First, let me again praise Camus for seeing part of what’s needed, and let me even give some praise for his essay, The Myth of Sisyphus: it’s a creative masterpiece (even thought it’s horribly misleading). But as I wrote above: as is all too common for “artistsâ€, his analogy carried his away. In reality, the myth of Sisyphus doesn’t convey any “truthâ€, either as seen by Camus or by any cleric; instead, the Sisyphus myth is merely more propaganda propagated by parasite priests.
But more significantly, Camus became entangled in his own confusion (as do all clerics): life is not absurd and death is not the enemy! With his reasoning, Camus finds just the tiniest thread for humanity to pull itself out of the pit of despair that he labels as “absurdâ€. Consistently, he claims that the only serious philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide. But he got himself tangled in a mental knot with his own logical absurdities. Instead, in reality, life isn’t pointless; it’s the point!
Dear: to ask (as did Camus) “What’s the purpose of life?†is to tie one’s mind in a verbal knot. Nothing could be stupider than to ask what’s the purpose of living. “Purpose†can only be measured relative to life. Rocks don’t have a purpose; people do; all life does: to continue living. Asking about the purpose of life is asking about the purpose of the purpose (or the life of life)!
Further, Dear, although I certainly agree with Camus’s summary (of zero data!) that no god has ever existed, and although I certainly agree with his conclusion to say “No!†to suicide, I conclude that Camus was forced into such logical contortions, because he totally ignored a huge quantity of data that screams: death isn’t a problem, it’s a solution!
Please, Dear, if you don’t see my meaning, then I urge you to evaluate all available data about death. Then, compare your analyses not only with the stupid conclusions promoted by all clerics of the world but also with the stupid conclusions of so many philosophers, such as Camus. If you will undertake such an evaluation, then I can’t see how you can come to any conclusion except the one that’s totally obvious: all data (from ~1 billion years of experimentation – the greatest collection of data in the universe!) almost screams that death has a highly useful purpose – for life!
Dear: any human, any tree, any frog, any individual of any species has a limited life-span to promote the continuation of its species. There are limited resources to support any species, all species profit from evolving to be most fit for changing conditions, and a billion years of experimentation has revealed that it’s especially useful for any species to continuously modify its DNA code, in part to change characteristics of its host as environmental conditions change and in part to thwart attack by ever-changing parasites (such as viruses, that “learn†to “unlock†its host’s “treasures†of proteins).
As an aside, it’s valuable even for parasites to evolve, to learn new ways to unlock their host’s changing codes! I’d even add that there’s value to humans to continuously modify our ideas, to thwart the parasites known as priests. But at least until the scientific revolution, the damn parasite priests were unfortunately able to keep modifying their religions – so they could continue their parasitic existence.
But please don’t be distracted by that aside, Dear. Try to focus on the bigger picture. Please try to see that death isn’t a problem; it’s a solution – and an extremely effective and efficient solution as well.
Let me put it another way – although let me immediately insert that I want you to continue reading the rest of the paragraph (and maybe even the rest of the chapter!), so that you don’t make a logical error and choose to commit suicide! With that cautionary statement included, let me then state what’s obvious from a billion-or-so years worth of data: the major contribution most humans make to humanity is to die! Of course it’s hoped that dying isn’t the only contribution that an individual makes (I, for one, am very grateful for contributions from others such as spoons and quilts and quantum mechanics), but nonetheless, dying, alone, is a major contribution: for humanity, as for all life on earth, death isn’t a problem, it’s a solution.
[Footnote #1
Dear: If you want to explore details about how nature “figured out†(by evolution) how to rid itself of “old fogies†(such as a certain old grandfather, whose name might best be omitted – for I’m not above suggesting that it’s unwise to tempt the gods!), then be prepared to encounter controversies. For example, you might want to start by reading an article (which you can find on the internet) by George C. Williams dealing with evolution; in later chapters, I’ll show you other controversies dealing with evolution. In this chapter, however (and even in this book), I don’t want to get mired in such details – especially because I’m way out of my field of expertise! Instead, it’s enough for my purposes that Mother Nature found “the best wayâ€, through a billion-or-so years worth of experimentation, to help species survive. In economic terms, she dispenses with “old fogies†when a “cost-benefit analysis†demonstrates that benefits of their continued existence isn’t worth the cost! And if you think that there might be a lesson here for our society, in which hundred of billions of dollars per year are expended to keep old fogies alive (long after Mother Nature has given up on them), then welcome to more controversies, in a world with major social problems. In our society, surprisingly, old people who no longer pay taxes are permitted to elect representatives to vote on how tax money will be spent (a form of “representation without taxationâ€) – but then, I suppose, that’s no worse than permitting people on welfare programs to elect representatives to vote for more tax money to be allotted to welfare programs!]
And of course I admit that death is somewhat of an inconvenience for the individual – something that most people normally try to delay as long as possible – but the only thing “absurd†about death is to consider it absurd! Further, Dear, describing the human condition as absurd is only part of the absurdity promoted by Camus, an absurdity almost as ridiculous as the absurdities promoted by the clerics. Let me summarize my counter argument this way: every single human alive (and who has ever lived), as well as every other animal, every tree, every blade of grass, and even every microbe is closer to being an immortal god than even the greatest god ever depicted in the most outrageously silly myth (e.g., all the myths in all the “holy†books).
Dear: please consider the proposal that, if ever there were any immortal gods (and no evidence suggests that there ever were!), then every human who has ever lived surpasses them! To evaluate that idea, please try to establish a complete and honest summary of all relevant data. Thus, compared with the endurance of our DNA molecules, the most famous “immortal†god “lived†(and “lived†only in people’s imaginations) only for the tiniest speck of time – only for a few thousand years. In contrast, Dear, you are the host of something that has been living for approximately a thousand thousand thousand (i.e., a billion) years. Further, if humanity can gain sufficient sanity, this DNA molecule will continue to live at least as long as the sun continues (multi-billions of years more), and quite likely this DNA molecule (or its “new and improved†evolved form) will live forever – assuming, as I do, that future humans will colonize first other star systems and then other galaxies – and that the universe will never end.
[Footnote #2:
Dear: if you’ve encountered the theory that the universe is steadily increasing in size and therefore will eventually “freeze to death†or the theory that the universe will eventually stop expanding, start contracting, and end in “the Big Crunchâ€, I recommend that you don’t take such theories very seriously. On the one hand, such theories are extremely tentative (and undoubtedly will be modified or discarded), and on the other hand, such theorized eventualities are far too far in the future to be of any concern. Further, “on the third hand†(!), I have my own speculation (which I outline in Z) about the universe’s future, and it yields a much more cheerful scenario: I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s found that at the “edge of our universeâ€, new space, mass, energy, etc. are being created (out of the “nothing†that’s “outside†this universe), in the same way that what is now here was created from absolutely nothing. So there!]
If you then agree, Dear, with what I consider to be a totally obvious summary of the data – that you are the temporary host of something that has already lived for about a billion years (and, with a little luck and a little help from you and others) will continue living for at least several more billion years – then perhaps you already see why I call Camus’s ideas totally absurd: how could anyone possibly conclude that any individual’s part in this astounding process is absurd? Each one of us is a temporary host of something more immortal than the most “immortal†god!
Anyone who concludes, as does Camus, that “the human condition†is as absurd as it was for Sisyphus endlessly pushing a rock up a hill, that death is a problem rather than a solution, that “the only serious philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicideâ€, totally misses the point: an individual isn’t condemned to endlessly pushing a rock up a hill; every one of us is rewarded, is honored, is exalted… because each of us has been given the opportunity to help humanity up the hill, which almost certainly will lead humanity to the heavens. Thereby, each one of us, if only for a little while, not only is the universe “I’ing†but acts on behalf of (as the agent of, indeed as the conscious part of) the only known “immortalâ€, i.e., the DNA molecule.
If one wanted to pursue an analogy (which I don’t desire to do), then far better, far more accurate, than making an analogy of “the human condition†to that of Sisyphus, would be to see each human analogous to a god. Further, each human is not just god for a day, or a week, or a year, but for an entire lifetime. And of course it’s true that, on occasion, any one of use can become despondent that we get the chance to be this universe “I’ing†and be a host for this fabulous “life form†(we get to be god!) only for a little while, lasting only a lifetime, wishing that our little consciousness would continue. But such despondency is derived from multi-levels of confused thought.
Should you ever become despondent with “the human conditionâ€, in particular, despondent about your inevitable death, then, Dear, please:
• Recall the many advantages for the continuation of the human species if individuals have only a finite life,
• Appreciate that life of the individual is more poignant exactly because it has only a finite duration (i.e., we’d be bored to death if we didn’t die!), and
• Realize that, in fact, an individual consciousness can continue – so long as it has produced something that subsequent humans can use (from spoons to quilts to quantum mechanics!), i.e., if only we can create something of sufficient value for other humans.
Dear: neither you nor any human was ever (or will ever be) doomed to the absurd task of endlessly pushing a rock up the same hill, like Sisyphus. As I already wrote, I’m certain that the hill that humanity is climbing will lead us to the heavens. In the meantime, though, there are some pesky asteroids in the way, which maybe you would like to help eliminate, as well as some mighty pesky parasites, which maybe you would like to help eliminate – such as various viruses and all the clerics of the world!
Indeed, Sisyphus’s struggle could be interpreted entirely differently – and I think should be, given the clerics’ description of his “sin†(defying the gods). As a symbol of all humanists, as his contribution to the fight against the clerics of the world, Sisyphus heroically pushes the rock up the hill, pushes the clerics’ gods to the top of the hill, with the intent of then pushing their “rock of ages†over the cliff, smashing it on the boulders below!
And not to worry, Sisyphus, eventually we’ll succeed. As the science fiction writer Isaac Asimov answered when he was asked why he fights religion with no hope for victory:
I suspect that’s exactly what Sisyphus would have said.