Groundhog Day as Philosophy: Phil Connors Says “No” to Eternal Return

In Groundhog Day, weatherman Phil Connors is a miserable human being living a life that lacks meaning. Forced to relive the same day over and over and over again, Phil must come to grips with his unhappiness and the fact that his life is pointless. Some compare the repetition of days in Groundhog Day to Friedrich Nietzsche’s conception of eternal recurrence, as well as Albert Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus. I argue that the movie rejects a postmodern or existential view of happiness and life’s meaning. While Nietzsche and Camus reject optimism and hope, this feel-good rom com teaches us tomorrow can be a better day. Phil’s transformation from a self-proclaimed jerk to a loving and admirable human being reinforces what Aristotle teaches us, namely that happiness is about habitually doing the right thing. Phil does not find meaning in his life by coming to terms with his mortality, and then simply changing his attitude about his life and current situation, i.e., meaning subjectivism. Instead Phil eventually finds happiness and meaning by becoming a better person, which is done by performing virtuous acts; e.g., being kind, generous, courageous, etc. Thus, the movie supports Aristotle’s virtue ethics approach toward thinking about happiness and life’s meaning, rather than Nietzsche’s of Camus’ subjective approach.