The error with duality, and with certain philosophies, specifically absurdism, is the fundamental claim that humans are somehow distinct and separate from the universe. To distinguish man, and the universe outside man, as two separate groups, conceptually, is useful and descriptive of a real situation, but it doesn’t mean that it accurately reflects a reality outside of our conceptual usage, to which, such distinction does “truly” exist. The trouble comes in making exclusionary claims about either two of the groups without depicting the role the opposite has in its functions. This distinction causes us to have a gap between the two concepts that is larger than it actually is, and is ignorant to the inclusion of man within the bounds of the universe, and the presence of the universe in man’s reality. We are most obviously rudimentary aspects of the universe, neither divine nor lowly, yet part of the whole. To distinguish the universe from ourselves is to leave out an integral part, it’s literally separating advanced biochemistry from reality as if it’s not part of the picture. Its saying that the teachings of physics don’t exist, it’s making a claim which doesn’t match up to established scientific truths and observational data.

Does it matter, to a human, if the outside universe is meaningless, when the human, himself, has found meaning or has the possibility of discovering meaning within the universe? It becomes irrelevant of the universe without him in it, as he surely is in it. Thus the distinction of absurdity in comparing the two is valid if recognizing that certain people are searching without finding, thus it is just a matter of them not looking hard enough, but it is not absurd for anyone who has discovered, or seen manifest in his consciousness, or who merely isn’t ignorant of his will to live, of a meaning within the individual’s life. The nihilist in the room is ignorant, easily cured by knowledge, introspection, abstraction, a leap of faith, or a change of perception. A pointed awareness toward the epiphenomenon of our own biology and will to live gives ground to sufficiently explaining at least one value system inherit within us.

Is it possible to escape the absurd through realizing truly real meaning in the universe? Perhaps it is not the contradiction between the humans seeking meaning and the nature of a meaningless universe that is absurd, perhaps the absurd is in the ignorance of our own selves being part of that very universe, and there being a meaningful path engraved into us biologically, paradoxically, or perhaps not so, created by this universe. Thus, if we are part of the universe, and there is a meaningful path to be taken through the passage of time that means something, perhaps only to humans or sentient beings, and morality truly exists in this sphere, without committing philosophical or physical suicide, we have stumbled onto a 4th solution that lies outside of the question. There isn’t any higher transcendental place to find the answers which we seek as most existentialist claim as they take leaps of faith. Nor is the absurd predicament a true predicament. But the universe itself holds meaning in the very fabric that gave rise to us humans. While we don’t matter to any other aspect of reality, the aspect of reality we do matter to is ourselves – and each other. Any being that can have a better or worse experience finds significant meaning within that experience, things matter to it, insofar as they have an effect on subjective experience.

Could this be the fundamental claim on which absurdism is broken? That the philosopher who compares the universe with the human, fails to recognize that the human, being a part of the universe, is in himself as much the universe itself as is anything else that is real. Thus, claiming the absurd arises when there is a human and there is a world, a world which is irrational and meaningless and a human which is rational, seeking meaning, rests on false promises, if that human has meaning within himself and which his seeking is able to find. This absolves the solutions of necessarily committing philosophical suicide, as nothing transcendental or supernatural is conceded. It is merely within the organization of one’s own consciousness that one discovers that there is meaning, it’s in one’s intentionality of our Being. Meaning, value, purpose, drives us through our desires and anticipations, our anxieties and our aims, it courses through our blood every moment of everyday, it drives us to continue living, and not only merely to survive, but to survive in a way which is optimal for us experientially. Our own subjective experience, our unconscious accumulation, our biological perceptivity, is all mediated with a purpose, it is transfused with meaning, whether we can conceptually admit to it or not. Our interpersonal relationships exist in a mode of being which is directed with meaning, it isn’t for no reason that we act the way we do, moment to moment.

The principle of sufficient reason applies to all phenomena, and that principle applied to our totality of being can reveal to us the value structure we contain, toward which we consciously and environmentally we modify, and pursue life through that modified mode of being as depicted in its total process in “Value System Instantiation”. Setting an aim to pursue, that aim being ours, and us being part of the universe which is “meaningless” (in its entirety, but not in its parts, obviously), gives us the fulfillment and purpose we have been searching for. We find meaning in the product of our actions, in consciousness intentionally directed, moment to moment, in alignment with a value structure (conscious or unconscious) – manifest in one’s relationships, in life, in experience, in subjectivity, which is part of this universe, not outside it nor transcending it, not more important than any other aspect of it, just part of it. 

Albert Camus committed the universal danger of intellectual folly in pursuing absurdism with the either voluntary ignorance in the above information, or the omission of such information in his philosophical works. While his framework from absurdism, and the conclusions of rebellion and his answer to the “absurd” conundrum is all coherent and of a rationally unique philosophic spectrum, he commits the sin of omission, or ignorance, in regard to articulating the full picture in which we find ourselves. It is a great danger to any person who is brighter than normal, intellectually gifted, or extensively educated to use the enhanced power of critical thinking, reasoning, and logical coherence down a path with unstable roots, producing a product, a work of abstract conceptual explanation that is through and through coherent and revelatory, yet built on sand rather than bedrock. Thus the transient obsession of the intellect can lead one to profound experiences and insights along a path that veers away from concrete reality, beautifully explaining and rationalizing the journey in a way captivating to the intellect, yet unable to visualize one’s own digression away from truth. As the intellectually powerful yet deceived man continues an abstract journey down metaphysical pathways, explaining and rationalizing aspects of such a revelatory perception, abstracting and logically tying ethics or ontology or psychology into the mix and supporting claims with proofs and valid evidence, he invests more and more of his conscious attention, time and energy on the exposition of such realms, captivating audiences, yet, the great danger presents itself when discovered by a random onlooker. The beautiful construction was built from cards, on a bed of water, and elucidates an entire reality on which we are not part of, which doesn’t match up to the one in which we find ourselves. People have done this with religions, governments, philosophical concepts such as free will, self-hood, the list goes on and on, and the rabbit hole proceeds from false axioms. Perhaps the foundational claims or interests which springboard the philosophy into the genius’s production are based on premises that are falsifiable, perhaps the interest and discoveries prove truly unuseful, unmeaningful, to anyone except the dedicated expositor, perhaps the system is coherent if the laws of physics were different, if reality itself revealed itself through concrete evidence to contain the cornerstones of which the intellectual built off of. Yet reality doesn’t always contain that stone, and thus the exposition becomes a sham, and a convincing sham at that. Thus the danger of the intellectual, that he should lead his life in using his powers to discover nothing of value, nothing of meaning, and to falsely believe so. Thus, one should be grounded and fire a thousand bullets from every angle into any premise in which one desires to proceed from, and the analysis and criticism of one’s values should be in the periodical checklist of the person’s consciousness, to avoid pursuit down such paths, and to greater clarify and point one’s direction.

Camus’ solution to the absurd in accepting a transitory meaning without philosophically forgetting our absurd position in the universe, smiling though accepting a meaningless fate, is thus discredited if the universe is framed differently as I have just shown. It’s not necessarily wrong, it’s just not a complete picture, it is omitting an important distinction, and caveat, to the distinction made between man and the world. Framing the universe as meaningless, is a false method of framing it, as there is meaning in life which is in the universe, which makes the inclination behind the premise lead to false conclusions. Of course the whole is different than the sum of the parts, but if a part has meaning, is made of meaning, is oriented and navigates experience based on meaning, then the whole necessarily contains meaning, albeit it may solely be one part of its totality. If we say, what is the meaning of the universe? For what purpose does the universe exist? The question makes no sense, as the arbitrary category includes literally everything, the only response would be to say it exists for the purpose of Being, so that its contents can exist, the totality exists for the purpose of supporting all existence (God?), as that naturally is what we see the contents of the universe doing, existing. If we make the clearer significant distinction, what is the meaning the universe has for us? For what purpose is our individual existence existing within the totality of existing things, “the universe”? Towards what end ought we pursue within this universe we find ourselves “thrown” into? That question itself is also slightly misleading, as shown above, we already have meaning which is driving us through every moment, we have genetically coded, biologically modified, culturally and environmentally shaped, desires and conscious experience which strive to achieve satisfaction of momentarily dissatisfaction. We can easily tell moment to moment what we want, and this desire stems from an evaluation of who we have the potential to be, or what we could potentially have. It is in this constant pursuit of the future that we uncover what we value, it is in pursuing what we value that we find the meaning the “universe” has for us, we find the fulfillment and the purpose for which we strive to conceptualize in the revealing of our value structures and the pursuit of that which is important to us, that which our care is directed towards. For more information on the topic: (It’s A Wild World, The Answer to the Absurd Conundrum).