Absurd

I recently read a book, “The Myth Of Sisyphus” by Albert Camus. To my understanding, the book was his way of breaking free from the philosophy of existentialism and into what is now called “absurdism”.

The word absurd isn’t really what we would normally think of it as, why should it be? When have philosophers ever used words the way the rest of us do? I suppose every field of study has its own parlance. Anyway, ‘absurd’, for us, and for Camus, will mean to say “humanly impossible”, as opposed to the vernacular “logically impossible”.

I read this book and it caught me off guard. I was greatly disturbed by the consequences of his reasoning. Now, I consider myself an emotionless man when I need to be, or when I want to be – I couldn’t sleep after reading this.

My understanding of the absurd is this: when we look about us we find people, including ourselves, looking for some meaning in life. According to Camus, searching for meaning in life is pointless, or rather, unattainable. Even having faith in God (or a god, or even some other religion) isn’t a 100% done deal in securing for humanity something meaningful. Why? Faith, regardless of which definition one uses, always relies on some sense of induction, never a 100% surety. If we were, say, 100% sure about something it wouldn’t be faith anymore. One must, in the language of Kierkegaard, make a “leap” and simply trust, whether blindly or with reason. Considering all the many manuscripts available, the eye-witness accounts, etc… of Christianity, one still must make that leap in order or free oneself of this world lacking meaning. This, to Camus, is unacceptable – the reason is because one is never guaranteed the doctrines of Christianity, for example, or any other religion, to be solid. Even Paul the Apostle makes room for human error.

Another way to avoid this lack of apparent meaning in the world is to kill yourself. Suicide is certainly the ultimate escape. This, too, is unacceptable. Suicide doesn’t really solve the problem, it’s just an escape, nothing more. It is a cowardly approach, to say the least, but it is a way.

I for one don’t like that option, obviously.

The third, and most acceptable, way of escaping this absurdity in the search for meaning is to simply live with it, struggle with it, accept it! One may continue to search for meaning, but it is a fruitless endeavor – if 5,000 years worth of scholars could not find meaning in this much time, many much smarter than myself, what hope do I have of suddenly finding meaning?

This is different from nihilism that holds that there is no such thing as meaning. The search for meaning is pointless, as well, for nihilists. This is not the case with absurdism. One may still have a set of morals, established beliefs, etc… but still be an absurd-man. One may have a personal set of rules, or a code, but still realize the fruitlessness in the search for meaning. I believe, like what I perceive Camus as believing, that to be a nihilist is to be childish and immature. It’s a way of justifying doing what you want without anyone telling you otherwise. In other words, to me, it’s like being a teenager (obvious hyperbole).

In the end, one must just laugh. What other option do you have? Laugh! Have fun! Live it up!

Hope, now, becomes absurd. Hope is the inner desire for what we believe to be true, especially in regards to meaning. Christians, if I may continue to use them as an example, hope in a coming world. This assumes you found meaning, it assumes you took a “leap” somewhere. This would be contradictory if you are an absurd-man.

Personal quests, too, are absurd, for they give oneself temporary meaning – one doesn’t solve the problem entirely. I suppose if you give yourself a bunch of tiny “quests” throughout your life you wouldn’t be contradicting yourself, that is, if you wanted to be an absrud-man, but really, you’re just running around in circles.

The solution becomes this: struggle. Life now becomes a struggle to maintain this sense of absurdity. To believe at any point is to commit “philosophical suicide” – you see the absurd clearly yet you take that leap from deductive solidity to an illogical position.

The book ends with the myth of Sisyphus. The myth is short, we quote a paraphrased version of it from wikipedia:

“Camus outlines the legend of Sisyphus who defied the gods and put Death in chains so that no human needed to die. When Death was eventually liberated and it came time for Sisyphus himself to die, he concocted a deceit which let him escape from the underworld. Finally captured, the gods decided on his punishment: for all eternity, he would have to push a rock up a mountain; on the top, the rock rolls down again and Sisyphus has to start over.”

When Sisyphus escaped from the underworld he loved the taste of life, of water, of being with his wife, people, music and all the rest so much that he didn’t want to go back. He was later condemned to lift a rock up a hill and watch it roll back down for the rest of eternity. This, the gods thought, is the most fitting end to Sisyphus, the most meaningless task there is.

Camus views Sisyphus as the absurd-hero. Camus draws a parallel between humanity and their ceaseless, repetitive, toil – the workman’s life is no less different a fate than that of Sisyphus. The tragedy, as Camus puts it, is when he comes to be award of his situation.

So with Sisyphus. The tragedy is lifted, however, when one looks to themselves and recognizes the absurd, the situation becomes one in which we may pacify ourselves and come to a state of acceptance. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

I recently read a book, “The Myth Of Sisyphus” by Albert Camus. To my understanding, the book was his way of breaking free from the philosophy of existentialism and into what is now called “absurdism”.

The word absurd isn’t really what we would normally think of it as, why should it be? When have philosophers ever used words the way the rest of us do? I suppose every field of study has its own parlance. Anyway, ‘absurd’, for us, and for Camus, will mean to say “humanly impossible”, as opposed to the vernacular “logically impossible”.

I read this book and it caught me off guard. I was greatly disturbed by the consequences of his reasoning. Now, I consider myself an emotionless man when I need to be, or when I want to be – I couldn’t sleep after reading this.

My understanding of the absurd is this: when we look about us we find people, including ourselves, looking for some meaning in life. According to Camus, searching for meaning in life is pointless, or rather, unattainable. Even having faith in God (or a god, or even some other religion) isn’t a 100% done deal in securing for humanity something meaningful. Why? Faith, regardless of which definition one uses, always relies on some sense of induction, never a 100% surety. If we were, say, 100% sure about something it wouldn’t be faith anymore. One must, in the language of Kierkegaard, make a “leap” and simply trust, whether blindly or with reason. Considering all the many manuscripts available, the eye-witness accounts, etc… of Christianity, one still must make that leap in order or free oneself of this world lacking meaning. This, to Camus, is unacceptable – the reason is because one is never guaranteed the doctrines of Christianity, for example, or any other religion, to be solid. Even Paul the Apostle makes room for human error.

Another way to avoid this lack of apparent meaning in the world is to kill yourself. Suicide is certainly the ultimate escape. This, too, is unacceptable. Suicide doesn’t really solve the problem, it’s just an escape, nothing more. It is a cowardly approach, to say the least, but it is a way.

I for one don’t like that option, obviously.

The third, and most acceptable, way of escaping this absurdity in the search for meaning is to simply live with it, struggle with it, accept it! One may continue to search for meaning, but it is a fruitless endeavor – if 5,000 years worth of scholars could not find meaning in this much time, many much smarter than myself, what hope do I have of suddenly finding meaning?

This is different from nihilism that holds that there is no such thing as meaning. Even search for meaning is pointless for nihilists. This is not the case with absurdism. One may still have a set of morals, established beliefs, etc… but still be an absurd-man. One may have a personal set of rules, or a code, but still realize the fruitlessness in the search for meaning. I believe, like what I perceive Camus as believing, that to be a nihilist is to be childish and immature. It’s a way of justifying doing what you want without anyone telling you otherwise. In other words, to me, it’s like being a teenager (obvious hyperbole).

In the end, one must just laugh. What other option do you have? Laugh! Have fun! Live it up!

Hope, now, becomes absurd. Hope is the inner desire for what we believe to be true, especially in regards to meaning. Christians, if I may continue to use them as an example, hope in a coming world. This assumes you found meaning, it assumes you took a “leap” somewhere. This would be contradictory if you are an absurd-man.

Personal quests, too, are absurd, for they give oneself temporary meaning – one doesn’t solve the problem entirely. I suppose if you give yourself a bunch of tiny “quests” throughout your life you wouldn’t be contradicting yourself, that is, if you wanted to be an absrud-man, but really, you’re just running around in circles.

The solution becomes this: struggle. Life now becomes a struggle to maintain this sense of absurdity. To believe at any point is to commit “philosophical suicide” – you see the absurd clearly yet you take that leap from deductive solidity to an illogical position.

The book ends with the myth of Sisyphus. The myth is short, we quote a paraphrased version of it from wikipedia:

Camus outlines the legend of Sisyphus who defied the gods and put Death in chains so that no human needed to die. When Death was eventually liberated and it came time for Sisyphus himself to die, he concocted a deceit which let him escape from the underworld. Finally captured, the gods decided on his punishment: for all eternity, he would have to push a rock up a mountain; on the top, the rock rolls down again and Sisyphus has to start over.

When Sisyphus escaped from the underworld he loved the taste of life, of water, of being with his wife, people, the Sun, music, and all the rest so much so that he didn’t want to go back. He was later condemned to lift a rock up a hill and watch it roll back down for the rest of eternity. This, the gods thought, is the most fitting punishment for Sisyphus: the most meaningless task there is.

Camus views Sisyphus as the absurd-hero. Camus draws a parallel between humanity and their ceaseless, repetitive, toil – the workman’s life is no less different a fate than that of Sisyphus. The tragedy, as Camus puts it, is when the worker comes to be award of his situation.

So with Sisyphus. The tragedy is lifted, however, when one looks to themselves and recognizes the absurd, the situation becomes one in which we may pacify ourselves and come to a state of acceptance. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

Well, all of that is fine for Sisyphus, but I cannot accept that – thus, you see, my being disturbed is justified.

Advertisement