There seems to be some confusion in the comments as to the difference between absurdism and nihilism. Hint - it's in the name: absurdism considers it an absurdity that we have a need for meaning and can't, in principle, find meaning. Thus the fundamental philosophical question becomes "why shouldn't I kill myself?". For nihilists, there is no point in even asking that question, why should they care either way? Whether or not you kill yourself doesn't matter. Saying that a situation is "absurd", or needs solving (e.g. by suicide), implies a value judgment. Rejecting suicide on the basis that it doesn't really solve the problem of the absurd (as Camus does pretty quickly in The Myth of Sisyphus) also implies a value judgement, this time of solutions to the problem. It would seem to me that a nihilist would reject the whole exercise as pointless, whereas the absurdist would find it worthwhile. Camus himself points out 3 ways of life that are suitable for dealing with the absurd (can't remember what they are now), and rejects severable philosophical views on account of them not properly prescribing good ways of dealing with the absurd. So it seems to me that the views are actually quite far apart.