Is life worth living? Albert Camus says this question is of paramount importance and must be answered daily to justify one's existence. So when does life stop being worth living? Is it when the source of pain overcomes any remnants of pleasure we might draw from a ridiculously absurd existence?
Let's highlight several manifestations of that seemingly bizarre concept 'absurdity'. We call something 'absurd' when it does not make sense, when we cannot find any logic or rationale. In other words, that which we ultimately do not understand, we label 'absurd'. Another manifestation of absurdity is when we feel we've lost agency over life. When we no longer have control over our own lives or our own actions (in whatever context), we express our frustrations through the concept of absurdity. If something's absurd, we don't understand it and we cannot affect it. We feel separated from our proper setting; we are alienated in the very world we live in.
What happens then when we label life as absurd? We lost its meaning and we no longer feel we can change anything. Thus, an absurd life starts to become not worth living. One must note that this does not mean we ever found meaning in life - it's quite possible we never posed this question until the day we perceived the melancholic tediousness of existence. Initially that numb pain simply debilitated us until that feeling became so unbearable that we had to search for its roots. And in doing so collided with absurdity face-on. So how does one proceed in the face of absurdity?
There are generally two types of people: one type divest themselves from all responsibility because they find it unbearably heavy and thus, find masochistic pleasure in throwing their hands in the air and blaming the universe for their ailments. This is how totalitarian regimes prosper - they eliminate people's will and self-dignity; they convince them another entity ('the state') will take care of them (and thus take away their agency), that their lives are outside of their circle of influence and belong to a higher power. When there's no bread on the table, they feel cheated, wronged and take sick pleasure in their suffering because it is easier to blame someone for the lack of bread than to go out there and get more bread, ie to regain one's agency.
Interestingly (or not), the church has a similar function, but approaches it differently - it gives people limited agency and promises great rewards if they make good use of that limited agency. The church appeases people: every time they face absurdity, it tells them 'mysterious are the ways of God' and convinces them that there's a reason which cannot always be perceived by the mortal mind. Thus, that first type of people, they face absurdity, but have a mechanism for coping with it - they are able to reconcile themselves with their relinquished agency.
The second type of people think differently and understand life differently. They believe in its intrinsic value, whether from a humanistic standpoint - a priori life is beautiful and we must relish it, or from an existentialist standpoint - existence precedes essence, we give it meaning through our proper actions. In both cases, these people keep their agency, and in fact, protect it with their... lives.
So then it is that second type of people who, when faced with absurdity, question the meaning of life. For if they believe they have agency and that shaping one's life in a way of one's choosing brings the ultimate value, then when they see that they've lost agency, they can only wonder whether life is worth living. That said, it would be an oversimplification to deduce (on behalf of that second type of people) that lack of agency automatically culminates in the conviction that life is not worth living.
Here are two examples of how people can respond to that ultimate question. William Wallace could not support not to have agency, ie not to be a free man from the tyranny of the English and ultimately, died for his beliefs. Galileo on the other hand, rejected his own theories that the earth revolves around the sun once his life was threatened. Did he lose his agency by doing that? Did he undermine the value of existence? Well, that's a question for a different conversation...
So how do we approach the question 'is life worth living' on a daily basis? Let's start at the beginning. Man is first given a life framework - given to him by his family, by society, by circumstances until he is able to emancipate himself and define his own morality. This liberation starts him on his proper path to living his own life (and not someone else's). He establishes his proper values and his proper goals which ultimately stem from those values. Man's values are his life compass - they determine his course. Sticking to one's values brings peace and philosophical tranquility, and fulfilling one's goals bring happiness which is the currency of life. The more you accumulate, the richer your life becomes.
The sentence "oh, I am so happy!" is, ultimately, a confirmation of one's proper value. It stems from the mystic harmony between one's values on a conceptual level and their manifestation in real life through daily actions. We celebrate life by exercising our agency to act in full accordance with our values. So in responding to the question 'is life worth living', what we are really responding to is 'are we able to celebrate life by staying true to our life compass?' And we have to ask ourselves that question every day, and even more so, when we face absurdity, ie when we (seem to) lose agency. Ultimately, I argue that while the heart is still beating, one can never fully lose one's agency. Why? Because the basic, universal value of love (for others, for life, for oneself), and love is the philosophical and emotional affirmation of one's existence, can be expressed in the simplest form - through the act of breathing.
Let's highlight several manifestations of that seemingly bizarre concept 'absurdity'. We call something 'absurd' when it does not make sense, when we cannot find any logic or rationale. In other words, that which we ultimately do not understand, we label 'absurd'. Another manifestation of absurdity is when we feel we've lost agency over life. When we no longer have control over our own lives or our own actions (in whatever context), we express our frustrations through the concept of absurdity. If something's absurd, we don't understand it and we cannot affect it. We feel separated from our proper setting; we are alienated in the very world we live in.
What happens then when we label life as absurd? We lost its meaning and we no longer feel we can change anything. Thus, an absurd life starts to become not worth living. One must note that this does not mean we ever found meaning in life - it's quite possible we never posed this question until the day we perceived the melancholic tediousness of existence. Initially that numb pain simply debilitated us until that feeling became so unbearable that we had to search for its roots. And in doing so collided with absurdity face-on. So how does one proceed in the face of absurdity?
There are generally two types of people: one type divest themselves from all responsibility because they find it unbearably heavy and thus, find masochistic pleasure in throwing their hands in the air and blaming the universe for their ailments. This is how totalitarian regimes prosper - they eliminate people's will and self-dignity; they convince them another entity ('the state') will take care of them (and thus take away their agency), that their lives are outside of their circle of influence and belong to a higher power. When there's no bread on the table, they feel cheated, wronged and take sick pleasure in their suffering because it is easier to blame someone for the lack of bread than to go out there and get more bread, ie to regain one's agency.
Interestingly (or not), the church has a similar function, but approaches it differently - it gives people limited agency and promises great rewards if they make good use of that limited agency. The church appeases people: every time they face absurdity, it tells them 'mysterious are the ways of God' and convinces them that there's a reason which cannot always be perceived by the mortal mind. Thus, that first type of people, they face absurdity, but have a mechanism for coping with it - they are able to reconcile themselves with their relinquished agency.
The second type of people think differently and understand life differently. They believe in its intrinsic value, whether from a humanistic standpoint - a priori life is beautiful and we must relish it, or from an existentialist standpoint - existence precedes essence, we give it meaning through our proper actions. In both cases, these people keep their agency, and in fact, protect it with their... lives.
So then it is that second type of people who, when faced with absurdity, question the meaning of life. For if they believe they have agency and that shaping one's life in a way of one's choosing brings the ultimate value, then when they see that they've lost agency, they can only wonder whether life is worth living. That said, it would be an oversimplification to deduce (on behalf of that second type of people) that lack of agency automatically culminates in the conviction that life is not worth living.
Here are two examples of how people can respond to that ultimate question. William Wallace could not support not to have agency, ie not to be a free man from the tyranny of the English and ultimately, died for his beliefs. Galileo on the other hand, rejected his own theories that the earth revolves around the sun once his life was threatened. Did he lose his agency by doing that? Did he undermine the value of existence? Well, that's a question for a different conversation...
So how do we approach the question 'is life worth living' on a daily basis? Let's start at the beginning. Man is first given a life framework - given to him by his family, by society, by circumstances until he is able to emancipate himself and define his own morality. This liberation starts him on his proper path to living his own life (and not someone else's). He establishes his proper values and his proper goals which ultimately stem from those values. Man's values are his life compass - they determine his course. Sticking to one's values brings peace and philosophical tranquility, and fulfilling one's goals bring happiness which is the currency of life. The more you accumulate, the richer your life becomes.
The sentence "oh, I am so happy!" is, ultimately, a confirmation of one's proper value. It stems from the mystic harmony between one's values on a conceptual level and their manifestation in real life through daily actions. We celebrate life by exercising our agency to act in full accordance with our values. So in responding to the question 'is life worth living', what we are really responding to is 'are we able to celebrate life by staying true to our life compass?' And we have to ask ourselves that question every day, and even more so, when we face absurdity, ie when we (seem to) lose agency. Ultimately, I argue that while the heart is still beating, one can never fully lose one's agency. Why? Because the basic, universal value of love (for others, for life, for oneself), and love is the philosophical and emotional affirmation of one's existence, can be expressed in the simplest form - through the act of breathing.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please feel free to share your thoughts and feedback.