Absurdity: what it is, the meaning of the word, examples of situations of nonsense and absurdity from life and art

It is no longer unusual for people who are accustomed to paying attention to the world around them and its details to notice absurd things around them. Absurdity - what is it? Something that defies common sense, goes beyond the usual boundaries, is stupid or ridiculous...

Our life is full of absurdity. And this was probably the case from the very moment when a person began to recognize himself and those around him as individuals. But if at first a philosophy of existence developed, called existentialism, which focused on the uniqueness of human existence, then later, and precisely from it, another teaching developed - absurdism.

Today we will talk specifically about absurdism, the main milestones along the path of its development and its most outstanding representatives.

What is absurdism and how did it appear?

Absurdism is a system of philosophical views that states that human existence has no meaning.

As a theory of worldview, absurdism is considered as part of the philosophy of existentialism, and its roots are considered to be the ideas of Soren Kierkegaard, a philosopher of Danish origin in the 19th century. However, absurdism appears as an already formed philosophical concept in the work of the French writer and philosopher Albert Camus, “The Myth of Sisyphus.” In his work, Camus was based on the ideas of Kierkegaard, as well as such people as Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Edmund Husserl, Nikolai Berdyaev and others.

The starting point in the emergence of absurdism as a philosophy of the absurd was the world wars that occurred in the first half of the 20th century. These wars gave rise to a lot of human death and suffering, social disorder, etc., which became the basis for the emergence and development of the ideas of existentialism as a humanist movement.

Thus, in the first half of the last century, people began to become interested in the works of Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, and the ideas of absurdism began to gain more and more popularity. The result was that absurdism entered the history of philosophy, as well as many areas of art, such as writing, poetry, theater, etc.

But why did this very absurdism “hook” the mass consciousness so much? To answer this question, one should turn to the views of his most ardent adherents - Søren Kierkegaard, Lev Shestov and Albert Camus, whom we have already mentioned more than once.

Review[edit]

... in spite of or in spite of all existence, he wants to be himself with it, to take it with him, almost ignoring his torment. To hope for the possibility of help, let alone help because of the absurdity that for God everything is possible - no, he will not do this. As for asking someone else for help - no, he won't do that for the whole world; Instead of seeking help, he would rather be himself - with all the hellish torture, if that's what it has to be.

— Soren Kierkegaard, "Sickness to Death"

[4]

Søren Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard raises the ideas of absurdism in several of his works, the most important of which is Fear and Trembling. Criticizing the Christian religion in this work, the author uses as an example a story from the Bible, where Abraham sacrifices his son to the Lord. It is with this that Kierkegaard shows that man is not free, and his existence is absurd. Abraham's faith is for Kierkegaard an absolute paradox, which can easily and simply make murder a sacred and sacred act pleasing to God. And this paradox does not fit into any framework.

Despite his critical attitude towards religion, Søren Kierkegaard did not downplay the importance of faith in human life. On the contrary, he said that faith goes beyond understanding, being transcendental, and therefore absurd. It cannot be justified logically, although it is extremely effective. And this was Kierkegaard's main idea.

Attitude to existentialism and nihilism[edit]

Absurdism originated from (and also together with) existentialism and nihilism of the twentieth century; it shares some important starting points with both, although it also entails conclusions that are uniquely different from these other schools of thought. All three arose from the human experience of suffering and confusion stemming from the Absurd: apparent meaninglessness in a world in which people are nonetheless forced to seek or create meaning. [6] From here three schools of thought diverge. Existentialists usually advocate for man to construct his own meaning in life, as well as for man's free will. Nihilists, on the other hand, argue that “it is futile to seek or affirm meaning where it cannot be found.” [7] Absurdists, following Camus's formulation, hesitantly admit the possibility of some meaning or value in life, but are not as confident as existentialists in the value of their own constructed meaning, or as nihilists in the complete inability to create meaning. Absurdists following Camus also devalue or outright reject free will, encouraging simply that the individual lives defiantly and authentically, despite

to the psychological tension of the absurd. [8]

Camus himself worked passionately to counter nihilism, as he explained in his article "The Rebel" and he categorically rejected the label "existentialist" in his article "Enigma" and in the collection of lyrical and critical essays of Albert Camus

, although he is often called an existentialist.
[9] Both existentialism and absurdism entail consideration of the practical applications of realizing the truth of existential nihilism: that is, how the concerned seeker of meaning should act when suddenly confronted with a seeming concealment or outright absence of meaning in the universe. Camus's own understanding of the world (for example, the "gentle indifference" in The Stranger
) and each of his visions of its progress, however [
example needed
], distinguishes him from the general existentialist tendency.

Basic relationships between existentialism, absurdism and nihilism	There is such a thing as value or value :	Yes	Yes	This is a completely logical possibility.	No
2.	The universe has an inner meaning:	Yes, but man had to know God.	No	No	No
3.	Chasing meaning can have meaning in itself:	Yes	Yes	Such aspiration can and should create meaning for a person, but death still renders it “ultimately” meaningless.	No
4.	Individual design of any meaning is possible:	Yes, although this meaning will ultimately include God as the creator of the universe and "meaning" itself.	Yes, creating meaning in a world without inner meaning is the goal of existentialism.	Yes, although he must face the Absurd, which means accepting the transitory, personal nature of our meaning-making projects and how they are undone by death. [10]	No
5.	There is permission for a person’s desire to search for meaning:	Yes, creating your own meaning with the participation of God.	Yes, creating your own meaning.	Accepting the absurd may allow a person to find joy and meaning in their own life, but the only “solution” is ultimate annihilation by death.	No

Such a diagram presents some of the overlaps and contradictions between existentialist and absurdist approaches to meaning. Although absurdism can be seen as a kind of response to existentialism, it can be debated how significantly the two positions differ from each other. After all, the existentialist does not deny the reality of death. But the absurdist seems to reaffirm the way in which death ultimately nullifies our meaning-making activities, a conclusion that existentialists seem to resist through various notions of posterity or, in Sartre's case, participation in the larger humanist project.

Lev Shestov

In the works of the Russian existentialist philosopher Lev Shestov, established social norms of morality and ethics, as well as the totality of the prerequisites for human existence, were actively criticized. More specifically, it can be noted that in his work “Shakespeare and his critic Brandeis,” Lev Shestov, citing as examples the heroes of William Shakespeare’s tragedies “Othello” and “Macbeth,” seeks to prove that moral laws and universal moral standards are untenable.

Here the author also focuses on the image of a rebel man who has nothing but his life that he could lose, which is the reason for his further struggle. It was this rebellious spirit that was later reflected in the work of Albert Camus.

Albert Camus

Despite the fact that the concept of “absurd” runs through all of Camus’s works with a thin red line, his main creation in this direction is considered to be “The Myth of Sisyphus.” Here the absurd is seen as opposition, confrontation and conflict between two ideals. The existence of man is absurd, because... represents the conflict of the human desire to be meaningful and meaningful with the cold, indifferent and silent Universe or God.

Albert Camus also points out the existence of special human experiences that awaken the very concept of the absurdity of existence. Awareness of this, i.e. direct contact with the absurd forces a person to make a choice between suicide, a “leap of faith” and acceptance.

According to Camus, suicide is a kind of recognition that life is simply not worth living - life itself is not worth it. This choice tacitly postulates that life is already “too much.” Suicide conceals a direct “way out” of an absurd situation through instant “completion” of oneself and one’s place in the world.

When faced with the absurd, a person may also choose to take a “leap of faith” (a concept also used by Kierkegaard), which is a path of reconciliation with a personal existence saturated with absurdity. The author views the “leap of faith” as a retreat from freedom and truth, a refuge in deception, and laziness of the intellect. From here follows the third - a person’s acceptance of the sad fact of the absurdity of his life.

Human freedom, in Camus’s views, as well as the opportunity to find the meaning of existence, lies in the confirmation of absurdity and its acceptance. If the absurd experience is a true awareness of the freedom of the Universe from anything absolute, then man is free. Camus calls this “living without hope,” and, according to this statement, any universalisms and absolutisms must be determined subjectively.

Hence the conclusion that freedom lies in the fact that a person is able to find his own individual meaning and life purpose, and can make his own choices. And the personality is transformed into a more valuable element of existence, representing a complex of ideals unique to it. The personality itself can be described as the whole Universe.

And in conclusion, it is worth touching on one of the most important topics in absurdism and in philosophy in general - the topic of the meaning of life.

Philosophy of absurdism. What do we understand by this concept?

Our third millennium is full of absurdity. Poets, writers, musicians - everyone says that chaos is happening in the world, and they try to show it in their creations. Politicians are trying to streamline this chaos, bring everything back to normal; peace-loving people, just like militarists, believe in the absurd idea of human omnipotence, believe that any complex problem can be solved on their own. Absurd. Those few intelligent people who see the picture of the world much more fully only advise the ordinary person to turn to irrationalism, outdated optimism, and maybe even experimentation.

Absurdism can be considered part of the philosophy of existentialism, and its birth dates back to the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Of course, absurdism probably arose earlier, but these were only prerequisites for what appeared at the very beginning of the twentieth century. The main reasons for the emergence of the philosophy of the absurd were the disorder of society in the social sphere and the wars of the early twentieth century. All this served as the starting point for the development of the ideas of existentialism, from where absurdism would subsequently develop.

In order to delve into the concept of the philosophy of the absurd, let us first of all deal with its progenitor, existentialism. Existentialism or the philosophy of existence is a special direction of philosophy of the twentieth century, which points to the uniqueness of human existence. This philosophical movement, unlike related ones, preaches the idea of people overcoming their essence, and also focuses much more deeply on the emotional nature of man. We can say that this is the philosophy of individuals, because the essence of man is individual and unique.

The popularization of the ideas of the absurd began with the works of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, very popular philosophers of the early twentieth century. Also, speaking about the roots of absurdism, one cannot fail to mention Sørn Kiekegaard. This Danish philosopher develops the theory of the absurd in many works, but the main one is the work called “Fear and Trembling”, where, through criticism of Christianity, he, based on the lack of freedom of human existence, shows its absurdity. Belief in divine powers, according to Kierkegaard, is a paradox “that is capable of turning murder into a sacred and godly act, a paradox that again returns Isaac to Abraham, a paradox that is not subject to any thinking...”.

Kierkegaard, although he criticized religion, did not deny the importance of faith. He argued that faith itself is unknowable and therefore absolutely absurd.

Based on the work “The Religion of Money” by V.Yu. Katasonov. one could argue that virtually all Christians are somewhat absurd. The author explains the “division” of Christians using the example of two circles of communication. According to the commandments, which are absolute dogma for Christians, a person must treat everyone with equal love, not deceive anyone and consider all people as his loved ones. However, since ancient times, all this can be applied only to a “small” circle, and in our time of trade relations it is practically impossible to be content with only correct, from the point of view of Christianity, communication. Trade relations make true Christian communication impossible, which is why non-material relations flourish in the “small” circle. However, despite the clearly dominant trade relations in our lives, many Christians still consider themselves faithful only to church dogmas. As Somin wrote, the “bifurcation” of the Christian people exists in the form of “a kind of parity between temple Christianity and economic paganism.” This absurd position of modern Christianity helps to survive in the modern world, where it is almost impossible to exist without commodity-money relations, because everything now has its own price, which must be paid to someone.

Regarding the works of another philosopher, such as Albert Camus, I would like to mention his main work on the topic of the absurd, “The Myth of Sisyphus.” In it, Camus argues that the basic philosophical question is nothing more than the question of the meaning of life. The philosopher shows human existence itself as absurd, presenting it as a conflict between human meaningfulness and the infinity of the silent universe. Camus says that the feeling of absurdity arises from boredom and fatigue. A person unexpectedly falls out of the usual circle of things, ceases to understand the meaning of his daily actions and begins to think about the absurdity of his life. A person begins to suffer from the awareness of his insignificance or even insignificance. The philosopher says that a collision with the absurd gives a person the choice of suicide, the so-called “leap of faith” or acceptance to end his suffering. According to Camus, suicide is the awareness of life as something huge and too complex for an ordinary person, and therefore it is not worth living. A “leap of faith” is the turning of a person, faced with the absurd, to dogma in order to find reconciliation with the absurd. Well, in the third case, a person can simply accept the absurdity of his existence. Camus himself is inclined to the third solution, because he believes that a person can be completely free only by accepting the absurdity of his own existence. Only by realizing the absurdity of ideals and seeing a universe without absolutes will a person become truly free. In this case, human freedom is the opportunity to create one’s own meaning in life, to make one’s own choice.

Our reality, according to Camus, is not absurd and it is quite possible to know it, but no one gives answers to the basic questions of humanity, such as the purpose of our life or the meaning of all things. Drawing an analogy with the mythical Sisyphus, who unsuccessfully tries to roll a stone up a mountain, Camus wants to show that saving a person is nothing more than work, that the meaning of life is in struggle.

In another work of Camus, the novel “The Stranger,” the author develops his thoughts regarding the ideas of absurdism. In this novel, the main character Meursault lives by rules that are very strange for an ordinary person and sometimes behaves simply ridiculous. He is like an outsider in the novel. He is an absurd person. Meursault, in the process of fighting against society, turns, by the will of his author, into both an ideologist of the absurd and a martyr. In the preface to the novel, Camus states that Meursault is sentenced to death because he refuses to lie. He doesn’t want to simplify his life, doesn’t want to hide his true feelings, and this makes society feel threatened by him.

This novel is nothing more than an analysis of the meaninglessness of human existence. However, the author emphasizes that overcoming any absurdity lies through work and struggle.

Based on the works of Camus, we can understand that with the help of our consciousness we confront the world. As a result of the activity of our consciousness, a feeling of absurdity arises. We can say that this is a prerequisite for another concept formulated by Camus in his writings - the concept of a rebellious person.

Having realized the absurdity of his existence, a person is filled with dissatisfaction with the existing order of things, and, accordingly, with the desire to change something. This is rebellion, and its goal is change, which means movement. The basis of this rebellion, according to Camus, is that “man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.”

The most complete disclosure of the idea of rebellion in the works of Camus is present in the book “Rebel” (“Rebel Man”). This book tells the story of rebellion - rebellion against oppressors and the injustice of all human life. The rebel rises from his knees, and now the oppressor must reckon with him.

Camus compares the concept of rebellion and murder. He tries to find a justification for the murder, based on the same concept of absurdity, which devalues all values. Camus himself believes that absurdity prohibits, just like suicide, the murder of another person, because the destruction of one’s own kind is the destruction of the source of meaning and individuality, which is human life. Rebellion brings change and, accordingly, the creation of something new. This means that rebellion and murder are actually opposite concepts.

Rebellion certainly has some value. The rebel opposes everything that is most valuable to what is not so for him. Citing the example of a slave, Camus comes to the conclusion that the slave rebels against an order that lacks something that all slaves have. That is, one person is not what he is trying to protect, but all such people in general are.

However, Camus emphasizes the difference between rebellion and embitterment, because embitterment is directed precisely against the object of anger, and rebellion, on the contrary, is aimed at defense. Therefore, rebellion has a positive beginning, and anger has a negative beginning. With this remark, the author expresses disagreement with the ideas of other philosophers who equate bitterness and rebellion.

Camus points out that rebellion cannot break out in communities with absolute equality, such as some primitive societies, or, on the contrary, in communities with huge caste inequality. In his opinion, rebellion occurs where real inequality is hidden under the guise of equality of everyone and everything, which can be observed throughout almost all of history known to us.

Unlike the awareness of absurdity, where suffering is individual, in the phenomenon of rebellion there is already collective suffering based on discontent. In the course of his research on this issue, Camus identified several types of rebellion.

The first type of rebellion is metaphysical (philosophical). Such a rebellion is nothing more than a human rebellion against the foundations of the universe. He rebels against what is destined for him as an individual. Such a person believes that the universe itself has deceived him. However, while rebelling against a higher power, we still recognize both it itself and its higher and stronger position. That is, such a rebellion recognizes the force it is fighting against and challenges it.

The second type is rebellion in art. This rebellion reveals both negation and affirmation at the same time. Creativity denies the whole world for what it lacks, and denies the world in order for it to return. The revolt of a creative person is a revolt of creation. The Creator brings something new into the world, changes the world, pointing out its imperfections. According to Camus, Art, although it contradicts reality, does not avoid it.

The third type of rebellion is historical. The main goal of such a rebellion is freedom. This rebellion allows a person to leave a mark on history. Such rebellion is an integral part of humanity and there is no need to hide from it. However, rebellion and revolution are not at all the same thing. After all, revolution is based on an idea, and rebellion, on the contrary, strives for it. Camus believes that rebellion is a spontaneous desire to find a way out of one’s unsatisfied situation; it cannot be clearly organized, in which connection with the revolution can be traced. However, he believes that it is stupid to expect that the revolution will be able to find a way out of the situation that served as the reason for the revolution. The philosopher also thinks that there has not yet been a real revolution, because a revolution is the unity of the entire people, and those revolutions that have already taken place are just a way of changing one political power to another. Any revolution one way or another turned into a political one. This is the main difference between rebellion and revolution. Also, rebellion and revolution have different goals. Revolt is an assertion of the independence of the individual, and revolution uses man as material for history. That is, “rebellion comes from negation in the name of affirmation, and revolution comes from absolute negation.”

Katasonov believes that the problem of “bifurcation” can be solved. There are two ways to overcome this duality. The first - the path “from above”, consists in transforming the “large” circle, outside the church, on the principles of equality and justice, which in its essence is a revolution. The second path - the path “from below” is based on the revival of “small” circles, independent of monetary relations and preaching honesty and a set of expressions. And this is nothing more than a riot. Thus, although revolution and rebellion are very different concepts, they can serve the same purpose, solving the problem from different sides.

Albert Camus believes that the boundaries of rebellion lie in the person himself, who has gone through suffering and endured rebellion. Such a person expresses his suffering and tragedy in rebellion. Rebellion against humanity is partly doomed to failure, but man simply needs it, like air.

I believe that in our time many of our actions are absurd, and all life is absurd, this is clearly visible, for example, in Hitler’s Germany, where a civilized person could be at the same time a ruthless killer and a touching lover of Bach, which, for example, Himmler was. Hitler himself was a man full of absurdities, having Jews in his ancestry, he so ardently preached the superiority of the Aryan race, having risen from the very bottom and reached world domination, he eventually turned into nothing.

As I was able to notice, our very existence is absurd, and in this I completely agree with Camus and Kiekegaard, and I want to confirm my opinion as follows. As mentioned above, despite the fact that our universe is knowable, no one can give answers to questions about the meaning of life. The absurdity of our existence lies in the fact that we are born to die, and our life is essentially just an intermediate stage. We don’t know why we came into this world, we don’t know what we want from it, but we cling so desperately to our lives, although we don’t know why we want to live so much. There is no specific purpose in our life; going to college, buying a car, vacationing in Hawaii - these are just small selfish material needs. Closer to the meaning of life are such altruistic goals as curing all people on earth, but they are practically not feasible. In general, as I was able to notice, the less attainable the goal, the closer it comes to the abstract concept of the meaning of life, i.e. it turns out that the meaning of life is something unknowable and unattainable. Another absurdity.

I would like to expand the concept of absurdity on the concept of selfishness and altruism. We are all accustomed to the fact that being an altruist is a great blessing, and selfishness is a destructive vice. Altruists devote their lives to serving other people, while egoists devote their lives only to themselves. But the absurdity is that everything in our world is created by creators, and the creator is selfish in the absolute sense of the word. After all, in essence, an egoist is not a person who sacrifices others for his own good, no - he is already a parasite. An egoist is a person who stands above others, above the need to use them. He gets along just fine on his own. There is no real egoist for other people, just as there are no other people for him. Altruism involves living for the sake of other people, i.e. putting them above yourself, and this leads to the fact that some people become slaves of others. Such a relationship destroys both sides. This is parasitism. The creator creates for himself and for himself, the altruist gives to others, but how can you give something if it has not yet been created. Altruists parasitize on the body of creators, take away and distribute to everyone what was not created by them. “Man thinks and works alone. Man alone cannot plunder, exploit or rule. Slavery, exploitation, domination presuppose the presence of a victim, and this presupposes dependence, that is, the sphere of activity of parasites.”

However, if each person is completely selfish and does not notice anyone around him, then eventually the desires of some people will intersect with the freedoms of other people. This will ultimately lead to anarchy and disorder. Thus, the absurdity is that none of the behavior models is ideal, but they cannot live without each other.

It is sad to realize that more and more people are faced with the absurdity of their lives and choose a simpler solution, thereby joining the ranks of suicides. Many people are simply unable to accept absurdity in a way that goes against their established worldviews and are forced to look for workarounds. It is very unfortunate that not everyone finds them. Over time, our horizons broaden greatly, and therefore, most of all, fairly educated people who do not have clear goals and simple desires fly out of the flow. Just as a dog is unlikely to think about the meaning of his existence, so a busy person interested in his business is unlikely to suddenly jump out of the flow and face the absurdity of his existence. Therefore, those people who have not yet encountered the actual absurdity can only be advised not to die out in their desires and try to enjoy life.

To sum up everything that has been said above, I can note that our whole life is full of absurdities, and it itself is absurd. Nowadays, almost every person has considerable chances to see the absurdity of his life, but everyone who can see this will have different results, some will not be able to come to terms with it, others will try to find a fragile balance between real absurdity and faith, and some will be able to accept it and perhaps even give birth to his own rebellion, in order to gain his freedom. However, absurdities can not only destroy normal life, but also help us live in our world. By accepting the absurdity of oneself, a person can find his own meaning in life and overcome boundaries previously inaccessible to him; also, the absurd “duality” can help find a compromise between Christian and commodity relations in the modern world.

The meaning of life in absurdism

Absurdism tells us that throughout history, man has in one way or another tried to comprehend the meaning of existence. Some people came to the conclusion that life has no meaning, and all that a person has is the current moment, or they began to feel emptiness, becoming convinced that everything was predetermined by Providence. Such feelings include faith in God and adherence to any religion in general.

Others found answers to all their questions in suicide. For people who, for one reason or another, have come to the conclusion that life is meaningless, suicide becomes a way by which they can quickly reach the final point of their destiny.

But people are capable of independently creating for themselves the meaning of existence, which, quite likely, will not be objective, but will bring something into life and give something for which it is worth continuing their path. By the way, Albert Camus spoke about this. But one of the fundamental ideas here is that a person must maintain a distance between the absurdity of existence and an artificially invented meaning, and he must treat this distance with irony.

But I would like to say that a life in which there is no meaning, for many people has become the reason for the lack of happiness, the cause of apathy and indifference, reluctance to do anything and achieve anything. We, of course, are not judges of anyone, but, as adults, we can say that such a life cannot be lived, or at least not worth living.

Absurdism, although it has found a response in the hearts of many people, is still a rather utopian worldview. Imbued with his ideas, there is nothing left to do but hang your head or try on the image of a sort of fighter for some unknown reason.

Wouldn’t it be better to open your eyes wide, take a deep breath and realize that there is a meaning to life, and it lies in life itself, in how we live it and what kind of people we become?

There are very, very many points of view on the meaning of existence, and all of them can be supported by compelling arguments. But it doesn’t matter which one we adhere to, the main thing is to remain cheerful and life-loving people.

We also recommend reading:

Storytelling
The problem of demarcation of scientific knowledge
The emergence of positivism
Ideas and views of Leo Tolstoy
Language and religion
Materialism and idealism in philosophy
Why understand philosophy?
Philosophical foundations of the linguistic concept of Wilhelm von Humboldt
Criticism of positivism: briefly about the main anti-positivist concepts
Existential psychology: ideas, stages of development, representatives
Conceptualism: from the Middle Ages to the present day

Key words:1Cognitive science

Word in spoken language

Originally, the word absurd meant information coming from a deaf person. It is difficult to explain to yourself and to the people around you.

Today the word absurd is often used in colloquial speech. It has changed its meaning slightly. If initially a word was used to describe a certain speech technique (contradiction), then in colloquial speech it is used to describe nonsense and inappropriate statements.

The technique of reduction to absurdity continues to be used by people whose lives are directly connected with communication (TV presenters, politicians, journalists).

Links[edit]

Dotterweich, John (March 11, 2019). "The Argument from the Absurd". Southern Cross University. Retrieved October 8, 2021.
Stewart, John (2011). Kierkegaard and existentialism. Farnham, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-1-4094-2641-7. pp. 76–78.
Solomon, Robert S. (2001). From Rationalism to Existentialism: The Existentialists and Their Nineteenth-Century Origins
. Rowman and Littlefield. item 245. ISBN 0-7425-1241-X.
Jump up
↑ Kierkegaard, Søren (1941). Illness leading to death. Princeton University Press.
Jump up
↑ Kierkegaard, Søren (1941). Illness leading to death. Princeton University Press. Part I, ch. 3.
↑
Alan Pratt (April 23, 2001).
"Nihilism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
. Embry-Riddle University. Retrieved February 4, 2012.
↑
Donald A. Crosby (July 1, 1988). The Specter of the Absurd: Sources and Critiques of Modern Nihilism. State University of New York Press. Retrieved January 29, 2012.
"Albert Camus". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. What is the Kamusian alternative to suicide or hope? The answer is to live without salvation and honestly, in "rebellion" and disobedience, maintaining the tension inherent in human life.
Solomon, Robert S. (2001). From Rationalism to Existentialism: The Existentialists and Their Nineteenth-Century Origins
. Rowman and Littlefield. item 245. ISBN 0-7425-1241-X.
"Albert Camus". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. What is the Kamusian alternative to suicide or hope? The answer is to live without salvation and honestly, in "rebellion" and disobedience, maintaining the tension inherent in human life.
↑
Kierkegaard, Søren.
Illness leading to death
.
Kierkegaard wrote about all four views in his works at one time or another, but much of his work leaned towards what would become absurdist and theistic existentialist views.
Drew, Alexander. The Journals of Søren Kierkegaard
, Oxford University Press, 1938.
"Soren Kierkegaard". naturalthinker.com
. Retrieved February 26, 2021.
Silencion, Johannes de. Fear and Trembling
, Denmark, 1843
Illness leading to death
, part 3, part B, p. 2
Camus, Albert (1991). The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays
. Vintage books. ISBN 0-679-73373-6.
^ ab "Kierkegaard's Leap" in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard
.
Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
, p. 41
Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
, p. 55
Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
, p. 64