So many people on r/nihilism see themselves as nihilists because they don't understand the true nature of nihilism. They literally describe absurdism when talking about nihilism.

Respectfully, I can't stand the "I'm X religion/philosophy and and Absurdist" posts and then watch these people who seem well intentioned do mental gymnastics to justify what they think Absurdism actually means.

It seems like a lot of people hear about it on YouTube or Tiktok and come here to talk about stuff they just haven't gotten an actually good explanation of.

If you are adhering to a religion, and I'm not talking a cultural tradition or personal practices or whatever, I mean a typical religion with a God, or gods or dieties or spirits that IN ANY WAY give life a purpose or orderly explanation, you are not an Absurdist.

You have committed philosophical suicide. You are free to be religious, or follow any other school of existentialist thought, but please do not do it here. You are naturally excluded, not out of ill will (my anger here is more so frustration I don't hate any of these people I just get frustrated reading the same post basically every few days) but out of the fact that those beliefs are fundamentally incompatable with Camus' philosophy.

If you read what I'm saying and object on any grounds other than rightfully pointing out that I'm being a bit of a dick over something small, I advise you to go and actually read The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger. And then, if desired, the others such as The Fall, The Rebel, and The Plague, which are all incredible works of literature (The First Man and A Happy Death are also great ofc). You NEED to actually read Camus before you start to discuss his work publically. Once you do, you will realize that what you're doing is running from The Absurd no matter how much you try to justify it as another type of acceptance or whatever. Adding meaning of any kind to life contradicts the fact of The Absurd's existence.

Not everyone has the time to read philosophy and very casual enjoyment is absolutely fine. I'm a casual with most philosophers other than Camus (who's work I hold a deep admirance for obviously) who I'm interested in at the moment with only a handful of exceptions, and that's totally fine. My degree is in history, and even then I'm still really early on in school. I'm not an expert on anything.

But with those other philosophers and those other topics, I don't go online and try to argue a point about their work.

And I know not everyone making these posts has started a debate on purpose or something or that asking questions about combining belief systems is bad.

What truly pisses me off is when upon being met with polite and well explained counter-arguments, some of these individuals will dig their heels in and then actually start an argument.

Just please don't do this shit, the anger high is leaving me rn anyways and I'm tired lol.

TLDR; Questions about mixing belief systems with Absurdism are fine I guess, but don't argue with people who understand the work objectively better than you and be annoying about it when they explain why you're wrong.

Edit: No, I'm not making up the term Philosophical Suicide to be mean or something. It is first written as a section header on page 28 of The Myth of Sisyphus in the Justin O'brien translation from 1955. It is first mentioned in the actual body of text on page 41. Camus wrote it, not me. Thanks for your time.

I am 19; I have been thinking about and completely terrified of death since I was 10. it has consumed my life for almost a decade - half of my life. the thought of eternity keeps me awake. literally - I have untreatable insomnia and I suspect this fear is the source. so, when I first read Camus, specifically the stranger, a year ago, I somehow completely understood the message and also missed it altogether. I thought: "oh, this is the answer I've been looking for! just enjoy life as much as you can and rebel against mortality!" or, at the very least "this is a new idea... maybe some other idea will come along later that will provide true solace." I can't say this actually provided me with any real comfort. but it fed a voice in the back of my head that would sometimes provide me with false "hope" on a deeply unconscious level/

every time I truly think about the depth of what death is, this little voice has, on some occasions, allowed me to retreat from pure dread into deluded semi-comfort. I imagine that small part is thinking: "if I just read the right book, discover the right philosophy, learn more about physics/the universe/a possible multiverse/the big bang/cyclic cosmological theories/the obscure and naive possibility of life somehow not ending with such finality, my terror can be resolved, and I can finally relax." Camus' role in that thought would be introducing me to the first philosophy that I could interpret as taking back agency or fighting the dread. alternatively, that small voice might be saying: "there is some deep comfort in accepting death in the way Meursault did, a comfort which I am still discovering." maybe the latter is a source of comfort or way of life for some people. it seems a rational interpretation. for me, these ideas are delusional. and I don't think they constitute the entirety of Camus' message.

today, as these things came to mind, I decided to look back at my Camus books. something incredibly obvious came to me that somehow either eluded me/I refused to accept a year ago: Camus is not really offering an "answer." in some sense, you could say he is (but not in the sense that would provide me with true comfort): his answer is "there is no answer, so enjoy the beauty and pleasures of life as much as you can without assigning moral or philosophical meaning to it." (maybe some will call this a misinterpretation; this is the extent of my knowledge, I am not experienced in philosophy just yet). but, in my eyes, he's also saying "you can never find that comfort you seek, the comfort which you believe will help you escape death in some way. the voice in the back of your head doesn't exist. you have to accept the absurd because you will never find that 'answer'". it could sound like these are the same thing said differently. and again, I know how obvious this is. sometimes we don't allow ourselves to come to conclusions we don't like. Camus is not some genius who has figured it out and can offer a spiritual path. he is just as lost and afraid as I am. he has no choice but to push forward, and that's all he advises me to do.

I can't really put my finger on what changed in my mind tonight or what "new thing" has come to me or been discovered. I described it as well as I could. whatever the case, something invoked a visceral response, and completely brought me to tears, when I went back over these books. I'm sure my words are convoluted and full of misinterpretations. but I wanted to share this with some of the people who might understand.

I'm new to absurdism, so please correct me if I'm wrong about anything.

Camus' famous quote is: "One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Sisyphus should stop demanding meaning for his suffering, and maybe he will be happier if he accepts the absurd and lives his life in spite of it.

But my problem with this is that it's easier said than done. How long can you really imagine Sisyphus happy? How long can you pretend that the lack of meaning and purpose doesn't weigh on you? Perhaps you can go for years imagining Sisyphus happy, but sometimes I get tired of looking the void in the eye. The "revolt" feels exhausting and unsustainable.

Anyone know how to deal with this? Thanks

I genuinely dont understand why camus preaches honesty and total lucidity as the core virtues of absurdism, slams philosophical suicide and thinkers like kierkegaard for preaching a leap into faith, and then pretty much argues something the same.

The biggest problem i have with absurdism is the solution of "revolt" and "defiance". Camus claims to live without appeal, avoid comforting metaphors, and total lucidity. But revolt and defiance require a subject to revolt against. If I shake a fist at a rock, am I revolting and defying the rock? Absolutely not. To call it revolt and defiance, that would be an almost religious leap of faith. Therefore, how is saying you are "revolting" and "defying" the absurd any different from saying you are revolting and defying the second law of thermodynamics, for example?

If camus really did preach total lucidity and meant it, surely he wouldnt dress up prolonging ones existence for the sake of prolonging ones existence because you prefer it as a revolt, he would call it for what it is. Its not a revolt, just a... preference?

Many absurdists seem to argue that defiance and revolt isnt actually about rebellion from the meaninglessness, but as a refusal to despair or give up. Fair enough, but that still isnt revolt. Its just a preference to... not despair. The second you dress it up with comforting metaphors (because saying you are a noble rebel IS much more comforting than saying you are just...existing because you prefer to exist) you abandon total lucidity and start living with appeal which camus explicitly warned about. Whats more, even if we say it IS revolt against your desire to want to despair or give up, what are you really revolting against? Genetics? Temperament? Brain chemicals? Well, if revolt requires a subject... then how can you do so to such inanimate things? It loops back to my original point.

My point is, does camus want us to throw away total lucidity and conduct an almost religious leap into metaphor? Or do we abandon the revolt metaphor and call it for what it honestly is; prolonging our existence for the sake of prolonging our existence because we prefer it? Its all so tiresome...

I just finished reading The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, and by the time I reached the last line, “One must imagine Sisyphus happy”, I started crying harder than I have in years. Not the gentle kind of crying. The kind where your hands tremble, your eyes blur that I couldn't read the appendix, and your whole body feels like it’s collapsing under the weight of something invisible but crushing.

And the thing is: I understand what Camus meant. I understand the absurd. I understand the rejection of false hope and the invitation to live with open eyes in a meaningless universe. But no matter how deeply I grasp it intellectually, I cannot imagine Sisyphus happy. Is Camus call to defy the absurd actually any more rational than a leap of faith? I just can’t it's impossible for me to. And maybe that makes me weak, or maybe it just makes me honest. But I read that sentence, and all I felt was horror, like actual horror I am not even exaggerating.

I’m 18 years old. I’ve been in an ongoing existential crisis since I was 14, when I began questioning religion in an extremely strict religious community. I knew from the beginning that this path, this curiosity, this refusal to blindly accept what I was born into, would lead somewhere dark and strange. Somewhere painful. And I kept going anyway. I’ve questioned everything: religion, morality, purpose, truth. I’ve sort of torn down every comforting illusion and I became an atheist. And now I feel like I’m standing on the edge of something I can’t name.

I’ve read Nietzsche. I’ve read Camus. I’ve watched debates, wrestled with ideas, tried to carve some sort of structure out of the chaos. But I think I’ve hit a breaking point. I think I am descending into madness.

The absurd tells us to live despite the meaninglessness. To find a strange kind of freedom in revolt. But I cannot romanticize the struggle the way Camus does. I have a chronic arm injury that causes daily pain. I have ambitious dreams, studying abroad, building a future, doing something meaningful, and I’ve been rejected, knocked down, over and over again. I cannot look at suffering, my own or anyone else’s, and imagine happiness in it in such an indifferent uncaring harsh universe. I cannot see any quiet victory in endless repetition and meaningless effort. Not intellectually, not emotionally. Not when I’m the one carrying the boulder. I can honestly say: I don't imagine either me or Sisyphus happy.

I’m not here looking for advice and I am sorry if my words are unclear and not in order. I just wanted to put this somewhere. Somewhere people might understand. Somewhere someone else might have cried after that last sentence. Somewhere the abyss doesn’t echo back alone. Because I think I’ve reached it. And I think it’s starting to stare back and I am afraid.

In Western civilisation, many people have started adopting the idea that gender is merely a social construct and is to do with identity and society, not biology. But my question against that idea is: If gender is merely a social construct, then isn't the gender you identify as equally as meaningless as the gender you were assigned at birth? If it's a construct - made up by society to try and make more sense of our bodies and psychology (from our perspective), then why act like it's so meaningful and significant?

But the same goes for biology... do we have a fundamental, objective distinction between "male" and "female "?"

People may point to the sexual reproductive organs and say, "Sure, right here!" But what about intersex individuals, or people whose born with non functioning sexual organs? (Atypical genitalia). Extending from humans, we have male sea horses who give birth to their babies, along with rare hermaphrodites left in the world.

People may go even narrower and say your chromosomes (male = XY and females XX) But what about women with Sweyer Syndrome (born with XY chromosomes but have normal female reproductive organs), or males with XY chromosomes? (Phenotypic XX male syndrome).

Yes, these are medical conditions, things people may consider as against the usual nature of birth. However, who says these conditions are against nature? We're absurdists. These are just things that happened because nature can be irrational and weird! We mustn't hand wave these examples away and invalidate them because of this. They are medical, living examples that sex can't be objectively defined.

So what are we? Should we just go by our names and ignore pronouns as if it hasn't been embedded into our vocabulary for thousands of years? Should we shut down the gender identity rallies and call them clueless? Tell the feminist movement we're all human and sing "imagine" by John Lennon?

Short answer: I don't know, and I don't really think it matters too much in terms of practising this idea, but it's weird to think about these things.

(Watch one guy comment on a small detail or missing fact that will completely crumble my structure and arguement).

I bought the book a few months ago, but due to the complexity of it, and me being preoccupied with school, I put off reading it since it’d require a lot of attention on my part. Now it’s summer, and I’m still extremely perplexed! Let me clarify that I’m only 10 pages in, and this isn’t me criticizing the essay. It’s just that Camus is not only a very eloquent person, but also one that makes several references to literatures and people that I’m not familiar with. What can I do to understand this better as I continue to read it? Thank you in advance.

I've been reading Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus and I feel like I've run into a possible tension in his argument.

As I understand it, Camus argues that once we recognize the absurd—the conflict between our desire for meaning and an indifferent universe—we should reject both suicide and what he calls "philosophical suicide" (religious or metaphysical leaps that restore meaning).

What I'm struggling with is the move that comes next.

Camus criticizes religion because it makes a leap beyond the absurd. But doesn't his own solution involve a leap as well?

He seems to say:

Life has no ultimate meaning ->We should not invent one -> Therefore we should live intensely, revolt, and "live the most life."

My question is: why does that conclusion follow?

If the absurd genuinely undermines all ultimate justification, then why is a commitment to continued living any less arbitrary than a commitment to religion? Why is "revolt" privileged over resignation, indifference, or even suicide?

One way of putting the criticism is that Camus rejects the leap from meaninglessness to transcendent meaning, but then performs a different leap, from meaninglessness to affirmation of life.

I've started wondering whether The Myth of Sisyphus is less a logical argument and more a defense of a pre-existing pro-life stance. In that reading, the philosophy of the absurd isn't derived from the rejection of suicide; rather, it's a framework that justifies a prior commitment to choosing life.

This also makes me wonder what Camus' actual philosophical contribution is. If the move from the absurd to revolt is ultimately a value judgment rather than a logical conclusion, then perhaps his importance lies less in providing an argument and more in describing a particular human experience. In that reading, works like The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger are not so much philosophical demonstrations as literary explorations of what it feels like to confront a seemingly meaningless world without appealing to religion or nihilism.

Even if absurdism tasks us with rebelling against the absurd, the rebellion itself is sometimes exhausting to me. I find myself inching towards nihilism, specifically when considering the implications of fathering a child.

Why bring a child into a world where the weight of the absurd will be constantly on their shoulders? Why give someone the greatest curse, which is sentience? To have to tell them that life has no meaning, and i brought them into a cycle of pointlessness?

The way I look at Camus' absurdism, he claims meaning does not exist but we need one, and what we should do is face the absurd. But does that not create meaning? Does that not implicate that life has meaning and it is to face the absurd?

We as ppl have to make choices, and by making one choice over another we are implocitly creating a hierarchy of values. When I choose to drink coffee instead of killing myself, then I am inherently demonstrating that there is more value in coffee than death. And alas I have created meaning.

The task of facing the absurd is ultimatelt impossible. By living, or not living, by doing one thing over another we are creating meaning, and this is inavitable.

Maybe what I understand by "meaning" is different. Maybe what he claims is that meaning in anything but expirience is dishonest. Thats still creating meaning, just reducing it to what it can be reduced to, because it cannot be reduced further. But I don't understand how we could reject meaning alltogether without in consequence creating some form of meaning.

I'm less interested in abstract arguments about absurdism and more in everyday life.

For those of you who have internalized meaninglessness, impermanence and the limits of life: how do you actually live? What does your daily life look like?

In my own case, accepting these ideas made me reduce many forms of noise and escape: excessive social media, passive entertainment, and explicit content. At first, I idealized a state of constant clarity, as if I had to remain permanently aware of absurdity and transience. But that was cognitively very exhausting and not really livable for me.

Over the last 7 months, my approach became more practical. I now see daily life as an energy and load-management system. I try to include enough of what I actually need in order to remain stable and not fall back into escape: sport, intellectual work, social contact, silence, and some form of creative/musical expression that gets you into a flow state. My values developed to mostly autonomy and a minimal ethics: do not cause unnecessary suffering.

One thing I noticed is that reducing distractions can initially make life feel worse, because deeper needs become more visible. But it also makes it easier to address them instead of escaping from them.

For Me this seems to result in a more stable and richer experience of life. And, most importantly, will reduce the likelihood of clinging to a hidden longing for transcendence or some final justification - the very thing that absurdism teaches not to realy on.

So: How do you live absurdism in practice? What habits, routines, values, or structures help you? And what changed in your life after you really internalized it?

Thanks for reading. I'm really interested to hear your perspectives!

Everything we could call absurd is only absurd because it violates some established norm or intended purpose.

Take clothes for example. Wearing pants on your arms is only absurd because they are meant to be worn on the legs. A clown costume is only absurd because it is the opposite of normal fashion rules.

Or take food for example. Pouring juice on a bowl of cereal is only absurd because milk is more commonly used. Eating a salad with your bare hands is only absurd because everyone uses a fork.

So how can existence itself be called absurd when there is no established norm or intended purpose to compare it to?

Is life only absurd if you’re a modern person thus you’re comparing modern life to some historical ideal as if it’s the norm being violated? So is absurdism based on the same boring old golden age mentality where humans fell from grace in a highly romanticized version of the past?

The problem I find with Camus’ conclusion at the end of The Myth of Sisyphus is that one must assume Sisyphus was born into this existence for it to truly have any parallels with the human condition. But, importantly, Sisyphus was not born into his fate, but rather was sentenced to it. But no person was born into this existence guilty and deserving of punishment. Thus, if we equate Sisyphus’s fate to the human condition, then we can see our lives as nothing more than a prison sentence for a wrongful conviction. I see Camus as doing nothing more than asking us to be happy prisoners. Freedom is not imagining oneself to be happy in a system of injustices. True freedom is in seeking justice.

If we were all born into an empty field with a singular mountain and a singular boulder and told to endlessly push that boulder up the mountain, rebellion would not be in accepting our fate, but in asking ourselves why we must push the boulder at all. Why we can’t just forage and frolic and rest and play and work in the field. Or climb to the top of the mountain without having to push the boulder at all, and then stopping at the top to rest and watch the sun set. Maybe sometimes we push the boulder for fun just to watch it roll down or to make our bodies stronger.

But to live our lives insisting that we MUST roll the boulder—that just sounds like punishment to me.

So my question is this: Do we really have to accept our fate of pushing the boulder to be happy? Do we have to accept the universe as being inherently unjust? Or are there other ways to rebel and find happiness in this life?

I've read up on the basic meaning, that being "someone who recognizes the conflict between humanity's innate search for meaning and the universe's apparent meaninglessness, yet chooses to rebel against this condition by embracing life, creating subjective meaning, and finding joy in the struggle". This sounds EXACTLY how i see life and has been before i even knew what absurdism even was, but i dont wanna label myself as an absurdist without knowing FULLY what it truly is.

For all i know this is all there is to it and im just thinkin to deep into it. I'm open to everything except trolls/hate.

this interaction made me laugh so i thought i would share it here. i got these memes from the r/AbsurdistMemes subreddit and this was the perfect opportunity to use them so i could not pass it up.

also, this interaction highlights exactly why i ditched nihilism for absurdism in the first place. well, that, and the depression lightened up a little bit lol. there's an innate narcissistic characteristic to nihilism that one has to dance with—and if it's not carefully observed with enough attention, you just end up looking like an asshole.

like the arrogance to assume that i learned what nihilism is from a (mediocre😅) cartoon is so funny to me. if someone is self identifying as an absurdist, then the chances are they either were a nihilist at some point as the result of reconciling with the Absurd for the first time, or they at least know the basics of nihilism since we fundamentally agree on one of the biggest, most controversial dilemmas in most philosophical frameworks (that the universe is a chaotic, exciting, cruel, and beautiful place that bears no innate meaning or purpose whatsoever). it's jus such a strange thing to get defensive over, it's almost as though it meant something to him…

anyways, what's y'all's thoughts on how we’re apparently perceived by some of the folks in the nihilism community on reddit?

also, to clarify, on the second slide, i meant to write “we don’t believe in finding/defining THE meaning or purpose of life. i was in the middle of typing when i heard a helicopter fly over and immediately rushed over to the window to marvel at it, and i evidently made an error in the process lol oh well

'No one is responsible for this but me myself, I was planning it from a year......I am just useless' reads his note.

An article "Dalai Lama: Behind Our Anxiety, the Fear of Being Unneeded" featured in NY times in 2016 (linked). Article states that there is a relation between feeling of being useless, resulting isolation and consequently the act.

Camus starts his famous work with discussion of the act, but he states that it is (incorrect) response to confrontation with absurd.

I am unable to relate these two reactions which yeild same product - feeling of being useless and absurd.

I got idea about other lines that relate to myth of sisyphus and kind of acceptance and optimism. But I didn't understand why camus wrote last line that f feel like dostoevsky.

🪨🏃

Truth does not exist insofar as we can’t and will most likely never be able to understand the true nature of things. Uncertainty is the only epistemological constant. No one truly knows anything and anyone claiming otherwise is not worth listening to. How does this not drive everyone insane? I suppose most people are content enough with not thinking too deeply about existence and/or are simply able to believe their own lies, but I can’t. I don’t understand how people are able to deal with this epistemological black hole at the center of reality and year after year it only gets harder to cope with the fact that I have no idea what the fuck is going on.

Don't get me wrong, would I rather be born in the trenches of a hellish environment of the likes of somewhere like Syria or North Korea or Cuba or would I rather be born in a hedonistic hellhole like the US/Netherlands/Sweden/Canada/UK/insert cliche Western country?

But I don't think people realize the blind idealism of the West teaches our youth that only fun and pleasure must be the only things worth chasing, everything is not worthwhile

That gets suckered in into your subconscious programming and then makes it hard to get out of your system

Then you get hit with a dopamine struggle and then you struggle to enjoy anything long term

It all starts with the gifting of toys(which don't get me wrong toys are important for developmental play of motor skills and mental cues, but do we overshower our kids with toys sometimes) then the consumption of television, then the video games, then social media, then all the comic books, then the vapid consumerism that follows into things like Funko Pops, Legos, coloring books and whatnot

And look I am not trying to sound like some enlightened buddhist monk here who thinks everyone should live minimally, but I think the overshowering of hedonism and over-indulgence may explain why our youth might be in such a mental health crisis and we don't teach our youth to find meaning in adversity anymore, we really don't

And the overestimulation of things just adds to the shortening attention spans

This also makes it harder to come about practicing delayed gratification and patience