|
A Personal View |
|
| ► | Oversite Home
Page |
| ► | Philosophy
Home Page |
The Myth of Groundhog Day
By Bruce Barbour - Version 2.2 - January 2025. (Original - December 2024.)
Introduction
Firstly a brief summary of the plot of the movie "Groundhog Day" in case you have not seen the movie or as a refresher if it has been a while since you last saw it.Spoiler Alert - don't read this if you intend to watch the movie for the first time in the near future - but do come back afterwards:
| "On
February 1, cynical television weatherman Phil Connors
travels to Punxsutawney for his annual coverage of the
Groundhog Day festivities. He makes no secret of his
contempt for the assignment. On February 2, Phil awakens in the town to Sonny & Cher's "I Got You Babe" playing on the clock radio. He gives a half-hearted report on the groundhog Punxsutawney Phil and the festivities. The next morning, Phil wakes once more to "I Got You Babe" on the radio. Phil experiences the previous day's events repeating exactly - except for changes he introduced. He once again retires to bed. When he awakes, it is again February 2. Phil gradually realizes that he is trapped in a time loop of which no one else is aware. Early on he realizes that there are no consequences for his actions and begins spending the loops indulging in binge eating, one-night stands, robbery, and various dangerous activities, using his increasing knowledge of the day's events and the town residents to manipulate circumstances to his advantage. This includes trying to seduce his work colleague Rita. No matter what steps he takes, Rita rebuffs his advances. Phil gradually becomes depressed and desperate for a way to escape the loop. He commits suicide in a variety of ways. Each time, he reawakens on the morning of February 2 to "I Got You Babe". Phil then decides to use his knowledge of the loop to change himself and others: he learns to play the piano, sculpt ice, and to learn French. He also saves people from deadly accidents and misfortunes. Many times in the loops he is experiencing he tries to prevent a homeless man from dying of natural causes but is unable to do so. On the last iteration of the loop, Phil reports on the Groundhog Day festivities with such eloquence that other news crews stop working to listen to his speech, amazing Rita. Phil continues the day helping the people of Punxsutawney. That night, Rita witnesses Phil's expert piano-playing as the adoring townsfolk regale her with stories of his good deeds earlier that day. Impressed by his apparent overnight transformation, Rita successfully bids for him at a charity bachelor auction. Phil carves an ice sculpture in Rita's image and tells her that no matter what happens, even if he is trapped in the loop forever, he is finally happy because he loves her. They share a kiss and retire to Phil's room. Phil wakes the next morning to "I Got You Babe", but finds Rita is still in bed with him and the radio banter has changed; it is now February 3." Shortened - from
Wikipedia
|
Phil Connors finds himself trapped in a time loop reliving the 2nd of February. Only he can remember what happened during the previous repeats of the day. The rest of the town and his work colleagues are unaware of the time loop and, unless Phil intervenes in their life, will do the same things they did on the first day of Phil's time loop.
I see many parallels to Camus' interpretation of the Myth of Sisyphus. However Groundhog Day suggests a different way of responding to the predicament of life compared to that of Camus' Sisyphus.
Briefly in the myth because Sisyphus had defied the Gods on a number of occasions he is punished by being condemned for all eternity to roll a boulder up a mountain only to have the boulder roll back down the mountain. Sisyphus then has to return down the mountain to the boulder and roll it to the top again - for it to roll down. Sisyphus is condemned to do this for eternity .
Camus saw the predicament of Sisyphus as analogous to the predicament of workers:
| "Rising,
street-car, four hours in the office or the factory, meal,
street-car, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to
the same rhythm . . ." "The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd (than Sisyphus). But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious." - Both Quotes from Camus'
"The Myth of Sisyphus" essay
|
Camus also observed that the Universe does not reveal to humans whether the universe or humans themselves have any purpose or meaning. From that observation Camus came to the conclusion that life was meaningless or at least should be lived in a manner as though life was meaningless(1).
Because Camus believed that everything was meaningless even if a person believes they are "achieving something" while at work to Camus what is being achieved is also meaningless, of no more consequence than rolling a boulder up a mountain to have it roll back down. The work and any "achievement", like the rest of life, is meaningless.
Camus famously started his essay on the Myth of Sisyphus with the words:
| "There
is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is
suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth
living amounts to answering the fundamental question of
philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterwards." |
Camus ultimately rejects suicide as a valid solution to the predicament that his hero Sisyphus, and by extension all humans, find themselves in. Instead he proposes that people embrace life with defiance and acceptance by living with:
- Revolt: - resisting the temptation to seek ultimate meaning or escape through illusions such as religion - an approach that he called psychological suicide. Instead, he encourages confronting the absurdity of the predicament head-on and still live on.
- Freedom: - which is created by the lack of objective meaning. Humans gain the freedom to create their own life (even though it is ultimately meaningless) and to live authentically and intentionally.
- Passion: - to live with intensity and relish the experiences life offers, even knowing that these moments are transient and devoid of universal significance.
I find that Phil Connors' predicament is a better metaphor for the lives of every day people than that of Sisyphus. Our lives each day are very similar to the many previous days we have lived - in that way matching Sisyphus. However there is possibility of change and progress - a possibility not given to Sisyphus. Looking back over our lives there have been changes: - childhood, education, the teenage years, young adulthood and all the challenges and changes brought on by those changes. And then retirement and finally death. Our experiences, emotions and mental abilities also all change. This is mega-change even though on most day to day bases it does not seem that there is much change. We have the possibility of growth. Sisyphus does not - how much more can Sisyphus learn over what he learnt in the first year - or decade - of pushing that boulder up the mountain. Even the ultimate change of escape through death is denied Sisyphus - presumably in the realm of the Gods he is still pushing that boulder up the mountain.
Even if we accept that Phil Connors' predicament is a better metaphor for life it does not imply that his life has any objective meaning. Perhaps all the changes and developments in Phil Connors' life, and by extension our lives, are still objectively meaningless, as meaningless as rolling a rock up a hill to have it roll back down. But it does suggest a that different approach to life, meaningless or otherwise, compared to that of Sisyphus is possible.
What are the differences between the approaches of Camus' Sisyphus and Groundhog's Phil Connors? Firstly Sisyphus:
Camus' Sisyphus ultimately embraces his predicament with defiance or, to put it another way, with revolt. Camus imagines that he accepts the absurdity of the endless meaninglessness of his task without hope of change or of escape. His happiness lies in living in the moment and in embracing the process itself. Sisyphus has no freedom to change his circumstances, so his response is one of internal rebellion and conscious acceptance.
Secondly Phil Connors: - Phil is stuck in a predicament against his will like Sisyphus. However unlike Sisyphus, Phil has much more freedom to explore different mental and physical responses to the predicament. Initially Phil indulges in fleeting pleasures, even if those pleasures are at the expense of others. He lives a life where his actions have no consequence for him - he can hurt, humiliate and use other people for his own pleasure or whim knowing that in the morning the slate will have been wiped clean. However eventually Phil realises that this approach is ultimately unsatisfying. It is meaningless and his life is meaningless. In his embrace of the existential scourge of nihilism he answers Camus' famous challenge "there is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide" by opting for suicide. However this is denied Phil as even after "suicide" he wakes in the morning to Sonny and Cher's "I've Got You Babe" and his predicament continues. (This option was also off the table for Sisyphus as he was already dead.)
What happens next is where Phil's approach vastly differs from that of Sisyphus. Phil undergoes a profound transformation. He shifts from nihilism to altruism, finding fulfillment using his time to help others and to improve himself (learning piano, ice sculpting, etc.). He escapes nihilism by creating meaning in his life through self improvement. This meaning cannot be shown to be objective. The meaning created may be subjective, that is, only meaningful to Phil himself(3). But in creating this meaning he finds happiness, a happiness that was denied him when he was living a life of no consequences, when he embraced nihilism. He found a happiness that had been denied him even as the cynical weatherman prior to arriving in Punxsutawney. He had found happiness despite being trapped in what he must have considered to be an eternal time loop.
A further point on this subject: - Camus was not proposing that the predicament that Sisyphus found himself in was the way we should live our lives - far from it. Camus would not want you to go out into your backyard and start digging a hole to then fill it in the next day - over and over again - an analogous situation to that of Sisyphus - in order to be happy. The point of his use of the Myth was to investigate whether Sisyphus, as an archetypal Absurd Man, could be happy in this predicament - a predicament which although it may have some analogies to everyday life would be at the extreme of what people could find themselves in - though there could be even worse situations. Camus' conclusion was yes. My conclusion is probably not.
Camus proposed that people live with revolt, freedom and passion. However once Sisyphus had been condemned by the Gods to that rock any physical revolt, freedom and passion was denied him. If he was to react to his predicament it had to be all mental. Sisyphus' mind was free to adopt whatever mental approach he wanted. The rest of us can adopt a mental approach to our particular predicament but can also adopt a physical approach. Phil Collins could adopt a mental approach to life. However, unlike Sisyphus, Phil could also adopt a physical approach - even though it was restrained in one very important aspect.
During the early stages of his time loop predicament Phil did try out a number of different mental and physical approaches. He did perhaps in some manner live as Camus suggested in that he did revolt and live with more freedom than he had done before the time loop. He rejected many of the social norms in the way he treated other people, being violent and rude (ruder than usual) to some of them if he felt like it. He tried seduction through various underhanded means. He either did not turn up to his reporting task or had a flippant half-hearted approach to it. He was freer to do this than normal people, even freer than an Absurdist, because his actions had no consequences. However over time he rejected this life style. It did not bring him the happiness he sought. Final Phil was not in revolt - he had accepted, even embraced, his predicament. He choose to restrain his freedom in that he did not eschew all social norms of behaviour though this did not seem to be burdensome to him. Final Phil was living with passion. He clearly loved playing jazz in the local band and doing ice sculpture. He treated the people he interacted with well and helped them which made them happy, as well as himself, even though he was aware that it was transient.
The Ubermensch vs the Groundhog
While Camus urges that we should embrace the meaninglessness of life fully - and to live on despite it through revolt, freedom and passion, other existentialists advocate different approaches. Nietzsche was very concerned that the decline in religious belief that he observed in society at the end of the 19th century would lead to nihilism - a belief in nothing and a loss of all meaning.Nietzsche, although an atheist himself, thought that the loss of belief in God would pose issues for people and society. He thought that in order to be able to keep living people needed to believe that their life had some meaning. Nietzsche wrote: -
|
"“If we have our own why in life, we shall get along with
almost any how. " "Twilight of the Idols" This was echoed in Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." |
In this quote the "why in life" is often the person's meaning. The way that Nietzsche proposed that people seek meaning was through embracing a process to gain power, which he called the "will to power".
Part of the way that Nietzsche proposed that people endeavour to achieve power is through a process of self mastery, a concept called the Übermensch. Ubermensch is sometimes translated as the Overman or Superman. Nietzsche saw this as the next level of development or evolution of man. The characteristics of this Ubermensch was a man (he did not seem to apply this possibility to women) as a person that fully embraces life including its struggles and suffering, and who also transcends the constraints of conventional societal expectations and morality, creating his own values to live by. He transcends the way a "normal" man lives life. Nietzsche called "normal" men the Last Man(4).
Nietzsche's Ubermensch is his suggested method of overcoming the meaningless of life and the consequent possibility of nihilism. As his basis for the Ubermensch Neitzsche looked for examples of men that he thought represented the next stage of mankind's evolution. However in doing this he was selective in men he chose as examples. Alain de Botton from the School of Life suggest some of the people he selected as examples of where humans should evolve to were:- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Napoleon, Montaigne, Voltaire, and Julius Caesar. A couple of them are philosophers and polymaths but a couple of them are dictators and people that waged wars. The basis on which the exemplars were chosen seems arbitrary to me, based solely on Nietzsche's preferences. If he had chosen others his Ubermensch may have been quite different. Drop the dictators, add a few more artists - Da Vinci, Michelangelo - and some scientists - Newton and Galileo are some that come to mind - then the Ubermensch's characteristics may well have been different(5). Also Nietzsche's choice of the "will to power" as something the evolved man should strive for also seems arbitrary.
Regardless of this the Ubermensch is a philosophy of self improvement. The Ubermensch creates a purpose, and therefore also a subjective meaning, in life by becoming a "better" version of a person, though better is a subjective term and I question whether Nietzsche's Ubermensch is the best form of "better" available to man.
Both Nietzsche's Ubermensch and the Groundhog's Phil Connors suggest a process of overcoming meaninglessness by embracing self improvement(6). This raises the question - Is the Groundhog's Phil Connors a form of Ubermensch?
In some ways yes - as they both embrace self improvement though after that the similarities dissipate. The type of the self improvement they seek is quite different. Final Phil gains skills and connection, the Ubermensch gains power. Would the Ubermensch bother to learn to play a musical instrument? Maybe, but it does very little for their overall purpose of gaining power. Final Phil basically accepts or conforms to conventional morality, living in rough conformity with it, though this is not seen as a burden by him. The Ubermensch rejects conventional morality and creates and lives by his own rules. Final Phil is altruistic, the Ubermensch not so much - though Nietzsche's Ubermensch in his book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" does seek to spread the word about the desirability of becoming an Ubermensch for what Nietzsche sees as the betterment of humanity - though the reasons that he would bother doing so are not entirely clear.
If the final version of Phil Connors could be classed as an Ubermensch it would be a reinterpreted and much more human version of an Ubermensch. He would be a form of Ubermensch unrecognisable to Nietzsche, who would probably group him in with the Last men. So No - final Phil is not an Nietzschian Ubermensch. Perhaps he could be better described as closer to a Renaissance Man, though certainly not achieving the feats of many that have been described that way. Final Phil does suggest an alternate approach to our every day predicament of life compared to that of Camus and Nietzsche. An approach which would be more palatable to most people.
Conclusion
Groundhog Day asks the question: given our predicament what should we do with our life, how should we live our lives? This is the same question tackled by both Camus in the Myth of Sisyphus and Nietzsche's Ubermensch. However Groundhog Day provides a suggestion that may be more palatable than either of the alternatives.Ultimately Sisyphus is not a good metaphor for human existence. There are no Gods forcing you to do the same thing over and over again. You have a freedom not granted to Sisyphus. It would be really silly not to use that freedom - to keep pushing boulders uphill when you don't need to, at least not for all of your life. You are free to explore all the alternatives available to you.
Camus' (non-Sisyphusian) "Absurd Man" is a suggestion for human existence however the Absurd man is in a continual state of revolt, continually aware of and fighting off the demons of nihilism. It is a revolt where the revolution can't be won. A revolt without hope of ever ending - except with death. It does not sound like a recipe for happiness. Even freedom is not without issues. With freedom you have the tyranny of choice - how do you decide what to chose from a multitude that is available. And the choice for an Absurd Man is going to be wider than for others. Ultimately the person becomes responsible for all their choices - and for the Absurd Man there are no guidelines or guardrails. The suggestion that a person should live with passion is, I suggest, the best of the triumvirate. To be passionate about anything must mean a person enjoys doing it. Hence it must be happiness inducing. However you do not need to be an Absurdist or an Existentialist in order to live with passion.
Would you embrace the life of the Ubermensch? To me he seems to be unappealing - not someone that should be put up as an example for all to strive for. Many people, including me, do not see gaining power for the sake of power as a worthwhile goal. If the power was to enable the achievement of another goal that is seen as worthwhile by the person then that may be different. Sometimes power is necessary to achieve a goal. Without that secondary goal power is meaningless. It is an empty goal, like say a goal to own a new car.
Nietzsche's Ubermensch seemingly has a solitary existence and sees himself as superior to most of the others he interacts with - lesser men, Last Men. A man that rejects society's moral system in favour of his own selective moral code. This could mean that the Ubermensch could decide that it is acceptable for him in certain circumstances to murder and break other rules. It seems to provide justification of the acts of dictators and other tyrants who may consider themselves beyond normally accepted morals.
The will to power and Ubermensch is a philosophy that could not be applied as a universal law(7) applicable to all. A society cannot work where everyone is operating in accordance with their own moral code. A society could not work where everyone is striving solely for power. It is not a philosophy for evolved humans living in an evolved society.
Compare those options to the potential life of final Phil, a life of connection with other people, a life of service to others, a life of self improvement. A life that has subjective meaning. And final Phil can live with passion, and in fact does. And if he chooses there is nothing to stop him being aware of his ultimate freedom even if he chooses to use that freedom in a sparing manner. He is not revolting against his predicament but embracing his life including all of its restrictions with passion.
Whose life would you choose? That of final Phil Connors? Or that of Sisyphus or the Absurd Man? Or that of the Ubermensch. I consider the answer obvious.
One must imagine Phil Connors happy.
