Existentialism (or: Absurdity)

[Insanus]

I don't understand how conscious revolt against absurdity is "embracing it".

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...).

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?

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.
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.

[Cancer]

I think you and Wikipedia are both confusing things here, although I can't claim to have any authority in interpreting Camus. Let's say then that I'm just defending my own version of the absurd.

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.

A better way to put it would be that absurdity arises from the mentioned need and the fact - outside the subject's consciousness - that meaning can't be found. So subjectively understanding the lack of meaning is not a component of the absurd, but closer to the absurd itself. Hence, it is not this understanding that a follower of Camus' philosophy would want to give up. This kind of a person would hold on to the insight of meaninglessness, and... what? Be in despair? Maybe. At least I can't see this approach as involving any leaps of faith.

But I think that the fundamental point in Camus' philosophy is that it aims to create an honest alternative that's sort of between those kierkegaardian extremes of faith and despair. It's secular thought in that sense, not wanting to live in either heaven or hell. Maybe total despair is an option only if total meaningfulness is thought possible in the first place: maybe these can only exist in relation to each other. Camus (or rather I don't know, my version of him) wants maybe to get rid of the notion of meaning / -lessness altogether, to be himself the only one who decides whether it's worth it to go on living, without reference to any meaning(lessness) outside.

One important thing to remember is that there is no eternity in this kind of thought, so the eternal choice of either faith or despair does not come into play. From this point of view, "faith" equals any non-reflective, dishonest ideology, and "despair" equals suicide, which is seen as the end of everything. This is of course very different from the occult way of thinking, but it's not incoherent: one just has to assume that the entire universe is destroyed when one man dies. And now THAT

would be really absurd in the way Satan worship is.

[Insanus]

I think that the fundamental point in Camus' philosophy is that it aims to create an honest alternative that's sort of between those kierkegaardian extremes of faith and despair. It's secular thought in that sense, not wanting to live in either heaven or hell. Maybe total despair is an option only if total meaningfulness is thought possible in the first place: maybe these can only exist in relation to each other.

Hmph, a good high-school-like existential arguing would've been so much fun, but your view makes a lot of sense. It's sort of zen-thought very analogous to the central paradox of the Red Aspect.
Even more, because it works only if both faith and despair are possibilities, like Red's activity comes from it's relation to White & Black. If Camus' (or rather, your) view would be the only option it'd lose it's power completely-> it is rebellious and living because it's neither faith nor despair: if there was no faith & no despair, there'd be no alternative either.

[Cancer]

If Camus' (or rather, your) view would be the only option it'd lose it's power completely-> it is rebellious and living because it's neither faith nor despair: if there was no faith & no despair, there'd be no alternative either.

You're right about this. The rebellious thing to do is not to regard this being-in-between as the only possibility, but to admit that objective meaning exists and yet refuse to take it into account otherwise, not even falling into despair as it's antithesis. It could probably be said that this philosophy seeks to transcend meaning, not live in a world where it has never existed. Although at the same time it should admit that other, just as coherent viewpoints exist as well: that the transcending of meaning can succeed only subjectively.

In later parts of Sisuphys Camus actually says something like this. At least he mentions Eastern esoteric philosophy as a "white" alternative, that focuses only on eternity. This seems somewhat contradictory, because earlier in the book he argues very strongly against this view. But maybe that just means that in earlier parts he has a subjective approach, that changes into a more objective one later.

[Nayana]

Although this won't touch Absurdity, I considered it interesting to find that Sartre has a concept of 'magic' in course of his theories of emotions and consciousness.

If I understood him right, he contrasts the deterministic world, of which Hardship is said to be a quality, with what he calls the 'magical world of emotions'. In this consciousness is said to plunge on encountering mentioned hardships to, by changing itself via emotions (& thus the body), change the experienced world by altering its qualities or giving it altogether new ones, as if it would not be governed by deterministic processes, but magic.

Also, Sartre thinks the world itself to possess a basic magical structure that may appear to consciousness, or, in other words (as I understood it), change consciousness' current state of being from the outside.

In the context I stumbled upon this part of his Philosophy, his theory was basically understood as a means for consciousness to flee from the hardships it experiences and cannot bear. However, I have the impression that there may be more to that.

If one accepts the thought that the world has a magical structure which may influence consciousness from without, I think it reasonable to add that any consciousness may also be influenced by another one, which is for the subject being influenced an appearance the same way the experienced world is. Basically I think this to be a natural process, but once such processes are
manipulated consciously, I would dare to say this comes somewhat close to actual magic.

At least this seems to be in tune with Sartre's additions to his theory, viz. that magic primarily is a social phenomena, man always is a magician to man, & that magic concerns 'the spirit between things'.

Any thoughts to that?