Great question! I wrote my college thesis on this!

Kierkegaard saw the absurd(the inherently ridiculous relationship between the ambivalence of the universe and humanity's desire to find meaning) and thought that faith(in god specifically) was a way to reconcile these opposing ideas.

Camus on the other hand feels that faith is a sort of "easy way out"(grossly oversimplifying) and that in his mind, the best way to approach the absurd is with a full throated utter and complete acceptance of it. Face the absurdity with your head held high and laugh in its face, and then just try and be a good person. Realize that we're all in this together and really other people is what we have to make it all worth it.

Happy to answer other questions on this topic! Hope it helps!

When you break it down, I think philosophy is mostly metacognition. Psychology is still just as much philosophical as it is scientific.

There aren’t really huge difference between the three thinkers. Kierkegaard kind of needed Christianity as a coping mechanism.

Nietzsche genuinely did kind of break himself with stress. I don’t necessarily buy that he “went crazy.” I really feel like you can’t fully separate his alienation from German culture and Germany’s drift into fascism.

Camus forwards romanticism as a coping mechanism. He better understood science because of the time period he came from.

He was skilled at incorporating his philosophy into political and artistic results. I’d argue Camus had slightly more similarities with Doestoevsky than Kierkegaard.

There has been increasing information that he might have been politically assassinated by the KGB: https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2019/dec/05/albert-camus-murdered-by-the-kgb-giovanni-catelli

A lot of political assassinations happened in the 1960s.

Well, right out of the gate, nihilism is what Nietzsche warned against, not what he espoused or encouraged. The better question is if his idea of becoming an overman is similar.

I'd argue it's more similar to Kierkegaard, because striving is, ultimately, an attempt to impose order on chaos. Both of them recognize that that's not really, truly happening at the highest mortal levels (though Kierkegaard obviously posits that the highest level, God, has it all figured out.)

If Kierkegaard is proposing a way to help you make sense of absurdity even if it can never truly make sense to a mortal, Nieztsche is telling you to go out there and make the absurdity make sense - like, with a sword. Be your own boss, and everybody else's. God is dead, so there's a vacuum. Fill it. Be awesome.

One could rightly criticize Kierkegaard's philosophy by suggesting that he's just telling people to be weak and follow what some other man - maybe even an overman - laid out as The Truth by the sword. Of course, Nieztsche's philosophy involves running forever and never stopping, lest everything catch up with you. It's exhausting, and it gels far too well with the general bent of high-functioning narcissistic psychopaths (and even some low-functioning ones, if enough people in a given realm are profoundly dumb and gullible already, cough cough.)

[removed]

I mean in a certain sense, isn’t alot of philosophy trying to answer the unanswerable or unknown so it makes sense it is similar?

You exist. Not your fault. Now that youre here, whatta ya do?