This is the first article I have read after discovering this journal. Everything about this it is just, brilliant. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that it takes the words out of my mouth, section to section. I absolutely love how you modeled the idea of absurd 'performative productivity' with the Myth of Sisyphus. I have been trying to get to the bottom of a rabbit hole solely on this topic for months and after reading this, I feel quite enlightened to the idea.
Everything has an 'aesthetic' nowadays, and despite bias for the field of aesthetics, I can't help but see it in the very problems you examine in this article. There are tasks, jobs, and activities that we either can't or shouldn't avoid, though it doesn't mean we should forego acknowledging the 'absurd' aspect of aestheticizing every macro of productivity (i.e. the fated 'performative LinkedIn updates' you mention throughout the article).
I often find myself idealizing many of the things you warn against in this article, and I use writing as a way to protect myself from the pitfalls of ignoring life's absurdity. I look forward to seeing your authorship in this journal for articles to come.
I really feel heard by this article. Any time I thought about the Myth of Sisyphus, I was annoyed by the fact that Albert Camus basically looked at one of the worst punishments in ancient Greek mythology and thought: 'You just have to change your mindset, bro!'
But on a more serious note, I think many forms of existential philosophy can be recuperated to our current technological and economical system. Mindfulness and meditation are probably the more popular philosophies that were used to allow for more productivity. I think it was just a matter of time until the productivity of capitalism managed to fulfill most basic desires and had to move on to social and even existential needs. This is why I would like to go further than building an inner fortress to deal with this situation. I think that people also must show each other that meaning, belonging and other needs can be created outside of this system, meaning as a collaboration between people and not as a task to fulfil by oneself.
The boulder analogy is powerful, definitely, but I don’t think it completely explains the performative uselessness of corporate culture. The Tower of Babel is a very helpful analogy. We are actually constructing something, it’s not all just meaninglessly reversed each day. But what we are frantically building is a temple to a false god, using the universal “language” of money and exchange, code and machine. This is not the language of everyday experience that our bodies recognize as meaningful. God - or whatever transcendent sacred entity exists for you - disapproves, and eventually this utopian project will be abandoned.
Thank you so much for reading. The Tower of Babel is a fascinating expansion on this theme, I am intrigued.
Whether we view the corporate project as pushing a rock or building a sky-high monument to a false god, the core tragedy remains alienation. Any system built on a language divorced from genuine human meaning eventually fractures under its own weight.
I really appreciate you bringing this theological depth to the conversation!
I like this analogy better. There is meaning in a lot of corporate work. Just because a task is menial and doesn’t do more than keep the company running doesn’t mean that keeping the company running isn’t meaningless. I like the conclusion the author has regarding bringing a deeper sense of awareness into the work you do, though, and that’s what you’re saying also.
This is what happens when a system replaces coherence with velocity. Sisyphus had lucidity because his pattern was intact. He knew the boulder was a boulder. The modern worker loses that lucidity when metrics overwrite meaning. The absurdity is in the collapse of the boundary between identity and utility. When a person ties their worth to a performance metric, the internal pattern can’t stabilize. Your piece captures the pressure point where narrative has to step back in to restore coherence.
I think stress usually enters a system when expectations outrun capacity. Managers can amplify that pressure, but the deeper issue is when speed replaces clarity. When the structure is stable, people respond to being given the room to stay coherent.
The boulder now is the laptop, that we carry around through which there never seems to be an end to work, meetings and other deliverables. Every email, excel sheet, code created is pushing the boulder further up only to realise it doesn't matter in the end.
Great pieces like this make me grateful that I seek fulfillment and validation from hobbies outside of my unserious email job. I cannot imagine wanting anything from the corporate ladder other than the money and cushy lifestyle. My corporate career has a hard ceiling precisely because I refuse to let corporate theater take up more of my mental bandwidth than necessary.
The modern Sisyphus is not necessarily the person pushing the stone. It may be the person who has forgotten that the stone is something they push — not something they are.
This piece is a classic exercise in intellectual branding. You use Albert Camus’s boulder not to offer genuine philosophical insight, but to leverage a famous analogy for clout and audience engagement.
The satirical LinkedIn post is the central hook of the piece, but it isn't a genuine breakthrough in the argument, it's clickbait. It functions as a polished piece of content designed to get easy chuckles and shares, giving the illusion of depth before immediately retreating into standard academic namedropping.
Stacking Camus, Han, Graeber, and Baudrillard in a few short paragraphs reads like a speed-run through an introductory syllabus. You use these names as structural crutches rather than doing the actual intellectual labor. You draw a grand boundary using big-name philosophers to sound profound, but there is no original thought at the core. It is pure posturing, a literature review built to say, "Look how well-read I am."
The hollow nature of the essay becomes painfully clear in the conclusion. After diagnosing an inescapable existential prison, you offer a toothless, passive retreat into basic Stoicism, essentially telling people to just "feel the heavy weight" and keep grinding. It fails to evolve Camus's concept of active, defiant rebellion because a real critique would alienate the very corporate/academic platform your post is fishing for.
A premium subscription pitch right after dodging the actual critique? That’s a bold pivot, but no. I don’t pay for content that hasn't proven its intellectual rigor. I have, however, bookmarked your page and will be keeping tabs on your future work. If you eventually manage to produce something with genuine philosophical weight rather than just performative bait, I might decide you’re worth my time.
If you truly found the critique interesting, I look forward to seeing it reflected in your future work.
You built the boundary of this essay using some of the heaviest names in philosophy; playing the 'I'm not well-read' card now to dodge a structural critique is a pretty transparent defense mechanism. It's exactly the kind of shallow engagement that makes these platforms exhausting. I left the critique because I prefer actual intellectual rigor over performative aesthetics. Hopefully, next time, you're willing to engage with the substance instead of just managing the comment section. Have a nice day.
The issue I see with this is that once someone understands the futility of something, a gap opens between the person and the task. Eventually, we become estranged from it. We become conscious of ourselves doing something whose ultimate justification we can no longer believe in, and the whole thing begins to feel absurd.
Perhaps the illusion is sustained precisely because it allows us to continue. Why we continue, once the illusion is seen through, is ultimately for each of us to decode and decide.
Thank you for reading and for sharing such a deeply perceptive reflection.
That "gap" you speak of is where the absurdity lives, yes! You make an incredible point about why the illusion exists in the first place as a protective shield. But once that illusion shatters, as you noted, the responsibility shifts back to the individual. We stop pushing out of blind habit and we are forced to refuse suicide and decide why we stay.
Navigating that gap and ULTIMATELY choosing to continue knowingly and on your own terms is precisely where I believe personal agency is reclaimed. This is what Camus was pointing at
I think this is where applying the existential to the systemic gets tricky. I agree that consciousness can change our relationship to an inescapable condition. But I’m not convinced that consciously continuing means agency has necessarily been reclaimed.
If you’ve become estranged from your work, can no longer justify it to yourself, and still show up every day, then the logical follow up question is : what makes staying possible, or necessary? “I choose to stay” may be agency. But it may also be the narrative that makes an otherwise unbearable necessity bearable.
Sisyphus’s boulder is metaphysically inescapable. The modern boulder often isn’t. Its constraints may be economic, social, psychological, but they are still external, contingent, and therefore potentially changeable. So perhaps changing our relationship to the boulder makes us better at carrying it without necessarily making us freer. And maybe that’s the uncomfortable part. Sometimes reconciliation with necessity is precisely what stops us from questioning why the necessity exists at all.
Beautiful! The fact that you mentioned that we don’t need a dramatic exit from this modern economy to accept the absurdity of this whole system and freeing ourselves is what i loved the most.
This is the first article I have read after discovering this journal. Everything about this it is just, brilliant. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that it takes the words out of my mouth, section to section. I absolutely love how you modeled the idea of absurd 'performative productivity' with the Myth of Sisyphus. I have been trying to get to the bottom of a rabbit hole solely on this topic for months and after reading this, I feel quite enlightened to the idea.
Everything has an 'aesthetic' nowadays, and despite bias for the field of aesthetics, I can't help but see it in the very problems you examine in this article. There are tasks, jobs, and activities that we either can't or shouldn't avoid, though it doesn't mean we should forego acknowledging the 'absurd' aspect of aestheticizing every macro of productivity (i.e. the fated 'performative LinkedIn updates' you mention throughout the article).
I often find myself idealizing many of the things you warn against in this article, and I use writing as a way to protect myself from the pitfalls of ignoring life's absurdity. I look forward to seeing your authorship in this journal for articles to come.
Thank you so much for reading, Caspian! I’m glad to hear that you could resonate and appreciate the points I put across in this piece.
This article and your comments are exactly what I have been thinking and would like to put words on.
It’s great to know other people are looking to discuss the same thing!
I really feel heard by this article. Any time I thought about the Myth of Sisyphus, I was annoyed by the fact that Albert Camus basically looked at one of the worst punishments in ancient Greek mythology and thought: 'You just have to change your mindset, bro!'
But on a more serious note, I think many forms of existential philosophy can be recuperated to our current technological and economical system. Mindfulness and meditation are probably the more popular philosophies that were used to allow for more productivity. I think it was just a matter of time until the productivity of capitalism managed to fulfill most basic desires and had to move on to social and even existential needs. This is why I would like to go further than building an inner fortress to deal with this situation. I think that people also must show each other that meaning, belonging and other needs can be created outside of this system, meaning as a collaboration between people and not as a task to fulfil by oneself.
Hi Florian! Thank you so much for reading and sharing your thoughts !
The boulder analogy is powerful, definitely, but I don’t think it completely explains the performative uselessness of corporate culture. The Tower of Babel is a very helpful analogy. We are actually constructing something, it’s not all just meaninglessly reversed each day. But what we are frantically building is a temple to a false god, using the universal “language” of money and exchange, code and machine. This is not the language of everyday experience that our bodies recognize as meaningful. God - or whatever transcendent sacred entity exists for you - disapproves, and eventually this utopian project will be abandoned.
Thank you so much for reading. The Tower of Babel is a fascinating expansion on this theme, I am intrigued.
Whether we view the corporate project as pushing a rock or building a sky-high monument to a false god, the core tragedy remains alienation. Any system built on a language divorced from genuine human meaning eventually fractures under its own weight.
I really appreciate you bringing this theological depth to the conversation!
The tower of Babel is the analogy Pope Leo XIV uses in his Encyclical about AI and humanity. You should read it!
Thanks! My knowledge of theology is limited but I’m finding that it’s really helpful for understanding things on a deeper level.
I like this analogy better. There is meaning in a lot of corporate work. Just because a task is menial and doesn’t do more than keep the company running doesn’t mean that keeping the company running isn’t meaningless. I like the conclusion the author has regarding bringing a deeper sense of awareness into the work you do, though, and that’s what you’re saying also.
This is what happens when a system replaces coherence with velocity. Sisyphus had lucidity because his pattern was intact. He knew the boulder was a boulder. The modern worker loses that lucidity when metrics overwrite meaning. The absurdity is in the collapse of the boundary between identity and utility. When a person ties their worth to a performance metric, the internal pattern can’t stabilize. Your piece captures the pressure point where narrative has to step back in to restore coherence.
Thank you so much for reading and sharing your thoughts! I’m glad that you are able to relate and properly understand the subject matter of the piece
That’s why more people’s managers need to read this article! They are the ones who bring a lot of stress in people’s life
I think stress usually enters a system when expectations outrun capacity. Managers can amplify that pressure, but the deeper issue is when speed replaces clarity. When the structure is stable, people respond to being given the room to stay coherent.
The boulder now is the laptop, that we carry around through which there never seems to be an end to work, meetings and other deliverables. Every email, excel sheet, code created is pushing the boulder further up only to realise it doesn't matter in the end.
Thank you so much for reading and sharing your thoughts! I’m glad that you are able to relate and properly understand the subject matter of the piece
Great pieces like this make me grateful that I seek fulfillment and validation from hobbies outside of my unserious email job. I cannot imagine wanting anything from the corporate ladder other than the money and cushy lifestyle. My corporate career has a hard ceiling precisely because I refuse to let corporate theater take up more of my mental bandwidth than necessary.
yes, thank you! i AGREE with you on this! Thank you for reading, Fabian!
The modern Sisyphus is not necessarily the person pushing the stone. It may be the person who has forgotten that the stone is something they push — not something they are.
for sure, Peter! thank you so much for reading!
Stay in touch Gaia
will do! don’t forget to subscribe to my substack so you get notified on more of my posts!
What's your life key point ?
This piece is a classic exercise in intellectual branding. You use Albert Camus’s boulder not to offer genuine philosophical insight, but to leverage a famous analogy for clout and audience engagement.
The satirical LinkedIn post is the central hook of the piece, but it isn't a genuine breakthrough in the argument, it's clickbait. It functions as a polished piece of content designed to get easy chuckles and shares, giving the illusion of depth before immediately retreating into standard academic namedropping.
Stacking Camus, Han, Graeber, and Baudrillard in a few short paragraphs reads like a speed-run through an introductory syllabus. You use these names as structural crutches rather than doing the actual intellectual labor. You draw a grand boundary using big-name philosophers to sound profound, but there is no original thought at the core. It is pure posturing, a literature review built to say, "Look how well-read I am."
The hollow nature of the essay becomes painfully clear in the conclusion. After diagnosing an inescapable existential prison, you offer a toothless, passive retreat into basic Stoicism, essentially telling people to just "feel the heavy weight" and keep grinding. It fails to evolve Camus's concept of active, defiant rebellion because a real critique would alienate the very corporate/academic platform your post is fishing for.
Thank you, Ben!
and of course, subscribe to my publication so that you get notified of my future work.
have an amazing day :)
A premium subscription pitch right after dodging the actual critique? That’s a bold pivot, but no. I don’t pay for content that hasn't proven its intellectual rigor. I have, however, bookmarked your page and will be keeping tabs on your future work. If you eventually manage to produce something with genuine philosophical weight rather than just performative bait, I might decide you’re worth my time.
Oh no, Ben. My publication is FREE.
and i only mentioned it because you said you would want to read my future work.
once again, have a fantastic day and thank you for reading!
haha Ben! you’re incredible. thank you so much for reading and leaving this deeply interesting critique.
i’m far from well-read but i’m honoured you got that impression from the piece!
once again, thank you so much for reading and leaving a comment :)
If you truly found the critique interesting, I look forward to seeing it reflected in your future work.
You built the boundary of this essay using some of the heaviest names in philosophy; playing the 'I'm not well-read' card now to dodge a structural critique is a pretty transparent defense mechanism. It's exactly the kind of shallow engagement that makes these platforms exhausting. I left the critique because I prefer actual intellectual rigor over performative aesthetics. Hopefully, next time, you're willing to engage with the substance instead of just managing the comment section. Have a nice day.
The issue I see with this is that once someone understands the futility of something, a gap opens between the person and the task. Eventually, we become estranged from it. We become conscious of ourselves doing something whose ultimate justification we can no longer believe in, and the whole thing begins to feel absurd.
Perhaps the illusion is sustained precisely because it allows us to continue. Why we continue, once the illusion is seen through, is ultimately for each of us to decode and decide.
Thank you for reading and for sharing such a deeply perceptive reflection.
That "gap" you speak of is where the absurdity lives, yes! You make an incredible point about why the illusion exists in the first place as a protective shield. But once that illusion shatters, as you noted, the responsibility shifts back to the individual. We stop pushing out of blind habit and we are forced to refuse suicide and decide why we stay.
Navigating that gap and ULTIMATELY choosing to continue knowingly and on your own terms is precisely where I believe personal agency is reclaimed. This is what Camus was pointing at
I think this is where applying the existential to the systemic gets tricky. I agree that consciousness can change our relationship to an inescapable condition. But I’m not convinced that consciously continuing means agency has necessarily been reclaimed.
If you’ve become estranged from your work, can no longer justify it to yourself, and still show up every day, then the logical follow up question is : what makes staying possible, or necessary? “I choose to stay” may be agency. But it may also be the narrative that makes an otherwise unbearable necessity bearable.
Sisyphus’s boulder is metaphysically inescapable. The modern boulder often isn’t. Its constraints may be economic, social, psychological, but they are still external, contingent, and therefore potentially changeable. So perhaps changing our relationship to the boulder makes us better at carrying it without necessarily making us freer. And maybe that’s the uncomfortable part. Sometimes reconciliation with necessity is precisely what stops us from questioning why the necessity exists at all.
Beautiful! The fact that you mentioned that we don’t need a dramatic exit from this modern economy to accept the absurdity of this whole system and freeing ourselves is what i loved the most.
for my peace of mind, ill read this after work 😭
Aly!! haha! please do come back after work to read and drop me a message if you need someone to talk to about it
Of course, the hamster-wheel routine is absurd. We are not meant to do the same thing over and over, but rather to truly move forward. Progress is not found in the external world, but within. One must overcome dependencies on external factors. I have been doing this successfully for decades. It is not a popular approach, but it leads to happiness and health. https://manfredreichelt.wordpress.com/inhaltsverzeichnis/ , https://independent.academia.edu/ManfredReichelt , https://manfredreichelt.substack.com/
you are absolutely right, Manfred!
Arrrghhh the futility of my corporate job is palpable. I know it, but now I have seen it in black and white I feel validated and despairing at once.
same here! thank you so much for reading!
Spot on
Thank you for reading, Macarena :)
Beautifully written.
Thank you so much for reading, Walt! :)
Great article. Truly well done.
thank you so much for reading