Absurdism v Existentialism

Absurdism vs Existentialism


The concept of existentialism both in philosophy and writing started in the 19th century as a result of revolt against the then dominant school of thoughts. It believed that the experiences of an individual form the basis of any meaning of life. Post existentialism called forth “Absurdism” which incorporated many similarities with existentialism.

I suppose the starting point in any comparison revolves around the fact of existentialism focusing in on the principle of existence, and one of the first proponents of existentialism being Jean Sartre.

The most important principle of existentialism is that existence precedes essence. This implies that, before anything else, an individual is a living being who is conscious and independently thinking. Existentialists believe that people make conscious decisions in their lives and realize the value and meaning of their lives. Thus, people act out of their own free will and, as opposed to the basic human nature, people are themselves responsible for their acts.

Absurdism on the other hand came into existence, almost as an offshoot with the writings of those involved with European existentialism. Thus, the essay called “The Myth of Sisyphus”, written by Albert Camus, is credited as being the first authentic exposition in the school of absurdism that rejected some of the aspects of existentialism. Absurdism refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life, and the human inability to find any in a purposeless, meaningless or chaotic and irrational universe. The universe and the human mind do not each separately cause the Absurd, but rather, the Absurd arises by the contradictory nature of the two existing simultaneously.

Obviously, there are many factors that can be argued as to the validity of either concept.

For example, if the world is regarded as in a chaotic state, (and by Harry it has felt so after the last 9 months), a sharp distinction can be discerned between atheists and those with a religious faith.

And what do we mean by that grand concept of “the meaning of life?” Not all are drawn to contemplating one’s navel in a cross-legged benign posture. We are all dealt different cards in life. The crux lies in both recognizing the opportunities and having the courage to act on them.

Personally, I have always found, (for whatever perverse reason), a sense of black humor in absurdism. It’s a bit like the Sicilian attitude to death: the visit of a boring uncle; the event of which must be still accepted with grace and good manners.

I always thought that the 'debate' between the 2 schools of thought within Existentialism (Absurdism vs Existentialism) having more to do with Jean Paul Sartre being a pro-Soviet individual and Camus being pretty opposed to Stalin's deeds. I happily read the writing of Sartre and Camus (and Kierkegaard) without finding too many points of disagreement between their ideas and concepts.

It is interesting, all of it. And I honestly could not get through most of the noise and utter rubbish of modern life (the mainstream media and social media are high on the list), without a strong adherence to Existentialism and Stoicism.

Maybe it is the experience of others in that I read and watch quite a bit Camus, Sartre, Aurelius, Seneca, and even Schopenhauer and they all weave together, different threads of a good fabric. Not too much sticking out of place.

From what I read that seems to be the conclusion Tony.

Apparently in the early post war days in Paris, they were firm friends and very much on the same page regards imagining the fundamentals required of a new world. The fight for justice united them politically and they felt that no group of people was more unjustly treated than the workers. In order to free said workers, their belief was that new political systems needed to be constructed.

The split between them and a large chunk of the existentialism / absurdism debate came about on how to achieve it.

Camus condemned revolutionary violence, although he felt it might be used in extreme circumstances (e.g the French war effort), but the use of revolutionary violence to nudge history in the direction you desire he felt, was too absolutist, and a betrayal of one's self.

Sartre on the other hand went down the road to communism. Under capitalism he felt workers could not be free. By removing what was perceived as the oppressors and returning autonomy to the workers, communism allowed in theory, each individual to live without material want, and therefore be able to choose how best to realize themselves.

The problem was that, for Sartre and many others on the Left, communism required revolutionary violence to achieve because the existing order had to be smashed. The 1930s and early ’40s, had seen the Left temporarily united against fascism, but with the destruction of fascism, the rupture between hardline leftists willing to condone violence and moderates who condemned it returned. This split was made all the more dramatic by the practical disappearance of the Right and the ascendancy of the Soviet Union. This empowered hardliners throughout Europe, but raised disquieting questions for communists as the horrors of gulags, terror and show trials came to light. The question for every leftist of the postwar era was simple: which side were you on?

Camus declared for a peaceful socialism that would not resort to revolutionary violence. He was appalled by the stories emerging from the USSR: it was not a country living freely, but a country with no freedom at all. Sartre, meanwhile, would fight for communism, and he was prepared to endorse violence to do so.

Sartre’s position I think was shot through with contradiction, with which he struggled for the remainder of his life. Though he never actually joined the French Communist Party, he would continue to defend communism throughout Europe until 1956, when the Soviet tanks in Budapest convinced him, finally, that the USSR did not hold the way forward.

What I find interesting however, is that from today's viewpoint post-Cold War; that whereas it is hard not to sympathize with Camus, you have to wonder at the fervour with which Sartre remained a loyal communist.

Camus seemed to embrace; sober political reality and limits.

Absolutism, as we have seen elsewhere and the impossible idealism it inspires, is a dangerous path forward.