The unknown, vast and infinite, has been the subject of philosophical debates since human beings could comprehend its opposite: knowledge. The amount of time that scientists, writers, and scholars of the human experience have spent mulling over how much is not known in the universe is immeasurable, and in most ways, incomprehensible. If human beings have evolved to exist economically, as it has been observed, then time not spent being productive (creating goods and services), is a waste. Entire systems of economics, and nations based off those systems, have been developed for the sake of human subsistence. These are the systems that dictate that “trivial" matters, such as considering the unknown, are not what the meaning of life is. However, the economists and world leaders have gotten the meaning of life wrong: what it really is, is whatever keeps one from dying. Though modern society dictates that occupation without production is useless, the value of the unknown as a philosophical pursuit which keeps one living, as argued by Albert Camus, and as a topic of great importance, as argued by Socrates, is paramount to the individual who rejects capitalist ideology.
In today's Western capitalist society, one's occupation or what they produce is often how they see the meaning of their life. For example, one may be a carpenter and claim they live to do carpenter's work, or a stay-at-home mother who claims she lives to raise her children. However, Albert Camus, a proficient French philosopher and writer of the 20th century, had long questioned the meaning of life in many of his books, such as The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus. Both books focus on a main character who is tormented by a difficult world seemingly devoid of meaning; Meursault suffers the death of his mother, and Sisyphus is made to roll a rock up a hill.[MOU1] These two characters contemplate the importance of what they are doing, and even the importance of anything at all: family, friends, life. It is with these themes in mind that Camus concludes, "The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself” (Camus). [MOU2] Now some could take this literally and attribute the meaning of life to be food, water, and shelter, but a more introspective reader would the word "life" to mean not just the act of one's heart beating, but the movement of their mind and flourishing of their soul. These abstract terms may fall flat, and the utilitarian could disagree fundamentally with the use of these words in relation to what someone should occupy their time with entirely, but the poets of the same society would find solace in these words. And so, if what stimulates one's mind is the quest for the unknown, then that is their meaning of life. And whatever keeps one from killing themselves is a noble and worthy avocation.
The question to ask next then is, "is the pursuit of the unknown really something that can stop one from killing oneself?" Something as unquantifiable as the unknown is difficult to posit as a life force in the same way food and water might be. This is because it is not the same, at least not in a material sense. One of history's most prevalent philosophers, Socrates, spent his life coming to terms with the unknown, chasing figures down the street insisting they know nothing. And it was not because philosophy and the pursuit, sometimes literal, of the unknown was his occupation that it was his meaning for living, it was because his studies are what made his life good. Socrates argued that human beings do not value life, they value a good life. [MOU3] If a life is not deemed good then it is not worth living, making whatever makes life good - meaningful. As Socrates is one of the world's most obsessed philosophers, it is fair to say that his belief, “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance," (Socrates)[MOU4] was what was keeping him from killing himself. Socrates’ commitment to the unknown, and the value he placed on it, and his immortalization in the works of Plato, should be a reminder of the importance of the unknown to human existence.
In a utilitarian society, particularly a capitalist one, the value of the unknown is reduced to what the next means of production can be, or more specifically what the next product or marketing modality will be. Philosophical unknowns as in questions such as: “Is happiness a human right?” and “What happens when we die?” to name a few, do not lead to increased productivity or increased product. Socrates might argue that a “product” or capitalist notions of what can be considered “productive” are arguable at best. As for Camus, he was an anti-capitalist. And yet, if it is allowed that product and productivity can be intellectual in nature, books and literature can also be considered products. And if literature is a product, then writers such as Camus and Socrates, that “sit around questioning the innerworkings of life/humanity” are no longer unproductive. For it was the act of “sitting around questioning the innerworkings of life,” under an apple tree in fact, that led to discoveries of incomprehensible value, all because of what capitalists at the time may have seen as another valueless question: “Why do things fall down?” Isaac Newton authored the book, Mathematical Principals of Natural Philosophy, detailing the three laws not only now studied in every physics class around the world, but used by physicists for centuries after to invent (clocks, spaceships, etc.) and theorize (the theory of relativity). Inventions and theories all sprang from attention to the unknown. The material success Newton’s ideas had cannot be discounted. Questioning the unknown can indeed produce, in the sense of increasing one’s own productivity, but such questioning also has intellectual value which becomes material. Newton’s ideas have advanced quality of life. The same is true for other scientists such as Marie Curie and Albert Einstein and others. But Newton’s attention to the unknown made him open to learning at the moment the apple fell. But the value of the unknown as such – as a philosophical phenomenon even unsolved – remains important. To reject the unknown for its own sake is to reject philosophy, and to reject philosophy is to reject humanity.
The philosophers Camus, Socrates, and Newton led very different lives and most likely believed in very different truths. All of their work, though, demonstrates one truth: the pursuit of the unknown is a just cause. While Camus may have only applied such truth to those who needed said truth to live, and Socrates may have only applied it to those who have the maturity to acknowledge their ignorance, both see it as one kind of truth. Therefore, the value of the unknown is high: not just because converting it into knowledge can increase productivity but because the unknown is valuable in itself. It inspires awe. It is necessary because when the human race falls victim to its own systems, systems that draw the meaning out of life, humanity ceases to be beautiful. Worse, it ceases to be anything at all.
(1,192)