Free Will or Determinism: What Does Camus Think?

Free will is the idea that people are in control of their own behavior and their actions result from a conscious decision. The free will ideology also states past events will not implicitly influence present or future actions. Finally, free will says that we are wholly responsible for our actions.

Determinism is that idea that everyone’s course of action is predetermined. Determinism would mean that if we were to go back in time and relive what we have already experienced, no events or conditions would be altered. Conversely, determinism says if we were able to gather substantial information, we could accurately predict the future.

What does Camus think?
Albert Camus believes in a person’s ability to have free will that within what is predetermined and has a novel hypothesis about consciousness. In his essay on Sisyphus he writes, “If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious” (2). His argument says by maintaining the illusion of free will we are able to avoid tragedy. There are certain things we are fated to do; certain toils we must endure, certain successes we will have, certain journeys we will go on. But how we get from point A to point B—what music we listen to while we do our chores, what color pen we will use on the science test we are about to ace, whether to take I-290 or side streets to get downtown—is where we can exercise our freedom. The major plot points are already laid out, but we get to write in the details.

We must be careful, he implies, of getting too caught up in the things we cannot control, because by doing so we will find ourselves disheartened and stagnant. We must find where freedom hides and savor it when we do.

Don't Invalidate My Feelings

If we simply live to exist with no essence, then what's the point of life?

I take issue with the invalidation of emotions and "meanings" that we discussed in class, such as warped definitions of love, happiness, success, and justice. In existentialism, social constructs are just mirages that we use to hide our fears. I am fully aware that these constructs exist; the multitude of messages about love through media portrayals is enough evidence of its existence. Look at any of the older Disney movies and you'll find misguided and sexist definitions of love and happiness.

However, just because social constructs exist, that doesn't mean that we as humans don't experience emotions or opinions. My definition of love may be different than yours, but that doesn't alter the fact that there is an emotional response and meaning behind the word.

For example, a classmate mentioned how there is a genuine feeling of love when he's surrounded by his friends. Is his definition of love tainted or defined by external influences such as the media? Most likely. As humans, we are shaped by our experiences and environment. But, that doesn't mean that just because social constructs exist, we don't have emotion. For example, consider science. Our bodies release endorphins and oxytocin. Guess what? That makes us feel, and that makes us human. 

We are the Ants of the Universe

This past week in class, we have discussed socially created structures that give life order and meaning. Most prominently, love, family, friendship, and knowledge are at the forefront of the dominant narrative of what gives life importance. However, despite this narrative, existentialism states that all of these values are arbitrarily created by society in order to associate certain events with feelings.

What if life is all an illusion? What is all physical and mental perceptions are just creations of the mind? What if the mind does not exist at all? What if MY being does not mean anything in the grand scheme of the world?

The fact it is that all of these are probably true! Think about it: the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years. The average human lives 79 years. That means that each human lives for approximately 6x10^-7 % of the overall life of the universe. If you look at it this way, the humans are the ants of the universe. When humans pass an ant on the street, they often step on it or fail to notice it at all. Ants appear to be completely arbitrary in the general order of the earth. They neither contribute nor take away from the day to day operations of humans. They just exist.

I can't speak about the complexities of the brain because I am not a neurological scientist, but I can speak to what feelings I have as a human. Whether these feelings are constructs or not does not particularly matter to me because they make me feel like I matter. If the social constructs of society such as love, family, friends, and knowledge went away, humans would reconstruct new systems because it is human nature to organize and categorize. If it wasn't, then the current social constructs would not exist. Therefore, the discussion of existentialism is more about being capable of having human feelings. These feelings are what make humans human. These feelings are what make us feel bigger than the ants we really are.

Needs Vs. Wants

After reading Peter Singer's, Solution to World Poverty, I felt guilty. It was insane to see how ridiculous the scenarios he wrote about and how they apply to everyone in our society. While there are people like us who live in a wonderful town and are somewhat privileged, their are people around the world who do not get to experience the same lifestyle as us. Singer's argument really struck with me because he focused on the fact that the privileged people in our society need to be giving back to the community and helping the less fortunate rather than turning a blind eye to world hunger and poverty. While Singer's argument hit me with guilt, I believe that some of his argument is valid and the other part is incorrect.

In his article, Singer believes that people with excess money that are being spent on items that they do not necessarily need should instead be given to help end poverty and world hunger. I think that Singer is right in everybody should be giving money to various organizations in order to help end these problems in our country. If the privileged people in society continue to not realize the importance of donating to this cause, the world will experience and even greater economic and social gap. People will continue to be hungry, without a place to stay, and without the proper care to survive. If people continue to not donate and help solve these issues then more and more people will die each day because another family wanted to buy a lake house or a new car.

With all this being said, there are some points to Singer's argument that I do not agree with. While I believe that everybody should be giving a portion of their money to help end world hunger, I believe that people also have the right to spend some their money on things that they want because they have earned the right to do that. People have earned the right purchase that new car or buy that bigger TV because they worked hard for it. If people had to give all of their excess money to help these world issues, then people would not work as hard and care less about their job. I also believe that when people are giving their money to these issues, there money should be used in a way that gives them the most "bang for their buck". Their money should be spent in a way that helps the most amount of people possible.

While Singer's argument is convincing and fills you with guilt, you have to look at the whole picture. Yes, everybody should be giving some of their money to help end world hunger and poverty but it should not be all of their money. It is also very hard to make everybody give some of their money. Their will always be people who will not want to give any of their money away and it would be very hard to create some sort of law where you have to give money to these charities.

Only When You Let It Go

The song, "Let Her Go" by Passenger is a song that I have listened to throughout high school and I believe that it can be regarded as poetry. This song is one of my favorite songs and one that I constantly go back and listen to when I am feeling down or want to get away. The songs central idea is that you never really understand how much you actually have until it is gone. People in society tend to take a lot of things for granted and they begin to desire these things only when they are lost. In particular, the song "Let Her Go' references a man who lost his love and he doesn't know this until it is to late to get her back. Right off the bat in the chorus of the song, it says,

Only know you love her when you let her go
And you let her go...

These two lines by Passenger are both very multidimensional. On a literal level, he is simply letting go of his true love and they are going their separate ways. By this, he means that once he has let her go and lost her, he will realize the love that they shared and the great times they had together. This line could also mean that by letting go of her, he is beginning to trust her and she is becoming more independant. Once he is able to trust his love enough to the point where she is free, he sees the true love that they have both shared together. This line can either represent a man losing a girl and regretting it or a man letting a girl go free and realizing all the great times that they had together. Later on in the second stanza of the song, he says

Staring at the bottom of your glass
Hoping one day you will make a dream last
But dreams come slow and they go so fast

On a literal level, these lines serve as imagery. They put you into this person shoes staring down a glass in despair. You also can only see the bottom of a glass once your drink is gone which shows that this man is reminiscing about his girl in a depressed state of mind. To me, these lines seem very gloomy and dark leading me to believe that this man is probably drinking alcohol in a bar, alone. Many people in today's society have drinking problems and use alcohol as a way to escape their feelings. The last line is a metaphor because he is saying that dreams come and go as if they are actual physical things coming and going. In reality, dream are all in your mind and something that only come and go if you let them. Later on in that same stanza, he says,

Maybe one day you will understand why
Everything you touch surely dies

First off, when I heard him sing this part of the song for the first time, I was like wow. These lines really show the depression and sadness going on in the head of this man who has lost his one true love. On a deeper level, they represent how scary a relationships is because everybody fears that not matter how much effort and time they put into a relationship, it will eventually fail. I think that this happens to everybody and it isn't just with relationships, it can be with your grades, work, family. It might now be right after but at some point later on you will wish that you had never done that. Lastly, this happens to everybody in society and this is why I think that this song is very powerful. No matter how you try to succeed in life, there will always be a point in your life when you are disappointed and regret making a decision. Towards the end of the song, he says,

Staring at the ceiling in the dark
Same old empty feeling in your heart
Cause love comes so slow and it goes so fast

On a literal level, this part of the song represents someone who is empty inside with a dark feeling in their heart going through a breakup and struggling to get through it. It also represents not knowing how good you have it or understanding that you do have something great until is escapes you. I think the last line represents everything, not just love, in society. When you are having a great time and in love, you are enjoying it and not thinking about anything else, but when it goes away you are left feeling like it happened to fast to even contemplate.

"Let Her Go" by Passenger doesn't just talk about relationships and how you only miss someone until they are gone. The central idea of taking things for granted and not caring about them until they are gone can be applied to every aspect of your life. In sports, schools, and vacations you will never truly understand how much you miss it until it is gone. There is no way to cope with this because no matter how hard to try to soak in every moment, you will be upset once it has left you for good.

Can You Be A True Existentialist?

An existentialist is someone who is a free and responsible person that determines their own development through their decisions and actions. Existentialism is another theory that determines a way of life. As with every theory, society will be pushing back constantly. Our society uses family, education, religion, friends, etc. to cope with existentialism and block it out. All of these aspects of life are used to shape conformity and create a life that can block out existentialism. These aspects make people go to school or stay with their family when in reality that is not needed at all. To be a true existentialist, you must be able to shut out all of these aspects of life and live life as a true individual shaping your own path. This begs the questions if someone can ever be a true existentialist.

Being a existentialist means that you have to block out everything from life and do everything individually. If we go by these terms then no one can ever be a true existentialist from birth to death. While you are a kid you will always have someone caring for you and making decisions for you because you do not have the intellectual ability to make them for yourself. The only true way to be an existentialist is to live alone, away from society, and forever in isolation. While this may seem doable it is almost impossible for someone to raise themselves from birth. In our society, you need someone caring for you or else you might starve to death or die of dehydration. While you can become an existentialist later on in life, you still can never be a true existentialist. One cannot ignore the early years of life when you were apart of the various distractions that help shape conformity. You can only be a true existentialist to an extent because their will always be a part of your life when you are not an individual and not making your own decisions. Going back to Jessica Benjamin's Bonds of Love, she talks about mutual recognition which is in order to be an individual you must recognize others when someone is recognizing you simultaneously. If we take this into consideration when determining whether someone can be a true existentialist, then the answer is no. One who exists among others cannot be independant and an existentialist.

Meursault considers himself to be an existentialist. He shut out his family, does not show emotion when being faced with death and love, and he shut everyone else out. He makes decisions as they come to him with no real path in life and no life goals. He is someone who is not afraid of death and realizes that death is inevitable. While one could argue that Meursault is as close to a true existentialist that one can get, he will never be a true existentialist. If we interpret an existentialist by the definition of an existentialist, then it is virtually impossible to be someone who shuts out life completely.

The Absurd Myth of Sisyphus

     The central idea of The Myth of Sisyphus is what Camus refers to as "the absurd". Facing the absurd of caring the rock up the hill over and over again is struggling with it, Camus claims. He also claims, the absurd can not be avoided and you can not make peace with it, and if you do then it is an attempt to escape from it. Instead by living with the absurd, Camus suggests, is a matter of maintaining constant awareness of it. Sisyphus is the ideal absurd hero to Camus because his situation is typical to the human condition. The human condition of struggling consistently without hope of success. As long as Sisyphus contains awareness and accepts that there is nothing more to life then his absurd struggle then he can find happiness in it, I suppose he is trying to say. Camus describes, "There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night"(20). Which in turn means there is no happiness without the struggle of absurdness. Sisyphus must know the absurd struggle of pushing the rock up the hill before he knows the happiness of actually achieving his goal of getting it up there. As relating back to humans we must live a life of struggle before we can live a life of happiness.
     If I am understanding what Camus is trying to say correctly then I supposed I do agree with what he is saying. Humans work everyday at the same task and their fate is no less absurd than Sisyphus. Everyday when we get up to start a new day it's like Sisyphus walking down to push the rock up the hill again. It's the same struggle of getting out of bed everyday and going to school or work but as long as we are aware of it and embrace the struggle then we can find some happiness in it. We can look forward to an end goal that is worth all the struggle. My coach is always telling me you have to be ready to eat a pain sandwich or sometimes you have to be willing to bite the bullet. Because in the end or through it all you will find some happiness in it, as Camus suggests. I suppose that you could have happiness without struggle but I doubt there are many humans like that.
   

Juno It's Funny!

The romantic comedy Juno does an amazing job mixing the hardships of teenage years and the comedy those years bring. The film is about Juno, a sixteen year-old junior in high school living in Minnesota who discovers she is pregnant with her best friend Bleeker's baby. Although this film covers a hard topic such as adoption, abortion, and teen-pregnancy, it sometimes keeps a light heartened, funny tone. The main character, Juno keeps a very sarcastic dialogue throughout the entire film, making her character not seem pathetic but charming and goofy. Juno's relationship with Bleeker also encompasses any awkward, suburban high-school type relationship that the viewer cringes watching, but also keeps a smile on your face. The whole movie uses witty dialogue to help the viewer stay upbeat through the hard times of the movie, like when Juno is contemplating abortion or when the father who is trying to adopt Juno's baby tries to make a pass at her.

By keeping a light tone but hitting somewhat controversial topics, the movie accurately portrays how it is important in life to have a sense of humor and optimism. Even when Juno tells her parents that she is pregnant, of course they were disappointed, but they also were very calm and still able to crack jokes. In life, I think it is important to take life as it comes and not to get so down when something doesn't go your way. As the common phrase goes, "When life gives you lemons, make lemonade!" Juno uses comedy to help the viewer grasp the dramatic, heavy topics and keep the mood endearing and light. Although Juno and Bleeker don't necessarily get married at the end, they do end up together and this ending makes sense more because of the modern setting and the ages of the characters. Although this movie doesn't follow the strict boundaries of a dramatic comedy where the characters experience a change for the better and work things out with the hope for the future, the change that Juno experiences helps her become a more complex, understanding person in the future. The change, or becoming pregnant, isn't necessarily a change for the "better", but I think the movie shows that life will go on and in the end, Juno found her happiness from the experience of being pregnant. Overall, I think the film promotes hope and optimism from coping with the turns life may give you.

Run For the Hills! And No, You Can't Bring Rover

My problem with existentialism is that it seems incredibly isolation-inducing. It calls us to essentially abandon everything we've ever known, call B.S. on it all and make the active decision to "take the leap" towards awareness and hope we land somewhere with our body still in tact (though hope, an existentialist would say, implies a presupposed sequence of events and that, of course, is defective and therefore we should simply leap). To this I say: "Ok. I'm with ya. I'm following. I'm alright with that - I can accept that I am part of a system and that alone is reason to question things."
 However, I am not 'ok' with being perpetually alone. What if the ones around me whom I love don't choose to also disconnect? My grandma very much believes in God and the goodness in humility and quiet, hard work. She believes in heaven and the afterlife and the miracles of Jesus - am I being called to turn my back on her and wish her the best in her 'futile' existence? That is not something I am comfortable doing. What about my baby cousin? She has had absolutely no control over anything in her life thus far, but inherently she contributes to the system she was born into. I am supposed to allow her to grow into her own person without external help because any of that would contaminate and predispose her existence in society? Well, I can't picture a parent bringing a child into the world and then deciding to "let em figure it out". Perhaps those parents out to attempt to raise that child in a existentialist setting where they could form a family system-denying fight squad, something akin to "The Incredibles" with a stark twist. But then, what if young Friedrich Wilhelm feels oppressed by the system that has been created by denying the ultimate system? Is he now obligated to distance himself from that world as well simply because within it he has a specific life layout (that is derived by objecting to the conventional life layout, but nonetheless)? When and where does the cycle end?

I have trouble seeing existentialism's answer to the natural human need for community. And, truly I would love for someone to provide me with the answers to these questions. I want to like existentialism but I need to (as I'm sure most of us do) investigate its strength from all angles before that happens.

Maybe I Just Like the Color Purple

In modern day America, we are constantly surrounded by the ¨systems¨ that our English class has recently deemed fake. If I turn on the radio at any point, there is a very large chance that the song that is playing relates to love, family, religion, or friendship. While we have been taught that these subjects are the "essence" of life by society, the newly introduced topic of existentialism discusses the fact that humans use said values to cover up the inevitable suffering in our daily lives. And, if by chance the music does not revolve around one of those topics, but death or pain instead, it is most likely the artist's intention to make such pain and sadness easier by writing and performing musical pieces.

So, if I am to completely agree with Camus for a second and ponder the fact that I will only be truly happy once I come to terms with the fact that the only event that will occur in my life for certain is death, I will still find myself being unhappy. "Impossible!" Camus would say. However, I think quite the opposite. Sure, pain and suffering is inevitable and coming to terms with that horrific statement may make it a bit easier, but that does not mean that I cannot believe in love or surround myself by what I consider to be my family and friends! It does not at all mean that I simply go to temple to further cover up the sadness that is bound to invade my life at some point or another, nor does it mean I can't go on an adventure with the sole purpose of exploring the world around me. 

Think about this, all you Camus followers. And, I'm not at all trying to criticize you or say that I do not see your point of view, because I honestly do. But, Camus focuses on the idea that we must break away from society and have our own beliefs. We should not keep our hair long or cut it short just because we have to fit the gender standards that society has subconsciously assigned. You may even consider that I only like the color purple because it is a very common feminine color of interest and I am just following in the footsteps of the important female figures in front of me. Whose to say I don't like the color purple because I just like it? Not because of anyone else's influence or gender norms, but because I discovered the color one day and thought, "hey, this color is for me!" ?

I highly agree with the fact that society has implicated very strong standards, whether it be gender or racially based. I also think, however, that it is very hard to be an individual with different opinions and beliefs from everyone else. At some point, we come together to agree that certain things are better than others. So why say that it is wrong to come to such a consensus? I do think that it is important to be unique and an individual, but at the same time, I personally never could have gotten to this point without the support and love from people in my life, nor do I think I would be any happier if I did. And while those people have had great influences on my life, I still feel as though I am living my own life, not just one that society has created.  

Transcending the Human Dependency on Suffering: Keepin’ it 100 with Death

When asked about the true essence to life, many of us immediately think about our families, friends, and doing the things that make us who we are and who we strive to become.

So you can imagine, then, the indignation that might erupt when told that none of that really exists.

In yesterday’s discussion, we as a class entertained the idea that the things we consider to be fundamental truths of life are nothing more than myths we use to cope with the randomness and explainable nature of suffering and death. These supposed myths, which included everything from love to religion, are very clearly bonded to our human emotions, and dismissing them as illusions used to compensate for anguish resulted in an understandable amount of disagreement.

But before dismissing this theory, allow us to take a step back and consider it in a different light. Lives are finite. Whether or not we choose to accept our own mortality and our guaranteed suffering as a fundamental truth of life is a different situation. Once we accept these things as truths, we can better analyze these things that we consider to be the “true” essences of life and see them for what they really are.

To say that the things we hold dear are simply distractions from the pain we all inevitably encounter is not necessarily a bad thing. It does not imply that the things that make us who we are do not matter at all; the fact that pleasure exists in a world where natural tragedy goes unexplained is a testament to this. We as humans can choose to make light of negative situations, just like we can choose to accept our own mortality and suffering.

Think of a funeral; some cultures view it as a time of mourning while other cultures use it as a time to celebrate the full life of a loved one. This is an apt analogy for this exercise. The sooner we choose to wholeheartedly accept what we consider meaning to be a distraction from pain, the sooner we can aptly appreciate what makes us who we are.