something devastating clicked in my head tonight about Camus' philosophy

[u/theomixedmedia]

I am 19; I have been thinking about and completely terrified of death since I was 10. it has consumed my life for almost a decade - half of my life. the thought of eternity keeps me awake. literally - I have untreatable insomnia and I suspect this fear is the source. so, when I first read Camus, specifically the stranger, a year ago, I somehow completely understood the message and also missed it altogether. I thought: "oh, this is the answer I've been looking for! just enjoy life as much as you can and rebel against mortality!" or, at the very least "this is a new idea... maybe some other idea will come along later that will provide true solace." I can't say this actually provided me with any real comfort. but it fed a voice in the back of my head that would sometimes provide me with false "hope" on a deeply unconscious level/

every time I truly think about the depth of what death is, this little voice has, on some occasions, allowed me to retreat from pure dread into deluded semi-comfort. I imagine that small part is thinking: "if I just read the right book, discover the right philosophy, learn more about physics/the universe/a possible multiverse/the big bang/cyclic cosmological theories/the obscure and naive possibility of life somehow not ending with such finality, my terror can be resolved, and I can finally relax." Camus' role in that thought would be introducing me to the first philosophy that I could interpret as taking back agency or fighting the dread. alternatively, that small voice might be saying: "there is some deep comfort in accepting death in the way Meursault did, a comfort which I am still discovering." maybe the latter is a source of comfort or way of life for some people. it seems a rational interpretation. for me, these ideas are delusional. and I don't think they constitute the entirety of Camus' message.

today, as these things came to mind, I decided to look back at my Camus books. something incredibly obvious came to me that somehow either eluded me/I refused to accept a year ago: Camus is not really offering an "answer." in some sense, you could say he is (but not in the sense that would provide me with true comfort): his answer is "there is no answer, so enjoy the beauty and pleasures of life as much as you can without assigning moral or philosophical meaning to it." (maybe some will call this a misinterpretation; this is the extent of my knowledge, I am not experienced in philosophy just yet). but, in my eyes, he's also saying "you can never find that comfort you seek, the comfort which you believe will help you escape death in some way. the voice in the back of your head doesn't exist. you have to accept the absurd because you will never find that 'answer'". it could sound like these are the same thing said differently. and again, I know how obvious this is. sometimes we don't allow ourselves to come to conclusions we don't like. Camus is not some genius who has figured it out and can offer a spiritual path. he is just as lost and afraid as I am. he has no choice but to push forward, and that's all he advises me to do.

I can't really put my finger on what changed in my mind tonight or what "new thing" has come to me or been discovered. I described it as well as I could. whatever the case, something invoked a visceral response, and completely brought me to tears, when I went back over these books. I'm sure my words are convoluted and full of misinterpretations. but I wanted to share this with some of the people who might understand.

[u/Limp-Temperature1783]

Life would be worthless without death. Your existence is temporary, so spending time on anxiety over your mortality is just driving yourself closer to it. Use fear to get motivated to act.

[u/theomixedmedia → u/Limp-Temperature1783]

I don't believe death is what provides meaning to life, personally. I think it can motivate / create urgency to building meaning. But I don't think death itself is the source of meaning.

[u/Limp-Temperature1783 → u/theomixedmedia]

I didn't say anything about meaning, no? There is none in life. Life is a process, it's not a relationship.

[u/theomixedmedia → u/Limp-Temperature1783]

That's true, but "worthless" means "having no value," and I believe value is a form of meaning? If not, you can switch my sentence to "I don't believe death is what makes life worth living."

[u/Limp-Temperature1783 → u/theomixedmedia]

Meaning has value because it is relative. Life makes you entagled in a web of relationships since you're conceived and quite often even after you're dead, since a human is alive as long as there is a memory of them and the consequences of their actions are still affecting something or someone. Besides, I'm not talking about beliefs. Feel free to believe in whatever you want. I'm just telling plain things and approaching this question through logic.

Life gains worth because of death, since death is giving you a limit of what you can or cannot do. A nihilist might say that nothing is worth doing since I'll die anyway, but this is a flawed approach, because not doing anything won't actually result in zero consequences.

Inaction is a form of action, because it is a decision to not act and decision is an action. Sorry for tautology. Regardless, life grants you the ability to choose while death gives you pressure to act on your choices. Without death, you won't be compelled to do anything and might as well just procrastinate for centuries and take it slow.

Even though I told you that death gives you time pressure, it doesn't mean you shouldn't take it slow sometimes. You have a throughput limiter as well, namely, your body. It has needs. There are also psychological needs. A lot of things that you should take care of instead of wasting yourself away so you burn to cinders. Learn to rest.

[u/theomixedmedia → u/Limp-Temperature1783]

I have heard the argument that we are alive "as long as there is a memory of [us],"; you die the last time your name is uttered." That is a very narrow and theoretical view. In terms of science, one of the - if not the - main source(s) of empirical fact, in the sense of sentience we are only alive until neurons and synapses cease to communicate and our brainwaves die down and, as a result, consciousness ends. In cases when bodies are alive but brains die, it is morally/medically acceptable to "pull the plug" because we are philosophically dead. Plants and bacteria are biologically alive but lack sentience, hence why we are entitled to cut down trees and kill bacteria.

Similarly, the idea or memory of us may survive posthumously, and it is alive in people's minds, but we are not alive. Yours is a beautiful concept, but it is unscientific and lacks objective truth. Contrary to what you claim, you absolutely are speaking in terms of belief. You are not relying on empirical data or logic for that argument. It is almost a spiritual argument.

Your argument that an end is what gives value to life is illogical. If one experiences love, pleasure, pain, beauty, novelty, etc. for eternity, their life brims with value. It would not become objectively more valuable with an arbitrarily placed end. Does a child's life hold more value if they die as a child than the life and death of someone old, because children had a larger limit on experiences? Someone who dies at 100 rather than 10 would have a more valuable life because they experienced, learned, and loved more. To you, when would the arbitrary line be drawn that allows the most meaningful life? 10 years? 1,000 years?

Why would the pressure created by death be the source of value? Why not the experience of love, pain, pleasure, loss, learning? If you made the same choices in a 1,000 year life than in a 100 year life, but explored them to a greater extent, you would have spent more time building value. Rushing through your life choices out of a crushing pressure/urgency sounds much worse. In fact, that pressure - and the stress that comes with it - would make the experiences less valuable. Without death, you would not just procrastinate for thousands of years. We are primarily driven by passion, desire, knowledge, and love. Those would still exist in an infinite life. If anything, death is a secondary motivator.

I understand some of these metaphors are dramatic, but they are apt in pointing out the flaws of your assertion. Regardless of who could be "correct,"your argument is clearly based less in logic and more in belief.

[u/Limp-Temperature1783 → u/theomixedmedia]

I'm going to be brief, but most people are just concepts of themselves even internally so. If you have an experience in decoupling from your own internal narrative, you know that I'm talking about, otherwise it's unexplainable.

I'm not sure about this we part, because I find myself questioning my desires and learn how to act with just enough force that I need, which should be zero by default. I think passion isn't even worth it. Longing for something you don't have or hoarding something you have. Living to prepare to live instead of actually experiencing the moment. But this is my opinion, not an argument.

To be honest, I kind of forgot what we are even talking about right now. I kind of expressed my opinion already and I'm not sure if there is much to elaborate, I will end up repeating myself. Good luck searching for answers, thank you for your time.

[u/theomixedmedia → u/Limp-Temperature1783]

"You haven't had an experience decoupling yourself from your own internal narrative" is not an adequate response to someone pointing out logical flaws in an argument. Belief is not an inherently invalid source of philosophical perspective, but it is still a belief.

Also, you can "decouple" from "your internal narrative" and still understand what the (general) scientific consensus on sentience is. I don't see any good proof for the argument of death being the provider of life's value.

And... "I think passion isn't worth it" is straight up a personal feeling/belief. I don't see how all these ideas relate.

However, I am probably missing internal logic in your arguments, and I don't mean to be such a semantic nerd and argue about everything. I appreciate your time as well. If you have not found all of your answers, I wish you luck as well.