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
Existentialism says that life doesn’t have a set meaning until you give it one. It’s about creating your own purpose and taking responsibility for your choices.
Absurdism believes that life is naturally without meaning, and it’s a bit silly to try to find or create one. However, despite this, you should keep living and find your own way to enjoy life.
Nihilism says that life really has no meaning, purpose, or value at all. Nihilists think that trying to create a meaning is pointless.
**Edit**: You wanted to have ‘being-in-itself’ and ‘being-for-itself’ included in the explanation. Let me try:
In Existentialism, ‘being-for-itself’ refers to humans, who are aware of themselves and can make choices. This makes them special. ‘Being-in-itself’ refers to objects that simply exist without self-awareness or the ability to make choices.
Absurdism is about the conflict between our desire to find inherent meaning in life (‘being-for-itself’) and the silent, indifferent universe that offers none (‘being-in-itself’).
Nihilism denies any inherent dignity to ‘being-for-itself'” (human existence) or ‘being-in-itself’ (the universe and everything in it), seeing all values, meanings, or purposes as baseless.
Latest Answers