The raison d'etre for this blog is our belief that individuals should embrace the absurdity of life as a liberating tonic, freeing one to live however one wishes. However, is there not an inherent contradiction in such a position? For one who believes the world is purely physical (and that we are purely physical beings), beliefs about what we "like" or don't "like" are almost certainly illusory--how can I "like" steak, for example, when my neighbor detests it? Am I wrong? Is she? Is there an objective standard for enjoyment?
Put a different way, if one believes life has no meaning, then why bother? Isn't embracing and celebrating the absurd simply another method for manufacturing the illusion of meaning? How can I "enjoy" life? What does that even mean? And how can I enjoy something that others do not (or vice versa)? Aren't all feelings, good or bad, simply chemical processes in our brains?
These are, of course, fascinating questions, and philosophers have spent countless hours debating them. However, for one who truly embraces the absurd they are irrelevant. In our view, all "meaning" is indeed illusory--while things seem to matter, they actually do not. It does not matter how much money we have, how prodigious we are at sowing our seeds, or even when and how we die. We might as well debate the "meaning" of shifting sand dunes at the beach. Were the Earth to be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow, what exactly would be the meaning of our retirement account? The fact that it probably won't happen does not change the underlying logic--namely, all our trivial hopes, dreams, and worries are just that.
Nevertheless, given that these illusions feel like reality, why not make the best of them? Camus, for example, suggested individuals view life as a role in a play--put simply, one should act as if things matter even when one knows they do not. We find this to be wonderful advice. In other words, just because we know this is water doesn't mean we have to drown.