Synopsis
Published in 1942 Camus began writing this book as France (his home country) was collapsing under the pressure of the German advance. Let’s just say it was probably a pretty dark time to be a Frenchmen. This book starts off by Camus asking what he considers to be the most important question in philosophy. Which is: does the realization that life is meaningless and absurd necessarily require suicide? He then begins by defining exactly what he means by absurd. According to Camus the absurd emerges when man’s passionate and ceaseless desire for an answer from the universe is, and forever will be met by silence. He asserts that many philosophers have started from this realization but have in the end taken a leap to get around or alleviate the discomfort of this conclusion. Either by turning to a God or elevating reason until it essentially serves the function of God. He labels this leap “philosophical suicide”. He says that suicide in general is admission that either life is too much for you or that you do not understand it. The same could be said of this philosophical leap. His approach is rooted in acceptance of the absurd without hope, but a perpetual revolt in spite of this fact. He uses the story of Sisyphus (the guy who is cursed to roll a rock up a hill only to see it roll back down again) as a guide to how to live in this absurd world. He says, “there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” This is the attitude of revolt that the absurd hero must adopt. To at once be fully conscious of the meaninglessness of your life while at the same time transcending this conclusion by acceptance. As the famous quote from this essay states “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”. The point is that you can choose to find freedom in a universe that does not have a predefined path.
Thoughts
Camus’ writing style is so quotable. It is hard to read because you want to write down everything the man says because it is so well worded. I will try to pick out a few quotes, but it will be difficult to narrow it down. Camus seemed to be a very “live in the moment” type of guy. He is quite educated and well-read but at the same time appears to reject most of the conclusions from thinkers through the ages, instead opting for a strict empiricism that is quite limited in scope.
“This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction. For if I try to seize this self of which I feel sure, if I try to define and to summarize it, it is nothing but water slipping through my fingers.”
I found his worldview compelling and logical albeit quite dark. The central tenant being that in the context of the universe every action is of equal meaning and therefore meaninglessness.
“To work and create ‘for nothing’, to sculpture in clay, to know that one’s creation has no future, to see one’s work destroyed in a day while being aware that fundamentally this has no more importance than building for centuries- this is the difficult wisdom that absurd thought sanctions.”
He has a section on free will, which was very interesting, saying: “man exchanges his divinity for happiness”. This is a brilliant idea to me. In this sense, by divinity he is referring to the generative aspect of man. This is what it means to be divine, to generate or create. Nietzsche’s “God is dead” statement was not an exultation, Camus believes that we should read Dostoyevsky’s “everything is permitted” the same way. Everything being permitted means there are not limitations to your choice. No limitations means no structure. No structure means no goal. No goal means of course no meaning. But, if this conclusion is too bleak you can always trade in your divinity by picking up an ‘off the shelf’ system that has all the limitations, structure, goals, and meaning that you desire. If accepted, it will most likely make you happier. This is a poignant reminder that whenever you find something that seems to explain everything (i.e. a cult that believes a UFO is coming to take you off planet) you are sacrificing your divinity.
In the end this was thought provoking and made a lot of sense. I do feel as if his suggestions are easier said than done, but that seems to be the case with every “life plan”. Of course, I say life plan ironically as this goes against the whole point he was trying to make.
People/Albert Camus