Exploring absurdism
The other day I was reading about absurdism. Actually, I take that back: I was reading a comic about absurdism. Close enough, right? Right.
Completely coincidentally, it’s apparently an idea that none other than Søren Kierkegaard is partially responsible for.
The fundamental idea behind absurdism is this: finding the meaning of the universe is impossible because no meaning exists (as in, the universe is cold, dark and unforgiving). Therefore, to attempt to find meaning is absurd, and the only ways to “win” (if you want to call it that) are:
- Commit suicide
- Adopt a set of religious beliefs (aka “philosophical suicide,” since religion requires faith, which is the opposite of pure logic, which is the foundation of philosophy)
- Accept the absurd
In other words, you can either give up or learn how to fake it.
Granted, this is all founded on the idea that the universe is meaningless, which is the point to argue here, and I would in some sense argue against it. But maybe that’s because I don’t want to wear a tutu and hand out hot dogs at a water polo game.
And so ends yet another pointless exploration into the world of philosophy by yours truly. I hope it has been sufficiently educational. And perhaps this will help make more sense of Albert Camus’s The Stranger
HEY! I played water polo for 7 years, and can say that I would have appreciated a good Hebrew National and tutu halftime show at every single game.
Comment by ken kienow — December 16, 2009 @ 11:21 amon a more serious note, to begin reasoning from a “blank slate” and try to find one’s way to the Christian God ends in absurdism just like trying to end at any other philosophical destination does. it’s only by proof by contradiction, essentially, that we can justify belief in any kind of God, including the Christian one. enter “presuppositional” apologetics, bahnsen, van til, etc., and exit mcdowell, strobel, etc.
Comment by ken kienow — December 16, 2009 @ 12:31 pmAnd to Ken’s excellent point…I wouldn’t completely rule out evidential apologists (even though I think some of their arguments are weak), because some non-Christians can come to a warranted belief if they agree with some starting points as some people hold some things like reliable authority or historicity more strongly than philosophical reasons.
As long as the belief they arrive at is rational, though some arguments that brought them there might be weak like I said, then the new believer is logically justified.
Comment by Jay — December 16, 2009 @ 12:50 pm[...] out what’s going on before they’re on to the next thing. You just have to accept the absurd and enjoy it for what it is. And it is [...]
Pingback by Podcasts I Like: You Look Nice Today | Josh Mock — December 16, 2009 @ 3:03 pm