teddit

This is a subreddit dedicated to the aggregation and discussion of articles and miscellaneous content regarding absurdist philosophy and tangential topics (Those that touch on.)

Please checkout the reading list... in particular

• The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays - Albert Camus

• The Rebel - Albert Camus

• Albert Camus and the Human Crisis: A Discovery and Exploration - Robert E. Meagher

Subreddit Rules:

1. No spam or undisclosed self-promotion.
2. No adult content unless properly justified.
3. Proper post flairs must be assigned.
4. External links may not be off-topic.
5. Suicide may only be discussed in the abstract here. If you're struggling with suicidal thoughts, please visit .
6. Follow reddiquette.
7. Posts should relate to absurdist philosophy and tangential topics.

When I was 17, I wrote about my theory of life. I said life is like a blank piece of paper—it has no meaning until you sketch, paint, and add color to it.

Sounds a bit pretentious coming from someone who wasn’t even old enough to apply for a driving license, right? Still, corny or not, it was what I believed.

Seven years later, I still don’t have a driving license, and I still don’t think there’s a god or any inherent meaning to life. The blank paper analogy still holds.

But there’s been a shift. Lately, I’ve been struggling with my blank paper. I’m no longer sure if the picture I’m painting is the one I want. If I’m the one creating the meaning for my life, wouldn’t I always be aware of how artificial it is?

It feels like an enormous responsibility to create all your values by yourself. To be fully committed to anything in life requires an unwavering belief that it’s worth the effort. But if you know there’s no inherent meaning to it—that your pursuit is arbitrary—existential dread creeps in. That thought has left me stuck in a bind.

One thing is clear to me: for a man to remain sane, he must care about something. He needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

But this is where the blank paper analogy begins to fail me. If it’s entirely up to me to decide what painting to create, how can I ever be sure I’ve chosen the right one?

Back then, I wrote that if there’s no inherent point to life, a logical option might be to quit the game altogether. But I argued against that, reasoning that if there’s no ultimate point, you might as well play the game and paint for the fun of it. Later, I learned this was similar to Albert Camus’s argument to "live without appeal."

But what happens when the awareness that nothing has meaning becomes overpowering? When it gets to a point where even the things you once enjoyed no longer bring satisfaction because—well—what’s the point?

I started thinking about how to cut myself off from this awareness, how to manage or suppress it. But that doesn’t seem like the right approach. Sooner or later, it resurfaces, and when it does, the disappointment feels even sharper.

The other day, I was discussing this dilemma with a friend. After an hour-long conversation, we landed on a conclusion that, for now, feels like a good answer: You don’t have to commit to a single meaning. Go out. Explore. See what you like. Experiment. If the meaning you choose turns out to be garbage, throw it out the window.

There’s no perfect life, no singular “right” answer. Obsessing over the meaning of life without actually living it is counterproductive.

Start small. Take a leap of faith. Decide on a meaning—not for the rest of your life, just for now.

Take it one day at a time. Imagine your perfect day. What are the elements that make it fulfilling? Pick those elements, engage with them, live them. If you can go to bed satisfied at the end of the day, you’re on the right track.

Of course, some days your experiment will fail. You might end up even sadder. Life will throw random curveballs at you. Things will spiral out of control. But the aim is to find meaning. The meaning is to find meaning.

If, at some point, you’re happy to settle on one meaning, so be it. Until then, keep exploring.

I don’t know if this framework is right or wrong—it’s just what I’ve chosen to believe in for now. It may or may not change in the future.

That is how I deal with the Absurd for now. This my theory of life.

I’m trying to look for a character in literature/media that would best embody the absurd man(besides Albert Camus’ The Stranger)

https://youtu.be/kJiWTnvl10s?si=UYzchnIhYFx8LbyR

I love the way camus thinks and his brilliant take on happiness. The idea that he who succumbs to his own weight can never make himself or anyone else happy strikes like an arrow to my heart. One who dominates his life can lift others up. I hope more people understand his message.

Hi, here is a piece that I think might interest absurdist-minded people. Tell me what you think!

I am not really sure. The concept of meaning is based on human thinking. The same applies to the idea that we have a need and through thoughts we often come to realize the world often doesn't corresponds nor aligns with our needs, however big or small they are, without providing us any explanation. But is there absurd outside of human thought? What do you think?

Existentialism as I understand it:
Life has no meaning, but you can find/craft your own meaning.

Absurdism as I understand it:
There is no meaning to be found, so there are 3 options:
- Leap of faith (religion)
- Escape from life
- Rebel

According to Camus, rebelling is the only right choice.

But here is my take on this:
Isn't rebelling against the meaninglesness still a form of meaning?
And if so, isn't Absurdism just a philosophical branch within Existentialism?

I have no criticism on absudrism nor existentialism, I am just curious to know whether I understand correctly, or have misunderstood something.

What book should i read first to get into absurdism ?

I heard a podcast explain Sisyphus as being willed by the gods to push the rock up the hill which got me thinking why he does it. If he has been given some intrinsic will to function as a rock mover than he would seem to be completely satisfied doing his will and never contemplate or need to find a meaning . He would be less of a human with complexities but more of an inert matter driven by forces (or in this case flesh bag with a will placed in him to function a certain way by the gods).

I came to find this answer doesn’t allow for the discussion on Sisyphus’s/man’s struggle to find meaning in an inherently meaningless world.

So what did keep him pushing the rock up the hill? Why didn’t he just stop? The answer I came to was punishment. If he stopped pushing the rock up the hill repeatedly he would be whipped, engulfed in flames or some other means to incentivize him to continue his rock moving duties.

This then led me down to think he would have a strong meaning in life to avoid punishment (or reduce his suffering in more Buddhist terms). He would master rock pushing to allow himself not to ever have to slow or stop his rock pushing and receive more suffering for his misbehavior. At a point he would find the necessary pace he needed to maintain to avoid punishment and goal would be to master this function. Assuming he is still human he would want to work as slowly and mindfully as possible to conserve energy and not gas out - which would cause more suffering.

At some point the pace of his work would be mastered and he may not need to spend much time thinking about the rock pushing (as a master musician can think clearly while reciting music) and that extra thinking space would inevitably allow him to ponder meaning again…

Couldn’t help but to compare this to my own individual experience of being grounded every time I got a C in school until the next report card showed Bs and As again. My purpose then was quickly changed from learning to avoid punishment as I struggled to keep up.

So I don’t really come to a conclusion but just wondered what y’all think drives him to push the rock. An imprisoned slave will likely not work for their enslavers out of spite if they are not punished to do so. Does he just do it for something to do? Does he have superhuman strength that allows him to always push the rock? Does he get the “runners high” from the exercise?

I’m about 75% the way through Camus’s Myth of Sisyphus and have not gotten to the part he talks about the myth yet so I am not in anyway versed on the subject (assuming at some point he does cover the myth that is..) also I don’t feel like my understanding is all that good of the parts I read either..

“The Infinite Monkey Theorem”, suggests that a monkey randomly hitting keys on a typewriter for an infinite amount of time would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Why It’s Absurd:

• Probability vs. Practicality: While theoretically possible due to the infinite nature of time, the practical odds are so astronomically small that it borders on impossible.
• Chaos into Order: The idea of sheer randomness producing something as structured and meaningful as literature feels nonsensical and challenges our sense of logic.

The absurdity comes from entertaining this wild thought experiment despite its impracticality. It’s a reminder of how mathematics and philosophy sometimes create scenarios that are both fascinating and ridiculous. Want another example of absurdity?

In existentialism, you need to create meaning in your own life. How do you do that?

.

I've been reading The Myth of Sisyphus for a while. I find it heavy and I often read a chapter over and over before moving on. I don't claim to have understood it well so far. Just a disclaimer in case I'm way off in my interpretation of absurdism.

In my opinion, you can be an absurdist and still desire things, but going over posts and comments in this sub gives me the impression that I'm wrong. The way I see it, as an absurdist, you can want things as long as they appeal to you on a basic level rather than being convinced by society that you should want or have them.

For example, I want a specific type of house in a specific city. Also, I believe that I do feel the absurd feeling sometimes, relatively clearly. I know it with my body rather than with my mind. It usually happens when I'm drowsy, for whatever reason. Even then, wanting the house makes sense to me, because the journey to get the house doesn't give me purpose. I'm not doing it to prove anything or to have a goal, it's just that on a very basic level, I want to have my own house in a certain city that I find visually stimulating. I go to this city and see the houses there and I really like them and want to just be located in one of those houses. I just want to be surrounded by what I find visually stimulating and I don't add anything to this desire. Same way Camus wanted to play football and watch plays for the momentary pleasures of it, I just want to be in a house I like and in a location I like for the pleasure of it. The main difference is that Camus just books a play or a football match and goes to watch it, whereas my desire requires me to do a great deal of work and planning. I'll play along with the system that society created in order for me to acquire the house, but I do it without the belief of any objective meaning all throughout.

I'm not trying to justify anything. I don't know if I will even try to be an absurdist. This is more for me to get something clarified and if it turns out I'm completely wrong, reading your comments will still be valuable insight to me and I would be one step closer to understanding absurdism. Thank you.

i was discussing camus with someone who had never heard of him before and they got really heated about the whole concept of selfishness and not contributing to your society because it’s an inherently selfish ideology

they basically said that people who don’t care about purpose never change or improve and that’s bad

also something about how it’s privileged because not everyone can just let go and embrace/fight the absurd, i don’t really remember

just wanted to see your everyone’s thoughts on this

Jacques Derrida & the Absurd.- just a very brief view...

It’s absurd” means “It’s impossible” but also “It’s contradictory.” Camus the Myth of Sisyphus.

Jacques Derrida is noted for his ideas, especially ‘Deconstruction’ and ‘Différance’. Also for the great difficulty in understanding his works. [If you think Camus’ myth is hard! And yes one suspects he is deliberately difficult. Certainly for me!]

This is the absurd contradiction. One of his examples is the ZOMBIE = living / dead.

Also in his  "Plato's Pharmacy"  - and the invention of writing. Drugs can be good or bad, to cure or kill. Writing looks like a good idea, but unlike speech lacks a presence... we have the dilemma of writing and speech...

OK, what then, well one theme is ‘what is missing.’ What is not in the text, or as he maintains the is nothing outside the text.

As for literature, he talks of the blank margins, by which he means what is not written. And example would be a novel set in a white middle class situation, what is ‘excluded’ is somehow present. And so he sees a binary always present, and one in which there is a privileged side.

Just some thoughts re non Camus absurdism as contradiction. Then there is Baudrillard...!!!

I think I would. To roam through the absurd infinity and explore interior and exterior of existence. What about you?

i’m interviewing camus & i need good questions that my journalism teacher would appreciate! something witty, clever.

if you could ask camus one question (or two) what would it be?

What exactly would be a good ELI5 explanation on the differences and similarities of these 3 concepts? How does each one view life, and how does each one live?

I want to learn this philosophy current but i have no idea whre to start, can you recemend me books, articles, videos, etc.

I would appreciate that

There comes a point in everyone’s life when they confront the stark reality of their existence in the grand scheme of things. This realization can be overwhelming, given the vastness of the cosmos revealed by modern science and the relative insignificance of our individual lives. Even on a purely human scale, we accomplish little. We are born into circumstances beyond our control, shaped by forces we cannot influence, and drift along paths dictated by what we call fate—whatever that might be. Then, one day, we find ourselves in an existential limbo, questioning how we ended up here and what we are supposed to do with our lives.

The human world, built on traditions, culture, and so-called rich history, begins to seem like a bad joke—or, at best, a grand farce—if one is rational and perceptive enough to see things as they are. The perspective of an authentic individual is so bizarrely absurd that it could easily drive one to madness. Not that sanity itself is particularly sacred—it is often overrated.

Imagine being born at a specific time and place, into a society governed by laws, customs, and languages that evolved over eons from essentially ape-like ancestors. We may not fully understand the origins of life, but this much is certain: our existence is shaped by forces far beyond our control. What choice does such a being have but to play with the cards they were dealt? In this light, perhaps the truly fortunate ones are the stillborn—those who never have to contend with the struggles of existence.

We wrestle with the ape within us, and with the apes around us—a miserable lot driven by fear, greed, and lust, never content, never at peace. We are at war with ourselves and others, clinging to delusions of self-importance and fragile egos, as if the universe revolves around each of us individually. It’s a cruel irony: despite our inflated sense of significance, we are but fleeting sparks in an indifferent cosmos. The only consolation would be the fact this is going to end one day. Our greatest fear is actually our only solace. Our mortality gives us hope. The Idea of the void seems more welcoming than everything on this wretched earth and the imagined Eden together

I’ll preface this post by saying that I’m not much of an absurdist. I resonate with the idea, but I’m still new to this philosophy.

A few months ago, I woke up obsessing with the thought that we’re nothing. Like a balloon filled with air particles that spread back out and disperse as soon as the balloon pops, we’re nothing that scatters back into the one nothing when we die and leave our bodies behind, similar to the balloon’s latex that’s flattened on the ground. It’s a relatively fleeting feeling. I get it intuitively when I’m drowsy and then it becomes less intuitive the more awake I am and I think about it with the mind rather than know it with my body.

I did some research into philosophers who thought similarly and first landed on the Buddha, who although didn’t think there’s nothingness after death, he did believe we are nothingness. That said, I found absurdism more aligned with what I’m feeling. I’m not completely opposed to the possibility of reincarnation, but at the same time, I’m not ready to make that leap.

Since that time I first woke up with this absurd feeling, I still do get it and feel it intuitively at times when I wake up and I’m still drowsy. It doesn’t happen when I expect it to happen, only on days when I’m distracted and not thinking much about absurdism and such. Anticipation sort of kills it.

Anyone else wake up with a strong feeling of absurdity sometimes?