Absurdity of Absurdism

The French Algerian philosopher, Albert Camus, expounded the philosophy known as absurdism. According to absurdism, although life is meaningless human beings are faced with the dilemma of hankering for meaning in a meaningless world. Camus says that there are three ways of resolving this dilemma:

1) Commit suicide. (Camus rejects this as cowardly.)
2) Believe in a transcendental reality beyond the absurd. (Camus rejects this as philosophical suicide because it amounts to the destruction of reason, which is just as fatal as the suicide of the body.)
3)Accept the Absurd. (According to Camus, this is the only real solution. One should continue living while accepting and even embracing life's absurdity. Life, according to Camus, can "be lived all the better if it has no meaning." )

In other words, according to Camus, man exists in an irrational and meaningless universe, and his search for order brings him into conflict with his universe. His view is that the absurdist, by accepting the absurdity of existence, comes into a state of harmony with his universe and is liberated from being in conflict with it by no longer trying to find order in it.

So is Camus' analysis of reality correct? While superficially his absurdism may seem to make sense, if we closely examine it, we will find it to be patently absurd and thus not worthy of being accepted. How so? The first obvious point is that if all is absurd, absurdism being part of everything must therefore also be absurd. And since absurd means ridiculously unreasonable, absurdism (borrowing the terms from its own philosophy) amounts to the destruction of reason and is as suicidal as the destruction of one's body.

Another point is that absurdism assumes on blind faith that there is no order, meaning, or purpose to existence. Where is the proof that life has no such meaning or purpose? Why would man hanker for meaning if meaning did not exist? If meaning did not exist, he would have no need for it. We see that by nature's way we only hanker for things which exist. The human being is not wired with any hankerings for things which do not exist. So why in the case of life's meaning should there be any difference? This is not logical. Rather it is logical to understand that since every perceivable human hankering is matched by its counterpart, i.e. the object which satisfies that hankering, the hankering for meaning must therefore also be matched by that which satisfies that hankering, i.e. that existence has meaning.

So with all due respect to Camus for trying to take us beyond the platform of gross sense gratification to the platform of the intelligence, we beg to point out that he has failed in his attempt to enlighten us with higher knowledge. If we want factual higher knowledge, we will need to look elsewhere to see if we can find someone who has clearly perceived what is the purpose and meaning of existence and who can enlighten us in this regard.