
Life often confronts us with grim realities– situations or events that don’t make sense to us and that shake us out of the everyday habits, routines, and concerns we so often mistake for life. A teenager stresses out studying all week for an exam only to choke to death on a chocolate chip cookie the night before the test. One day you walk into work only to hear that a happy go luck co-worker, a guy everyone envied, pulled over on the way home the night before, took off all of his clothes, folded them neatly onto the driver’s seat and jumped off of a bridge to his death. You drive home from dinner with the family only to find a crowd of your neighbors standing in the street watching firefighters try to keep your home of ten years from burning to the ground. Or maybe it’s as simple as eating your breakfast one morning and realizing that you’re not where you thought you’d be in life right now, you’re not entirely sure you’re happy, but you know with absolute certainty that you can no more hit the reset button and start over than you can unscramble the eggs in your plate.
These events and realizations force us to question how and even why we live. They tear away the curtain of our so called lives and expose us– if not to the world, then to ourselves. These events intrude into the dream that we mistake for our lives. Think about it. Every day you wake up. You wonder what you’ll have for breakfast. Should I just stop at Dunkin Donuts? No, I’m trying to lose some weight for the beach season. Maybe you’ll think about what’s awaiting you at work or a fight you had with your significant other the night before. Some of us might spend some time wondering what to wear to work. Does this belt match my shoes? Should I even have bought this tie? Is it really "me?" All of these things cease to matter ten minutes later when a car comes crashing across three lanes, skidding 360 degrees on a rainy parkway just twenty feet in front of you on the way to work.
Life, it appears, has a funny way of reminding us just how irrelevant our everyday lives are.
So why do we waltz through our lives as if these things matter? Why do we fill our heads with such meaningless worries and concerns and act as if they bear the utmost importance when, in reality, they have nothing to do with life? How ought we to respond to a world where our lives and expectations truly dangle on such a perilously delicate string? More importantly, what does it matter? When faced with life’s indifference to all the things and people we hold near and dear, how, then, should we live?
This question hits me right between the eyes, and as I read The Plague by Albert Camus it dawned on me that I never really considered the existential and ethical implications of living in a world where god does not exist. Fyodor Dostoyevsky once wrote"If God does not exist, then everything is permitted," and I have always felt that this is one of the toughest challenges for any atheist world view. How do we decide right and wrong? Even if we can decide, what moral authority could such a standard have when it has no other source but humanity? True, I still "know" right from wrong, but how can I convince someone otherwise intent on breaking "the rules" from going ahead and doing whatever they please? Why "should" anyone follow such rules? Haven’t we left ourselves in charge of the asylum?
Perhaps considerations of right and wrong have as little import as what color tie I wear to work. Maybe neither one matters in the end, because neither choice changes our fate or serves any purpose other than to distract us from the absurdity of life. Throughout his novel, Camus portrays how different characters respond to the cruel indifference of the plague– itself nothing more than an unconscious microbe that blindly goes about exterminating human lives. Whether the townsfolk find their solace in a church, in debauchery, or just plain burying their heads in the sand, the plague methodically continues its work. Nothing stops the plague. In fact, Camus makes it clear that the plague rested under the earth before the novel began and even lies in wait after the novel ends.
In one of the more revealing passages, Camus shows us Rambert ultimately abandoning his attempt at escape and deciding to join the corp of volunteers treating victims of the plague. Rambert and Rieux argue over his reasons for joining the corps, and Rambert gets frustrated by Rieux’s refusal to acknowledge his own rationale for staying. Rieux actually tells Rambert that he doesn’t care why he stays, and that he should simply do what he wants. As I read through their argument, it occurred to me that neither Rieux nor Tarrou ever give any reasons for doing what they do relative to the plague. Earlier in the story, Rieux asked Tarrou something about the basis for his morality and Tarrou enigmatically answers "comprehension." I remember asking myself "Comprehension of what?" When I think about that answer in the context of the argument between Rambert and Rieux, I consider that maybe Tarrou comprehends that, once we accept that life has no meaning, we have only a few choices: (1) self delusion, or (2) to simply carry on in the face of it.
You either remain caught up in your own reasons, living like your everyday habits and worries actually mean something, or admit to yourself that you have no reasons. If you do that and choose to go on living, then you accept the consequences. You have no excuses for yourself, but you are free. Everything is permitted, and you bear the burden of your own decisions without anything or anyone to hide behind. In many ways this is a very bleak and lonely way to look at the world. Part of me shrinks away from it, but part of me knows that my reaction to it doesn’t make it any less true. Whether we choose to face it or not, it’s there.
Jean Paul Sartre, a contemporary of Camus', said "Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you." Regardless of our circumstances we each have to choose the way we want to live, and with that choice comes a tremendous responsibility. Whether we like it or not, whether we accept that responsibility consciously, or simply abdicate it altogether, we bear the burden of our actions or inaction and the responsibility for whatever consequences arise.
Swim safely,
The Lifeguard


33 comments:
Tarrou also tells Rieux that "the path for attaining peace" is "the path of sympathy". Being "on the side of the victims". Being "a healer".
Ultimately, in the face of an uncaring universe - not a hostile one, but an indifferent one, which may be harder to take - all one can do is accept (in Rambert's words) that "this business is everybody's business" - that we are all in it together and our job is to make it better for everyone.
And that the fact that "victories will never be lasting" is still "no reason for giving up the struggle."
And you're right: that's hard. It may seem horrific to reconcile ourselves to suffering by claiming, as Paneloux does, that "since it was God's will, we, too, should will it", but at least there is a justification there. Getting on in the face of suffering when there is no ultimate reason for it is tougher - but which moves us to alleviate the suffering?
Much like picking what color tie or even to wear a tie, the meaning is what you assign to it. That's it. A meaningless world is not a world without meaning, it's a world that you give meaning to. I don't find that depressing at all, but rather empowering and really does make me feel more a part of the world than I think I ever could have otherwise. I much prefer an opinion like "this business is everybody's business" rather than thinking this business is none of our business and we should just sit back and relax because it's being taken care of by the CEO.
Another great post, btw. I'm beginning to really look forward to Friday's as pool day. :)
I agree with Philly that it isn't depressing, but I think it can be intimidating, particularly for those of us brought up to believe that meaning comes from the outside. To say that we assign the meaning, with no guide posts other than our own moral imagination, is a heavy responsibility, but it's also the cost of freedom. I also agree that this kind of thinking very much makes you a part of the world-- it snaps into focus and you feel really engaged.
Intimidating? So what? I see it as how people would rather nuke some frozen thing than cook a proper meal. Yeah, it might be intimidating and more work, but come on! That frozen nuked thing tastes like shit and one day it may be shown that it's toxic. Certainly the other alternative, fast food, is.
Maybe there needs to be a philosophy network like the Food Network. Each show can cook up some ethics and life lessons in a particular school of thought.
"Then you add a little meaning - BAM!"
Oh, "so what" absolutely, Philly. As a guy who took up cooking over the last year, I can say it's way better than the usual bachelor fare, but the bottom line is it takes a willingness to venture out and try-- not to mention fail. But unless you want to eat ramen noodles for the rest of your life, you have to try, right?
I like your idea for Existential Emeril. Maybe they could call it the Food For Thought Network?
Very nice post, Lifey. I understand why many people find religion comforting: it absolves them of responsibility. Such folks don't realize that no responsibility = no freedom.
I find atheism much more exciting than theism. I like creating rather than merely receiving meaning. Is atheism more challenging than theism? Of course. But it's also far more rewarding.
When I screw up, I don't have to blame God or Satan or those damned atheists for what they did to me. Instead, I can examine myself, the circumstances I'm in and decide what I can do to either fix or accept the situation. Living a life of conscious effort is far better than wasting life as a zombie.
Food For Thought Network. Very nice.
What a terrific post, and what a great comment thread. I'm with Philly: Pool Friday is definitely one of the highlights of each reading week.
I'd like to throw out a question here to Lifey and anyone else who cares to answer: Is it possible to be an atheist and not also be an existentialist?
I don't see how, unless you somehow substitute the absolute of god with another absolute, but one obviously not of your creation. Maybe one of someone else's creation could count.
I think you can be an atheist and not an existentialist, and whether or not you are has to do with where you go once you throw out god. Interestingly, existentialism rears its head regardless oh whether one believes in god or not.
For example, a Marxist might say that life DOES have a meaning, and it's called dialectical materialism. History is a giant process that builds towards the inevitable goal of universal communism. No god, but life has meaning in some sense. Then there are plenty of christian existentialists out there too. Dostoyevksy and Kierkegaard are two examples.
I do, however, think atheism demands that you grapple with existential issues, and I'm glad we read the Plague for the simple reason that it got me thinking about this stuff.
Interestingly, I was going to use another quote by Sartre where he said "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing."
Hey Lifey, Sherb here again. Sherbtastic post and comments! You’ve got some thought provoking pool guests here.
Going to what Chaplin said, “I understand why many people find religion comforting: it absolves them of responsibility. Such folks don't realize that no responsibility = no freedom.”
I think that holds true of any group, club, cult etc....Fitting in, finding comfort in conformity. Just going along with what the head honcho says is lazy and mindless and frankly not very much fun. Tie that in with PhillyChief’s great analogy regarding toxic nuked meals. Following is much easier, less intimidating and safe, you’re less likely to be ostracized. “Go to directly to hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200.” Foolish lemmings, not very Gonzo of you.
In some ways, religion isn’t for this life. You follow the word of God to either get somewhere or stay out of somewhere in the NEXT life. So then, going back to what Lifey started out saying, why do anything in this life if in the end it has no more meaning than the tie I’ve got around my neck right now? We each have the freedom to find and use our own moral compass (in 2008, why not a moral GPS?) and the freedom to let it take us wherever we want. Toss off those shackles.
“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” I hate to say it, and who am I to say it, but Dostoyevsky is wrong, Whether or not God exists, it doesn’t matter. If I choose NOT to follow the word of God, and I sure do love my ham and cheese sandwiches, then everything is permitted. So in closing, I’ll end with the same words Lifey used, “We bear the burden of our actions or inaction and the responsibility for whatever consequences arise.”
Nice work, Lifey. I keep kicking around in my head - "CAN we really expect that all of our fellow citizens would be ABLE to handle an atheistic world-view"? Again, I'm not sure I have the answer.
Sherb:
Your last paragraph goes precisely to that Sartre quote about it not mattering if god exists. Either way, we have the choice to make.
Evo:
I thought about that a lot too. Sure, in the Plague we saw some real heroism, but in the real world we have Somalia and the Sudan. Free from restraint and left to fend for themselves, many people often resort to barbarism and looting. Practically, it may not make sense. BUT, morally the question still stands. How good is someone who follows the rules only when they know someone is watching?
You know, I had something really smart to write here about atheism, existentialism, and the hopelessness of searching for the meaning of life.
But when I looked at those four beautiful young women smiling up at me from the last post, I forgot what I wanted to say.
Or maybe that was it.
Ex and anyone else similarly distracted by the Baywatch Babes:
Now that you mention it, I do recognize a certain incongruity between my last two posts.
I haven't mentioned it before, but if you read through the infamous "boobies" post again and do it carefully, you'll find the spot where I make a typographical error of Freudian proportions.
LOL! Now why didn't I see that in the first read? Hmmm...
Yep, hilarious. I guess no one noticed it because we weren't seriously discussing a book on the boobonic plague.
That was pretty funny. I had to read it twice before I finally found it.
I consider that maybe Tarrou comprehends that, once we accept that life has no meaning, we have only a few choices: (1) self delusion, or (2) to simply carry on in the face of it.
Camus' most famous quote is that "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide" (which of course precisely echoes "To be or not to be..."). Some might call that depressing to the point of nihilism, but it certainly isn't meant to be. I'd wager that Camus does not expect the answer to 'Do you want to live?' to be 'No'. Rather, if you will live, then go! Find meaning! Don't jump in by halves! That's how I see it, anyway.
More to the point, though, I wonder if Tarrou is also referring to the idea that most of us cannot comprehend suffering without feeling the impulse to alleviate it. Only by choosing not to comprehend the suffering of others can we escape that reaction.
Ext,
Nah, not all atheists are existentialists. I've been reading this introduction to existentialism that my mother left lying around. Existentialists sometimes contrast themselves with the Enlightenment view that we should aim for a better world, saying that there are fundamental ways in which the world cannot get better and we are condemned to suffer. They often criticise the idea of 'progress' as simply wrong-headed, saying that it would only lead to blandness (think 'Brave New World') where the strong meaningfulness that can be created by tragedy no longer exists. Knowing that, I'd say that Ebonmuse, for example, is most definitely not an existentialist; he's almost pure Enlightenment.
However, Ebonmuse does agree that we have to find our own meaning in the world -- that much of existentialism spreads into almost any sort of humanism, I think. On the other hand, you might be able to find Objectivists who would have a slightly different take on it.
All you guys got suckered by Lifey! Can't you smell a ploy to log more "online minutes" to his blog? Oh sure, Lifey... I'll read it 3 or 4 times!
Just tell me what the fucking line is. (Or, email me. You can let the others pile up the minutes on your blog).
Hey, did you guys catch the secret code I embedded in my Tom Cruise post? Hint: the total vowels in the 4th sentence is a clue when divided by all the words that start with the letters D and R. Give it a try. It's fun.
Lynet wrote:
"More to the point, though, I wonder if Tarrou is also referring to the idea that most of us cannot comprehend suffering without feeling the impulse to alleviate it. Only by choosing not to comprehend the suffering of others can we escape that reaction."
I hadn't really thought of that, but I couldn't agree with you more. That quote pretty much summarizes Camus' answer to the question of absurdity-- at least as I read the book.
Evo:
P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A-?
Late to the sausage party as always. Wonderful post and I applaud you for not flinching at the inevitable conclusion that life has no external meaning.
I actually went through a phase before I came to atheism where I realized that I was wasting my life doing stupid corporate stuff with no real value...result of going to Burning Man...and could not go back to it. Most people just seem to walk blindly through life without ever questioning its purpose or what they're doing with their allotted time. Not that I'm doing that much, but fuck, at least I have leisure to agonize over it all. :)
As to the question of suicide, I suppose that is the only real question. I can see where it might become an option at some point when there's no value in continuing on. In most cases, though, I tend to think it is stupid. I mean, we'll all be dead soon anyhow, why not enjoy life while we're here? Kind of like the attitude in the medieval plague times, which I gather was what Camus was saying. I've known too many people who checked out already, so don't anybody else even think about it.
I think most atheists deny or avoid thinking about the idea that "everything is permitted". I can certainly see where some people would make sick, evil choices given a world with no god. As Franklin wrote to Paine after reading The Age of Reason, "If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion, what would they be if without it?" Sometimes I worry.
That's the point I keep coming back to, Slut. Dennett was once of the opinion that he would not be quick to end religious faith were he given the omnipotence to do so. He compared it to doing your environmental impact work before clearing woodlands.
It's Friiiiiday!
It's Saaaaaaturdaaaaaaay!!!!
Sunday....
(small tear runs down side of screen).
Thus spake Phillychief:
--A meaningless world is not a world without meaning, it's a world that you give meaning to.--
While I do not always share Phillychief's world view, I thought the above statement to be very well put.
The notion that there can be no morality without God is rubbish. While I do happen to believe in God, I wince whenever I hear theists spouting this sort of nonsense.
Morality and ethics spring from the notion of a social contract between the individual and the rest of society, in which it is mutually recognized that doing harm to another is wrong, while helping another is right and desirable. Do unto others.....
One does not need a god to buy into such a social contract. If it turns out that god does exist after all, well so much the better. If god does not exist, the notion of a social contract still works just fine without god.
Just my 1.5 cents worth.
-smith
1. Kudos for agreeing with me.
2. I'd strike the "so much the better" part.
:)
At least the comments section is still SWIMMING with insights.
Regarding a rational basis of ethics:
John Rawls has an interesting social contract theory he calls "justice as fairness." He imagines a scenario of people having to come up with rules for a society where (1) they have perfect knowledge of all things about the world, society, and different classes except (2) they have no self knowledge (i.e., they don't know which social or ethnic class they will fall into. He also assumes these individuals are rationally self interested and risk averse.
According to Rawls, this group, if they had to come up with a social contract, would come up with these two rules:
a) Everyone has full civil rights and personal autonomy coextensive with the rights and privileges of others (ie, as far as the next person's nose)
and
(b) Equal distribution of wealth and resources unless if by distributing them unequally, everyone would get more than they would under the original distribution. For example, we each get one dollar. But, if by everyone giving me 25 cents I can produce an extra dollar for everyone (giving you $1.75 under the new distribution where you would get $1.00 originally), then we adopt that distribution even though I would end up with more than you do.
This, he argues, is fair, because no one knows which social class they would end up in and would have to abide by these rules in society. I'm somewhat grotesquely oversimplifying, but that's the basic idea.
Evo:
Sorry... getting busy over here and suffering from some writer's block!!
Thus spake Phillychief:
"1. Kudos for agreeing with me."
First time for everything, right? ;>)
"2. I'd strike the "so much the better" part."
Well, I hardly expected you to agree with me twice in the same day! That would indeed be a miracle. ;>)
-smith
Lifeguard:
Rawls is one of my favorite philosophers. His writing is a bit dense, but his ideas make it worthwhile to hack one's way through the brush.
And he was a heck of a soul singer in the 60's.
Post a Comment