The problem is how one overcomes or reconciles the absurdities.  If one chooses not to overcome or reconcile the absurdities then that is a problem as well.  I will argue that living a life by accepting the absurdities with no reconciliation is impractical and cannot be lived consistently.  If a person lives the absurd life consistently then the consistency is teleological in the practical fulfillment of life.  If a person lives the absurd life inconsistently then the point of practical living is impossible (there will be an evaluation of this paradox).  Camus and Sartre are correct in their recognition of an objective absurdity.  However, the problem with this recognition is the adoption of their conclusions being true.  Camus and Sartre continue to live of a life whilst understanding them to be meaningless, valueless, and purposeless.  Nietzsche embraces the paradox of objective absurdity and adopts an illusory lifestyle of meaning. The theists who attempt to recognize a divine telos are either correct (i.e. Dostoevsky) or incorrect to a certain degree (i.e. Kierkegaard).  Kierkegaard’s (Either/Or) “blind leap” is an inconsistent application of a divine telos to himself; thus, making the “blind leap” and inconsistent attempt at consistency.  Kierkegaard does not apply the understanding of a divine telos in a way in which it may be coherently be understood and applied to one’s life.  He simply meets the absurdity at a halfway point.

Posted on Friday, June 22nd, 2012 at 10:15 in Existentialism, Philosophy   |  RSS feed |  Respond  |  Trackback URL