The Difference Between Existentialism, Nihilism, and Absurdism
Three different ways of approaching the lack of intrinsic meaning.
By Daniel Miessler in Philosophy
From my frame of mind, however, there appears to be no way in which to pin down definitively what it means to speak of intrinsic meaning in the universe. Well, providing of course we start with the assumption that the universe is Godless.
Also, that we assume we have some measure of free will. Also, that we just have to accept the gap between what we think intrinsic meaning means and all that would be, could be, must be known about the meaning of existence itself. Though for some here these caveats appear to be just trivial pursuits.
Meaning: “what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.”
There clearly seems to be meaning in our lives that all who are rational can accept. The word “hunting” for example. As a word, in a text, as part of a concept or in regard to actual behavior, when men and women go hunting for bear or deer – for game, for trophies – understanding what this means is as close to objective truth as we are likely to get given all that we do not know ontologically about the nature of existence itself.
So, does that constitute “intrinsic” meaning in the either/or world?
On the other hand, there are our individual reactions to hunting in the is/ought world. We can go to the dictionary and look up the words “individual”, “reaction” and “hunting”. Then when we see someone giving their own personal opinion, belief, assessment etc., about the act of hunting as either a good thing or a bad thing, we can all agree on what that means too.
But what of the reality that there are many conflicting moral and political and legal reactions to this behavior? Again, the fact that this is the case encompasses part of the meaning of hunting in a world where differences of opinion do crop up. No one contests the meaning embedded in the fact that Don Trump Jr. has been cleared to hunt grizzly bears in Alaska. His permit is said to be only one of 27. Meaningful facts that can be demonstrated, confirmed.
But the meaning contained in the words embedded in conflicting assessments of the morality of hunting grizzly bears? What intrinsic meaning can we ascertain here?
How would the existentialist, nihilist and absurdist react to this particular context? Clearly the meaning of the words embedded in the facts embedded in the either/or world would be the same for all of them. The empirical reality of Don Trump Jr being cleared to hunt grizzly bear in Alaska is either the objective truth [here and now] or it is not.
But what is the difference here between being an existentialist, a nihilist and an absurdist when it comes to reacting to the fact of it in the is/ought world? How are they not in the same boat as all the rest of us?
If, of course, the boat that I refer to here is or is not captured in the arguments I make in my signature threads. As they would be applicable to hunting grizzly in Alaska.
In any event, it is, in my view, for all practical purposes, ultimately moot to pin down whether one ought to be an existentialist, a nihilist or an absurdist here. Calling yourself one or the other doesn’t make the components of my own moral philosophy go away.
Or am I wrong? Are there important distinctions to be made about the three as this pertains to the existential relationship between identity, conflicting goods and political economy…as this is grappled with in a particular cotext?