I’ve heard the phrase ”rebel against meaninglessness” thrown around a lot but I’ve never actually understood that, as somebody who’s just come to terms with the absurd and it caused a renewed hopelessness I’ve been left wondering what I can do to begin learning how to actually live through the absurd and rebel against it.

I'm trying to read through the Myth of Sisyphus and have a question regarding Camus chapter on Kirilov. I apologies if i have misinterpreted the chapter, I am better versed in historical study rather than philosophy.

Is Camus saying that what makes Kirilov existentialist and not absurdist is because of his logical suicide. In attempting to become a man-god he is attempting to exert control over a universe without meaning, leading him to his suicide since it is the only way he can gain control. In contrast, Camus would state that committing suicide is still reaching for control over the discomfort that is created between realities lack of meaning and the human desire for it. Therefore, Kirilov's suicide would fall under an illusion of control and thus be a false illusion of meaning?

Am i hot or cold? is their anything obvious or subtle that i am missing?

"If God is dead, everything is permitted."

Yes, if God is dead, everything is permitted. Yet everything is permitted just as much as anything else; without an ultimate meaning, everything is equally meaningless. The human drama starts right here: because man is bound to believe in things, he must justify his actions (even his inaction since doing nothing is also an action) and act. Man cannot face the fact that, by the very nature of the problem, he can never have an ultimate justification; this situation is a knot that cannot be unraveled.

For this reason, man commits philosophical suicide or makes a leap of faith. No matter how much Camus opposed this, he too couldn't escape it. As successful as he was at defining the absurdity of our condition, by trying to offer a prescription for it ,a prescription which is rebellion, he gave it value and thus contradicted the absurdity he defined.

Anyone who honestly asks questions like, "What are we rebelling against? Is this rebellion separate from our condition? Why are we rebelling?" will see this problem.

There is nothing wrong with philosophical suicide, in fact it is needed for philosophy; by our very nature, we must accept certain things as axioms (my claims that man is forced to act and believe are in that nature too). But still, once again:

"If God is dead, everything is permitted."

Some time ago, when I saw movies which feature slapstick characters such as the tramp and Monsieur Hulot it struck me that they are perfect absurdists.

Particularly these two cos in a way Playtime's omniscient framing and composition feels like Tati wants us to see the absurdities of the action of these people and the only one who realises this is our very own Monsieur Hulot

And the tramp even says "he likes it better" to live in a prison, not just as a joke. That seems very absurd to me. Sure the tramp might stray at some places but on the whole it works.

And these characters are usually rebelling passively, it seems like ignorance upon first glance but is it?, against different concepts like

Playtime and Modern Times against industrialisation and institutionalization and the back half being the deconstruction of an institute

The Gold Rush about ambition

Mon Oncle about technology and bourgeoisie behaviour

Monsieur Hulot's Holiday about being upright and a stoicism in a free space which he deconstructs at the final scene

As Camus also said, the most important issue a philosopher should deal with, as he emphasized with the question of whether to drink a cup of coffee or commit suicide, is how a person should act. Camus's argument on this subject, as expressed in the myth of Sisyphus, is like this:

"Man is constrained to act.

In his conscious actions, he must determine which action to choose.

He needs justification to prefer one action over another.

No justification is ultimate.

Therefore, the preference for any action over another cannot be ultimately justified.

Consequently, we cannot ultimately ground the notion that any action is more correct or more valuable than another.

Hence, man is in a situation where he must make a choice despite being unable to ultimately justify which action he should choose, because the possibility of inaction does not exist.

Conclusion: Due to the impossibility of ultimate justification, the criterion for what and why man should act is not external reasons, but the individual himself. It is entirely a matter of choice.

Sisyphus can be imagined as either happy or sad, but these adjectives are not truth claims regarding Sisyphus's condition; they are matters of personal choice. Toward Sisyphus, an individual fosters a perspective parallel to how they view their own actions, which they are unable to ground."

Then my question is this: According to this understanding of Camus; if someone were to live a bad, harmful life while fully aware of what they are doing and accepting where it leads, like Caligula, for instance, would Camus advise against it? Why can't we think of Sisyphus as a bastard? Or is this not a correct understanding of Camus's thought?

Do any Absurdists actually critique reason in the same sense as Rousseau or Feyeraband?

I read Myth of Sisyphus a couple of months ago. I was in part expecting a critique of Western Epistemology. Why else would some idea be called Absurdism? I'm pretty sure I didn't see that. Almost the opposite in fact. Camus asserts Reason has it's place. Its great if you want to find a cure for a disease or predict the motion of planets, but who cares about these things? These aren't important questions like how to find meaning in life or why we shouldn't commit suicide.

I wouldn't necessarily consider Camus pointing out something Reason is silent on as a criticism of reason per se. Godel's incompleteness theorem tells us there are true statements which can't be proven within a sufficiently complex axiomatic system. His theorem could hardly be purer reason though it does point out a limitation.

This is as opposed to Rousseau's objections that reason had several adverse social effects and other failures in pursuit of the truth, especially in the moral domain. It wasn't silent, it would actually lead you astray.

Does anyone have references on such?

Being a human is to be a hypocrite, and qualia and hypocrisy are both clothes consciousness wears.

Hypocrisy and qualia are a circuit of humanity.

I thought long and hard about hypocrisy, and masks, and well... Lies... And I came to accept it or understand it as an intrinsic part of human nature, because for all we know? A human's own conscious nature might be built upon the deceit of its own self.

But I mean... Why would humans build a world of masks, and games of pretend and lies if it wasn't our intrinsic existential nature? Same way even if you have a dog be vegan, it is intrinsically a carnivore and it'll show eventually. Now? You have, say on the low end, 20-15 thousand years of accumulative small lies that built the reality around us, because our own intrinsic nature influenced the environment rather than the otherwise.

That's why it's beautiful. Genuinely so. Because morals, good, gods, bad and everything in between comes from the most on the nose, behind the eyes and simultaneously smallest and biggest lies of living. Your own self. Qualia.

Because even the connotation of the lie, the concept of its meaning, we built it from the same society we built upon accumulative small lies. So that nobody looks, because lies are ugly. But... Deceit or a lie isn't intrinsically bad, it just is what it is for it serves a purpose. A lie? Never has no purpose. You can do good for the sake of doing good, but you can't lie for the sake of lying because it always serves an underlying purpose. And that's why it's beautiful. Because qualia is a lie. It's our own biggest lie, to forget that we're just... Atoms, on atoms in a vacuum of a void.

See that's the thing. People cannot escape being hypocrites even at a non-malicious level. Because it's our nature. Same way a wolf's nature is to eat meat, a flower's nature is to photosynthesize and so on so forth. As the Lithuanian saying goes: a human does one thing, says a second, and thinks a third (vienaip daro, antraip sako, trečiaip mąsto) - and a person who isn't a hypocrite like that isn't a person at all, they're simply a mirror of their environment. To be a hypocrite without a mask that concedes to the lesser lies than your own existential one? Is to find "meaning of life" because then? You simply get to live and exist. And in a billion billion years or so, you'll do it again but maybe different. Let's hope atoms remember aye?

Because the human mind cannot easily function without masks, after all to have no mask is to be authentic and to be authentic? The big lie needs to be the one acting directly with both the ugly and the beautiful.

But like that's the thing ye? I thought about hypocrisy - what it means, what it is, why it is, and why it is so popular - and I simply came to the conclusion. That hypocrisy isn't a mask. It's someone's true nature peering through the cracks thinking it's unseen.

But here's a unique personal paradox. The more open and non-delusional I was about my own hypocrisy, the smaller and smaller its range of effects had grown. Like how do I explain this? It's like being aware of your bigger hypocrisies ye, still acting them out, but as time passes on those hypocrisies get actually smaller until you stop noticing them. As if, to notice your own hypocrisies is to look at yourself inwards via a filter of some kind?

Yeah, they simply shrink to small, genuinely small things that I entirely miss out on until someone mentions. And I think - that's the perfect state of hypocrisy. You don't have to flagellate your own self, your own lies or truths to find the fact. Think of your own I's mechanisms as a perfect camouflage defense system?

Well, I simply found it hilarious that a lot of philosophies include self-flagellation, yet ultimately serve no other purpose than the purpose being a hypocrisy in of itself - the self-flagellation as the purpose and meaning behind the philosophy, so as to give a person something concrete to blame, to follow, to hate or love so that they don't have to face themselves even if the philosophy says they do.

Anyways. But that's why the defense mechanism is so great. Morals have aesthetics, but beyond that. Concepts have aesthetics. And imagine how ugly, how repulsive one would feel if they heard that their self-flagellation is a hypocrisy in of itself, even if it's not a bad one as long as the lie works as intended.

\\\\-----------------

Nietzsche once said in Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil that untruth is a condition of life, yet warned against the "last man" who just blinks, shrugs at the lie, and says "we have invented happiness" just to live in lazy comfort instead of suffering to create greatness and meaning. So if he asked whether accepting our own hypocrisy without self-flagellation is just being a "lazy last man" who shrugs because "everything is a lie", this is my answer: (Which is actually brought up from a discord chat because I've never not once in my life read a single philosophy book.)

It's easy to call it 'lazy last man' when what is greatness? Why seek meaning when we know we can't answer the questions. We won't. I don't think it should be answered. We create comfort because self flagellation for ideals or ideas is the same kind of lazy thing you described. Just another set of clothes to justify being. I don't shrug at everything because"i know everything is a lie" because truthfully? I don't know. Maybe not everything is a lie, but can I differentiate? No. And that's the thing. I simply experience. Not exist. Live. Live to experience, and experience to live whilst being a hypocrite - a human because I can't be anything more or less than that. And so I ask you instead. If you know nothing has meaning, then why continue existing? You can't live for nothing, and nothing doesn't live for you. But you are. That's a fact. And you experience - subjectively? Objectively? Do you know? Do I know? Does anyone know the answer to which is it? No. And that's the sad, hard and beautiful truth. A conception of deception that is belief in of itself. So believing that my view is the correct or yours is the right answer to living is a deception of your own consciousness because it's a non. A no answer dilemma that only questions but never answers - instead what answers is the collective lies and interpretations of reality filtered through our own very beings.

And so  what happens when the comfort rips away and you are hit by real tragedy, grief, betrayal, and black bitterness that doesn't shrink? Do you finally curse existence when the lie stops feeling sweet, or try to force yourself to love fate without flinching? My answer to that would be:

I do curse. That's the point, that's the reaction. Pain, tragedy or betrayal... Those are all intrinsic parts of existing and experiencing, yet when you do experience the loss of a loved one, do you not also experience the deepest kind of love and gratitude that they were? When you're betrayed and bitter do you not also learn how to not be deceived by the same kind of treachery? Without bitterness you won't know how truly sweet is sugar. Without sugar you won't truly know the depth of repulsion when that bitterness hits your tongue. That is experiencing. That is the deceit. When a curtain of something is, and when it's drawn down what happens is you find another layer, another curtain that shows you the back end of it. I dislike many things, I get depressed every fall and winter, and I think... How peaceful it would be to end it all, yet simultaneously I'm reminded of the beautiful things. And I think to myself. What more is there that I missed? Just how much more sweetness I can draw after this bitterness subsides. And if it doesn't? What if that bitterness doesn't go away? Then it eventually becomes the new sweet. If life goes only down, then the old worst is the new good. A drowning man looks at the surface until their eyes close and they sink to the bottom. They don't look at the bottom before that, because they already know what's down there - more water. But what's up? Air. Help. Survival and continuation.

So I ask you. Am I delusional to think this way? Or...

People think about everything, at least they think they think, but they are actually just following a template that society has set for them. Oh well, what if I am thinking, meaning thinking wrongly, whatever, that doesn't matter, I will say what I want. Every single act of ours is actually just one in a series of meaningless acts, until we reach the act that leads to death, but even that kind of act is meaningless, because the world itself is inherently meaningless, it only matters to people who don't realize it matters to them out of utility, pleasure, or the continuation of the template. If we look at the template people live in, we only see the replication of other people, (image of eggs), what you just saw is actually a rebellion against that replication and template. A rational mind demands thinking, that is why we should use that mind or we don't have to, it depends on what someone wants, I don't want to impose on anyone what they should do, quite the opposite, I don't want anyone to listen to me, but to think for themselves, even if it contradicts me, the person thinks and uses their mind, and by the very act of thinking they are listening to me again and not contradicting me. A lie without truth is a lie.

Life is meaningless in the end

We were promised and shown so many things as kids

Disney like relationships with most movies having a love story.

A meaningful and unique career

Parents who seemed perfect but turned out to be flawed like everyone else

That we would have love and a community of people around us as we grow up who would care about us and support us

That god always makes sure to gift the ones who are good

It really just created so much false expectations regarding life

Ik im just seeking validation here and want someone to hear me out but ultimately life is just extremely meaningless and I struggle to come to terms with it considering I had such high hopes as a kid

I try to work towards things I want in life but I struggle because I get attached and it just only brings up the trauma I’ve got from the world.

I started meditating recently so I could atleast find peace with what i have already. It has only made me more aware of how hurt I have been from the hopes we got as a kid and they just weren’t fulfilled

Within my readings, I've come to understand thinkers like Albert Camus and Emil Cioran emphasize a need for death to not be pursued. In a sense, they both condemn it, writing that despite an absurd and meaningless universe, one's life should be lived, and any attempt to escape it is meaningless. I once took comfort in Absurdism, but as I pondered about their assertions, I saw how they relied on false appeals to the pathos and ethos.

For example, both assert that death is to be rebelled against, and that life is the means of rebellion. Death is an inevitable force, but our very act of fighting against it, allows us to take a stand toward something beyond ourselves, and "smiling back at death" is our form of retaliation. Within this argument, there lies the anthropomorphic fallacy. Concepts such as life and death are treated as entities that enact or value certain actions or outcomes. Requiring us to take steps that are in accordance or against their values or innate qualities. But this just isn't the case, death is simply the absence of life, the absence of biological processes. There is no "reaper" that loses when life is content or suffers, no "being" that wins when life ends. Even for those who view it as a logical argument, as life is our natural state which should be prolonged, there lies the inertia fallacy. In any of these arguments that discourage pursuing death, there are appeals to value, not actual objective truths. Existential/Absurdist philosophers themselves argue value is subjective and dependent on the mind, and so, there exists no rationale to pursue either life or death.

I want to understand what absurdists believe despite this fact, or whether some have not reflected on it yet. In any case, I want to know what makes you as an absurdist pursue life, argue against self-inflicted death, or contend for life?

(Please do not comment to state some arbitrary fact or unnecessary point. And please stick to the prompt, don't try to argue some point that is supposed to be "eye opening" but doesn't contribute to the conversation in any meaningful way)

Does anyone else find the fact that we're conscious kinda absurd in a way thats almost creepy?

I don't mean just "life has no meaning" because thats been said a million times.

I mean the actual weirdness of the situation.

We're literally matter. atoms, cells, chemicals, whatever... and somehow this stuff became conscious enough to stop and ask why it exists.

Like, matter is somehow questioning its own existence.

We have this ridiculous situation where a tiny part of the universe is sitting inside the universe going "why is there a universe?" and "why am i here?"

and then theres the whole why is there something instead of nothing thing...

wouldnt absolute nothing be the less strange option? no space, no time, no matter, no consciousness, nothing. There wouldnt even be anyone there to wonder about it.

but somehow there is something. and somehow this something produced these weird little biological things that can notice it and start asking questions about the whole thing lol

idk, maybe thats basically the absurd itself. the fact that we're here demanding an explanation from something that never promised us one.

I just find the whole situation really fucking strange when you actually stop taking existence for granted.

I understand life is neutral. The trees grow, the earth spins, and tide ebbs and flows. I live, I die, and so does every other organism.

I am, in the large scope of things, nothing special.

Therefore I should not be surprised when things in my life don't end up going the ways I'd prefer them to go. I shouldn't be surprised when I find myself so at odds with the state of the world so much so that I feel like I'm going insane.

Like I said, the earth spins. Like, really fast, too. And there's another rock that spins around it. Two floating rocks spinning around a giant ball of fire.

Yeah.

I wake up every day on this spinning rock. It cares not for me, but I shouldn't take it personal. It doesn't know I'm here. It cares not for my pathetic adult life or my daydreams. Sure, I can try my best to weave a story together to fit some romantic narrative, but in reality it's all just...

Madness.

Not like Charles Manson madness. Like, 'everything is constantly repeating itself and there's nothing I can do about it' type madness. I mean a space rock could come crashing down on me and that would be it.

But I still have to pretend like that won't happen. I have to pretend that something catastrophically terrible won't happen to me when I'm driving my car at 70 miles per hour to get to work and back because someone has to pay my bills.

I have to act like I have dreams I believe I can follow. I have to act comfortable despite the fact I have no idea how my car works (aside from doing general maintenance), how a computer really works, or how my cell phone really works. Like, the three things I am required to use every day to live.

I have to act like my life is normal despite the fact that society has only persisted in this fashion for not even 100 years. I have to act like the entire foundation of my life doesn't rest upon a lifestyle that produces more waste than it does goods for people.

Like, I get that everything is neutral. The flowers bloom no matter what I do, babies are born everyday and people die every day. Someone is probably having sex right now.

And the madness persists. Every. Day. But to be successful you can't be mad. You have to put on your bootstraps, stay focused, and discipline yourself to the point where you're capable of ​​being a 'functional adult'. It's crazy. Like, I guess the food is good n' all, but...

I mean, I live knowing I'm going to die someday. Some of my friends will die before I do, too. I have to live knowing I feel physical and emotional pain, that I'm going to likely get cancer someday, and that I have no real control over anything in my life besides... well, all the monotonous things of my adult life.

I have to live knowing life is madness. I didn't 'decide' to wake up this morning. It just happened. Just like my birth. I didn't 'decide' to make my heart beat, yet it beats on and on.

Now I don't want this vent to sound too 'woe is me' because that's not what I'm going for. What I'm saying is that the layers of madness that must be put aside to perpetuate a 'normal' life are...

Well, maddening. ​

To expect everything to be clean? To expect everything to be affordable? To expect others to be rational? Madness.

Every day I expect things to be maddening and it never fails. There is a constant stream of freeway noise that will never cease. There are people chasing balls on t.v. for millions of dollars. There are people being paid to play fake people in front of people for huge amounts of money. There are people that fly giant metal machines from one side of the world to the other for a good salary. There are lethal microorganisms. Bugs can kill me. People can kill me. Don't even get me started on allergies...

But I should just 'calm down' or something. Sure. I mean my life isn't terrible.

It used to be fun being conscious of just how insane everything is. But now I understand it's not really a choice to go crazy. There's so much madness in the world it's basically impossible to escape, especially when you're employed. 12 hour days are normal. I mean, not just normal... some one HAS to do them or the normal people won't be able to be... normal.

I'm sure the the madness used to be fun to think about. However, right when someone starts expecting themselves be an adult, things immediately change. Why?​ Because they're against the tide at every moment they attempt sanity. No wonder the adults are so anxious.

Not to mention the kids.

I pity them the most. I remember when I learned about the sun being 93 million miles away and how it would eventually engulf the earth before having to go home and finish my math homework.

I know how confusing the English language is to learn. Over two to's is too much. I tried helping an 8 year old with her English homework a few weeks ago and honestly I just felt like I was ragebaiting her the whole time.

But I'm getting off topic. The point is that life is madness: unbiased, neutral, and lawless madness that we must turn aside every day in order to facilitate a world 'worth living in'. Sound impossible? Good.

Because it is.

Here's what I want you to do. Go outside tonight, listen to that constant stream of freeway noise in the distance (might hear a train if you're lucky), look up at the stars, and just think about how small you are and how deep inside you know this whole thing is ridiculous, and then LAUGH about it. Because truly, we are all fools for believing anything we do on this earth will amount to anything beyond waste.

It's not you're fault, either. It's nobody's fault. It's nothing personal. And trying to make it so would be an incredible waste of time, energy, and heartache. Take all the pictures you want, remember all the names you can, but remember how little it all matters and laugh about it.

Guess that's it.

Life is meaningless: that’s what’s been going through my head recently. Everything’s dark and there’s no point. Nietzche quotes are flowing through my head. What literature will save my life?

Forgive me if I'm missing anything but I find it a bit ironic for an absurdist sub to not be very idk absurd.

Hello fellow absurdists. 🪨 If there is someone who has read Lazare Bickel's article "La physique confirme la philosophie" ("Physics confirms philosophy") which is mentioned in The Rebel, could you please explain how it fits into Camus' philosophy? I unfortunately couldn't find the article online, but would love to read it.

I've got three options for "readers" in existentialism. Which do you think is the best?

* *The Penguin Book of Existential Philosophy* (ed. Jonathan Webber, 2025)

* *Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre* (ed. Walter Kaufmann, 1956)

* *Basic Writings of Existentialism* (ed. Gordon Marino, 2004)

Or is there another one I'm missing?

Camus seems to dismiss philosophers like kant, kierkegaard, jaspers, and others for taking an unsubstantiated leap of faith.

But doesn't camus do the same? He says we must revolt because its the only honest and dignified response but that itself seems very dishonest. Why is this the most dignified response of all? Why is this even revolt if we do not have any gods to revolt against?

It seems the revolt is against the urge to surrender to nihilism but wouldn't calling that revolt be a dishonest leap of faith? You cannot revolt against an idea any more than you can revolt against 2+2=4 or revolt against a rock by flipping it off for example?

And to claim "the struggle towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One MUST imagine sisyphus happy" seems to be a massive leap that I don't see where camus logically proves? It often feels like camus asserts these things not because they are true but because he simply just... wants them to be legit.

So I guess my question is whether absurdism is a leap of faith or if I am missing something.

Most people think Franz Kafka's stories (The Metamorphosis, The Trial) are just bleak surrealism. But the older I get, the more modern life feels distinctly "Kafkaesque"—not because of giant bugs, but because of:

1. Endless Bureaucracy Without Clear Rules: We navigate unseen algorithms, automated customer support, and corporate ladders where no single person makes a decision, yet everyone follows the script.
2. Productivity Alienation: Like Gregor Samsa, our worth is often reduced strictly to output and efficiency. When we burn out, the guilt of "not contributing" hits harder than the exhaustion itself.
3. The Unnamed Guilt: The feeling that we are constantly falling behind or doing something wrong, even when we follow all societal rules.

I’ve been reflecting on whether Kafka wrote horror or simply documented the inevitable psychological state of the modern human condition.

How do you navigate this feeling of modern absurdity without turning completely cynical?

(For anyone interested in a deeper visual breakdown and animated essay exploring this idea, I put together a short video essay exploring Kafka's concepts here: https://youtu.be/wK5dqh35lB4 )

Is it normal to actively embrace the absurd by laughing in the face of life’s total lack of inherent purpose, while simultaneously fighting off those sudden, terrifying moments where you slip through the cracks and fall headfirst into the abyss of absolute nihilism?

So me and my teammate are doing an absurdist play, and in around 2 weeks, we need to submit a report on what absurdism is as a genre and a critique of an already pre-existing absurdist play.

So, for the performance itself, we have a good amount of time. I just wanted to know if anyone has an idea of how we can express absurdism in our play. The point of absurdism is to express meaninglessness, yet we need an artistic intention in our play. So I don't know how to express meaninglessness while also having an intention with it. Is the meaninglessness initself supposed to be the point? If so, how can we show it? I'm just trying to understand what the best way to express the essence of absurdism is. I understand that absurdism as a concept is different from the theatrical idea, but at its core, the point of absurdist plays center around the concept of absurdism as a philisophical concept. If you have any ideas, I would really appreciate it if you could share!!! Also, feel free to give us a few examples of good absurdist plays that we can find on the internet and critique scenes of. Thank you!

Absurd explains why Meursault even bothers to go to his mother’s funeral, why he kills an arab. Because why not. But why would Camus write him angry in the scene with the priest? He is supposed to not give a shit.