Why was Camus wrong that suicide is a really serious philosophical problem, let alone the fundamental question of philosophy?

Question

r/AskPhilosophy construed the following quotation from Le Mythe de Sysyphe: Chapitre 1, which Alan Watts joked about. Emboldenings are mine.

Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux : c'est le suicide. Juger que la vie vaut ou ne vaut pas la peine d'être vécue, c'est répondre à la question fondamentale de la philosophie. Le reste, si le monde a trois dimensions, si l'esprit a neuf ou douze catégories, vient ensuite. Ce sont des jeux ; il faut d'abord répondre. Et s'il est vrai, comme le veut Nietzsche, qu'un philosophe, pour être estimable, doive prêcher d'exemple, on saisit l'importance de cette réponse puisqu'elle va précéder le geste définitif. Ce sont là des évidences sensibles au cœur, mais qu'il faut approfondir pour les rendre claires à l'esprit.

Translation by Hélène Brown:

There is only one truly serious philosophical problem: suicide. To judge whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. The rest—whether the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve cate- gories—comes afterwards. These are games; one must answer first. And, if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher should preach by example in order to command respect, one begins to un- derstand the importance of that reply, for it will precede the defini- tive act. These are truths the heart can feel, yet they must be exam- ined in depth to become clear to the mind.

Can someone elaborate Conifold's comment? Which philosophers disagree with this quotation above? Why isn't suicide a "vraiment sérieux" (really serious) "problème philosophique" (philosophical problem), let alone "la question fondamentale de la philosophie" (the fundamental problem of philosophy)? What did Camus muff?

Because few philosophers share Camus' opinion. To them, suicide is serious as a social and psychological problem, but not as a philosophical one. People who commit suicide almost never do it for philosophical reasons, it is typically an emotional act, perhaps fueled by social circumstances, so its scientific study is more productive. Philosophically, it comes up mostly due to ethical aspects.

Answer 1

I'm particularly intrigued by the juxataposition of Socrates with Camus:

"The unexamined life is not worth living." ~ Socrates.

"The examined life is not worth living." ~ Camus (would've said)

Camus' meaning of life is what has been dubbed as cosmic meaning, a higher purpose as some like to call it, such as can only be conferred upon one by, sensu amplissimo, god(s). However grand such a meaning may be, it's to surrender one's autonomy and self-determination, the power to control one's own destiny. Thus, on this view, meaningless = freedom. It makes zero sense to suicide because one is free (one's life is "meaningless").

Answer 2

I don't think Camus was focusing on suicide, or commenting on the ethics of suicide at all as much as on the possible meaninglessness of existence. He was pointing out that existence may or may not be meaningless to oneself, and if it is meaningless, and you follow through, then exiting this meaningless situation is a possibility.

He clearly says as much: the fundamental question is for one to decide whether life has a meaning or not, and that's what he is interested in. Not really if one should commit suicide or not, if that's ethical or not, etc etc. Suicide comes as a consequence once you decide whether life has a meaning or not, and if you assume that absence of meaning necessarily leads to suicide (and as he says, if you believe like Nietzsche that a philosopher should lead by example).

I also think that Camus will eventually find an existentialist way to avoid the path of meaningless that would lead to suicide. Camus is not advocating that life is meaningless hence one should commit suicide.

Answer 3

The experience of the absurd, from which we experience the futility of life (fully enough to make suicide a fundamental question, despite the evils of death), has an intellectual context of seeking meaning when there is none.

If we're unaware we seek meaning, we do not realise it cannot be found, not enough for suicide due to the hopelessness of that to be a fundamental question. Why bother if we already agree life is meaningless?

What is the Camusean alternative to suicide or hope? The answer is to live without escape... maintaining the [absurd] tension intrinsic to human life [of seeking meaning when there is none]... [a life] characterized by lucidity and by acute consciousness of... mortality and... [life's] limits.

Answer 4

Camus was not even wrong about what you are asking, because the focus of what he was saying was to get at the apparent meaninglessness of existence. You can find an answer from Milarepa about 800 years ago:

All worldly pursuits have but one unavoidable and inevitable end, which is sorrow; acquisitions end in dispersion; buildings in destruction; meetings in separation; births in death. Knowing this, one should, from the very first, renounce acquisitions and storing-up, and building, and meeting; and, following the guidance of an eminent Guru, set about to know the real truths, which have no birth or death.

Many people have found this approach to address their concerns, although it takes some commitment. But, if you were wondering if existence is worthwhile, you have all the time in the world.