- Albert Camus said the first pressing question of philosophy is the question of suicide: should we kill ourselves? We want to be firstly concerned here with the conditions of the possibility of the question of suicide.
- To carry out this task we must investigate (ontic) happiness and unhappiness, and then follow them to (ontological) fulfillment and unfulfillment. In this way, we shall be able to characterize what condemnation is.
- After answering what happiness/unhappiness and fulfillment/unfulfillment are, and what and how condemnation is, and how it is related to unhappiness/unfulfillment and suicide, we can then take up the first raising of the question of suicide–in a general sense of how the question might arise in everyday life (phenomenology).
- After establishing what and how condemnation is in its structure, we must ask what its being is–absence, the nothing, nullity, negation–presencing of (the) absence (of Existenz).
- We must then look for any way out of this state with regard to “the leap” in Camus. We bring up the possibility of resolution and “hopeless fighting” and the freeing of healing.
- We must then bring in fulfillment and the Autonomous Temperament, and try to clarify what autonomy is in its structure. To speak of this we must also bring to light the problem of world-collapse and the problem of meaning. But to talk about world-collapse and the problem of meaning involves a discussion about definite conceptions of being (as presencing), as meaning and intelligibility get their signification in being. To this end, we must also bring in the temporality of Dasein.
- The question of authenticity and the truth of being must be posed. Condemnation is inauthentic in a sense because of world-collapse–authentic Dasein can take back its projects. To this end, Dasein is constrained, barred up in itself in its condemnation, its absence of freedom and existentiality. To the extent that condemnation is inauthentic, Dasein remains in untruth.
- With all that, we must return again to the question of how to get out of condemnation without taking “a leap”, if it is even possible; and then once again reformulate Camus’ pressing question of all metaphysics: should we commit suicide, is it worth living a condemned life? And then finally we must ask: what does it mean to live a condemned life; with the dynamic of untruth in inauthenticity of condemnation, how might truth–authenticity be disclosed in a condemned life?