After reading The Stranger by Albert Camus recently, it helped me to cope with some of my emotional angst. I didn't reflect (through writing) on what I read and synthesize it with my own worldview, however, and I think it's about time to do that.
Camus pioneered the idea of absurdism, not to be confused with existentialism. Existentialism suggests we create meaning in our life. Absurdism suggests there is no meaning to life at all. The next logical leap is, if there is no meaning, then why don't we kill ourselves? Camus's argument appeals to me: death makes no more logical sense than life. Therefore, we should live life, though it is absurd. (Absurdity is pithily defined by Camus as: "confrontation between human need and the unreasonable silence of the world.")
What is the purpose of living then? The Stranger seems to suggest a hedonistic, impulsive way of living. Happiness and "the moment" drive the actions of Meursault. He is also insensitive to "tragic" events, such as the death of his mother. So, by this calculation, Camus suggests that hedonism and stoicism are the best responses to an absurd life.
Stoicism has always appealed to me in concept, but I fail to practice it. The idea that you have little control over life suggests that you should only worry about what you can control. However, you cannot deny the deeply visceral. To a degree, stoicism and hedonism seem at odds to me: how can you feel happiness deeply when you deny yourself the depth of other emotions? Of course, humans are capable of feeling happy with something they have and then feeling no remorse when it is lost. But to feel the true depths of happiness with something, you develop a sense of attachment that makes stoicism almost impossible.
Upon reflection, it seems that what Camus suggests is not stoicism at all, but equivalence. When you lose something, you do not need to react stoically, because nothing has changed. Everything is equal to everything else. Whether you have a girlfriend or not...your life has not fundamentally changed. This is perfectly illustrated in two quotes from the book: when Meursault reflects that "really, nothing had changed." This is after his mother died. Most people would be grief stricken by this event, but Meursault feels ambivalent. Indeed, his mother's presence has little effect on his life. Whatever effect it might have had is easily filled with something else. Another good quote comes after Meursault's girlfriend has suggested they should get married. When he responds coolly, she suggests that marriage is important. He responds simply: "No." To get married or not to get married is equivalent.
So, though it seems Camus is suggesting hedonism and stoicism, he in fact is not a proponent for either of these worldviews. Equivalence in absurdity is not the practice of maximizing pleasure or accepting the uncontrollable. Equivalence as a response to absurdity is merely that life will continue on exactly the same regardless of what happens. We wake up, work, eat, go to sleep. Choices and events have no real impact on this absurd cycle.
Does this fit into my worldview? I think I'm too much of an emotional person for this to be the way I act all the time. However, it's something I can look to as an ideal. I believe in the basic tenets of absurdism - this life has no meaning, and our existence is literally absurd and repetitive. I think equivalence covers the same basic problem (with a different approach) as stoicism: if something outside of your control happens, it doesn't affect you. Equivalence also isn't hedonism, because that would suggest that different choices bring different levels of happiness. This makes sense as well: ultimately we have control over our own happiness. Certain choices won't bring us more happiness than others. Find happiness everywhere to combat absurdity.
