You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
‘I weep for you,’ the Walrus said;
‘I deeply sympathize.’
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.
An ongoing fascination with children's picture books and with the painted puzzles of René Magritte has led me to ponder the possible relations between our unstable capacities for tolerating epistemological uncertainty, cognitive dissonance, and emotional ambiguity. This interdisciplinary essay records those musings by thematizing the notion of the absurd. In juxtaposing selected contemporary philosophical and psychoanalytic perspectives, my aim is to open questions for future debate; with wry amusement, I note the awkward (and delicious) chance that whatever follows might easily be read as replicating the object of its inquiry.
Let's begin with a glance at etymology. Although the word “absurd” has come in English to mean “ridiculously inconsistent, preposterous, and nonsensical,” its original derivation from the Latin has to do with the notion of being offensive to the ear, “surdus” meaning “deaf” or “unwilling to listen.” Hence, the absurd connotes that which it is difficult to hear, or by extension, that which it is difficult to accept. A related meaning, conveyed by the original Latin, has to do with discordance, harshness, and bad taste. Thus, Cicero uses the expression “absurde canere” (“to sing jarringly, disharmoniously”),