Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The Groundhog Day: here's how Sisyphus has become happy

The Groundhog Day: here's how Sisyphus has become happy



"The struggle itself [...] is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Wrote Camus in the Myth of Sisyphus. It is what The Groundhog Day is about, the Nietzschian concept of eternal recurrence of life. The 2nd February is being lived infinitely by Phil; he cannot do anything to stop it. I think it helps to understand the meaning of the other major Nietzschian concept of the « Übermensch », someone who finally find happiness in an absurd continuous same-day life. Nietzsche explains that the eternal recurrence of life is an ideal of perfection to catch all the opportunities of a day.

From denial to acceptance of the on-going process of existence 


Phil firstly believed that the eternal recurrence is a malediction; he did no know how to pass through it. Then, he understand that he can us it to go over the moral values and norms, for instance he drives drunk, he only search pleasure to avoid the boredom of the continuous same-day life. He spends his time with fun and avoids the despair of his condition; he lives, as Kierkegaard called, an aesthetic life. Nevertheless, when he began to look for physical pleasure, he understands that he needs someone else to help him to carry his burden: he wants to connect to another soul; he wants an ethical life with Rita. He does anything he can do to attract her, but it does not work.
When he realizes that he cannot build any relation in one day, he despairs and refuses his burden. He wants to suicide, but it does not work: he cannot escape from the absurdity of his condition.
After more and more day of despair, he understands the price of life when he sees a vagabond death.
It is only at this moment that he accepts to carry his burden; to over through despair of life to learn how appreciate every single moment of his life. He learn French, piano, sculpture… He develops abilities that transform him to one another, he stops to see his life as a fate, he understand that he can actually change who he is thanks to existence.

 An explanation of the Myth of Sisyphus


For explain his state of mind at this moment, I think we can compared him with the coyote in the cartoon. He stops to be the coyote that run after “Beep beep” in a continuous fail, he starts to live his life not for a goal (beep beep) but for being happy himself, he understand that his only possibility to live with this malediction is to appreciate the only feeling of being existent. For use a Nietzschian concept, he is on the way to be an Übermensch. He finally develops his abilities, his self-confidence and began a day with a determination to save the all the lives he can, to take all the opportunities he can and to be happy in every moment. This is why Sisyphus is happy, because he realises himself thanks to his work, he transforms his malediction into a passion, he cannot do anything to stop his task, it is not under his control. 
Phil chooses action to go over his absurd situation, he revolts and he passionately committed himself to exceed the eternal recurrence, he achieves to live his live in an absurd world. This is why he becomes happy, this is why the malediction come to an end. 

To conclude, I think that the Groundhog day come be explain with the different existentialist approaches. It allows to understand how an eternal return may permit the acceptance the on-going process of existence, how a man should accept that there is no fate and he can change his life and finally how over go the absurdity of existence and prevent suicide or obscurantism thanks to a passionate commitment.

(...) 

6 comments:

  1. Hi Alexander !
    I would like to thank you for your post blog ! I thought it was very interesting and rather right. Your conclusion is a kind of celebration of the "Carpe Diem". Nevertheless, do you really think we could be happy, prevent suicide or obscurantism just thanks to a passionate commitment ? I would like to connect your article with the regard of Sartre. When Phil realizes he cannot build a relationship in a single day, he would like to die. The movie takes an other way, Phil became aware of the absurdity of life and how life is precious, so, he decided to appreciate every single moment. However, that is quite utopian. Can one be happy when he does not exist for the other one ? Sartre's vision of the regard is more complex. He thinks there is an objectification on the regard of the other one because he only perceives a portion of ourselves. "Hell is other people". The other one limits our freedom. Thus, contrary to I said before, do you think that Phil could be happier by living an only single day ? Indeed, he does not really exist to the others, so, he cannot bear the regard of the other one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Alexander,
    I did my mid-term paper on through Nietzsche's philosophy, just like you did here, and it is intriguing that you and I applied different parts of his theory to analyse the same film. I saw it as a twist of Amor Fati, focusing on the fact that his acts does not transgress him by making an impact on the others around him, but rather become a memory to his own. And on that he wouldn't face the death but was doomed to live forever, on one day.
    I like how you brought the idea of Phil transforming into a Übermensch by repeating the same day. Though I wish that you would develop more on how it can be matched to the concept, because to me Übermensch was the group of people who sought to invent a radically different way to live, after they found out about the Truth. Phil did indeed become a changed man, however his new way of living would match the way that the village people in the Zarathustra tales would deem appropriate.
    Plus I enjoyed how you analysed the progress of Phil's mindset in aesthetical and ethical mode! The thought didn't occurred to me. Though it is quite sure that he hadn't had the chance for a leap of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Alexander,
    I did my mid-term paper on through Nietzsche's philosophy, just like you did here, and it is intriguing that you and I applied different parts of his theory to analyse the same film. I saw it as a twist of Amor Fati, focusing on the fact that his acts does not transgress him by making an impact on the others around him, but rather become a memory to his own. And on that he wouldn't face the death but was doomed to live forever, on one day.
    I like how you brought the idea of Phil transforming into a Übermensch by repeating the same day. Though I wish that you would develop more on how it can be matched to the concept, because to me Übermensch was the group of people who sought to invent a radically different way to live, after they found out about the Truth. Phil did indeed become a changed man, however his new way of living would match the way that the village people in the Zarathustra tales would deem appropriate.
    Plus I enjoyed how you analysed the progress of Phil's mindset in aesthetical and ethical mode! The thought didn't occurred to me. Though it is quite sure that he hadn't had the chance for a leap of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really liked your post and I think that the analogy of The Groundhog Day with the myth of Sisyphus is pretty relevant. Nonetheless I quite agree with Fiona when she wonders if we can really be happy when we do not exist for others. Indeed, Phil has found a way to live each time differently the same day: he takes advantage of this terrible situation by improving himself, learning a lot of things, etc. That what you said. But what’s the point of all of this when, at the end of the day, he is aware that the people he just has interacted with will have forgotten everything the next morning (which is technically the same), even the people that he thinks he has saved the life (in fact, he also could have done nothing to help them since the next morning everything starts again). It is a little bit like he was evolving in a parallel dimension where he was the only one having conscious of the reality. His loneliness is extreme even if he has the feeling to be surrounded by other people. In these conditions, I don’t think he can truly be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Alexandre

    I like how you incorporated all these philosophers into the film. Especially the part about Phil's aesthetic life vs. the ethical life was very interesting as I didn't notice the connection to Kierkegaard before I read your post.
    However, it would have been great if you had elaborated a little more on the Übermensch part. As of now I fail to see the connection. After all, Phil did not conceptualize a a new value-system, rather, I think, through his experience he came to believe more in the old/current system. He managed to break free out of the circle only after he accepted to see life like everbody else did.
    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete