Sometimes I feel like my life is an argument between Camus and Sartre about the nature of joy.

Absolute freedom and absolute justice bring neither for all, and in between there, somewhere, is a balancing point where one can experience the joy of existing authentically.

The issue is that set point of joy is different for everyone, first colored by their condition and the context of their existing; then by societal opposition to or elevation of their lived truth.

Experiencing existence is singular, though within a shared space. I feel even though Sartre recognized the needs of humanity as a whole, his philosophy and ideals were driven and influenced without the thought of the individual. A sacrifice of an individual for the cause was worthwhile in all instances. The tree forgotten within the scope of seeing the forest is still a tree.

Current society in America values the individual ideologically to the extreme: Bases a person’s worth on capital and self-sufficiency — or the appearance of it. This is such an incredible detriment to humanity. We see how it plays out, over and over. The rise and fall of empires played miniature, in the span of a record skipping, over the lives of everyone within earshot.

We are not alone, yet truly are. To strive for one’s own happiness requires the want to alleviate one’s own suffering, yes, by elevating and valuing the self. Humanity has shown us that if one attempts that without considering the effects on others and trying to balance that, it will continue to fail and just bring more suffering.

Like gravity, the pull in either direction of elevation of one’s state or falling further into the depths has an effect on everyone surrounding.

So what is one to do? What does one wish humanity to strive for if constant extremes are so detrimental? How does one bring justice yet maintain freedom when the moderation and tempering of either lead to such horrific outcomes for the whole?

How can one value self over others, when the value of one’s self is detrimental to other’s valuing their self? How can one value others over self, when that is detrimental to one’s self?

That balancing point itself is a Sysiphian undertaking to find, and absurd in its inability to be realized. Moderation in all things leads to a bad outcome for individuals and the whole just as much as extremes do. That’s why it’s absurd, and why it feels wrong.

Neutrality is an illusion, as much as Balance is.

Each action’s weight, each valuation of individual or whole is different. There are things that are worth more than others in our shared conception of existence — the value one gives them varies depending upon the condition and context of one’s existence. This is why humanity has such strife, we do not have a single shared set of values across the entirety of humanity.

That is a good thing, but a difficult thing to navigate. It infringes upon freedom and justice, the self and the whole. The value of self and others is evaluated against sets of values made by the living idealists or the ghosts of idealists striving to impose their vision or will upon the whole in order to obtain their idea of freedom and justice.

Humans are flawed, their ideals are flawed, their conception of freedom and justice are flawed. The weight and value of each are flawed. This is a good thing. Who would want to live in a world without knowing joy, passion, catharsis, ecstasy? Without curiosity?

Absolute moderation eliminates the possibility of extremes. By removing the counterweight of sorrow, apathy, tragedy… there’s no need to exist and no ability to exist. This does not justify harm to self or others, but it does clarify that absolute moderation is as detrimental as absolute justice and absolute freedom.

So where is humanity’s balancing point?

I like to think it’s within the individual, if one is able to clear away the influence of society or circumstance. Individually defined freedom and justice, but with a focus on minimizing detrimental impact to the whole while maintaining one’s own value. The ability for extremes in order to strive for freedom and justice, but with the intent to protect each person.

On a mass scale, none of that would work. On an individual scale, one has to make a conscious choice in each moment. It is mostly impossible. It’s absolutely absurd.

…It is something to strive for, though, and live in the moments between seeking beneficial joy within others and within the self.