Optimistic Absurdism

Optimistic Absurdism

By Anthony David Vernon

Imagine Don Juan pushing Sisyphus' boulder. Would he be happy? 

Take Don Juan away from his galavanting and give him the fate of Sisyphus, would his life still be one of wild abandonment? Yes! 

There are two formative figures of Absurdism: Albert Camus and Emil Cioran. Both have condemned all of mankind to a Sisyphean fate. Absurdism seems like quite a cynical philosophy,  yet cynicism does not need to be inherently tied to Absurdism. The blueprint towards optimism in Absurdism is found in Camus' very understanding of Don Juan. 

In simplest terms, Absurdism is an agnosticism toward the meaning of life—an agnosticism where mankind will be ever unable to find the meaning of life, if a meaning of life even exists at all. If any man makes meaning for himself, this is, at best, bad faith (to borrow from Sartre), and at worst, philosophical suicide. Any meaning in life we latch onto is done to avoid the fact of the absurd; that life may or may not be meaningless, but no matter. We cannot find the meaning of life. 

To many, this position may come off grim. A world where we are all condemned to exist, ever unable to know the meaning of why we exist. All are condemned to this same fate, be it  Sisyphus or Don Juan.

Amid this, one must ask: is it worth living at all? 

One can only go about philosophy—or anything at all—if they continue to choose to exist.  Thus, choosing to continue one's life is the only real philosophical question, because all else, including philosophy, follows from this choice. The only thing of real importance is if we carry on, if we keep pushing Sisyphus' boulder. 

We must now imagine that Don Juan has already always been pushing Sisyphus' boulder! 

But is the Absurdist picture truly a condemnation, or a liberation? How strange that Camus picked such opposing figures as the two main subjects of his philosophy, Don Juan and Sisyphus.  It is almost as if Camus could not decide for himself if his own philosophy was condemning or liberating, and due to his own difficult life, was inclined toward the former. If Camus had a differing disposition, could not a philosophy have formulated that we are condemned to aimlessly galavant, like Don Juan? Are we not all already aimlessly galavanting in a sense, projected from project to project? 

Don Juan could easily look at his aimless circumstances as unfortunate. Instead, Don Juan is already happy, no happiness needs to be imagined. The two formulators of Absurdism were grim in their outlook and thus looked at Sisyphus' and even Don Juan's circumstances as unfortunate.  But we do not know if Sisyphus was already happily pushing his boulder, why do we need to imagine or fain happiness upon Sisyphus? Can one not revel in the prospect that they cannot find life's meaning? 

The Absurdist is correct in that there can be misery in searching for the meaning of life, but can one also not search with optimism? This is what Sisyphus does: find joy in the potential meaninglessness. It is perhaps, then, not the case that Camus and Cioran are not cynical at all, but merely misunderstood optimists because they found joy in the lowest of circumstances. 

Despair has its heights and Sisyphus cracks a smile. 

So we are liberated, in that there is always some joy in the pointless search for life's meaning, no matter our conditions! Through Camus' and Cioran's own work, an Optimistic Absurdism can be developed.