"The realisation that life is absurd, isn't the end, but the beginning".

Welcome to PIPs on the concept of the absurdity of life, as framed in the opening quote by Albert Camus.

The project for many of the 'ancient' philosophers was to seek something objective 'out there' that gave meaning to life.
For instance Plato identified 'ideal forms' for things which existed whether there were humans to conceive them or not. This paved the way for a 'grand designer' who held this cosmic information.
But was this a dead-end? The idea that there is someone or something that 'sets the stage' of the world we inhabit for us, went on to be questioned by more recent philosophers.
Well, recent in the often slow-moving philosophical world!
Kierkegaard, an early Existentialist, took the view that faith was a way to respond to the human condition; accepting that we live with such uncertainty that in a Nike slogan way he urged us to 'just do it' anyway. To accept that there are no really solid external 'knowns' beyond our commitment to participation and reflection. So we may as well, according to Kierkegaard, 'just do' blind faith as well.
Nietzsche was having none of it. He objected to any form of imaginary higher power, insisting that god, in particular the all-powerful Judeo/Christian god, was a fiction and an ideological failure, or worse, an instrument of our own oppression. For Nietzsche it was human clarity, our verve for life, our endeavors alone that mattered. That was all that could elevate existence, and chime with the best in the human condition.
Camus, and the more recent Existential philosophical cannon followed Nietzsche on this, with any trace of 'the shadow of god' seen as in-compatible with having an authentic existence in the world.
They believed that we cannot seriously pursue the Dualist view that there is some higher 'thinking' beyond our own physical and material bodies. That sentience and intelligence resides only in the biological fabric of us and other humans.
The world can only be truly interpreted phenomenologically, by every individual encountering it. No implicit morality, absolute truth or purpose exists within it.
Stripping away any coherent universal ethical prerogative, which unless utilising 'magical' arguments is hard to disagree with.
Where does that leave us?

Well back to Camus. Who said that we should not shy from the absurdity of it all. There may not be a solution to our random and meaningless existence, but, whatever.
There is the spark of life, he said. So who cares if we live without clear purpose, meaning, or a higher principle? Even suggesting that suicide was therefore philosophy's biggest problem.
We can, and should, shrug off the futility and engage with life. Balance repeated ritual (or else life is just a random parade of different unconnected happenings) with creating and embracing the new, so as to avoid being reactive, repetitive, biological machines. The truth is that being, the experience of 'aliveness', is all there is, and it's not half bad!
This view certainly helps nullify some of the questions that have troubled philosophers seeking coherent universal truths, and their often woeful inability to grasp these supposed truths. Concepts that we so wanted to believe were there in the world to be discovered. As though the two worlds of the inside (our grappling with what appears to us) and the outside (a supposed fixed meaning to grasp) could be made compatible. It allows a re-focusing to what we as humans perceive of the world as the only way we can know it. To accept that what we engage with will be partial, aloof, contain no implicit meaning beyond the interpretative choices we apply, and be devoid of purpose (in the sense of intentionality).
The Existentialist would say, its fine. If this is what life is, lets embrace the absurdity of it, and make something of it still.
Lets imagine Sisyphus as happy.

Some questions then.

• Part one. What does it mean to live as a biological creature in a physical world where each individual's interpretation of it is all that exists?
• From playing football to mining diamonds. From modern art to war. Are human activities objectively absurd and if so, how do we live with absurdity?
• Part two. What gives meaning to life when there is no fixed, timeless and omnipresent judge of behaviour?
• Is the denial of any higher morality a prompt to directly embrace other sentient beings?

***

Anyone can attend this session. No experience in philosophy or knowledge of the subject is required in advance. Just come along and enjoy. Our events use the the 4Cs of community philosophy:

• Caring for others, making space for their contributions
• Collaborating to get a better mutual understanding rather than scoring points
• Critically assessing what we say, clarifying what is meant and asking what reasons support assertions
• Creatively coming up with alternative perspectives, rather than dogmatically sticking to our initial positions