A Descent to Presence: Camus' Critique of Purpose

What is Existentialism (6): Nihilism vs. Existentialism and Absurdism (B)

---

This is the sixth instalment in a short paid series on existentialism.

This post is also the second addressing the relationship between nihilism, absurdism, and existentialism.

You can view the previous post here (paywalled after first main section).

If you missed the beginning of this series, you can read the entire first post for free here.

---

What is the Absurdist Critique of Existentialism?

If I were just beginning with existentialism today, online meme culture and gatekeeping between existentialism and absurdism would have misled me too.

People today often attempt to distinguish absurdism from existentialism by contrasting the work of Camus with that of meaning-centered existentialists. At the heart of this distinction lies their differing approaches to affirming life in the face of nihilism. What is believed to separate them is that Camus affirms life through passion, whereas meaning-centered thinkers do so through purpose.

But what exactly is Camus’ critique of meaning and purpose?

In The Myth of Sisyphus, he certainly presents a critique of meaning as purpose. But read closely, it does not actually amount to a basis for completely rejecting purpose or having to choose between it and passion. It rather serves as the track of a descent towards the source of both meaning and purpose in presence.

And once we find ourselves at their source, it then becomes possible to see how both can help us affirm life.

Camus’ Critique of Meaning and Purpose

Camus offers a strikingly clear image to illustrate his motivation for his critique of purpose.