Absurdism is dead.

What's so wrong with pessimism? Why do we need prescriptive statements on morals?

When reading Camus, it is explained that although the world has no meaning, we must find meaning in the absurd. Camus urges us to not commit suicide in favor of rebelling against the absurd. Sisyphus is the go-to example for this, as he rebels against the absurd to find happiness. He “must” be happy. When people defend this statement, they use relativism, like “It may seem miserable to us, but Sisyphus knows he could have it worse…” etc. I hate this. Sisyphus has no obligation to be happy, nor does he have an obligation to rebel against the absurd. The idea that our obligations stem from our spiritual needs to “rebel” and “be happy” is a humanist belief that I reject. We are animals. We hold no obligations. The cat isn’t obligated to be a vegan or hold the door open.

Anti-humanism is pessimism in that it releases the burden of hope and cynicism in that it gives up on societal obligations. Our every attempt to explain why we shouldn’t commit suicide or reject moral, dutiful lives is thwarted not only by the well-recognized theory of the absurd but also by our human nature. Absurdism says that nothing has any meaning and that we can rejoice in this. This is wrong because it imposes a dichotomy where humans are supposedly the only creatures that recognize this. We are “rational, and yet cursed to be so.” We lament our intelligence and at the same time hold it above all else as a means of insisting we are significant in the world. We could not rejoice in the absurd without this intelligence. And yet, the absurd says that nothing, including intelligence or humanism, has value. So why do we care so much about Camus and his contradictions?

I reckon this is because we’re so infatuated with trying to find a reason to exist even if we know there is none. Absurdism is just another religion. Instead of thinking we can be saved by Jesus Christ, we believe we can be saved by recognizing we can’t be saved. This circular logic is espoused because of our existential anxiety. On r/philosophy, someone literally commented, with 50+ upvotes, that we are “punished to live in an absurd world,” which is the same rhetoric used by Christians discussing sin.

I think that the answer to all of this is to realize our hypocrisy and then nothing more. Pragmatists are probably irritated by this normative rather than prescriptive statement. But combined with determinism, or its questionably similar cousin compatibilism (take your pick), we can’t really go past a normative statement. It’s not anyone’s right or ability to tell you how to live your life. You are unique. Prescriptivism risks more contradictions like the notion of free will or salvation. Absurdism, as discussed above, is an example of the issue with prescriptivism. I do not say we should do nothing or reject anything… but we should understand. And everything else is up to you. Perhaps Daoism was right all along, with its frustratingly vague language: “[t]hose sages who practice wuwei live out of their original nature before it was tampered with by knowledge and restricted by morality” (Britannica).

I don’t have a formal degree in philosophy, so I am eager for feedback from those who have.