Absurdism: Irony vs. Scorn
****Taken from a journal assignment for my "Confrontations with the Reaper" philosophy class****
Albert Camus and Thomas Nagel both admit that the human experience can be defined as absurd. However, the two differ on their definitions of the term absurd.
Camus, like a true existentialist, essentially views absurdity as an abstract - it is the world's failure to meet our demand for meaning. Nagel takes an alternative route and defines absurdity as "a conspicuous discrepancy between aspiration/pretension and reality." At first these two definitions seem marginally comparable, but the key difference lies in where these two guys place the source of absurdity; Camus argues that it is a conflict between internal and external factors, while Nagel basically believes that it's all in your head (that is to say, an internal conflict.) What these two philosophers are seeking to do is lay the groundwork for two very different approaches to the notion/perception that our lives are absurd. Camus, who adopts an admittedly cynical view of the world, argues that one must seek to find a subjective meaning through making the choice to carry on in heroic defiance of the inherant lack of meaning in the irrational world we find ourselves in. As he puts it, "there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." This is the first of two approaches I want to discuss, the other being Nagel's concept of irony. Nagel's argument is essentially that the absurdity in life is not derived from an external vs. internal conflict of interest, but rather from an internal conflict of two contrasting contexts which simultaneously provide and remove the meaning in life. He basically argues, unlike Camus, that in recognizing this internal conflict between the subjective and objective perspectives and embracing this absurd state of ironic paradox as being a part of the very nature of our human consciousness one arrives at what he feels is the idealic yin-and-yang approach to life - the ironic approach. Nagel even states that the human experience is, in essence, defined by this absurd condition which he argues need not be such a bad thing. At the end of his paper, Nagel actually adresses Camus's standpoint in the Myth of Sisyphus directly; he states that "[Camus] seems to me romantic and slightly self-pitying. Our absurdity warrants neither that much distress nor that much defiance. […]I would argue that absurdity is one of the most human things about us: a manifestation of our most advanced and interesting characteristics"
Now to take a break from the formal narrative voice.
FUCK NAGEL.
There, I said it.
Admittedly, both of these guys' arguments are pretty similar. They both assert that when one looks at the world objectively, it seems like there's pretty much no point to anything - and that it is the task, the responsibility, of each individual to find a means of finding a subjective perception of meaning in an objectively meaningless existence. They both also essentially argue that you should essentially live like it doesn't matter whether your life means something or not. The difference is basically that Nagel is saying you should not take life too seriously and regard everything with a sense of irony, and Camus is saying that there is no inherant meaning in life so you should regard everything with scorn. The former is pretty much a light hearted and humanistic argument, while the latter is a fiercely individualistic standpoint. The reason I said "FUCK NAGEL" is because what he says, at least to me, seems to encourage apathy about your mortal predicament. I guess I'm just one of those guys who believes that life should be taken seriously and lived passionately. I think it goes back to my childhood when my mother, in an attempt to dissuade me from procrastination, described life and the use of my time in an analogy of a candy store - you can take as much as you want, but you only get one chance for everything; there's no going back, so you should choose wisely. I mean, I appreciate Nagel's argument and I do, from time to time, live by the motto "Irony is the spice of life" - but that's mostly because I find that appreciating irony, especially in really shitty situations, enables me to retain my sanity (I've a predisposition to severe bouts of depression.) So though I do find incredible utility in adopting Nagel's ideology, I feel that the passionate intensity, the emotional clarity, the challenging of authority, the defiance of modus operandi, and all the other elements wrapped up in Camus argument as essential to, in a way, accomplishing something subjectively transcendental.
And here is where I digress entirely.
"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, Rage against the dying of the light." - Dylan Thomas.
This is one of my favorite poems, because I am an idealist. Though ideals are abstract and ephemeral, the pursuit of realizing, as close as possible, is at once practical and visceral. It is essential to the progress of mankind, it is the engine that drives the gears of change. If it weren't for scorn, if everyone lived for irony, then the modus operandi of our world would become so mundane that I fear the whole of humanity would die off from boredom.
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. " - Frank Zappa.
Albert Camus and Thomas Nagel both admit that the human experience can be defined as absurd. However, the two differ on their definitions of the term absurd.
Camus, like a true existentialist, essentially views absurdity as an abstract - it is the world's failure to meet our demand for meaning. Nagel takes an alternative route and defines absurdity as "a conspicuous discrepancy between aspiration/pretension and reality." At first these two definitions seem marginally comparable, but the key difference lies in where these two guys place the source of absurdity; Camus argues that it is a conflict between internal and external factors, while Nagel basically believes that it's all in your head (that is to say, an internal conflict.) What these two philosophers are seeking to do is lay the groundwork for two very different approaches to the notion/perception that our lives are absurd. Camus, who adopts an admittedly cynical view of the world, argues that one must seek to find a subjective meaning through making the choice to carry on in heroic defiance of the inherant lack of meaning in the irrational world we find ourselves in. As he puts it, "there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." This is the first of two approaches I want to discuss, the other being Nagel's concept of irony. Nagel's argument is essentially that the absurdity in life is not derived from an external vs. internal conflict of interest, but rather from an internal conflict of two contrasting contexts which simultaneously provide and remove the meaning in life. He basically argues, unlike Camus, that in recognizing this internal conflict between the subjective and objective perspectives and embracing this absurd state of ironic paradox as being a part of the very nature of our human consciousness one arrives at what he feels is the idealic yin-and-yang approach to life - the ironic approach. Nagel even states that the human experience is, in essence, defined by this absurd condition which he argues need not be such a bad thing. At the end of his paper, Nagel actually adresses Camus's standpoint in the Myth of Sisyphus directly; he states that "[Camus] seems to me romantic and slightly self-pitying. Our absurdity warrants neither that much distress nor that much defiance. […]I would argue that absurdity is one of the most human things about us: a manifestation of our most advanced and interesting characteristics"
Now to take a break from the formal narrative voice.
FUCK NAGEL.
There, I said it.
Admittedly, both of these guys' arguments are pretty similar. They both assert that when one looks at the world objectively, it seems like there's pretty much no point to anything - and that it is the task, the responsibility, of each individual to find a means of finding a subjective perception of meaning in an objectively meaningless existence. They both also essentially argue that you should essentially live like it doesn't matter whether your life means something or not. The difference is basically that Nagel is saying you should not take life too seriously and regard everything with a sense of irony, and Camus is saying that there is no inherant meaning in life so you should regard everything with scorn. The former is pretty much a light hearted and humanistic argument, while the latter is a fiercely individualistic standpoint. The reason I said "FUCK NAGEL" is because what he says, at least to me, seems to encourage apathy about your mortal predicament. I guess I'm just one of those guys who believes that life should be taken seriously and lived passionately. I think it goes back to my childhood when my mother, in an attempt to dissuade me from procrastination, described life and the use of my time in an analogy of a candy store - you can take as much as you want, but you only get one chance for everything; there's no going back, so you should choose wisely. I mean, I appreciate Nagel's argument and I do, from time to time, live by the motto "Irony is the spice of life" - but that's mostly because I find that appreciating irony, especially in really shitty situations, enables me to retain my sanity (I've a predisposition to severe bouts of depression.) So though I do find incredible utility in adopting Nagel's ideology, I feel that the passionate intensity, the emotional clarity, the challenging of authority, the defiance of modus operandi, and all the other elements wrapped up in Camus argument as essential to, in a way, accomplishing something subjectively transcendental.
And here is where I digress entirely.
"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, Rage against the dying of the light." - Dylan Thomas.
This is one of my favorite poems, because I am an idealist. Though ideals are abstract and ephemeral, the pursuit of realizing, as close as possible, is at once practical and visceral. It is essential to the progress of mankind, it is the engine that drives the gears of change. If it weren't for scorn, if everyone lived for irony, then the modus operandi of our world would become so mundane that I fear the whole of humanity would die off from boredom.
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. " - Frank Zappa.