Albert Camus once wrote that the only serious philosophical question is whether or not to commit the act of suicide. I remember first reading those words and the slight surprise that followed. He is right: why live? Why go on?
The answers are various, and with each, a fundamental axiom of one’s own life comes to light.
Some might take the pragmatic evolutionary perspective and propose that the meaning of life is tied directly to one’s ability to procreate and pass their genetic line. To them, life is but a means to pass down your genes, the winner being the person with the most genes passed down. This perspective, while being the most attached to an objective reality, fails to fully answer the question of meaning. Why procreate? What purpose does it serve to you, other than a phenomenon you will bear no witness to in the long run?
Another perspective, even more common than the last, is, as Albert Camus states in his work, a leap of faith. The belief in God is a sanctuary many use to justify meaning. Our ancestors, the original homo sapiens, lived in the savannahs of Africa; from there, they spread to the entire globe. Life was no walk in the park, and so the belief in a higher power, in such uncertainty, can be an effective means of persisting. Today, however, we have developed better means for balancing the uncertainty of the universe; a zealous believer, for example, would rather go to a hospital than a church.
I feel many warm sentiments toward this approach, as I have also experienced the world through this perspective. The issue, however, comes from a subtle aspect of this leap of faith. If one knows that faith is but an illusion and one chooses to believe, then that belief is a lie. Are all lies bad? At times, lies can be less burdensome than the truth, so I understand the desire to believe in something of this nature without any concrete evidence. The subtlety comes from faith based not on actual belief, but on a desire to believe.
This leap of faith, while understandable, is in fact a cop-out. You know that the faith is fruitless, but you still believe. Understandable and deeply beautiful, but regardless, a white flag for a meaningless life.
I will end this entry somewhat abruptly. In his book The Myth Of Sisyphus, Albert Camus compares the absurd and meaningless punishment of Sisyphus, the titan, to the meaningless nature of existence. To boil it down, the answer from his perspective (from my humble understanding, of course) is to live life in defiance of the absurd: to give life meaning, to accept life for what it is. I always wondered how he reached this conclusion.
How can one defy meaninglessness? To defy means to be under the authority of something. What does it even mean to make our own meaning? Is this not, in fact, a cop-out? I do not have the answers fully; however, recently, I realized a very interesting aspect of his work.
A closer look at the central myth gives some insights. Sisyphus was punished by the gods to push a boulder down and up a hill for eternity. I never realized how important the punishment was to this picture. What is punishment? To punish means to want some suffering on another being. One has to be conscious to suffer. The question of moral responsibility and consciousness I will leave for another blog.
Then Sisyphus must, in fact, suffer for the gods to win. Specifically, he has to choose whether to suffer or go on. Without choice, his suffering is futile, as he has no choice but to suffer. Thus the gods are but flaming a fire, looking for a reaction. Specifically, his outlook on his task must be painful; without this pain, there is no suffering. And so, to punish, the gods need to allow Sisyphus to choose his outlook on the task at hand.
It occurred to me then: what is the one way to defy this reality? It is to accept it. For in acceptance, you lose view of life not as a punishment but as a reality. Very interesting indeed. I don't know if I fully agree with this perspective, but it is fascinating to ponder over.