I'll just answer briefly, because I've recently been replying about that.

would someone contemplating the purely philosophical aspect of meaninglessness of life commit suicide? Emotional, social systemic cause, insanity--all seems to be plausible, but a suicide only triggered by the meaninglessness of life, in the purely philosophical sense doesn't seem plausible. Have people committed suicide for purely this reason? — Kushal

I don't know. I hope not. It wouldn't make any sense, and would be even more absurd than the person's conception and birth ever were.

Michael Ossipoff

11 Tu
1845 UTC

Emotional, social systemic cause, insanity--all seems to be plausible, but a suicide only triggered by the meaninglessness of life, in the purely philosophical sense doesn't seem plausible. Have people committed suicide for purely this reason? — Kushal

I don't think these things are so clearly delineated from one another. They are all entangled. Ontological beliefs permeates through, and informs all other aspects of subjectivity. So an existential crisis such as the meaninglessness of life, is necessarily never detatched from one's psychic state.

Here is the full quote:

"THERE is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is
not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest— whether
or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories—comes afterwards.

These are games; one must first answer. And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of that reply, for it will precede the definitive act. These are facts the heart can feel; yet they call for careful study before they become clear to the intellect. "

Camus was pointing to the absurdity of what appears a human need to seek meaning in life, and his belief that there is none. So as he looked and found no meaning the question was why should one continue to desire to live, especially difficult lives of toil and sorrow, if there was no purpose. Why continue to push the rock up the hill?

Camus said many of us, me included, perform all kinds of philosophic suicides to reconcile this absurdity. I find purpose in a religious belief, others fine meaning if various forms of hedonism, others feel since there is no meaning, they can define their own. Camus would call all of these a type of suicide.

Camus answer was "The Absurd Hero" his hero has the ability of both fight and accept the absurdity of life and at the same time, to find meaning in the moment. I have no clue how one does that. Sisyphus, as his hero, is smiling as he pushes the rock up the hill.

The error in Camus, and the reason I would not count him as an existentialist, is that he insists that meaning is to be found.

It isn't. It is built.

Banno
4.7k
The error in Camus, and the reason I would not count him as an existentialist, is that he insists that meaning is to be found. — Banno

he didn't count himself as an existentialist either

Yep.

So philosophical, perhaps suicide would be viewed as accepting the impossibility of creating further meaning.

But then, suicide itself creates meaning - why?

But what I think is that Camus refers to actual, material suicide for most of the first part of the essay and not philosophical suicide:philosophical suicide is just finding false hopes that blinds us of the diversity of our existence. So the question still pertains if someone after realization of the absurd commits suicide solely due to that realization?

Camus said many of us, me included, perform all kinds of philosophic suicides to reconcile this absurdity. — Rank Amateur

Can we avoid these suicides (and the crux of Camus' problem) by changing one premise? - The assumption that all life is suffering. If I change that to, "life is a bit difficult and there will be some toil and sorrow but also the potential for joy", does that fix anything?

Addressing the OP, I can't see "life is absurd" as justification enough. I could be way off, but isn't most suicide more emotional than logical? Isn't one argument against a regularly armed populace the fact that people will kill themselves due to easy access when they are in a bad place emotionally? Tomorrow, suicide might not seem like such a great idea.

I agree that life is a bit absurd. But I am happy most of the time. Why would killing myself even cross my mind?

Life has no objective meaning.

What is the meaning of life having no meaning? The answer is clearly subjective. If someone decided to commit suicide because life has no objective meaning, that means they thought their subjective argument of "no objective meaning means no reason to live" was sufficient reasoning for suicide. So they've created an argument for subjective meaning being sufficient for the ultimate act while maintaining it's not good enough for everything less. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I could be way off, but isn't most suicide more emotional than logical? Isn't one argument against a regularly armed populace the fact that people will kill themselves due to easy access when they are in a bad place emotionally? Tomorrow, suicide might not seem like such a great idea.

That's the essence of the question I have posed, we don't find suicides to be committed solely due to realizing that everything is meaningless. So Camus' argument seems erroneous to me, there is no logical suicide--but his use of applying only logic to death and suicide helps him make the bigger point of existentialists providing false hopes and helps us understand the nature of an absurd life.

That's the essence of the question I have posed, we don't find suicides to be committed solely due to realizing that everything is meaningless. — Kushal

Well I am glad we agree there. Because the rest of your response caused me to do some research on existentialism; and while I THINK there is not much there of value (for perspective I am still looking for value in idealism and a few other philosophies), I now KNOW that I am unqualified to offer an opinion. I will enjoy the rest of this discussion from the bleachers :smile:

But then, suicide itself creates meaning - why? — Banno

I found this a week ago on Google Books while searching for the term sacrificium intellectus:

“From this point of departure he proceeds to his critique of the different ways of ‘philosophical suicide’, which he characterizes as so many ways of speculative evasion. All existential thinkers quoted by Camus have realized the futility of reason, all them are seen to have recourse to some transcendent entity as raison d’être: Husserl to his ‘extratemporal essences’ of innumerable phenomena, Chestov and Kierkegaard to a deity whose loftiness consists precisely of His incomprehensibility, indeed in His inconsistency, arbitrariness, inhumanity. Chestov is quoted as saying: ‘We address our-selves to God only to obtain the impossible; as to the possible, humans suffice.’ Such deity, to Camus, shows all the features of the absurd; He demands, in the old way, the sacrificium intellectus. In point of fact, it could be said that Tertullian’s credo quia absurdum has arrived, in the modern situation, at a vivo quia absurdum. ... Camus rejects the ‘philosophical suicide’; he refuses to accept any transcendent ... but seeks to remain within the pale of this world and to maintain himself on his scarce certitudes. He like-wise discards ... physical suicide, because this also, in its ultimate consequence, resolves, dissolves the absurd, implying acceptance. ‘The point is, to die irreconciled and not of one’s own accord.’” – Erich Kahler, The Tower and the Abyss (1957) (available free on Google Books).

From this, I would say that first, Banno is correct in that Camus might not have considered himself an existentialist (and Erich Kahler may agree as well), and second that (in Khaler's reading) suicide does not create meaning in Camus' mind, rather, it "resolves, dissolves the absurd, implying acceptance." Is resolution, dissolution, and acceptance the same as creating meaning?

On the other side of this however, are we talking about creating meaning for the deceased or for the living? It seems kind of absurd (irony intended) to say that meaning has been created for the deceased by the act of suicide. But perhaps meaning can be created for the living (e.g., martyrs) by suicide?

Emotional, social systemic cause, insanity--all seems to be plausible, but a suicide only triggered by the meaninglessness of life, in the purely philosophical sense doesn't seem plausible — Kushal

why wouldn't it seem plausible? here's a part of my book on philosophy that discusses why suicide could be a valid option to the meaninglessness of it all
After many years of studying, I've finally concluded my research on why some commit suicide and some don't.
If you have been privileged enough to own a PlayStation you will know that there are good games and there are bad games out there. (Of courseeee I'm degrading Call of duty.) And after a few sweet rounds of playing a game you will understand whether that game is worth sacrificing your love life to or not. If yes, you will continue to play it for many years, and if you don't like it, you will most rationally quit the game and go take a nap. Never caring what happens in the game after you're gone cause, man that game sucked.
The value of life through the eyes of some is considered to be the quality of it, just as how a bad game (Again, please think of Call of duty.) gets bad reviews and fewer people like to play it and they honestly don't care about it and will just throw the game out the window, some people consider whether they should continue breathing or not. But then again, have you ever done anything in your life that was not fun or didn't give you pleasure?

On the other side of this however, are we talking about creating meaning for the deceased or for the living? — Necuno

Meaning is never private. It must be both.