How do you distinguish between existentialism and absurdism?

anonymous asked:

How do you distinguish between existentialism and absurdism?

I get this question quite a bit. I’ve written on this before, here and here, and I’ve even posted a nifty little graph comparing various forms of existentialism. 

Here’s what I wrote in a previous post: 

In short, the difference between existentialism and absurdism comes in their solution to finding meaning in life. They both agree that the universe is inherently meaningless, but existentialism states that we must create our own meaning. The existentialist mantra (at least of the Sartrean variety) is existence precedes essence; we are born, we exist, and then we must choose to craft our own essence, our own purpose. 

Absurdism, on the other hand, focuses on the tension between a meaningless universe and our constant striving to find meaning. This tension is what gives rise to the Absurd. Camus argued that we are all immersed in this tension and are thus presented with three alternatives: we can kill ourselves, we can deny the absurdity and take refuge in myths and religion, or we can embrace the absurdity. To embrace the Absurd is to own up to the meaninglessness of it all and move on, to keep living and living well. Camus famously illustrated this using the image of Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a hill for all eternity. Sisyphus could wallow in the futility of his task, or he can accept his fate and make the most of it. ‘Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.’ Camus said. ‘One must imagine Sisyphus happy.’ 

There are further differences between the two schools of thought, and many variations within. But both were deeply concerned with how to live and how to confront the millstone of a potentially cold and indifferent cosmos.