Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: 1458221320236.png (862KB, 746x681px) Image search:
[Google]
862KB, 746x681px
What's the essential difference between an existentialist and an absurdist? I have struggles figuring that out.
The way I understand it, put simply, an existentialist recognizes the lack of objective meaning but strives to creates his own?
And maybe an Absurdist recognizes the lack of meaning too, but instead of trying to spite it by creating his own, he simply accepts it but goes on living anyway? And but then what does he do and for what reason? Things he likes because he likes them? Is he then not just a hedonist?
>>
>>9818651
No because an actual hedonist would say that pleasure is meaning.
You're trying to reduce absurdism to being in the world because you're correctly perceiving that pure absurdism is basically an unsustainable position.
So, absurdism as a transient perception and absurdism as a sustained philosophy aren't really the same thing.
>>
>>9818651
Existentialism and Absurdism are hard to differentiate between because they're compatible to a point where the line blurs, but the difference is perception and practice.
Existentialism in a sentence says that existence precedes essence. This leads to the idea that there is no objective purpose.
Absurdism says that we cannot know whether or not there is purpose even any rhyme or reason in the universe, but we must revolt against this absurdity by forging our own purpose, treating our subjective purpose as though it were objective purpose.
Camus didn't consider himself an absurdist, but the two philosophies connect pretty neatly
>>
>>9818710
>Camus didn't consider himself an absurdist
He didn't consider himself an existentialist, my bad
>>
>>9818660
>No because an actual hedonist would say that pleasure is meaning.
Ah yeah, thanks.
>>9818710
>Camus didn't consider himself an existentialist
That's exactly what got me confused.
So the way you put it, Absurdism is basically giving up on the "search for meaning" because it's futile?
While existentialists say objective purpose definitely does not exist?
>>
>>9818651
Basically absurdists are funnier
>>
>>9818726
Existentialism isn't well defined enough to give a definitive answer to that, but I think the absurdism one is spot on (if only because absurdism is just the existentialist philosophy of Camus and only Camus).
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1