January 26, 2020
What Is Philosophical Suicide?
As a notion, suicide is riddled with ideological baggage. Forbidden by most religions and snubbed by societal norms, the concept of self-annihilation often stirs emotions. On a more subtle level, this ought to be the case for philosophical suicide.
Alas, it isn’t. Ironically enough, as we’ll see, the reasons are related (at least indirectly) to the very dogmatism informing physical suicide.
But what is philosophical suicide?
Very briefly, philosophical suicide is an essentially ad-hoc attempt to explain away the inconsistency between the human desire for existential purpose and the apparent lack of such a purpose.
The term is heavily related to the concept of the absurd as described by Albert Camus. Therefore, in order to define philosophical suicide (also described by Camus), we must first take a quick look at the absurd.
From the Absurd to Philosophical Suicide
Briefly, the absurd here refers to the (effectively unbridgeable) gap between the human desire for meaning and inherent valueFor a detailed look at the concepts of meaning and inherent value, see my post on nihilism versus fatalism and the apparent lack of both meaning and inherent value.
Hence, in this framework, philosophical suicide is a leap of faith that attempts to bridge this gap.
Any religious, spiritual, transcendental (I’m tempted to squeeze in the word “quantum” in there) idea that explains away the unpleasant inconsistency, is an act of philosophical suicide.
Possible Solutions to the Absurd
Camus – as I understand him at least – saw three possible options to attempt an escape from existential absurdity.
- physical suicide. If life has no inherent meaning and one cannot accommodate one’s desire to find it, ending one’s own life is one possible option. Parenthetically, Camus rejected this not for moral or other similar reasons, but as an option that doesn’t resolve the predicament.
- philosophical suicide. This is what I described above. If one sees no apparent meaning in the universe, they can choose to believe that there still is such a meaning, only it is inaccessible to human rational thought. Kierkegaard often features as a poster boy for this kind of cop-out.
- accepting the absurd. For Camus, this is the only viable solution. It’s the acceptance of this unbridgeable inconsistency, continuing to live in a state of maximized (intellectual) freedom.
In his The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus uses the mythological hero as an example of conquering absurdity. According to Camus, when Sisyphus realizes the absurdity of his condition, he reaches a certain state of freedom and contentment. One, says Camus, should even consider Sisyphus to be happy – though for an… alternative view of what Sisyphus might have thought of Camus, see the relevant episode of the excellent Existential Comics series!
Overall, Camus seems to suggest a kind of paradoxical solution: freedom predicated on the lack of choices, and a state of being imposed on the individual. This is conceptually a hard pill to swallow, but there is merit in such a line of thought.
Why Is Philosophical Suicide so Attractive?
Of course, this question assumes it’s attractive. But if we examined the sociocultural reality around us, we would have to admit the fact. Indeed, examining our environment we would not only see that the assumption is true, but we’d also discover why it is true.
How many people do you personally know who prefer a comforting lie rather than an unpleasant truth? Moreover, how many people do you know who become so desperate in finding a cause that they literally invent one instead of confessing ignorance?
Our world is replete with people craving for answers, preferably simple ones. As a species, we also seem to suffer from delusions of being special and unique.
Philosophical Suicide and the Decline of Writing
Even in art (and writing in particular), the quality of texts surrounding us seems to be declining, with less and less symbolism and abstraction and more and more linearity and explicitness.
What’s that got to do with philosophical suicide, you might ask. And so, I answer: in that people seem less and less comfortable with the apparent literary absurdityAlthough I’m deploying the concept of the absurd here as a parallel, the allegory is not a strong one. The key difference from Camus’s existential absurd is that, in a literary context, the gap between desiring all the answers and not having them is, on the one hand, far less unbridgeable, and, on the other, far more likely to be a conscious authorial choice, rather than an inherent property of the system, like existential absurdity. In simpler terms, complaining about a novel not answering all the questions often says more about the reader than the novel. of not having all the answers. Negative capability, in other words.
Can We Accept the Absurd as the most Viable Option?
Just as it happened earlier, this question also contains an assumption. This time, however, the assumption is false – which effectively renders the question a loaded one.
The assumption is that “we” is a valid subject for the verb “accept”. In other words, the question assumes that all of us have an equal responsibility (in lieu of a better term) to embrace the absurd as the most viable option.
If… we were intellectually honest, we would have to admit that Camus’s argumentation is philosophically solid. That is, it’s argued efficiently – at least within its systemIf you’re interested in the philosophy of logic, you might find parallels with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Kurt Gödel formulated these theorems in the context of the philosophy of mathematics, but other branches have since attempted to adopt them. In very broad terms, Gödel suggested that a system is either incomplete or inconsistent – that is, any system complex enough will always entail a proposition that is unprovable within the system., with all its epistemological and metaphysical limitations (in a sense, what we know and what we are).
The problem is, just because an option is (arguably) the most philosophically solid, this doesn’t entail it’s the most viable. To put it simply, if we here defined “viable” as the option allowing one to continue living – as if nothing had happened, in a way – then accepting the absurd is out of the question for a vast majority of people – for reasons I showed earlier.
A Conflict between Knowing and Acting on It
Knowing – to be a precursor of true freedom, intellectual freedom – entails acting on this knowledge. Otherwise, acquiring knowledge and remaining unchanged becomes little more than a pointless hobby.
That’s what most people struggle with. And that’s the reason philosophical suicide – and sometimes actual suicide – seems like the only escape from the absurd.
16 Comments
Comments are closed for posts older than 90 days
Very important topic, Chris and, as usual, very well written. Concise, full of insight. Especially the following line: “How many people do you personally know who prefer a comforting lie rather than an unpleasant truth? Moreover, how many people do you know who become so desperate in finding a cause that they literally invent one instead of confessing ignorance?” Answer: almost without exception, everyone I have ever met. (I married the exception).
One thing, though, can be added, or even deserves a separate blog of its own: The definition of ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ is missing here. People talk about both as if it was obvious, but it isn’t. Do these words imply an external, or an internal purpose?
Religious people obviously define it as external. What’s left for the rest of us?
One dictionary definition: “When you do something with purpose, you do it with determination. When your activities have a purpose, you have an aim or intention in mind. This noun also has a third meaning: function, role, or use.” Can we apply this to one individual lifespan? I did, when I was 18 when I, naively, defined the purpose of my life: life itself. I know it’s circular, but the only way I could define “function, role, or use.” What else can I use my life for, other than living it?
Thanks for your very interesting comments, Francis. You’re absolutely right regarding the definition of meaning/purpose. As mentioned in a footnote, some more explanations/elaboration can be found in my post on nihilism: https://blog.homeforfiction.com/2019/07/28/the-difference-between-nihilism-and-fatalism/
Still, as you aptly mention, it would require a post of its own for a proper analysis.
P.S. I was replying to your earlier message just when I saw your later one. Quite a coincidence 🙂
PS. I have just read your other article about “The Difference between Nihilism and Fatalism” – and I see you have defined “Metaphysical meaning” already. My apologies.
Hi Chris, I’m very happy to have found your blog. And while not a big fan of blogging, I will frequent this spot regularly. Why? Because you don’t believe in a why. And I can’t have that. I also enjoy philosophical debate. I’ve degrees in epistemology and linguistics. I respect your philosophical beliefs, but they are epistemologically unsound, they are not only unjustified, they are unwarranted. Gettier turns in his grave. I’m looking forward to a friendly debate between two peers.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “you don’t believe in a why”, but whether you can or can’t have that is not something you can control – what a different world we’d live in indeed, if we could control thought so easily!
As for my philosophical beliefs, I’m not entirely comfortable with either term, really, (“philosophical” or “beliefs”), because both come with heavy baggage. Still, I’m willing to accept the terms, though they might mean different things to different people. As for respecting them, I think it’s a really bad idea to respect something you consider epistemologically unsound, unjustified, and unwarranted. Parenthetically, as someone with degrees in epistemology and linguistics, feel free to explain the difference between unsound, unjustified, and unwarranted, as I’m only familiar with the middle term. After all, knowledge is justified true belief — although indeed Gettier would perhaps disagree (in his grave or not) regarding this (I really like his campus clock example).
Since you commented on this post, I assume your issue is with what is presented here — in which case you apparently disagree with Camus, since much of the post is based on his views. In any case, it would be fruitful to elaborate on the matter (that is, even if your comments referred to another post).
By the way, a friendly conversation is not only fine but encouraged; however, I’m not interested in debating — and apparently we’re not peers, since you have degrees in epistemology and linguistics, neither of which is quite my area of expertise — though, ironically enough, I’m called a Doctor of Philosophy 😀
Interests me most how even Aristotle fell for the trap of inherent meaning. But the way he fell is what matters most: via teleological purpose. Expecting some things to be inherently aiming for a target is untenable after biological evolution and psychoanalysis. But accepting chaos is such a difficult task! I mean, accepting the absurd and only then moving towards a meaning one chooses to believe in, that is something completely else, it is affirmative nihilism. Meaning is lacking? I will fabricate me some, then. Making that out of an authentic decision is quite the Sisyphean journey – I mean, the spiral staircase, we move, but it seems we’re back at the same place.
On topic suggestion: After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, by Quentin Meillassoux. Basically proves that we can only be sure we cannot be sure of anything. Which is fine by me, always liked me some dadaism, haha!
“Meaning is lacking? I will fabricate me some, then”. This reminded me of the old adage, “The meaning of life is a life with meaning”.
I’m not familiar with Meillassoux, I’ll have to check it out. Sounds interesting, like anything having to do with skepticism. Parenthetically – and certainly ironically – I’m sometimes skeptic about skepticism too. For example, I can’t accept suspending judgment as a philosophically valid thesis. Sure, Descartes was right – maybe life is nothing but an illusion created by a demon. But there’s no point altering our life patterns based on this premise, since there isn’t (and apparently can’t be) any evidence.
The most typical such example – I even wrote a post about it – is agnosticism. I’m personally an atheist, I do get theists (as in, I can see where they’re coming from), but I’m puzzled by agnosticism.
I think atheism and agnosticism answer different questions. On the one hand there is the affirmation or negation of ontological question (existence of metaphysical reality). Then there is the affirmation or negation of epistemological access to knowledge amounting to asserting if it exists or not (gnosis as in knowing, process of acquiring knowledge). So even if one cannot justify one’s faith in supernatural realities, one can still hold it: agnostic theism.
I’d place myself somewhere between the more-empiricist-than-Hume’s-empiricism Buddhist position and the Aristotelian traditions of the past (especially the Greek and then the Muslim that inherited it through their golden age/our medieval times). But then again I like me some deconstruction, foucaultian analysis and so on and so forth. That’s the entangling benefit of being educated with a wealth of literary figures rather than the arid logicisms of philosophical discourse. (I was strongly tempted to write “pretentious philosophical discourse” but did not so out of sheer respect for the few authors categorized as such that I enjoy reading).
Well, I mean, Kant made judgement the fundamental aspect of thought, so you’ve just applied some Kant right there. Meillassoux is kind of responding to consequences of Kantian thought, so I strongly recommend After Finitude, that book changed me for good. I mean, it was a step forward going from Plato’s undefined eidos to Kant’s deployment of judgements, but I couldn’t care less, for they all relied on metaphors and never really defined what the heck a metaphor is, I mean, defining strongly, according to logic. Circular definitions there were plenty, but then they just prove the absolute precedence, necessity and loveliness of metaphorical writing. (Derrida discusses it in Margins of Philosophy.)
I just like phenomenological arguments were taken seriously during the Aristotelian period (basically classical Greek thought until renaissance, quite a stretch of time). A good read on this topic is Emanuele Coccia’s Sensible Life: A Micro-ontology of the Image (but better translated as Micro-Ontology what the Sensible as in that which affects our senses).
I think your argument that atheism and agnosticism answer different questions is one of the most intriguing approaches I’ve come across. You make a good case regarding ontology vs epistemology. One footnote (off the top of my head, without thinking deeply about it), is to which extent we can keep the two neatly separated.
In this context, agnostic theism as you describe it makes much more sense – even approaching what Camus describes (somewhat harshly, perhaps) as philosophical suicide. I wonder whether we could say the same about agnostic atheism. I think that’s where most of my objections/puzzlement lies.
I mean, if we take it to be an affirmation, than agnostic atheism is just not being able to prove ultimately, but asserting firmly that there is no metaphysical reality. You catch my drift, right? “There is no supernatural, but we can’t assess all the reasons why, for we lack the techniques and for people believe in it and beliefs plays a fundamental role in shaping collective understanding etc.”.
I mean, playing the epistemontological trick was Kant’s move. And I like the infinite surplus of meaning it provides, but then again other theories provide me it whilst avoiding some issues it brings otherwise. So, yeah.
So much to say, but I’ll try to be brief for the sake of my own sanity. Plus, football is on: The problem with most old-timey European philosophers (as I call them lately) is that 99% of the time their arguments only work in an vacuum; real people in the real word just do not act in the impractical manner of philosophical ideals. The behavior of humans is quite messy and as such have to be practical about their approach to life and any meaning they attach to it. I’m not condoning such behavior, but philosophical suicide is the only way most people can go on living being that I would argue most people (sorry for the continual generalizations) don’t have the tools to navigate The Uncomfortable Truth (This is well addressed in Mark Manson’s book “Everything is F*cked.”) Even for us ‘thinking folk’, there needn’t be some unbridgeable gap; there needn’t be any inherent value to life or living beyond living things being programed to get their genes into the next generation. So what if there is no inherent meaning, why is this so difficult even for some atheists? One can give their life any meaning they want (and yes, ‘meaning’ should be defined for the sake of argument as another commented). Having the freedom to give oneself meaning is, to me, a far more attractive alternative that leaps of faith. I guess I’m arguing for Camus, but with caveats.
You certainly make a good point, one with important repercussions. I do agree that for most people such musings are beyond the realm of everyday possibility (either for reasons of need and practicality, as you suggested, or purely as a result of conceptual deficit; I no longer take for granted the ability of people to think)
Having said that, I think philosophers through the centuries have generally been aware of their describing ideal frameworks. Few of them were in a position to put in practical use their ideas – Diogenes being an interesting exception.
Thanks for your well-thought comment! 🙂
The one comment I have fully enjoyed from all this line of them. No time to expand now (being at work and writing from phone both bad options for me), but just a quick congratulations on the article, blog, and general vibe of the whole thing (not just this article). There is high need of intelectual minds these days, where everythings tends to become more and more simplified, and there is high need those minds would put their knowledge to action. Well done.
Many thanks for your comment and kind words!
adrianfox.org
I AM A STRANGE BEING, I ONCE WAS A PUBLISHED POET CREATIVE WRITING TUTOR THEN I TOOK A STROKE LOST ALL MEMORY DONT EVEN REMEMBER MY SONS BEING BORN , MARRIAGE NOTHING. FOR TWENTY YEARS IVE BEEN LOCKED INTO A TWENTY FOUR HOUR LOOP NO PAST,FUTURE . FEEL LIKE EMIL CIRON,CAMUS, NIETZSCHE N.I.HILIST. AS MARGUIRETTE DUMAS SAID ON HER STUDY OF MELONCHOLY: ‘WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A HOLE AT THE BOTTOM OF HOLE YOU REALIZE ONLY WRITING CAN SAVE YOU. I ATTEMPTED
SUICIDE TWICE, HAVE APHANTASIA, S.D.A.M AND A BROKEN MIND. ALL LONG TERM MEMORY WIPED CLEAN
WRITE A BLOG ON REPITIVE REPEAT, I KNOW ILL NEVER GET THERE IWAS THERE IN A PORTAL OF POETRY.
MY LIFE IS PHILOSOPHICAL SUICIDE. POETRY LIKE SUNSHINE IS FREE.
Many thanks for your comment.