I, myself, fit in nicely with existential ideas, for the most part but I also fit nicely with Objectivism (which Ayn Rand wanted to call Existentialism). But what is Existentialism? Well existentialists believe that individual human beings create the meaning and essence of their life. Most do not believe in a transcendent force (ie. God), or they are deists. We believe that individuals are completely free, thus we are completely responsible. Walter Kaufman describes existentialism as, "The refusal to belong to any school of thought, the repudiation of the adequacy of any body of beliefs whatever, and especially of systems, and a marked dissatisfaction with traditional philosophy as superficial, academic, and remote from life".
Exisentialism rejects the idea that the most certain and primarily reality is consciousness. It states that as conscience beings, humans would always find themselves already in a world, a prior context and a history that is given to consciousness and that we cannot think that world away. It is linked to our consciouseness. Basically the ulitimate and unquestionable reality is not thinking consciousness but "being in a world."
Another major proposition of exisentialism is that existence proceeds essence. In short, humans define their own reality. Before we are nothing, but after we are whatever we make ourselves. The basic fundamental concept of exisentialism is that we counter the nothingness we feel (the nothingness that everyone feels, even theists) by embracing existence.
We argue against definitions of human beings as being primarily rational. For as you can see, humans are not primarily rational beings in the least. It asserts that people make decisions based on what has meaning to them, something that Objectivism believes (another philosophy I fall into). Camus hit the nail on the head when he said that society and religion teach us that there is "the other" that has order and structure. However as contradictory as it sounds, I believe there is order and structure to the universe, but without an "other".
Lastly, we usually view humans as subjects in an indifferent, objective, often ambigious and absurd universe. Where meaning is not provided by natural order, but rather can be created, by humans actions and interpretations. Like I've said I do not believe that there is no natural order, I believe there is a natural order but that human beings can distort what the natural order is because we cannot or do not understand natural order because it is more complex than the we can understand. Basically it is the idea of the absurd that I agree with, but that it is absurdly natural.
This is what Exisentialism is and how I differ from certain aspects of it. I believe that life has no meaning, and that only I can give my life meaning.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
But if there is a natural order wouldn't the meaning, or value if you will, of your life be based on its accord or discord with that order? Any kind of natural order, transcendental or otherwise, provides a set of constants by which human life must be given meaning. If natural order exists, but is constantly misinterpreted or twisted it would seem to me that the goal of life would be to more fully understand that natural order and live in accordance with it.
If meaning is not provided directly by human beings to objective reality, if it has meaning outside of humanity, then life is not meaningless. I would say that any sort of natural order would create a natural set of standards by which meaning would be derived.
Also, what exactly is meant by "meaningless"? Meaningless in the sense that our actions will amount to nothing at the end of all things? Meaningless in the sense that or actions are not judged from on high to be moral or not? Any philosophy built upon the free will of humanity, like existentialism, assumes life has meaning outside of objective reality. If you give your life meaning, and your life exists, then existence is not meaningless at all. If you have the ability to provide essence and direction to your life, than it must necessarily have meaning.
A meaningless life would be one without free will. In such a world consciousness is a self-duped observer. Life with free will has meaning, if only to exercise that free will.
"I believe that life has no meaning, and that only I can give my life meaning."
-So does this mean that life as an objective fact has no meaning, but the subjective experience of living and choosing has meaning? Truly meaningless life would put humans on the same level as rocks, just more ordered matter. If human life has no meaning than we are but rocks in our natural places. If we are capable of providing meaning to life than life's meaning is relative, not absent.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
By natural order I mean like the natural laws or fundamental laws that almost every religion, philosophy and culture are based on. 1) Do all you have agreed to do, and 2) Do not encroach on other people or their property. Natural Order as the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. So it doesn't have to do with giving life meaning, but has to do with the ethical theory that the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and therefore has validity everywhere. And I agree with your last sentence. This is where I differ from Existenialism.
Natural order would create a natural set of standards to live by, not to give meaning to life.
By meaningless I mean in the sense of having no direction or purpose. I don't care about life's meaning outside of the objective reality we live in. Life exists whether you give it meaning or not, you're still here. But you can give your existence meaning so that it isn't meaningless. Since I have the ability to provide essence and direction to my life, then it has meaning, as long as a I provide the essence and direction.
To me exercising free will doesn't give meaning, it's just something you do. Unless of course you believe in a transcendent being that has your life laid out and your purpose is to serve it and do what it wills of you, then you have to choose between free will and determinism.
-So does this mean that life as an objective fact has no meaning, but the subjective experience of living and choosing has meaning? Truly meaningless life would put humans on the same level as rocks, just more ordered matter. If human life has no meaning than we are but rocks in our natural places. If we are capable of providing meaning to life than life's meaning is relative, not absent.
Now you have me stumped because I can't answer that. I don't completely understand (haven't gotten my mind completely wrapped around them), please explain. However I refuse the idea of relativism because like I've said, I believe that the physical universe works under basic principles.
I'm glad you responded to this, I've struggled with philosphical ideas and what I believe and the more someone questions, the more I can understand what I truly mean and believe. I'm your typical philosopher, with the typical questions.