myth of sisyphus essay
After reading Viktor Frankl’s “Man’s Search for Meaning”, I was encouraged to read a blog post related to existentialism and absurdism written by a friend. You can find the blog post here
This article is something of a response to reading "The Myth of Sisyphus" and the blog post together. Let’s start with what I call the top of the hill problem. You have a meaning or purpose to your life, and it isn’t easy. That goal is like pushing a boulder up a hill, and it takes many years. At some point, you may realize that you are never going to reach the top of the hill. At another point, you may realize that reaching the top of the hill is pointless because there is nothing there. And even when you get to the top of the hill, the boulder rolls down to the other side. What do you do?
The book opens without this context, but instead with the question, well… do you commit suicide? The immediate answer is: well obviously no, I’m not going to commit suicide for a philosophical exercise. But the question, like many questions, isn’t so much about the answer, but how you justify the answer.
As far as I can tell, there are five modern philosophies that answer this question with a decent justification. The first and easiest is modern religion. Modern religion can be placed in a category of theistic existentialism, but the fancy wording just means that you have a purpose ordained by a higher power, and it is your job to fulfill that higher purpose throughout your life. If you think you reached the top of the hill, you are simply wrong, because god or the universe will keep giving you life until you have met your purpose.
Camus seems to think this answer is so easy that he calls it “philosophical suicide”. After reading Frankl’s book, I think I somewhat agree. Essentially, choosing to believe that you have to keep going because some unknown power is telling you to is robbing you of the chance to decide how to answer that question for yourself. It isn’t wrong to do so in a moral sense, but it is just taking away one aspect of being human that we all get the opportunity to embark upon.
The next level is logotherapy, which is what Frankl is promoting. He says you can take your circumstances and environment, and pair that with your own character, and your meaning shall sort of be derived from this combination. I don’t think this idea can be entirely written off because it still gives you, the reader, the opportunity to find your meaning. It doesn’t fully close the door on religion, but also allows other ideas to fill that space. Your work can be your purpose. Maintaining your dignity in the face of extreme suffering can be your purpose. Finally, using a tragic event as a starting place for your meaning is also possible.
Logotherapy and religion should not be underestimated because they provide therapeutic benefits that the other philosophies do not. Essentially, even if you want to believe absurdism as a “correct” philosophy, I don’t think absurdism has the ability to cure alcoholism the same way the 12 step program does. This is a fact that must be considered, and not taken lightly when deciding whether to educate others on atheism and modern philosphy.
The next variation of existentialism is atheistic existentialism. This essentially states that there is no “higher” meaning, but you get to choose your own meaning. If you reach the top of the hill, go find another hill. If you are never going to reach the top of your current hill, you can go find another hill. There are many hills to climb in a single lifetime, and only you can choose the one that is right for you. Atheistic existentialism is very empowering, while not providing any recourse to those struggling with depression or milder forms social disfunction like anxiety and feelings of inadequacy. I think if you are in the top 5% of performers in your field, then this sort of philosophy comes naturally, and the entire subject of philosophy feels kind of pointless. Everything is so obvious, and others’ problems seem kind of far away.
I place this philosophy as the “default” philosophy. This is where you should start, especially when you are young. It gives you the chance to be empowered, and search for your purpose, and in the meantime make friends, find a job, and define what a family means to you.
Next, we have to deal with Nihilism. This philosophy is strongly against all of those that came before it, and states there is no meaning. The universe doesn’t care what you do, and you shouldn’t hold any childish notions that it does. At first glance, nihilism seems to only lead to apathy, but I’m not so sure. For those struggling with constant anxiety, knowing that it really doesn’t matter can possibly be a little freeing. I’ve read anecdotal stories of people sort of “giving up” and traveling to a different country, starting a new life without the moral framework of society, and feeling much better after.
The last philosophy is absurdism, which is what Camus is promoting. He says, sure we as humans yearn for meaning, but the universe does not provide meaning. These two facts when taken together are absurd. So what do you do? You choose to revolt. First, you must accept that both facts are true, and then despite those two facts being true, you choose to move forward with both passion and an ethical framework that you choose to live by.
Camus gives two stories of mythical characters that choose to live an absurdist life. The first is Don Juan. He seeks love, and women believe his earnest passion. Without too much difficulty, he falls in love with a beautiful woman and she falls in love with him. However, after a short time, he falls out of love. Then the story repeats. The second story is Sisyphus. The gods have punished him to push a boulder up a hill for eternity. With great difficulty he manages to get the boulder to the top of the hill, only to have it roll down the other side of the hill. Then the story repeats.
In both of these stories, the absurdist mindset really only exists in a small space of time--at the end of each relationship for Don Juan and while walking down the hill to start over with the same boulder for Sisyphus. The mindset is this: “I recognize that everything I have done up to this point has had no ultimate goal, but I choose to continue to passionately pursue this path over the alternatives.” Do you see it? Don Juan and Sisyphus are not letting themselves get overcome by emotions of guilt, hopelessness, or apathy. They are choosing to move forward even if the external universe will likely never provide the goal they seek. Society can label them, but the labels have no effect. All that stands in front is the work, and the passion to keep doing the work.
Ok, so taking this all together, how do we deal with the top of the hill problem? I think the answers are pretty simple at this point. The first is to set the top of the hill so high that it will never be reached. The second is to provide many hills, and let a person jump between hills at their leisure. The last and most absurd is to walk up the hill until getting to the top, choose to walk back down the same hill, and start all over.