Love Rules Everything

Love Rules Everything

Love rules everything. Of all the various creeds and religious formulae rampant in the world, love seems to be the most sensible… What better version of oneself is there apart from the one the person loves most? Who better to be in relationships with than the people one loves? What better way is there to spend one’s time than spending it on what they love? It seems that the answer to these questions would follow common sense, but alas, sense isn’t common.

The most sensible way to determine whether something or someone is worth your time is to ask the simple question of whether or not that particular thing or person makes you happy. If it adds to your happiness, it adds to your overall well-being. If you feel fulfilled in life, you’re more likely to be content with it. And if you’re content with the life you live, it will be worth living.

Regardless, it is best to obey the dictates of logic, and following one’s heart is exactly that. In addition to being sensible, passion-driven living has the advantage of bearing no limits. That is to say, when pursuing something that one enjoys, development never stops. As skills sharpen and mastery widens, the activity becomes second nature to the doer. It is in this way that expertise is achieved.

One also has a never-ending source of motivation; love. Struggle is integral to success in all realms of endeavour. In order to reach optimum levels of performance in one thing or another, one has to suffer. Therefore, wouldn’t it be best to battle for a cause that would make one proud and satisfied? Shedding that blood, sweat and tears all turn out to be worth it when weighed along-side the fact that the purpose for which they are being spent brings happiness. The prize carries enough weight to render all effort expended in its pursuit as valid.

This way, it is even possible to unravel the full potential that one may possess. At a Quantum level, all that human beings are is energy. All biological activity that takes place can be reduced to cellular level, at which the only movement recognizable is in terms of electrical impulses and stimuli. Each human being has inside of them an energy reserve waiting to be utilized in one way or another… In fact, we use the term ‘potential’ in reference to this energy, the same term that is used to describe the electric capacity of an object in Physics. When we use this inner flame to set our interests ablaze, it becomes easier to unleash the full force of the burn.

Hence, love is the most reliable compass to use in navigating the journey of life. The right person to be is the person you’d love to be, as that is being the real you. Your soulmate is the person that you love for being them and loves you for being you. The right thing to get paid to do is the thing you love, as you’d offer the world excellent service and in return get paid in abundance (eventually). Love rules everything.

The Myth of Sisyphus

In the first article we spoke of the founding fathers of Existentialist though, among whom was the French Nobel Prize winning author, Albert Camus. In this entry, we’ll be focusing on Camus’ angle at Existentialism, which is encapsulated in his idea of ‘the absurd’. The ‘Myth of Sisyphus’ was an old tale written by the Ancient Greek Poet Homer, Albert Camus then breathes new life into it by using it to illustrate his view of the Universe.

In the narrative, the god Sisyphus receives punishment for acquiring the secrets of the other gods. The penalty which he is sentenced to serve is rolling a large stone up a hill, only for it to roll back down it-after which he has to bring it back up again. He was set to suffer this ordeal for eternity, since he was an immortal being. It is to this story that Albert Camus appeals after having developed his idea of ‘the Absurd’ in his famed collection of essays bearing this article’s title.

The publication begins with the words:

“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.”

After which he begins to unpack his idea on what he calls ‘The Absurd’.

What Camus calls ‘The Absurd’ is his notion that there’s a conflict between the Universe as we expect it to be and the Universe as we know it. His assertion is that we seek to derive meaning, order or reasons from our Universe (which is portrayed in most ancient traditions of Philosophy and religion) but all we’re met with is disorder and chaos. This disconnect between what we wish the world was and the actual world is what Camus considers ‘The Absurd’.

After outlining this cognitive dissonance called ‘The Absurd”, Camus goes on to describe 3 reactions to it’s implication-namely that life is meaningless. One response is to place our faith in some extrinsic force to ourselves, and hope that by doing so, we’ll find meaning in an afterlife. This response is what Camus considered as ‘Philosophical Suicide’, seeing as it would free us from having to face the reality of our own mortality, and the possibility that our living experience is pointless. The other response is to commit physical suicide, and opting not to go through the rest of what life has in store for us all. Camus’ interest was in a third response to it all;  that we can accept and live in a world devoid of meaning or purpose.

So what Camus suggests is in line with the answer that many other Existentialists subscribed to, embracing the void. To connect back to the myth of Sisyphus, we see in it the representation of humanity in our daily routines of boredom and drudgery. Just like the aimless exertion in which Sisyphus is engaged (pushing the boulder uphill only for it to roll back), we see the aimless ordeal that is human existence, which only lasts for a short period and ultimately ends in death (the Absurd).

However, in order to combat the meaninglessness, Camus advocated for accepting that very meaninglessness. He reasoned that by constantly keeping the absurd in view, we could transcend it’s grasp on us and live life to the fullest. This to him seemed a more logical response than killing oneself. To put it in terms of the myth, Sisyphus could find happiness in his eternal toil-all he had to do is accept that there’s no life beyond what he was currently absorbed in. So too, Camus advises us as humans to face up against the apparent pointlessness of existence and create our own meaning within it…

Camus went so far as describing 4 examples of people who travel the ‘Absurd’ path:

• the seducer, who pursues the passions of the moment;
• the actor, who compresses the passions of hundreds of lives into a stage career;
• the conqueror, or rebel, whose political struggle focuses his energies; and
• the artist, who creates entire worlds.

Albert Camus’ perspective placed him at odds with other Existentialists of note such as Jean-Paul Sarte, but nevertheless, it remains quite thought provoking. And despite his absolute denial of any philosophical inclinations, he appears here to have been a very notable philosopher. Overall, the best lesson that can be derived from this work is that suicide is not the answer, because the void is not the end of all things-but quite literally where it all begins.

Existentialism; The Art of Life

“How should life be lived?”. This is the fundamental question at the root of the 19th Century mode of thinking referred to as ‘Existentialism’. It is a philosophy that concerns itself with answering the questions of existence, and was developed by several different thinkers grappling with the realities of ‘being’. Actually, it is more than just a complex system of ideas, rather it is a reaction to the realization that one is a living, breathing organism.

The idea of Existentialism is very interesting in it’s origins, as none of it’s founders ever used it or associated themselves with it. The two people whose works (books & essays) are considered to have been integral to the development of Existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard and Fredrich Nietzsche, both never even heard the word in their entire lifetimes. It was coined much later when thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger and Albert Camus published works dealing with life and reality under the influence of Keikegaard and Neitzche.

In their opinion, when it comes to searching for meaning and purpose in life, the individual’s personal experience was of utmost significance. This was due to the fact that they considered the Universe to be an irrational and impersonal space, that we simply exist. Out of this thought pattern resulted the idea of the ‘absurd’ condition of humanity, which can be clearly seen from the experience of life leading inevitably to death. Absurdity is a key aspect of existentialist ideology, as when we ponder the fact that as humans we persist on living our lives with very little evidence of their significance in the grand scheme of reality–were realize how absurd it is.

Nevertheless, there’s immense beauty embodied in this concept. Once one comes to terms with the absolute reality of death and aimlessness of life, they become liberated to live their lives to the fullest. Also, they reasoned that by embracing the nothingness of human experience and creating personal significance, humans find meaning to the short dream called life. It empowers the person to live freely, but even so – this comes with responsibility.

Existentialist thinkers were all very familiar with the intense anguish that comes with taking responsibility for one’s life. This is because unlike other traditional Philosophies that consisted of complicated structures of reason, Existentialism is actually a formless void.  And so, because it does not come with preset rules and regulations, it lies in the hands of the individual to create their own rules and laws–in conjunction with the life they desire to live themselves. Therein lies the burden of existence–in that it is the person’s duty to create their own life, regardless of what society tries to make of them.

Authenticity is what they called it; when a person takes responsibility for their own experience and not conforming to a predetermined model of life suggested to them by an external force (Family, School, Church etc.) In this way, we face the harsh reality of life, and our reward is that we get to be whoever we want to be-as opposed to living a lie for the sake of pleasing somebody outside oneself. As Sartre put it: “At first [Man] is nothing. Only afterward will he be something, and he himself will have made what he will be.” The human being is an artist, and their life is a blank canvas. Whether the final product is a masterpiece or not all depends on the decisions made by the artist.

Existentialism can be atheistic (dismissive of God), theistic (accommodating to God) or agnostic (clueless about God). Nietzsche proclaimed that “God is dead” and that the concept of God is a thing of the past. On the other hand, Kierkegaard was intensely religious, even if they did not feel able to prove Him. The important factor for Existentialists is the freedom of choice, whether to believe or not.