If absurdity arises from the need of clarity & simultaneous understanding that it can't be achieved, the only way that doesn't lead to despair is to abandon one of them (the need, or the understanding). There are two schools, sort of. One emphasizing dishonesty & the other moral irresponsibility.Cancer wrote:Now, this is a conversation we already had, but maybe it would be useful to clarify some points in written form (and perhaps let other nerdy philosophers participate as well...).Insanus wrote:I don't understand how conscious revolt against absurdity is "embracing it".
Absurdity can in fact only be embraced if it is fought against, because what the concept involves is an imbalance between 1. the human need for clarity and 2. the worlds inability to provide it. To "live absurdly" one has to maintain this imbalance. This means that one has to yearn for meaning constantly and yet know that there is none. Absurdity is not something that can be accepted, because the moment one accepts it, it ceases to exist.
If I remember correctly, you said that Camus' revolt should be seen as a variation of Kierkegaard's most intense form of despair (the "demonic wrath" or whatever), the one that "wants to be a mistake in God's plan". First I found this idea implausible, but on giving it a closer thought it turned out to be interesting. Could you elaborate it here?
Camus claims that he doesn't do that, but he does. Or so it seems to me.
Wikipedia's article on absurdism explains Camus' solution as follows:
Acceptance of the Absurd: a solution in which one accepts the Absurd and continues to live in spite of it. Camus endorsed this solution, believinng that by accepting the Absurd, one can achieve absolute freedom, and that by recognizing no religious or other moral constraints and by revolting against the Absurd while simultaneously accepting it as unstoppable, one could possibly be content from the personal meaning constructed in the process. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, regarded this solution as "demoniac madness"
Except that it's not demoniac madness because of the part I underlined. Camus gives his life a personal meaning or at least some hope in his revolt against absurdity & in my opinion that's precisely the dishonest leap of faith that he himself criticizes.
Revolt against the leap of faith instead of absurdity (demoniac madness) on the other hand takes Camus' revolt and gives intensifying despair for the übermensch to endure to inspire writing more and more notes from the underground just because it's possible.
That would be really absurd in the way Satan worship is.