Does Saving One Life Change the World, or Does It Change Us?
In The Last of Us Part 1, the player has no freedom to alter the course of events. The story follows a predetermined path, leaving no room for branching choices. Yet the game confronts us with a profound philosophical question: does saving one life truly change the world, or does it only change the person who chooses to save?
Joel, who lost his daughter at the dawn of the outbreak, spends years as a hollow man—alive, yet stripped of purpose. Survival becomes routine, not life. When Ellie enters his journey, saving her ceases to be a mere physical act of protection. Instead, it becomes an existential gesture. Through Ellie, Joel rediscovers the possibility of meaning, the echo of fatherhood, and the fragile beauty of human connection.
Between the Individual and the Collective
The climax unfolds in the hospital, where Joel rescues Ellie from being sacrificed for a possible cure. On the surface, his act is selfish, even treacherous to humanity. But philosophically, it reveals something essential: the tension between the value of the individual and the abstraction of the collective. Which carries greater weight? The faceless masses, or the singular person whose life gives our own existence meaning?
Here, echoes of existentialist thought emerge. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus insisted that life gains significance not from grand ideals, but from personal choices that define us. Joel’s choice, like Camus’ refusal to surrender to absurdity, asserts that meaning is born from love, not statistics.
The world outside remains broken; the infection still rages. Yet the true transformation occurs within Joel. By saving Ellie, he liberates himself from the shadow of loss and reclaims the will to live. In this sense, The Last of Us is less about the apocalypse than about the intimate question of what it means to be human: do we exist to save the world, or to save the hearts that save us?
Reply