Look, all I'm saying is that Plato could have jazzed it up a bit.

The Allegory of the Cave is one of the more famous parables by Plato, where he imagines a group of people chained in a cave, knowing only the shadows on the wall in front of them. He says they would presume that the shadows were the real world, having known nothing else. He then asks us to imagine a prisoner who broke free. He would first have a hard time looking at the light of the fire, because his eyes wouldn't be used to it. He would think the fire were less clear than the shadows. When he walked outside into the sun, he would be even more dazzled by the brightness, but with time would come to understand the "true world". Plato then says that he would be obligated to go back into the cave and teach the prisoners about the true world, even though they would mock him and be reluctant.
You can watch a great animated version narrated by Orson Welles here.
Movies like The Matrix are said by some to have similar themes, and much, much more Kung Fu. Plato probably could have learned a thing or two on the Kung Fu front from The Wachowskis, when you get down to it.

"A bad teacher you say? Well, it sure seems like you know a lot about 'badness'. I agree, you do know about that one, because you are a bad student."

that part about the lyres is totally true btw

Yes, there is ultimately no point in convicting criminals, but a true absurd hero must realize that and lock them all up anyway.

As renoun philosopher Al Davis said, the meaning life is to just win, baby.

For Heidegger, the most authentic mode of being was "Being-Towards-Death", which means being while fully aware and understanding that our death is coming. Death doesn't take place in our life, it is outside of life and experience, but still we must live knowing that everything we do brings us closer to death. While this knowledge brings us angst, if we don't live acknowledging the true nature of our existence, we are living inauthtentically.
For Camus, the question of whether or not we should kill ourselves was in some way the central question of life. It wasn't until we could answer this most basic question that we could answer the more concrete problems of life. Without knowing whether or not life was worth living, for example, we could not say whether or not we should chase pleasure or crusade for political justice.
For Simone de Beauvoir, the question of whether or not we should kill ourselves was incoherent. We are thrust into existence and forced to take action, the question of what sort of form that action would take, and what kind of lives we intended to live were the only possible things we could ask ourselves. Questions about the value or meaning of life were questions outside of life itself, so not relevant to what we must do while we exist, which is to take on projects in the world.
In Buddhist traditions, coming to full enlightenment meant understand our part in the universe, and unraveling the illusions that are presented to us by everyday myths of existence. Suffering is causes by desires towards material attachments or achievements, such as winning pointless games, and ultimate enlightenment somehow moves us past the constraints of these attachments, allowing us to understand that our existence is transient.
Oh, and also, Heidegger was a loser who lost at everything. That's a well known historical fact.