Without delving into the entire Marvel lore, let's keep it simple so it's easier to understand. Thanos and Albert Camus might seem oddly aligned. Still, both start with the same observation, that suffering is something that can't be avoided, and that there is no inherent meaning or justice within the universe. That life is chaotic and often cruel, but this is where they diverge, how they respond.
Thanos treats it as a problem that needs to be solved, and because suffering exists, he justifies it with drastic action (we'll just call it his desire to get the infinity stones and wipe half the population, but really, him doing this to impress a girl... oh, the things we'll do). And instead of saving this absurd universe, he believes he can "fix" it by deciding who lives and who dies. While Camus, on the other hand, refuses any solution that erases human freedom. It's accepting the absurdity and living without illusions, without false hope, but at the same time without surrounding compassion. It means that the struggle is what becomes meaningful, not because it'll lead to victory, but because it affirms our humanity, equivalent of Sisyphus struggling with his eternal punishment of pushing this rock, but being able to struggle and the ability to push the damn rock is affirming his humanity.
But would Thanos agree with absurdism?
He might agree with its... diagnosis? But he would reject its ethics, with its restraint, and empathy, and the ability to live without answers is something that Thanos could definitely not tolerate. Ultimately, Thanos would end possibility in the name of balance, while Camus would preserve it by choosing rebellion over control. While one seeks peace through destruction, the other finds meaning by refusing to become a god. (or not accepting god.... u see what I did.... ok.... sry)
