Posted on February 12, 2026.
"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."
— Albert Camus on The Myth of Sisyphus[1]
Historically, philosophers have declared a certain field of philosophy as first philosophy, the most fundamental area which the rest of philosophy leans on. For example, Aristotle proposed that metaphysics was first philosophy, it is thought to have been ethics for Plato, Descartes decided it was epistemology, Russell appealed to logic, and Husserl pointed at phenomenology.[2] With a shift in matter over time, even aesthetics has been presented as a first philosophy.[3] Then, we can infer that Camus, preoccupied with suicide as the fundamental question, refers to existentialism as his first philosophy.
At first sight, existentialism seems to concern only a limited scope of philosophical inquiry. Much narrower than metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics, it centers squarely on the human's existence and the meaning of one's life. However, Camus has not argued for or against this asymmetry, has not preferred a systematic progression in his philosophical work, nor has he taken the title "philosopher" despite his overt engagement with other philosophers.[4] Likewise, his metaphilosophical priority on existentialism appears nowhere further implied from the first few pages of The Myth of Sisyphus.
On behalf of Camus, we shall justify existentialism as first philosophy. Any philosophical inquiry presupposes a value on the action of asking questions, the truth, and the answer. This value roughly extends to how valuable it is to live or to continue living in the first place, which stands in relation to the meaning of life. If there is no meaning of life, existentialism as first philosophy asks, "What is the point of philosophy? / What is the point of what there is? / What is the point of reaching the truth?"
Instead of dying by suicide, why does the philosopher pursue the truth? Can the philosopher find the meaning of her life, which would justify, and perhaps shape, her pursuit in return? Realizing that one's state of aliveness precedes any action one takes, the meaning of life must have a fond connection with the positive value of sustaining this state. Then, we can both assume a fundamental basis for existentialism and spot a bridge between existentialism and value theory. One mission is to make this supposed bridge more intelligible by approaching the definition of the meaning of life in our own terms, the Camusian philosophy of the Absurd, and some practical and ethical implications.
Until now, you have seen Camus being represented as an existentialist, and this is, of course, a controversial classification. Existentialism has been mostly associated with Sartre's philosophy, which has been criticized by Camus, and according to Sartre, existentialism was a heavily misused term, often adopted by non-philosophers during his time.[5] This context might partially explain why Camus has refused the "existentialist" label. On the other hand, it is no surprise that we see him listed among Sartre, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, and Nietzsche under the existentialism umbrella on many occasions.[6][7]
In this essay, existentialism refers only to the scope of philosophical views that center on the human's existence, the meaning of life, the absurd condition, and suicide. Absurdism, while most directly associated with Camus, is considered here as a part of existentialist thought. Further, both existentialism and absurdism are positioned as presuming existential nihilism, that there is no objective meaning of life, but as presenting additional views in response to the nihilism.
Spotting out the various contexts in which a specific word ("meaning") is used, we can better understand our reactions toward a phrase where the word is paired with a particular object ("the meaning of life").
It appears to be one challenge to define what a meaning is, as meaning and definition are often treated as synonyms. For example, the definition and the meaning of a specific word often await the same answers that describe that word. However, when we refer to "the meaning of life," it appears to be a different case: we are not searching for what differentiates living things from non-living things, nor any kind of description. The question is not "What is life?"
Another usage of meaning appears in predication to a specific work of art. In this case, the meaning of an artwork translates to the message that the artist has aimed to picture, represent, and communicate. On the other hand, this meaning can refer to a viewer's subjective interpretation of an artwork regardless of the intentions of the artist. In both cases, we observe a particular objective or desire to understand an intended message: "What does the artist aim to communicate? / What can I understand from this artwork?" When we apply this sense to the meaning of life, meaning becomes equivalent to what life tries to communicate and what one can understand from life.
With Aristotelian mimesis in mind, that art imitates life, an analogy between an artwork and life seems plausible. The meaning of the artwork can be construed in two ways: (1) the meaning prescribed by the artist and (2) the meaning originating from the viewer. Borrowing from existentialist terminology, the meaning of life hints at a similar distinction: (1) an objective meaning of life and (2) a subjective meaning prescribed to life.
In the first senses, the artist sets a message to be perceived, like the creator of life defines a purpose; the viewer extracts that message, like the human behaves in accordance with the given purpose. In the second senses, the artist is less relevant, like there exists no creator, or the viewer is the creator; the viewer sets the meaning or extracts it depending on herself and perhaps defines the purpose of her life. On the surface, the latter part of this analogy approximates Sartrean existentialism: even if there exists a God to provide an objective purpose, it is the human that interprets it according to her essence and eventually defines her own purpose.
Confronting the validity of this analogy, we must realize that an artwork and life pose some mismatches. The artwork is external, interpretable, static, and bounded in a specific space and time. It is with the mental process of interpretation that we extract a meaning from an artwork. Life, defined in relation to a specific human, is internal, unpredictable, dynamic, lasts from birth to death, and whether it takes any space is debatable. Then, the question is, "How can one extract the meaning of life through interpretation, like life was an artwork?"
For an artwork, interpretation is an intentional process to discover a symbol: an indirect reference inside the artwork towards a particular event inside the scope of life. Instead of outright saying sadness, the artwork pictures a rainy cloud, and we arrive at this conclusion through interpretation. The interpretation of life, however, differs from that of an artwork. What comes to mind is when we make claims between seemingly unrelated things. For example, the translation of a person's body language to their feelings is a process of interpretation; likewise, language could be seen as an interpretation relation from sounds to perceived objects.
However, it is a failure to interpret life itself without self-reference because the scope of life contains these three significant agents: the viewer, the artwork, and the mind that interprets. In fact, when we talk about the meaning of life, the focus rests on the totality of life and not its specific part, even if this supposed meaning might extend there. In interpreting life and its totality, one fails to figure out what message is behind their life because such an interpretation lacks a previous or external point of reference, in comparison to the vast amount of known relations between non-identical figures. Hence, interpretation can only target a particular part of life and connect it to another.
From a different perspective, all interpretations are processes of reasoning. For example, behind the interpretation of an artwork's figure towards a specific emotion in human experience resides a connective reasoning between two things, marked by a pattern of resemblance, presuppositions about the nature of art, and intuition. A self-reference in reasoning is arguably fallacious or, at least, seems insufficient. Hence, interpretation is possible only after the emergence of life and established only in the scope of life.
Finally, we can define the meaning of life as the message that the totality of life communicates to a person. Camus, in a literary way, has made the following definition: "the literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself."[1] Without a message, the person feels a lack of worth in their existence; hence, we spot a connection between reason and value. Even the struggle to define the meaning of life hints at the proneness of this framing to the emergence of the Absurd.
Camus frames the Absurd as the contradiction between the human mind that seeks meaning and the universe that does not provide a meaning in response. In our framework of interpretation, the Absurd emerges between the attempt at interpretation and the failure to interpret life, e.g. to connect its continuance with an external, more fundamental object. According to Kierkegaard, a belief without the basis of reason is a leap of faith.[8] In our definition, a leap of faith occurs when the reference object of life's interpretation is God or a created meaning inside life. Camus has framed both options as philosophical suicide.
When one equates the meaning of life to a supernatural deity, they assume an intention of the said deity, and every interpreted objective of life remains possible only in the scope of life. Likely, one believes that God commands them not to die by suicide. The meaning of life is then set to a self-reference: "You should live because you should not die." However, the act of sustaining life cannot precede the emergence of life. Hence, God's discouragement of suicide is a faulty reference point.
When one equates the meaning of life to a personal reason, the case is similar: they assign a part of life to the reference object of the totality of life. A personal reason is unable to precede the emergence of life, and its substance can only refer to the scope of life. For this reason, Sartrean existentialism falls short in that even the forming essence or the lived purpose of a person is nothing more than a representation of her life that she has sustained so far. In fact, this creation invokes no change in one's mindset other than a mere realization of how they have already been living.
In the framework of interpretation, we observe that the nihilistic stance makes no truthful attempt at the interpretation of life. It falls short to claim that Camus assigns "revolting the Absurd" or "living in spite of the meaninglessness" as the new meaning of life because the Absurd cannot emerge before the emergence of life. Only if Camus had claimed to provide a meaning of life would he suffer from a faulty reference point in interpretation. Instead, he has flat out rejected the existence or an otherwise creation of a meaning. Hence, his suggestion, that we live with the awareness of the Absurd without its defeat, is consistent.
Further, every attempt at assigning a meaning to life that is a human-oriented motive is a futile one. Some answers to the meaning of life, without self-reference, could include the biological evolution of organisms and the process of fertilization. However, neither of these answers satisfy the question on whether one should continue living or not; they hardly communicate a message to the human's desire to live in harmony with the meaning of life. Like the meaning of an artwork, she expects an emotional, aesthetic reason for her existence. In any escape remains the Absurd.
When a person hears the notion of existential nihilism, it is not an oddness that she perceives a wave of despair. "If there is no meaning of life, then why should I do anything at all?" she rightly questions. Relying on this perception, we can see that a human seeks a definite purpose behind her actions and traces this purpose forward off the meaning of life. Hence, one senses that existential nihilism leads to a passive mode of life.
To craft a definition, a purpose is a desired outcome of an action. This desire responds to the lack of certain conditions in the present or imagined future, what the purpose seeks to compensate for. From another perspective, we can frame this purpose as the reason behind an action. When one proposes a reason, it precedes the emergence of its target object and elucidates what exactly has led to such an emergence. For example, the reason behind "2 + 1 = 3" is that "2 is equivalent to 1 + 1," and "1 + 1 + 1" is, by definition, "3." Hence, even when the statement that "2 + 1 = 3" is completely absent, we achieve it by following certain suppositions at the time of its absence.
On the other hand, the purpose of life invites a perceived scene of unknowability. To hold a desired outcome of life is to define both the nature of death and a contribution to a broader cause that transcends the totality of life while sustaining life. When one extends a purpose of life to the purpose of a specific action, they dwell on a faulty reference point of interpretation. Further, the great cause is now both internal and external to the totality of life. Many events pass along causal patterns, but the emergence of life does not pass a reason that matches human activity. Below builds the argument behind the said perception:
However, if nothing matters, nor does the existence of a purpose behind an action; doing X is equally worthless to not doing X. Hence, existential nihilism implies not necessarily a passive attitude but a striking divorce of acting from purpose. Camus's philosophy, only through this reasoning, can suggest a constant, active revolt against the meaninglessness of life. In our definition, a purpose implies a state of desire leading to an action, and it is roughly equivalent to what Camus has framed as hope.
One important distinction is that a purpose carries a consciously desired context, so its absence does not necessarily mean that there is no causality behind any action; possible reasons include emotional states and reflexive wirings of the body. It seems inconsistent, however, to distinguish the specific desire behind a purpose from the rest of those emotional states.
Then, we cannot deny that a purpose often drives our actions, and the absurdist stance is that we questioningly create a power over what determines this purpose, e.g. its usefulness or rationality, and that we stay in the awareness that every purpose is eventually fallible due to the inherent lack of purpose of life. When Camus envisions Sisyphus as happy, it is possible that he sets a temporary purpose towards life as achieving happiness. One is free, though, to embrace the purposeless actions.
Following this total destruction of value, foundational and active questions like, "Why should one satisfy their hunger? / Why should one be moral? / Why should one seek happiness?" extend to their negatives: "Why should one not satisfy their hunger? / Why should one not be moral? / Why should one not seek happiness?" It is a surprising realization that one can refuse their vital instincts, up to a specific extent, and that normative claims aiming for their ordinary progression become questionable.
Further, the idea of purposefulness parallels moral values in that both prescribe the execution status of an action. On the surface, a good action implies that the action should be taken, like a purposeful one, and a bad action implies that the action should not be taken, like a purposeless one. However, this resemblance is insufficient to say that all purposeful actions are good and that all purposeless actions are bad. After all, there exist "good" and "bad" purposes, as a purpose differs from a moral value with its diverse nature of options (e.g. morals are good and bad, vs. purposes include to feed myself, to help others, to feel better). On the other hand, it sounds intuitively true that a good and purposeful action is better than a good and purposeless action. For the absurd living, moral values are a part of the question on what determines one's actions.
Deciphering the outcome of the absurd living, that is, a situational purpose if desired, we know that Camus has framed Sisyphus as happy. It is debatable whether this choice was arbitrarily reporting a consequence or actually representing an objective towards happiness, but the latter intention is not improbable. The Absurd can be painful, hence we attempt to escape it. Mentioning that Sisyphus is happy despite the meaninglessness, Camus might have demonstrated the human's longing chase for happiness.
Given that emotional states like happiness are a driving force of our actions, regardless of any layer of purposefulness, ethical hedonism is a possible appeal for the absurd living. Deontology, on the contrary, seems to fixate on definitive rules, embracing a grand, unquestioned purpose to itself. Finally, the absurd condition shakes the ground of moral values, but it requires neither their pursuit nor abandonment.
In this essay, we battled existentialism as first philosophy, inspired by Camusian absurdism. We held that when one proposes a philosophical inquiry, they presuppose a value to this act of questioning. We addressed that meaning, when applied to life, caused a definitional error and led to the emergence of the Absurd. When confronted with the absent meaning of life, we struck a perceptive discussion: "Does existential nihilism entail that we stay passive?" Overall, we merged some of our conclusions with Camusian absurdism.
One could say that the interpretation framework is rather detached from the practical substance of existentialist thought. After all, I see this approach as one explanation of how one's mind reacts to existentialist concerns or the mere encounter of the Absurd in daily life. Whether one reaches it by a coincidental realization or an outsider prompt, the meaning of life is a complex issue for two primary reasons: (1) it gains an emotional weight by interrogating the necessity of meanings and purposes in a routine where one has been chasing after such for the rest of their life, and (2) the word meaning carries semantic traces from its contextual usages in one's past experiences and eventually clashes with the totality of life.
The human desire for interpretation, to pursue a meaning or a purpose, is pervasive. In this essay or the rest of philosophy, we run after our thirst for answers and clarity from a universe that never offers such. Our questions only become multiplied in return. Is it not absurd to question the Absurd?