I’ve read different blogs as well as chapters from philosophy books about these three terms. But if I’m asked to explain it in simple words, I still stutter to make a distinction between these three philosophical terms. Any simpler explanation that covers some core ideas of these terms, like being-in-itself or being-for-itself and others, will be very meaningful to me to get clarity.
In: Other
Yeah, they’re definitely related. I’m not a pro but I think I can tie these together.
First, all of these are nonreligious, so they all start with **life does not have an inherent ‘meaning’ or purpose**. If you sincerely think the purpose of your life is to serve and obey a god and get into a paradise, then you’re probably not any of these things. Also, I don’t see a tremendous difference between absurdism and nihilism and that’s going to show in my summaries.
Absurdism: Life does not have an inherent meaning or purpose; you can accept that fact and not take it so seriously, or try to engage with it and create meaning and purpose for yourself, but those are just coping mechanisms and they’re ultimately irrelevant.
Nihilism: Life does not have an inherent meaning or purpose and that means happiness, suffering, ethics and even survival don’t ultimately matter. Your body has evolved to want to survive and avoid pain and seek pleasure so go with that, I guess, but your choices are ultimately irrelevant.
Existentialism: Life does not have an inherent meaning or purpose, but the fact that you are conscious and get to have feelings and make choices is an amazing opportunity and you owe it to yourself to capitalize on it to the best of your ability. Find something that inspires you and gives your life meaning or purpose, and pursue that.
Latest Answers