saw that you restored the table "Basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism". I agree with you that it gives a very simple and easy-to-grasp explanation of the relation between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism. I removed it nonetheless because it is original research and makes false claims by oversimplifying the issue. We would need a reliable source that mentions these questions and answers if the table is to be restored, see WP:BURDEN. Can you provide such a source? Phlsph7 (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see this as an oversimplification and I would like to hear what you think are false claims made in the table. It is simply a summary of the different types of existential philosophy based upon how they view meaning or value. Basjuc (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Existentialism is a very diverse philosophical movement without a clear definition based on basic tenets that everyone agrees on. Because of this, answering questions in a yes-no-style is a difficult endeavor. Depending on who you ask, all the answers from 1 to 5 could be yes or no for Atheistic existentialism. But even if we were to solve this problem by reformulating all the responses accordingly, we still have the problem of original research. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits to the lead section

It seems to me that the lead section is very simplistic. It ought to start by defining "the absurd" (which is itself much more common in philosophy than the term "absurdism") and that absurdism can then be defined, with a bit of amending, afterwards. Here is my proposal, with actual sources now provided:

In philosophy, the absurd is the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life, and the human inability to find these with any certainty. The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the absurd, but rather, it arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously. Therefore, absurdism is a philosophical belief that the universe is irrational and meaningless, alongside reflection on the human struggle to create meaning. Wolfdog (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hello Wolfdog and thanks for the suggestion. If the main topic of this article was the absurd then it would make sense to start this way. However the main topic is absurdism and the absurd redirects to Absurd, which is disambiguation page. MOS:LEADSENTENCE states that If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. Since we can define absurdism without defining the absurd beforehand, I think this is the better solution for the first sentence. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your point is definitely well taken. However, it's quite clear that this is article is certainly Wikipedia's landing-place for "absurd" in the philosophical sense and, as I stated above, "absurd" is a much more common and encompassing term in philosophical discourse than "absurdism", which is somewhat poorly defined. Notice that on the page itself there are some 21 references with "absurd" in their titles and only 6 with "absurdist/absurdism". So, I re-offer my original suggestion. I'll offer an alternative direction too though, which might be less desirable, that we move this page to a name something along the lines of Absurd (philosophy). Again, it's clear that "the absurd" is the main topic of this article, inextricable from whatever we might make out "absurdism" to be. Is either of these options now (more) appealing? Wolfdog (talk) 14:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Absurd is a concept while absurdism is a philosophical theory and their meanings are not identical. Many people agree that some things are absurd but they are not automatically absurdists. The article is explicitly focused on the theory absurdism, like most of the definitions and arguments. Rewriting it to be an article on the concept absurd could turn out to be quite an extensive project. I'm not convinced by your claim about the relative importance of these two terms but even if you are right, implementing your project would need a lot of expertise and manpower. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Their meanings are not identical, no, but the study of or philosophy that explores both falls on this one page. Of the philosophers who really study the absurd, Camus and to a lesser extent Kierkegaard are our main players [with obviously all the existentialists not far behind]. Of the philosophers who are typically called "absurdists", it's the same two gentlemen. I'm not sure how to convince you of the above claim you mention doubting; with a quick online search, it's difficult to find any definition for "absurdism" in scholarly articles, while a definition for "the absurd" is readily available. So, let me try a third approach, and then I'll give up. If you don't think this page is about both topics (and just point me to the disambiguation page, which only points back here), a third approach is that we make a separate Absurd (philosophy) page, since again this concept is so crucial in philosophical studies. [Personally, I don't love this approach, since I feel this page already covers scholarly inquiry into the concept. But maybe you'd prefer it.] Wolfdog (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It might be challenging for a new article on "Absurd (Philosophy)" to avoid too much overlap with this article and the article Absurdity. If I may, there might be a 4th approach that I hope avoids the problems of the previous suggestions: improve the philosophy section in the article Absurdity instead of creating a new article. It is seems to be in a poor state with several citation-needed tags, irrelevant information, and no good overall organization. Some passages from your draft above could be used for that purpose. I could provide some help but I have a lot my plate right now so most of the heavy lifting would probably fall on you. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts on moving forward. I'll give that section a look; I'm currently unfamiliar with it. I'll reach out to you if I need any particular help. Thanks for the collegiality. Wolfdog (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

References