Absurdism and Existentialism

[fnord]

What is the main difference between Absurdism and Existentialism?

I was reading about Camus, and he maintained himself that he was not an existentialist as his friend/rival Sartre was. However, to me, they seem quite similar. Both philosophies seem to say "life is what it is and nothing more than it seems".

Anyone care to clarify for me?

[Sitaram]

Sartre and Simone de Bouvier were lifelong lovers, but always had other lovers on the side. The two became best friends for a while with Albert Camus. One day Simone told Albert he could take her to bed if he liked. Albert declined the invitation and Jean-Paul was livid with rage at what he perceived as an insult. From then on, Camus became their arch enemy, and they would say uncharitable things about Camus' work.

This may possibly account with the fact that Camus did not care to be identified with Existentialism.

WOODY ALLEN: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?
GIRL IN MUSEUM: Yes it is.

WOODY ALLEN: What does it say to you?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straightjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

WOODY ALLEN: What are you doing Saturday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Committing suicide.

WOODY ALLEN: What about Friday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: [leaves silently]

http://www.friesian.com/existent.htm

Camus was estranged by Sartre's lack of concern for the French colonials in Algeria, a third of the population, who stood to lose their homes and livelihood with the coming of Algerian independence. Sartre's attitude, indeed, owed nothing to Existentialism but to the extremely doctrinaire Marxism that he eventually adopted. Fixing up "responsibility," evidently, was not good enough. The Existential Void of value had to be filled by Dialectical Materialism. How blind and arrogant this became was evident in Sartre's remark on hearing of Khrushchev's "Secret Speech" denouncing Stalin in 1956. Sartre said that it should indeed be kept secret because it might discourage the "working class." The egotism and paternalism of this is typical of leftist intellectuals, but it hardly seems like the kind of thing that would allow the "working class" to "take responsbility" for their own actions. Grafting Marxism onto Existentialism thus simply rendered Sartre's thought incoherent.

Our theistic Existentialist is Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). Kierkegaard is an Existentialist because he accepts, as fully as Sartre or Camus, the absurdity of the world. But he does not begin with the postulate of the non-existence of God, but with the principle that nothing in the world, nothing available to sense or reason, provides any knowledge or reason to believe in God. While traditional Christian theologians, like St. Thomas Aquinas, saw the world as providing evidence of God's existence, and also thought that rational arguments a priori could establish the existence of God, Kierkegaard does not think that this is the case. But Kierkegaard's conclusion about this could just as easily be derived from Sartre's premises. After all, if the world is absurd, and everything we do is absurd anyway, why not do the most absurd thing imaginable? And what could be more absurd than to believe in God? So why not? The atheists don't have any reason to believe in anything else, or really even to disbelieve in that, so we may as well go for it!

This is sometimes compared to Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), who said, "The heart has reasons that the mind cannot understand"; but really, if the heart has reasons, then, indeed, there are reasons, and the world is not an absurd place. Pascal is a mystic (like some other mathematicians), not an Existentialist. The precedent for Kierkegaard is really more like the Latin Church Father Tertullian (c.160-220), who, when taunted about the absurdity of Christian doctrine, retorted that he believed it because it was absurd.

[fnord]

Interesting stuff. I know that Camus identified strongly with the French colonial Algerians, and that his mother lived there for most, if not all, of her life. His sentiments regarding the plight of the French colonials are evident in much of his work, concerning the above-mentioned fight for independance.

As to the difference between the philosophies of existentialism and absurdism: I have read and somewhat studied Camus' works, but have only a passing familiarity with Sartre. It seems to me that both philosophies recognize the universe as amoral and essentially absurd. However, existentialists find hope in the concept that nothing is predetermined, while absurdists simply recognize the universe for what it is, and cease to struggle against it. It seems a fine line to draw.

[Sitaram]

... existentialists find hope in the concept that nothing is predetermined, while absurdists simply recognize the universe for what it is, and cease to struggle against it. ...

This observation seems important.

I like to look for little statements such as this which boil things down to a manageable idea.

[simon]

Existentialism is the hopeless approach that due to being alone in the universe we are left to deal with terrible consequences and horrors that make life on the whole miserable and often unbearable. Absurdism has an approach that isn't as pitiful, it looks at how absurd it is that though we constantly search for meaning in the universe there ultimately is no meaning. And then nihilism is that there is no purpose, meaning, or any direcetive of any kind in life.

That Woody Allen quote pretty much sums up the most dramatic qualities of the idea, when it is taken to the exptreme of course.

[starrwriter]

I have much simpler ideas about existentialism and absurdism.

To me existentialism means you are what you choose to do and to believe. Absurdism means you have no choice, like the butt of a cosmic joke.

[ThatIndividual]

Yea, that's just it. The funny thing about existentialism is just that we all have our own ideas about what it is and no one is right. No two existentialists agreed with one another on the entirity of the meaning thereof, therefore, existentialism is characterized by having no definition. It's the only philosophy that isn't really a philosophy at all. It's irreducible to a set of tenets or beliefs. The only thing that all 'existentialists' have (had) in common is that all of them, yes even sartre, shunned the title 'existentialist.' (It was toward the end of his career that Sartre became opposed to the label. He did champion the label for a while, but eventually realized that he could only be characterized by one title: Sartre.
They all pretty much agreed that people are unique individuals and can't really be categorized. But they didn't all agree on anything else. (Even some of them disagreed about that. For instance Nietzsche thought that most people WERE easy to categorize, but not the individuals. For NIetzsche, individuals are rare conscious beings, not each person. Nietzsche also disagreed about freedom. He didn't think you have the power to create your own self. He was more deterministic. He saw men as trees that could only bear the type of fruit that they could bear. i.e. an orange tree will not grow apples, and likewise, a naturally tone-deaf person could not have written Moonlight Sonate.)

The other common thing is that they all have a distaste for abstractions. They tried to focus on existence as it truly is, or on what has being, rather than things like metaphysics and religions. (Of course they didn't all agree on religious ideas; that goes without saying, as we know that Kierkegaard, Marcel, Jaspers, and others were actually Christians. Some kind of Christians anyway.)

[NewWorldOrder]

I rather think that most people are not looking for truths but for concept that suits their pre-belief. As for me I don't want to have any pre-belief what is sure is sure is that Religions aimed to manipulate: just read Republic of Platon he justifies that Religion must lie so as people accept more easily the ruling elites.

Today Religion is no more as fashionable but "philosophy" has substitued to Religions. Some philosophy or even pseudo-scientific theories are not more worth than invented myths.

[ThatIndividual]

"Much I marvelled this ungainly friend to hear discourse
so plainly,
Though his answer little meaning -- little relevancy bore..."

[mouaten horr]

actually, existientialism cannot be defined coz u have so many types of it. for instance, Gabriel Marcel and Sartre are totally different in using the same terminology.

when i think of existentialism, i see only one common father whose thoughts were alienated later: Soren Kierkegaard

[ThatIndividual]

exactly. (I'll bet you didn't read the thread)

[Logos]

I have much simpler ideas about existentialism and absurdism.

To me existentialism means you are what you choose to do and to believe. Absurdism means you have no choice, like the butt of a cosmic joke.

I like it, succinct and to the point, though I am a minimalist.

[odysseus]

fnord

the enemy of me is the absurd. Existentialism is nothing more than loneliness. the absurd is my enemy. the enemy of warrior deep heart of love and freedom. Freedom is the purpose. Purpose driven life- fnord- crushes absurdity. but how in the fnord does one find a vocation of importance!? Where I work people are totally absurd. America is totally absurd. France in sartres time probably is too. It is because male masculinity was seeming to be under attack. It isn't really. Culture is looking for a hero, but they only want to bring said hero down right to the ground. Build him up and tear him down, no more gladiator of today, not in the world today.

i shall crush the absurdity like an empty pop can- fnord-

sales and marketing are absurd. fashion sindustry, and anyone probalby who wants your money, without first creating value. we are so far removed from tribal reality it is not even funny. jump skip a couple ages- agrarian, industrial, and information, to the conceptual. you have to consider effect on the individual.

there is no such thing as average. your senses beat a retreat. sartre was a tart. I don't know what to make of simone. she looked hot enough and I read her "second sex".

how existentially wonderful are certain things of life. if life seems absurd you just need to close your mind down from it because it shouldn't seem absurd- fnord. your sensory systems beat a retreat, don't you find- fnord!

[ThatIndividual]

I suggest that you read a short story by Camus called "The Guest" from his Exile and the Kingdom. Or perhaps one by Sartre, not as good though, entitled "The Wall." These are quick glimpses into the absurdity that seems to elude your vision. No offense meant whatsoever. I think you will enjoy them... What can one do but laugh?

Final line of Sartre's "The Wall":

"I laughed so hard I cried."

[Xamonas Chegwe]

"Why are you laughing?"
"Because I have seen life for what it truly is, a joke; the best joke ever!"
"In that case, why are you crying too?"
"Because it's one ***ing SICK joke!"