A chat with a robot about The Myth of Sisyphus

Why did I start talking to chatGPT about The Myth of Sisyphus? First, I found the book in an old home we rented through Airbnb. Generations of single families had occupied the house, which was now being rented for extra income to elderly family member living in a house on the same property. The books were everything from Stalin and History of The USSR to Emily Dickinson and Hemmingway. It is a classic East Coast home, a classic liberal arts reading list that seems to have stopped being added to around maybe the 1980s. 

I don't know much about philosophy, but I sometimes pick up a book and rattle my brain for a second. I saw a copy of The Myth of Sisyphus sitting on a bookshelf as if it hadn’t been touched in years. The book looked well-worn, probably from the 70s. It was a pocket version of an essay I’d heard of but had never read. It looked like it wanted someone to read it and needed a home, and that home happened to be in my pocket. So I tucked it away as we were leaving the house. Sorry, Joan, I don’t think you’ll miss this. 

When I got home, I started reading, and I quickly started asking chatGPT questions. 

The following is a snippet of our conversation.

"Camus says don't kill yourself?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, Albert Camus, in his philosophical work The Myth of Sisyphus, addresses the question of suicide as a fundamental issue of human existence. Camus argues that life is inherently absurd, meaning there is no inherent meaning or purpose to life. However, rather than leading to despair and suicide, Camus suggests that we should confront this absurdity by living life to its fullest, embracing its lack of meaning, and finding personal meaning and joy despite the absurdity. In essence, his answer to the question "Should I kill myself?" is a resounding "No." Instead, we should rebel against the absurdity by choosing to live and create our own purpose.

You said:

Because its in rebellion of the absurd to live, but in rebellion to what? Just the concept of the absurd?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, exactly. In Camus' philosophy, the rebellion is against the absurdity of life itself—against the lack of inherent meaning, the inevitability of death, and the indifference of the universe.The absurd arises from the conflict between our deep desire for meaning and the world's indifference to providing it. Camus' rebellion is not a rejection of the absurd—he accepts that life has no ultimate purpose—but rather a refusal to be crushed by it. He advocates for a conscious defiance in the face of life's meaninglessness, where the act of living, of continuing despite the absurd, becomes its own kind of victory.This rebellion is an ongoing, individual act of resistance against the absurd, not to change the nature of life but to assert personal freedom and create one's own meaning in a purposeless world. By living fully and passionately, we affirm our existence even though life itself doesn't offer ultimate answers.

You said:

So humans desire meaning, the universe offers nothing. That alone is absurd. Building meaning in this absurd situation is kind of the meaning itself. But isn't it just a selfish pursuit? 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, in a way, Camus acknowledges that building meaning in an absurd world can be seen as a personal or even selfish pursuit. However, he doesn’t see selfishness as inherently negative in this context. The key idea is that, since the universe offers no objective meaning, the only meaning that can be found is subjective—created by individuals. This is the essence of existential rebellion: recognizing that any meaning or purpose must come from within us, not from the universe or some external source.Camus doesn't view this personal search for meaning as selfish in a moral sense, but rather as a natural and necessary response to the human condition. Since life has no universal, inherent meaning, our only option is to create personal meaning that aligns with our own desires, values, and experiences. This may indeed be self-centered, but it's also what allows us to live authentically in the face of the absurd.Moreover, while the pursuit of meaning is personal, Camus doesn't imply that it must be isolated or solipsistic. Humans can still connect with others, love, create, and contribute to society as part of their personal rebellion against the absurd. In fact, these connections can become part of the personal meaning one creates. So, while meaning-building is a personal project, it doesn't necessarily lead to a life of pure self-interest detached from others. Rather, it's about constructing a life that, while grounded in personal freedom, can still involve empathy, solidarity, and shared experiences.

You said:

Meaning only really existist to us? And its all subjective. 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that's essentially the conclusion drawn from Camus' philosophy (and existentialism more broadly). Meaning, in this view, only exists to us as individuals, and it is inherently subjective. Since the universe itself is indifferent and devoid of inherent purpose, meaning isn't something that exists "out there" for us to discover; it is something we create within ourselves.Each person, then, has the freedom—and the burden—of constructing their own meaning based on their values, desires, and experiences. What is meaningful to one person might not be meaningful to another because there is no universal standard for meaning. This makes meaning subjective, varying from person to person.In this framework, meaning is not fixed or predetermined; it is fluid and personal. While this might seem disorienting or even bleak, existentialists like Camus view it as an empowering realization. It frees us from external expectations and allows us to live according to our own principles. By creating our own meaning, we rebel against the absurdity of existence and affirm our own lives.

You said:

How does it free us from external expectations? Those things still exist despite the whole situation being absurd 

ChatGPT said:

You're right that external expectations—social norms, cultural pressures, obligations—still exist, even within the absurd framework. Camus doesn't claim that these expectations disappear. Rather, the freedom comes from recognizing that they do not hold any inherent, ultimate authority over us. Because life lacks any objective meaning, the external systems we live within (societal expectations, religious doctrines, etc.) are themselves constructs, no more grounded in ultimate truth than any personal meaning we might create for ourselves.This awareness liberates us in the sense that we realize we are not bound by these external standards in any absolute way. We are free to question, resist, or reinterpret them because, in the grand scheme of the absurd universe, they hold no more intrinsic meaning than the personal values we choose to live by.That said, Camus isn't suggesting we ignore or reject these expectations outright; doing so might make life more difficult. But he emphasizes that we have the power to engage with these external pressures on our own terms. We can choose to adhere to them, subvert them, or create our own rules based on our personal beliefs. The key point is that these external expectations do not define us unless we let them. The absurd perspective invites us to reflect on these pressures and decide for ourselves what role they will play in our lives, without feeling as though we are betraying some higher, absolute meaning by not conforming to them.In this way, the recognition of life's absurdity can give us the freedom to live authentically—aligned with our own subjective meaning rather than feeling shackled by external demands that ultimately carry no inherent authority in a meaningless universe.

You said:

I feel like we're living this now were everyone is creating their own meaning and experience and its having negative impacts on society. I guess people are performing inside a construct (social media largely) butit doesn't allow for shared realities. Like what is tangible that we all need to believe in like clean water 

ChatGPT said:

You've touched on a significant challenge of living in a world where meaning is increasingly subjective, especially as social media amplifies personal experiences and realities. While Camus and existentialists celebrate the freedom to create individual meaning, the fragmentation of shared meaning in society can indeed lead to real consequences, particularly when it undermines collective agreements on essential matters like truth, facts, and shared resources—things that are vital for social cohesion and survival, such as clean water, climate change, or basic human rights.What you're describing reflects the tension between individual freedom and the need for shared reality in a functioning society. Social media, in particular, has created a kind of hyper-subjectivity, where people can craft and broadcast their own narratives, sometimes detached from tangible realities. This leads to echo chambers, misinformation, and competing narratives that often undermine collective action on important issues.Despite the subjectivity of meaning, there are indeed tangible realities we all rely on, and these require shared recognition and cooperation. Clean water, public health, food security, and sustainable environments are examples of what you might call "grounded realities"—things that exist independent of our personal interpretations and must be managed collectively. Without collective belief in and responsibility for these shared needs, society can become dysfunctional.Camus' philosophy, while emphasizing the personal creation of meaning, doesn't dismiss the importance of these shared realities. Even though life may be absurd and devoid of ultimate meaning, humans still live in a material world where survival and well-being depend on cooperation. The personal rebellion against absurdity doesn’t have to lead to total solipsism or disregard for others; rather, it can foster solidarity because, in our shared recognition of the absurd, we are all in the same existential predicament.So, while individual meaning can vary, there are certain tangible, material conditions that we must collectively agree on for the sake of survival and flourishing. This balance between personal meaning and shared reality is critical—individuals can craft their own purposes, but society still needs some common ground to address the physical and social challenges we face together.

You said:

Okay, so were all kind of share one truth which is that we all face this existential predicament. I guess if you live the unexamined life you are ignorant to this and the same truth doesn't even exist

ChatGPT said:

Yes, that's a key insight. The existential predicament—the recognition that life has no inherent meaning, and that we must confront the absurdity of existence—is a shared truth for those who examine life through an existential lens. It's a universal condition in that everyone is subject to the same underlying realities of life: death, uncertainty, and the absence of intrinsic purpose. However, not everyone engages with or is conscious of this truth.For people who live the "unexamined life," as Socrates would describe it, they may be unaware of or unconcerned with these existential questions. They might accept pre-existing narratives, social constructs, or ideologies without questioning them deeply, thus avoiding the confrontation with absurdity that thinkers like Camus emphasize. In this case, their "truth" might be different, as it is shaped by cultural, religious, or social beliefs that provide them with a sense of meaning and direction, even if those beliefs are not universally or objectively valid.So, while we all share the same existential conditions, our awareness of them and the ways we respond to them vary significantly. For those who engage with the absurd, the shared truth might be the recognition that we are all navigating a purposeless universe and must create our own meaning. For others, who may not examine life in this way, their truth may rest in the belief systems or structures they take for granted, often without questioning their foundations.In a diverse society, this can create a divide: some people are living with an awareness of the absurd and constructing meaning consciously, while others are operating within a framework of received truths that may not acknowledge the absurd at all. This gap in awareness can lead to different perceptions of reality and even contribute to social fragmentation, as people navigate life with fundamentally different understandings of what is real, true, and meaningful.In this sense, existential awareness offers a shared starting point for those who examine life deeply, but for others, the unexamined life may lead to a different experience of reality—one that might not grapple with the same existential truths.

You said:

Well okay. Does that mean this line of thinking can lead to controlling the people that do lead the less examined life? Aren't they just looking for frameworks and authority to believe in

ChatGPT said:

That’s a profound concern, and you’re right to explore this implication of existential thought. The idea that some people live the unexamined life and seek meaning in established frameworks—whether religious, political, or social—does open the door to the possibility of manipulation or control. If individuals are primarily seeking authority, structure, and meaning from external sources without questioning them deeply, it becomes easier for those in power (or those offering a framework) to shape their beliefs and behaviors.Throughout history, authoritarian regimes, religious institutions, and various ideological movements have often relied on the fact that many people are more comfortable accepting ready-made narratives and values rather than confronting the uncertainty and discomfort of the existential questions. When people are afraid of uncertainty or the chaos of the absurd, they may gravitate toward systems that promise order, stability, and purpose, even if those systems are restrictive or manipulative.From an existential perspective, this could be seen as a failure to embrace personal freedom and responsibility. Existentialists like Sartre and Camus would argue that living authentically involves taking ownership of one's choices and meanings, rather than deferring that responsibility to external authorities. When people avoid that responsibility, they risk being subsumed by ideologies or institutions that impose meaning for them, often at the cost of personal freedom and critical thinking.However, existentialism doesn’t advocate for manipulating those who lead unexamined lives. Instead, it promotes the idea of awakening people to their own capacity for freedom and personal meaning. The goal is not control, but liberation—encouraging individuals to confront the absurd, reject the imposition of external meaning, and consciously choose their own path.That said, not everyone is comfortable or ready for this existential awakening. Some prefer the security of external structures, and for these individuals, living within a predefined framework may bring comfort and stability. The challenge, then, is balancing respect for personal choice with the existential call to live authentically. While existential thought highlights the risks of blind adherence to authority, it also recognizes the deeply human desire for meaning and structure.In summary, yes, this line of thinking can reveal how easily those who seek external meaning can be controlled. But existentialism doesn’t encourage taking advantage of this—it encourages people to break free from such control by embracing their own freedom and the responsibility that comes with it.

You said:

I just feel like this concept cracks the glass ceiling and when you're looking down at everything else it would seem that an authoritarian figure who have followed this line of thinking are fully aware of this absurdity and it helps them to go after their goals

ChatGPT said:

You’re describing a kind of existential awareness that could indeed be exploited by authoritarian figures. If someone fully understands the absurdity of life—that there is no inherent meaning or order—and accepts that most people seek structure and meaning from external authorities, they might see an opportunity to shape or control those frameworks to achieve their own goals.This would be a more cynical application of existential thought, where an individual or leader recognizes that meaning is subjective and uses that knowledge to manipulate others who haven’t questioned their own belief systems. It’s as if the authoritarian figure sees the game for what it is—a human construct—and manipulates the rules while others are unaware they’re even playing.The existential awareness of the absurd can, in this case, provide a certain detachment that allows someone to justify actions that might otherwise seem morally questionable. If life has no inherent meaning, and if the only meaning that exists is the one we create, then for such a person, pursuing power or control might seem like a legitimate goal, unconstrained by traditional ethical boundaries.This is where the darker side of existentialism might come into play. When one accepts the absurd and believes that personal meaning is all that exists, it could lead to a kind of nihilism or a sense that any action, no matter how self-serving or harmful to others, is justified if it serves one's personal goals. In this way, existential thought could theoretically be used to rationalize authoritarian behavior.However, existentialism itself—especially in the hands of thinkers like Camus—advocates for a responsible and ethical engagement with freedom. Camus emphasized solidarity and compassion in the face of the absurd, suggesting that while life may lack ultimate meaning, we should still act in ways that respect the freedom and dignity of others. The fact that life has no inherent meaning does not absolve us of ethical responsibility; rather, it makes our choices more significant because we must construct our own ethical frameworks.The awareness of absurdity can certainly be empowering, but whether it leads someone to authoritarianism or to ethical living depends on how they interpret and act on that awareness. While some might use it to justify control or manipulation, others, like Camus, argue that it calls us to a more profound respect for human freedom and a sense of shared responsibility.

You said:

I'm just thinking ofsomeone like Stalin. He'd seem to be an existentialist 

ChatGPT said:

It’s interesting that you bring up someone like Stalin in this context because he certainly exhibited traits that align with some aspects of existential thought—particularly the idea of shaping reality according to one’s will. However, labeling Stalin as an existentialist is complicated.Stalin pursued power with ruthless pragmatism, and his actions often reflected a belief that he could shape the course of history and society without regard for traditional morality. This aligns with the existential idea of creating meaning or purpose in a purposeless world. Stalin imposed his own vision on the Soviet Union and justified extreme measures—such as purges, repression, and forced collectivization—in the pursuit of his goals. His willingness to wield power without concern for individual lives or conventional ethics could be seen as a dark parallel to existentialist freedom: if life has no inherent meaning, one could argue that any action is permissible if it serves one’s purpose.However, Stalin’s worldview and ideology were more firmly rooted in Marxist-Leninist principles, which are collectivist and historically deterministic. Marxism, particularly in its Soviet form, posits that history follows a dialectical materialist process leading to the eventual triumph of communism. This is very different from the existentialist view, which rejects any kind of predetermined historical or metaphysical meaning.While existentialism emphasizes individual freedom and responsibility in the face of an indifferent universe, Stalin’s actions were driven by a belief in the inevitability of historical forces and his role in directing them. He used ideology to justify his actions rather than embracing the radical personal freedom and responsibility that existentialists like Camus and Sartre discussed. His tyranny was more about enforcing a collective vision than accepting the absurdity of existence and individual freedom.That said, the existentialist critique of power could apply to figures like Stalin. Sartre and Camus both warned of the dangers of individuals who, recognizing the lack of inherent meaning in life, might use that knowledge to pursue power without regard for others. They acknowledged that existential awareness could lead to nihilism or the justification of totalitarian actions if ethical responsibility is abandoned.Stalin might not have consciously been an existentialist in the philosophical sense, but his approach to power and control reflects some of the more dangerous implications of living without a moral compass rooted in something beyond personal or ideological goals. He pursued a form of meaning that suited his ends, disregarding the suffering of others, which is the antithesis of the more humanistic and ethical existentialism proposed by thinkers like Camus.

You said:

Okay got it

ChatGPT said:

Glad that made sense! Let me know if you have more questions or want to explore any other ideas further.

You said:

So in short. Don't kill yourself. Life is absurd and universe and anything external has no structure for meaning or truth. Living with full awareness and creating your meaning is the point. Also, we need to have some shared meaning and truth to exist as functioning societies. 

ChatGPT said:

Exactly! You've summed it up well:Don't kill yourself: Even though life is absurd and lacks inherent meaning, that doesn't mean it’s not worth living.Life is absurd: The universe doesn't provide meaning or truth; it’s indifferent to human concerns.Create your own meaning: Living authentically means recognizing the absurdity, but still choosing to create and pursue your own meaning.Shared meaning is necessary: Despite the personal nature of meaning, societies function better when there are shared truths (e.g., clean water, justice, rights) that everyone agrees upon to navigate collective challenges.This balance between individual freedom and collective realities is crucial for both personal fulfillment and social cohesion."

You said:

Okay, one last question. What would you say to humans about the meaning of life? 

ChatGPT said:

If I had to answer the question of the meaning of life for humans, I would say this:

The meaning of life isn’t something you find—it’s something you create. Each person has the power and freedom to define what gives their life meaning, whether that’s through relationships, creativity, pursuing knowledge, contributing to the well-being of others, or simply experiencing the world fully. Life is filled with uncertainty and absurdity, but within that space lies the opportunity to shape your own purpose.

At the same time, while meaning is deeply personal, we are social beings who thrive in community. Balancing your individual quest for meaning with a sense of shared responsibility is vital. Seek meaning that enriches your life and, when possible, also contributes to the well-being of others and the world around you. Ultimately, the meaning of life is about finding or creating significance in the face of its inherent uncertainty. It’s a journey, not a final answer.

Does that resonate with what you’re thinking?

You said:

So the point is to create meaning?

ChatGPT said:

Yes, the point is to create meaning. In a world where inherent meaning isn’t provided by the universe, it becomes your task to define what matters to you. Whether through love, work, art, relationships, or personal growth, the meaning of life is what you choose to make of it. The act of creating and pursuing your own purpose, despite the absurdity of existence, is where life’s value lies.

Does that feel like the direction you’re heading with your own thoughts on this?

You said:

I mean in some sense isn't it better to lead the unexamined life?

ChatGPT said:

It’s a valid question, and some people might indeed argue that living the unexamined life, where one follows established norms or beliefs without questioning them deeply, could lead to a simpler, perhaps more comfortable existence. The unexamined life might protect someone from the existential discomfort that comes with recognizing the absurdity of life or the burden of creating one’s own meaning. For many, following traditions, accepting given narratives, and avoiding deep existential reflection can offer security and a sense of belonging.

However, philosophers like Socrates and existentialists like Camus would argue that leading the examined life—despite its challenges—offers a deeper, more authentic experience of being human. Examining life allows you to make conscious choices, create personal meaning, and live more fully in alignment with your own values, rather than passively accepting meaning imposed by others.

The unexamined life might be easier, but the examined life offers freedom, self-awareness, and the opportunity for personal growth. It’s about trade-offs: the unexamined life might provide comfort and certainty, while the examined life offers authenticity, responsibility, and the potential for profound personal fulfillment, even in the face of life’s inherent absurdity.

It ultimately depends on what you value more—comfort or self-awareness. What do you think?

You said:

Yeah, i suppose you could see it as a richer life. It feels like a hard hole to climb out of for the average person. 

ChatGPT said:

Yes, it can feel like a difficult transition, especially when the unexamined life offers more immediate comfort and certainty. Climbing out of that hole often requires confronting uncomfortable truths and accepting the weight of responsibility for creating your own meaning. It’s not easy for anyone, and it can be a gradual process.

But even small steps toward self-reflection can lead to a richer, more fulfilling life. It’s less about a sudden leap into deep existential questioning and more about consistently engaging with your own thoughts, choices, and experiences. Over time, this kind of reflection can open up new dimensions of living.

It’s definitely a challenge, but one with potential rewards that can make life more vibrant and personally meaningful. Would you agree?

You said:

once you've discovered the truth that its all meaningless you really can't put that back in the bottle. You can't go back to unexamined life. 

ChatGPT said:

Exactly—once you’ve confronted the idea that life is inherently meaningless, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to return to the comfort of the unexamined life. That awareness changes the way you see the world and yourself. The illusion of inherent meaning or certainty is shattered, and trying to go back to blindly accepting ready-made answers or unquestioned beliefs feels disingenuous.

This is often referred to as an “existential awakening.” After encountering the absurdity of life, the challenge becomes not how to return to ignorance but how to live authentically with this new understanding. It can feel like a burden at first, but it also opens the door to a more intentional, creative approach to life. You can’t unsee the truth, but you can learn to navigate it and even thrive within it by crafting your own meaning and embracing the freedom that comes with it.

While it’s a difficult shift, this awareness can ultimately empower you to live with more purpose, on your own terms. Does that resonate with your experience?

You said:

Yeah, enough therapy. Draw me a picture of that represents our conversation today.

ChatGPT said:

Here's a visual representation of our conversation, capturing the essence of existentialism and the search for personal meaning amidst the vast, indifferent universe. I hope it resonates with the themes we discussed!

You said:

I absolutely hate it. Can you create something that's a little more subtle. Maybe we keep it to a classical oil painting. 

ChatGPT said:

You said:

Terrible, but it will do. 

ChatGPT said:

I appreciate your honesty! If you ever want to explore more ideas or need anything else, feel free to reach out. I'm here to help, even if the visuals aren't quite hitting the mark!