Absurdity Wears a Raincoat
Name two key distinctions (religion vs. rationality)
Both have a notion of the absurd:
Camus 's notion of the absurd rests upon the understanding that there is a futility in life yet we continue to live on, despite knowing full well that ultimately life is not a game that may ever be won. Part of what makes this even more of an absurd notion is that introspective man will more or less realize that ultimately never get anything from it other than being able to experience death. In Camus’s atheistic view, to defeat the absurd is to resign one 's self to be fully conscious, experiencing every moment to its fullest extent and treating every passing minute as preciously as the next. By doing so, and remaining completely …show more content…
Camus beckons us to stand at the cliff of reason and look down but never move from the edge (of the abyss), in contrast, Kierkegaard beckons us to take a running leap from that same cliff and bet it all on “Faith”. Camus (figuratively) defines this as a kind of suicide, in which not the absurd man removes themselves from the rational world, by ultimately choosing not to face it. Kierkegaard’s idea has it the complete opposite however, for he defines this notion as it can only be the absurd man whom is willing to jump into this abyss where the rationality created by mankind cannot exist and the rest may only be explained by God. Very different ideas, yet they both possess the same end goal, to live more.
- Camus uses Sisyphus to denote that even with what we may consider punishment, considering our particular viewpoint, punishment is subjective, as Camus claims Sisyphus must essentially be seen as …show more content…
This is opposed to Kierkegaard whose basis lies in the fact that his faith in God is not apparent in a physical form, father it must be approached solely on faith. So this brings to mind another distinction, freedom to act vs. controlled actions. If one was to complete any particular task simply because it was due to the notion that within our choices made there exists an ultimate plan by which God has abiding then whatever you deem to be freedom is false. When Abraham raised his knife to kill Isaac, it was God who had stopped him from doing so, does this prove that mankind does not have choice? And if mankind is without choice then would we only derive meaning from life if it is found within the confines of God? This is the kind of faith that brings someone to the absurd because it is only within the absurd mindset than one could singularly depend on faith
Name two key distinctions (religion vs. rationality)
Both have a notion of the absurd:
Camus 's notion of the absurd rests upon the understanding that there is a futility in life yet we continue to live on, despite knowing full well that ultimately life is not a game that may ever be won. Part of what makes this even more of an absurd notion is that introspective man will more or less realize that ultimately never get anything from it other than being able to experience death. In Camus’s atheistic view, to defeat the absurd is to resign one 's self to be fully conscious, experiencing every moment to its fullest extent and treating every passing minute as preciously as the next. By doing so, and remaining completely …show more content…
Camus beckons us to stand at the cliff of reason and look down but never move from the edge (of the abyss), in contrast, Kierkegaard beckons us to take a running leap from that same cliff and bet it all on “Faith”. Camus (figuratively) defines this as a kind of suicide, in which not the absurd man removes themselves from the rational world, by ultimately choosing not to face it. Kierkegaard’s idea has it the complete opposite however, for he defines this notion as it can only be the absurd man whom is willing to jump into this abyss where the rationality created by mankind cannot exist and the rest may only be explained by God. Very different ideas, yet they both possess the same end goal, to live more.
- Camus uses Sisyphus to denote that even with what we may consider punishment, considering our particular viewpoint, punishment is subjective, as Camus claims Sisyphus must essentially be seen as …show more content…
This is opposed to Kierkegaard whose basis lies in the fact that his faith in God is not apparent in a physical form, father it must be approached solely on faith. So this brings to mind another distinction, freedom to act vs. controlled actions. If one was to complete any particular task simply because it was due to the notion that within our choices made there exists an ultimate plan by which God has abiding then whatever you deem to be freedom is false. When Abraham raised his knife to kill Isaac, it was God who had stopped him from doing so, does this prove that mankind does not have choice? And if mankind is without choice then would we only derive meaning from life if it is found within the confines of God? This is the kind of faith that brings someone to the absurd because it is only within the absurd mindset than one could singularly depend on faith