In the first sentence of his brilliant essay The Myth of Sisyphus,
Albert Camus posed what he deemed as the fundamental
philosophical question; whether or not one should commit suicide. Seeing that people with a sane mind rarely ask such a question, Camus reminds us of Descartes who began some of his most famous philosophical inquiries by questioning those things which are usually presupposed. Through this bottom-up approach of building knowledge, Camus formulated his theory which is today referred to as absurdism. How Camus got to his conclusions, what exactly is the absurd, and how his theory is valuable in our existential quest for a fulfilled life will be discussed hereafter.
What Camus refers to as the absurd is the contradiction between the rationality of the human mind and the irrationality of existence. More particularly, he argues that it is absurd (i.e., "it shouldn't follow") that we are given minds with an inherent tendency to rationally examine our existence in an existence that doesn't provide any answers. We have an unavoidable longing for meaning to which we receive an irrational silence from a universe in which we are thrown where there seem to be no absolute
answers and no decipherable meaning. It is important to note that the absurd
arises strictly from the combination of those two phenomena – a mind
constituted to search for answers wouldn’t be absurd if there were answers to
be found just like a universe without answers isn’t as absurd to creatures who
do not possess such complex minds. To deal with this peculiar situation, Camus argues that people
have developed several different strategies; from finding peace and answers
through religion and/or societal norms (familial relationships, careers,
wealth, etc.) to the simple everyday life of mechanical routine which slows the
mind and prevents it from posing questions for which there are no answers.
Similarly, Camus describes (and rejects) several philosophical outlooks that deal with the absurd, the authors of which include fellow
existentialists* like Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Heidegger, etc. Many of these
strategies can be interpreted as blinders put on a racehorse, that keep its focus on (or more precisely off) track by muting all "unnecessary"
existential disturbances. One could argue if this is the right (necessary?)
attitude to adopt, but what is certain is that the absurd is usually able to
find its way to the human mind despite the effort put into silencing it.
Whether this happens when one is alone at night and starts to ponder on
existence or, as Camus illustrates, he merely looks through the window of a bus
one day and sees a man talking on a telephone – he can see the person and his
frantic gestures, but can’t hear him which makes a somewhat comical situation -
and the absurd breaks the walls and penetrates the mind once more. A simple
event that for whatever reason stands out of the average daily sequence of
actions is enough to remind the person of the somewhat comical situation of his
mechanical life; he is consciously and carelessly involved in a game of life vs
death in spite of the certain loss that awaits him at the end. Additionally, to
deal with this predicament, the person fills his existence with futile
repetitive choirs and actions which are meaningless in the long run as the
inevitability of death (arguably) negates the possibility of any meaning.
Therefore, to illustrate human life, Camus ultimately uses a metaphor of the
myth of Sisyphus in which Sisyphus is damned to a meaningless task of rolling a
rock every day to the top of the hill only to have it fall back down.
Seeing that Camus rejects physical suicide as an answer to the
predicament of the absurd just as he rejects placing one's faith in something
above us (as in the famous Kierkegaardian leap of faith) by deeming it as
philosophical suicide, what would be the right way to live one's life while
facing the meaninglessness of existence? (What makes matters even worse, not
only does our existence seem to be without meaning, but it is filled with inevitable and random suffering). To start off, Camus
notes the biology programmed in all mortal beings which blindly and
automatically turns them away from death. Once a being's life is threatened,
its whole biological structure directs its resources towards survival. In order
to live, this is the first necessary step, but in the case of humans, it is not
a sufficient one. More people decide to live than to commit suicide which is a
testament to the aforementioned biology in us (after all, we have received that
biology long before we could form a rational mind), but the fact that people
indeed sometimes commit suicide, and that it is unclear whether life is worth living from an exclusively philosophical viewpoint,
proves that we are able to “reject” biology thanks to our highly developed
minds*. Consequently, seeing that biology is insufficient for humans to give
them a recipe of living, what is*? Camus notes 3 main factors that are needed
for a full life; (1) revolt, (2) freedom, and (3) passion. (1) Revolt is
choosing to go directly against the absurd without negating its reality and
without running away from it. It is a form of heroic existence in spite of meaninglessness and/or suffering. As Camus famously described it;
"[Revolt] is a constant confrontation between man and his own obscurity...
It is that constant presence of man in his own eyes. It is not aspiration, for
it is devoid of hope. That revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without
the resignation that ought to accompany it." Similarly, (2) freedom is
found in the fact that the world is indeed silent - in itself, it seems not to
hold any values/meaning - but this allows the individual to choose his own way
and to live life to the fullest by his accord. No one can force values and
decisions on him except himself. As Camus' friend turned foe Sartre postulated;
existence precedes essence; first, we are thrown into existence, and only then
can we individually find our values and through them our essence. Nietzsche's
vision of the ubermensch is likewise similar; the ubermensch is seen as the
creator of his own values - the one that is above externally imposed norms and
with it, free to say yes to life in its totality. Consequently, from living
such a life, untouched by that which one cannot change and focused solely on
oneself and the present moment, one feels (3) passion towards that life. As
Homer exclaims in his Iliad; "The gods envy us. They envy us because we’re
mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful
because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will
never be here again." It is our transience that makes every moment
unique just as it makes us unique.
It would not be possible to care and love our closest existential
companions with the strength and depth like we do unless they were as fragile
and transient as they are and as we are. The fragility, the uncertainty, the
transience, the suffering of life, our innumerable limitations are what bring us together and allow our journey to be heroic. One cannot be
courageous unless he is afraid. One cannot grow without hardships. One cannot
love fully unless he understands what he has to lose. The ones we feel to be
worthy of standing next to us in all that, chins up and shoulders back against
everything that the chaos brings, can get no greater and deeper recognition
than that. There is no better path than to be able to endure through the
suffering and find individual meaning in that endurance. There is no greater
feeling than finding the ones who will do that with us or who we will do it
for. The chaos will bring suffering – we will be courageous. The chaos will
bring us evil – we will combat it with love. The chaos will eventually kill us…
We will play the most marvelous game we are capable of in spite of that
certainty. It is the absurd nature of existence with suffering in its essence
that points out the beauties of it in the clearest detail. It is in this
contrast that the counterargument to the so-called hedonic adaptation is
formed. As Heraclitus exclaimed, the way up and the way down are both the same
ways. One cannot know good without evil. One cannot comprehend beauty to its
extent without the ugly. Contrast maximizes value, without it, the good things
would devalue. It is from the greatest suffering that the greatest good and
fulfillment can be born. We will surely die - we might as well play the best
game we can. Might as well burn out in the most precious and epic light. Might
as well face fate on our own terms. Standing tall and not looking away. We may
not be able to escape from it, but in this way, we can transcend it. In the
end, it is the bitter essential part of existence that gives the sweetness of
it its full value.
Finally, where does Sisyphus fit into all of this? He is the embodiment
of Camus' absurd hero. He is repetitively doing the same futile task without
placing his hope into the future, other people, or another life. He is
condemned to be free and he is aware of his unchangeable position, but he
accepts it heroically. As does the 16th-century painting Knight, Death, and the
Devil portray, the hero is faced with the inevitable tragic fate - Sisyphus
with his task and the knight in the painting with the devil on the one side and
death on the other - but he continues on. He struggles through it calmly,
bravely, and with his chin up high. Thus, he realizes his purpose - he creates
his own values of integrity and bravery and he struggles to achieve them.
"One must imagine Sisyphus happy", Camus said. One must imagine the
knight fulfilled. One must imagine us to be content if we are able to actualize
our potential in an unjust world stripped of meaning and filled with suffering.
We must struggle to be the hero and such a world is a precondition for it for
there are no heroes in wonderland. "If a man wants to become a hero, the
snake must first become a dragon: otherwise he is lacking his proper
enemy" (Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human).
*Because of the diverging of his attitudes from existentialists in this
regard, Camus never considered himself an existentialist, but rather an
absurdist (even though he shares many of the features of his philosophy
with them).
*We are, in fact able (and more likely) to commit suicide because of
such a mind. Animals, on the other hand, are bound to the present; to their
current desires, needs, and inputs, and cannot mentally climb to the level in
which they could abstract from the concrete and through it, gather conclusions
on existence in general. They exist but are not consciously aware that they exist. Consequently, they cannot make value judgments on existence (bear in mind that suicide is a decision that there is no worth in the continuation of a life which is in itself a value judgment). This bounds them as well as their
suffering to the present which keeps them "within the boundaries of nature". This
is one of the reasons why human consciousness is such an interesting
phenomenon; in a way, it separates us as beings from nature by allowing us not
only to be a part of nature but also to be aware of that fact. We can, thus, achieve higher forms of knowledge, but that knowledge simultaneously makes
our suffering twofold; we must deal with the present suffering and with the
expectance of inevitable future suffering. Our consciousness is both our blessing and our
curse.
*With Camus, it seems that the formulation of question should be in this
somewhat pragmatic way (what can we do) rather than theoretical/philosophical
way (what is "true") as he is primarily interested in how to live
rather than providing a fully coherent philosophical system ("I don't know
whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not
know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it",
Camus)
Comments
Post a Comment