Somewhere between the fourth motivational reel about "protecting your peace" and the third LinkedIn post about gratitude as a growth strategy, a reasonable person might start to feel that the mental health conversation has curdled into something deeply, almost professionally, annoying. Not wrong, exactly. Just so aggressively hopeful that it has lost all contact with the actual texture of being alive, which involves, among other things, doing work that might go nowhere, building things in front of an audience of twelve, and getting out of bed anyway.

There is a philosophical tradition that has been sitting quietly in the corner this whole time, watching the affirmation economy with the expression of someone who has seen this before. It is called absurdism. It is about two hundred years younger than it needs to be given how long humans have been struggling, and it has done more for my mental health than any amount of morning routines or vision boarding has done for anyone I have ever met.

I did not arrive at it through a philosophy class. I arrived at it, approximately, through a book about the restaurant industry written by a man who described himself as a "journeyman cook" and whose actual subject, if you read it correctly, was how to stay sane while doing work that might eat you alive.

Albert Camus was a French-Algerian philosopher who, in 1942, published The Myth of Sisyphus, an essay that opens with the sentence: "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." Which is a very dramatic way to begin a book that is ultimately about why you should not do it.

The argument, compressed: life has no inherent meaning. The universe does not care about your intentions, your effort, or your brand positioning. You will search for meaning and the universe will not search back. Camus called this collision, between the human need for meaning and the world's absolute silence on the matter, the Absurd. And then, instead of concluding that this is a reason for despair, he concluded the opposite. The appropriate response to the Absurd is not to collapse under it or to invent comforting fictions to escape it. The appropriate response is to acknowledge it fully, look it in the face without flinching, and then continue anyway.

His image for this was Sisyphus, the figure from Greek mythology condemned to roll a boulder up a hill for eternity, watch it roll back down, and begin again. Forever. No progress. No accumulation. No finish line. Camus ended the essay with one of the strangest and most useful sentences in the history of ideas: "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

"The boulder rolls back down every time. The hill does not get shorter. The point is not to reach the top. The point is to be someone who keeps rolling — and to find, in that act itself, something that resembles a life."

Not happy because the situation improved. Not happy because he found a workaround or manifested a different boulder. Happy because he owns the boulder. Because the struggle is his, completely, and nothing the universe does can take that away from him. The defiance is the point. The rebellion against meaninglessness, conducted not through grand gestures but through the daily, repetitive, unglamorous act of showing up, is what passes for human dignity in a Camusian world.

You can see why the wellness industry did not pick this up. It does not fit on a pastel background.

Anthony Bourdain published Kitchen Confidential in 2000 as, ostensibly, a memoir about the restaurant business. It is about the hours, the chaos, the burns, the politics of the pass, the hierarchy of the kitchen, the particular madness of choosing a profession that will work you like an animal and pay you accordingly. It was marketed as an exposé. It was received as entertainment. What it actually was, if you read it as a philosophy book, which is the correct way to read it, was a sustained argument for absurdism in practice.

Bourdain was not writing about respecting vegetables. He was writing about showing up correctly to work that does not promise you anything. The kitchen in Kitchen Confidential is a perfectly Camusian environment: the suffering is real, the reward is uncertain, the structure is brutal, and the people who survive it are not the ones who are most optimistic. They are the ones who have made a private peace with the conditions and chosen to be excellent inside them anyway. The ones who find meaning not in the outcome, the review, the reservation list, the Michelin star, but in the execution. The sauce. The timing. The plate that goes out correctly.

Bourdain never called himself an absurdist. He probably would have found the label irritating. But the sensibility is identical: do not lie to yourself about how hard this is, do not expect the universe to reward your effort proportionally, and do not let either of those facts stop you from doing the work at the highest standard you are capable of. The boulder goes back down. You push it up again. You do it well.

Are the two connected? Bourdain and Camus? We will never know. But the operating system is the same.

I watched tick, tick... BOOM! because Andrew Garfield was in it. I did not particularly enjoy it. What I could not shake, afterwards, was a single exchange near the end.

Jonathan Larson, the real one, the one the musical is about, spent eight years writing a show called Superbia. Eight years. He lost money he did not have. He lost time. He lost relationships. He lost the girlfriend. He missed the moment the workshop reading was supposed to change everything, and it did not change anything. And when he describes what that cost him to someone who has known him through all of it, the response is not consolation. It is not "it was worth it" or "your time will come." It is, essentially: do it all over again. Until something sticks.

That is not optimism. That is absurdism. The distinction matters because optimism requires you to believe the outcome will be good. Absurdism does not require you to believe anything about the outcome. It only requires you to decide that the act of trying, consistently, seriously, without the guarantee of return, is sufficient justification for itself.

Positive thinking, the clinical kind, the kind that has been studied rather than sold, has a real evidence base in specific contexts. Cognitive reframing is a legitimate therapeutic tool. Optimism as a disposition has documented correlations with better health outcomes. None of this is the problem.

The problem is what the wellness industrial complex did to these ideas when it got hold of them. It extracted the useful parts, removed the difficulty, added a font, and sold the resulting product to people who are struggling with genuinely hard circumstances and now feel additionally bad about themselves for failing to feel good about those circumstances. If you are broke and building something from scratch and the algorithm is not rewarding you and three people opened your last newsletter and you also have to do your taxes, the suggestion that you should reframe this as an opportunity and lead with gratitude is not helpful. It is an insult dressed as advice.

Absurdism does not insult you. It does not ask you to feel differently about the difficulty. It asks you to feel clearly about it, to see it as it actually is, to stop expecting the universe to compensate you fairly for your effort, and to find in that clarity a strange and durable kind of freedom. You cannot be disappointed by an outcome you never assumed was guaranteed. You cannot be broken by a system you never trusted to be fair. And you can, once you have released yourself from the requirement that any of this should feel meaningful by external measure, do the work very cleanly and very well.

"Absurdism does not ask you to feel differently about the difficulty. It asks you to feel clearly about it. There is a strange and durable freedom in that — one that no amount of positive thinking has ever managed to replicate."

It looks like publishing the newsletter when three people are subscribed. It looks like writing the article that might get twelve views and making it as good as if it might get twelve thousand, because the standard is yours and not the algorithm's. It looks like launching the product, watching it land quietly, and starting work on the next one the same afternoon, not because you are delusional about the outcome but because you have decided the practice is the point.

Bourdain described cooks who had this quality, the ones who showed up at 6am and broke down the mise en place with the same precision on a Tuesday in January as they did on a Saturday night in December. The restaurant might be half empty. The review might never come. The chef who owns the kitchen might be insufferable. None of that changes the quality of the knife work. The knife work is the thing in your control. So the knife work is the thing you do perfectly.

That is not a metaphor about cooking. That is a complete operating philosophy for anyone building something from scratch in conditions that do not promise them anything.

Near the end of The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus writes about what he calls the "absurd man", the person who has fully reckoned with the meaninglessness of the universe and chosen revolt over resignation. He describes this person not as tragic or defeated but as free. Free specifically because they have stopped bargaining with the universe for a fairness that was never on offer. They have taken their existence back from the future, from the hoped-for outcome, the eventual payoff, the recognition that might come, and planted it firmly in the present act.

The boulder is going back down. It always goes back down. You already know this.

Push it up anyway. Push it up well. Find, if you can, something in the pushing itself that you would call yours.

Sisyphus, Camus insists, is happy. Not despite the boulder. Because of what he does with it.

Subscribe here
Visit Profreelance