"These posts are absurd. Your words and troughts are absurd and pointless. Life is absurd. Seeking truth is absurd. All is absurd."
This is what the Absurdist school of thought says about you. 
They're seeking the truth about the absurdity of others.
If I interpret it correctly the Absurdist School says there is no meaning in life. I can't agree with that, as "no meaning" has to be a meaning. In that "absurdist" has a meaning.
In my interpretation, they don't believe that there's no meaning, but rather that we will never find out what it is.
Hahah, what an inspired post! I really thought I was going to read a rant.
I found the table on Wikipedia about the relationship between absurdism and nihilism rather funny, with those clear "no" answers from the nihilistic point of view. And I agree that from the absurdist's point of view, non-essential meanings can be created by man.
~Vlad | catscratches wrote: |
| In my interpretation, they don't believe that there's no meaning, but rather that we will never find out what it is. |
OK, that does make good sense. Perhaps I'm an absurdist too then. Except I never knew it. 
A definition of 'absurd' please?
That would make it all a lot clearer.
@ocalhoun: have you read the first lines of the article I linked to in the original post?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
A definition of 'absurd' please?
That would make it all a lot clearer. |
Wikipedia:
| Quote: |
| Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual. The word "absurd" in this context does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible". |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism
I found this portion in the Wikipedia article really interesting:
| Quote: |
For Camus, the beauty which people encounter in life makes it worth living. People may create meaning in their own lives, which may not be the objective meaning of life, but can still provide something for which to strive. However, he insisted that one must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd, lest the fictitious meaning takes the place of the absurd.
Camus introduced the idea of "acceptance without resignation" as a way of dealing with the recognition of absurdity, asking whether or not man can "live without appeal", defining a "conscious revolt" against the avoidance of absurdity of the world. In a world devoid of higher meaning or judicial afterlife, man becomes absolutely free. It is through this freedom that man can act either as a mystic (through appeal to some supernatural force) or an absurd hero (through a revolt against such hope). Henceforth, the absurd hero's refusal to hope becomes his singular ability to live in the present with passion.
|
Nothing is absurd
everything has meaning
only that we dont know it
How do you know it has meaning if you have no clue about what it is?
| catscratches wrote: |
| How do you know it has meaning if you have no clue about what it is? |
You got him. That is the Absurd of yagnyavalkya. 
| escritor wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | | How do you know it has meaning if you have no clue about what it is? |
You got him. That is the Absurd of yagnyavalkya. |
You can know that a test question has an answer without knowing what the answer is. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| You can know that a test question has an answer without knowing what the answer is. |
That's what is called a "weak analogy". Test questions indeed may have answers when they are based on the answers or results themselves. This what make you believe that them can be solved.
"What is the 'meaning' of everything?", on the other hand, is just a speculative question. It was you who created that question. Therefore, you can't use the above argument using logic or reason, because it depends on your feelings. | escritor wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | You can know that a test question has an answer without knowing what the answer is. |
That's what is called a "weak analogy". Test questions indeed may have answers when they are based on the answers or results themselves. This what make you believe that them can be solved.
"What is the 'meaning' of everything?", on the other hand, is just a speculative question. It was you who created that question. Therefore, you can't use the above argument using logic or reason, because it depends on your feelings. |
why dont you define who you mean by "it has a meaning" do you mean having a purpose? like a rock or a spoon both of which have meaning, or do you mean in a more spiritual higher thought way of why does it all matter.... | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
Nothing is absurd
everything has meaning
only that we dont know it |
I don't believe the question doesn't have an answer. "What's the meaning of life?"---- it's a question that will spawn different answers from different people. Much like a crowd opining about whether or not the new transformers movie was good/bad.
As for a definite & universal answer, I don't believe there is. Most people are just hung up on it because they want their own personal answers validated. But try asking a different question, you'd be surprised how many of them have no definite answers. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| escritor wrote: | | catscratches wrote: | | How do you know it has meaning if you have no clue about what it is? |
You got him. That is the Absurd of yagnyavalkya. |
You can know that a test question has an answer without knowing what the answer is. |
What did the all-mighty space octopussy have for breakfast today?
To me, the answer is "Nothing, because the all-mighty space octopussy does not exist."
There might be an answer to "what's the meaning of life?", but that doesn't mean there is a meaning. The answer can be, and to me it is, "None. There is no higher meaning of life."
You're going by the fact that there is an answer to the question and then drawing the conclusion that there is a meaning. By the same logic, we can "prove" God's existance simply by asking "What did God have for breakfast today?". Since there's an answer to the question, God must exist. | Bannik wrote: |
| why dont you define who you mean by "it has a meaning" do you mean having a purpose? |
If you are too lazy to click on the link I provided, deanhills has already quoted its first paragraph, which explains what sort of meaning we are talking about. | escritor wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | You can know that a test question has an answer without knowing what the answer is. |
That's what is called a "weak analogy". Test questions indeed may have answers when they are based on the answers or results themselves. This what make you believe that them can be solved.
"What is the 'meaning' of everything?", on the other hand, is just a speculative question. It was you who created that question. Therefore, you can't use the above argument using logic or reason, because it depends on your feelings. |
Let me give a better analogy then.
You can know that there's something else moving around in the dark room you're in, without knowing what that something is.
Just because you don't know the meaning of existence, doesn't preclude there being one (or more).
So, instead of authoritatively saying there is none, it may be better to say that you don't know it, or that there is no known meaning, and possibly none at all.I will assume there is no creature until I see it, hear it, feel it or in any other way gain evidence that it is there. The one claiming that there is a creature is the one that needs to prove it.
| catscratches wrote: |
| I will assume there is no creature until I see it, hear it, feel it or in any other way gain evidence that it is there. The one claiming that there is a creature is the one that needs to prove it. |
You can have evidence that it is there without knowing what it is. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| So, instead of authoritatively saying there is none, it may be better to say that you don't know it, or that there is no known meaning, and possibly none at all. |
Who authoritatively said that there is none? Bah, as I said on the first post, it's an absurd to try to discuss these subjects. | escritor wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | So, instead of authoritatively saying there is none, it may be better to say that you don't know it, or that there is no known meaning, and possibly none at all. |
Who authoritatively said that there is none? |
| deanhills wrote: |
| Quote: | | Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe ultimately fail (and hence are absurd), because no such meaning exists, at least in relation to the individual. The word "absurd" in this context does not mean "logically impossible", but rather "humanly impossible". |
|
| escritor wrote: |
Bah, as I said on the first post, it's an absurd to try to discuss these subjects. |
But wouldn't it be absurd to discuss any subject? So why not?^See the table. It says that we can call something "meaning"/"value" and that maybe there's meaning in the universe. It only says that we can't find a universal meaning in relation to each individual. That's the point of Absurdism.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| But wouldn't it be absurd to discuss any subject? So why not? |
From the article:
| Quote: |
For some, suicide is a solution when confronted with the futility of living a life devoid of all purpose, as it is only a means to quicken the resolution of one's ultimate fate. For Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus, suicide is not a worthwhile solution, because if life is veritably absurd, it is therefore even more absurd to counteract it; instead, we should engage in living, and reconcile the fact that we live in a world without purpose.
For Camus, the beauty which people encounter in life makes it worth living. People may create meaning in their own lives, which may not be the objective meaning of life, but can still provide something for which to strive. However, he insisted that one must always maintain an ironic distance between this invented meaning and the knowledge of the absurd, lest the fictitious meaning takes the place of the absurd. |
So, some of the Absurdists themselves liked to discuss things and search for "something" in their lifes. If all of them chose not to discuss philosophy, we wouldn't read their thoughts after all. 
When I said that "it's an absurd to try to discuss these subjects", I meant that I see no point in arguing with other people about things that we can't easily prove or talk about using only good logic, without changing the main subject. | escritor wrote: |
| Quote: |
For Camus, the beauty which people encounter in life makes it worth living. |
|
That comes awfully close to a meaning of it all... You just have to apply it universally, instead of person-by-person. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| escritor wrote: |
| Quote: |
For Camus, the beauty which people encounter in life makes it worth living. |
|
That comes awfully close to a meaning of it all... You just have to apply it universally, instead of person-by-person. |
Depends on what you mean by meaning.What relationship does this type of philosophy have to the view that human life is absurd because we take it so seriously and yet we are able to step back and realize that in the grand scheme of things, what we do really has no purpose. I find these absurdist views to be very interesting albeit somewhat depressing.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| escritor wrote: |
| Quote: |
For Camus, the beauty which people encounter in life makes it worth living. |
|
That comes awfully close to a meaning of it all... You just have to apply it universally, instead of person-by-person. |
I agree. I haven't studied it deeply, but I believe that people like Camus wrote and considered things like that just to avoid suicide (if you consider the previous paragraph). Or maybe they just cared about the average people and didn't want to depress their readers/pupils. Or they were just poets who saw goodness and beauty even in a life that themselves considered Absurd.It is absurd to think that posting here is going to describe anything new yet we do it? It is absurd to think posting anywhere will lead us to the meaning of life, yet people do we not live to search for it? So why not post in frih or add to wikiedia for there will be no doing it when we are dead and gone. To think otherwise would be absurd. . . by Bluedoll
| Bluedoll wrote: |
It is absurd to think that posting here is going to describe anything new yet we do it? It is absurd to think posting anywhere will lead us to the meaning of life, yet people do we not live to search for it? So why not post in frih or add to wikiedia for there will be no doing it when we are dead and gone. To think otherwise would be absurd. . . by Bluedoll
|
I don't agree. I'm learning all the time. The postings trigger me to go out and learn more. Such as this thread. And in that there is meaning of continuous change in thinking and expanding our mental paradigms. | escritor wrote: |
"These posts are absurd. Your words and troughts are absurd and pointless. Life is absurd. Seeking truth is absurd. All is absurd."
This is what the Absurdist school of thought says about you. |
What does it say about you? | escritor wrote: |
"These posts are absurd. Your words and troughts are absurd and pointless. Life is absurd. Seeking truth is absurd. All is absurd."
This is what the Absurdist school of thought says about you. |
If that is the case even what you say is absurd
ie saying everything is absurd is itself absurd | yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| If that is the case even what you say is absurd |
Don't you have anything more to offer to this discussion than a tu quoque argument?
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| ie saying everything is absurd is itself absurd |
Aha, you have irrelevant conclusions too.so what is your argument?
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| so what is your argument? |
This is a loaded question. I don't even know what you are talking about. I think that you confused me with the philosophy I presented to you.
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| Nothing is absurd¹ |
| yagnyavalkya wrote: |
| saying everything is absurd is itself absurd² |
Oh! maybe you are right! I will go thru the thread again and get back!
Then what is knowledge and truth ?
Is that also absurd
I guess you are right I don't understand this at all
Again I guess may be that is because it is all absurd
this topic is absorb .
jajajaja
i had to say it.
although absurdism propogated by camus is very appealing, i must point out that the next level is sunyata from buddhism, which is almost an extreme form of nihilism. according to sunyata, the world is empty of any real essence. Without an essence , things seem absurd. But buddhism goes ahead and says that even without essence, the pair of opposites form a whole and nothing. By getting nothing, one loses everything.
Well I guess nothing is absurd and everything has deep meaning only that the meaning is absurd and that is why people say that everything is absurd
By the look of it this topic is far from absurd
| Quote: |
| nothing is absurd and everything has deep meaning only that the meaning is absurd |
Wait, what?
