About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Just Finished Reading: The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus

This was a rather strange book though in general easier to read that my previous work by this author (The Rebel). Written and published during the Occupation, Camus attempts to answer the question of why we don’t choose to kill ourselves – basically asking the question of what makes life worth living. Typically of Camus, and maybe French philosophy in general, he doesn’t tackle the question head on but sidles up to it from an oblique but interesting angle by putting forward the idea of Absurdity.

As far as I can work out so far, Camus believes that human life is patently absurd in that we fully expect the world to be rational when obviously it isn’t – yet we still act as if it is. We expect things to make sense, for effect to follow cause, for history to flow in a certain direction, for things to progress and so on. None of this, according to Camus, is true. In another sense of the meaning of absurdity, Camus relates how the universe is silent to our questions basically because it is made out of dead matter which we imbue with a purpose it does not possess. Because we basically impose our meaning(s) on a meaningless universe the inevitable result is an absurd situation. In order to cope with this Camus proposes that individuals strong enough to deal with the consequences attempt to see things as they really are – to become lucid. Once lucidity is achieved (on a semi-regular basis) the individual who has accomplished this state becomes free from many of the constraints that bind other people to the pervasive illusions surrounding them allowing him to move beyond many of the disappointments that cause so much pain and fear.

I’m still wrapping my head around his ideas and think that I’m slowly working them out. Both Sisyphus and Rebel have been an instrumental foundation in the dissertation I’m working on and I think the idea of absurdity and lucidity have a great deal of mileage in them. If I remember correctly though, Camus says that the tension created by the acknowledgment of the divergence between our beliefs about the world and the reality should be maintained. I actually thought that once the world was fully accepted for what it is – essentially dead and meaningless – then the tension would no longer exist and the person holding that idea would be truly free. It’s something I’ll have to work on further. Of course holding this idea would be a heroic thing to do – what I think Camus is proposing is facing the universe naked without the comfort of arbitrary and contingent beliefs protecting us from raw reality. This is, as you might expect, far from easy (if achievable at all). It did actually read in places like some Buddhist books I’ve read in the past – the idea that giving up and letting go will be inevitably liberating. Or maybe, as I sometimes do, I’m reading too much into it.

Despite its strangeness, or more likely because of it, I enjoyed this book quite a bit. Camus is often a beautiful author and I found myself on more that one occasion wishing that I could write that well. This talent probably comes from his other literary ventures which must bleed into his more philosophical works – indeed from what I can tell there is no great barrier between his two work strands. If you get the opportunity to read Camus I’d encourage you to do so. He can be hard work at times but he has a valuable insight into the human condition that challenges many of our deeply held and seemingly obvious conceptions of the world. Go on, expand your mind. When it bounces back it’ll never be quite the same again.

7 comments:

dbackdad said...

I actually have this book ... haven't read it yet, of course. Sounds like it will twist my noodle a bit.

CyberKitten said...

I noticed it on your library thing.

It is a bit of a mind-job, but the level of disruption will depend on the original state of your mind when you start reading. Its certainly readable (as both of his books I've read so far have been) and should get you thinking about things in different ways - which is never a bad thing [grin].

If you do get around to reading it I'd be interested to know what you think. More French philosophers soon I think. They're a fascinating bunch [laughs].

Karla said...

Sounds like an intriguing read. Does he address why the tension exists? Why we have questions of purpose the universe isn't capable of answering? Why there is a struggle between our desires and natures ability to provide fulfillment?

Why do we expect justice in an unjust world?

Why would nature place in us desires it has no fulfillment of? What is the purpose of that?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: Sounds like an intriguing read.

It is. I recommend Camus to you. I'm not sure what you'd make of him though....

karla said: Does he address why the tension exists?

He seems to be saying that the tension exists because of our relationship with the universe. We expect it to be different than it is. We expect it to be alive, meaningful, purposful and teleological. It is, according to Camus (and I agree with him) none of these things.

karla said: Why we have questions of purpose the universe isn't capable of answering?

Seeing agency in nature is as old as we are. We see purpose in the wind and the stars. We see omens in the weather and the skies. We are pattern recognising beings who are simply seeing things that aren't there - false positives if you will. We see a living universe where, in reality, it is largely vacuum and dust. It cannot give us the answers we seek because it is incapable of doing so.

karla said: Why there is a struggle between our desires and natures ability to provide fulfillment?

Just because we have desires does not mean they can be fulfilled. We've had this debate before. We are imaginative beings who can create all kinds of desires. Some can be achieved, most can be achieved partially, some cannot be achieved at all. This does not prevent most of us from having these desires.

karla said: Why do we expect justice in an unjust world?

The would is not injust - just incapable of justice. It is a giant rock with a thin layer of life floating in the vastness of space. It is, by and large, indifferent to us. The concept and capacity for justice is in us - and only us. Seeing the world as unjust is simply us projecting our ideas of justice onto an uncarring and indifferent universe.

karla said: Why would nature place in us desires it has no fulfillment of? What is the purpose of that?

'Nature' does not place anything in us. We develop attributes over time that give us some kind of advantage. I agree with Camus that external or intrinsic purpose does not exist. Nature certainly does not have any purpose. That would suggest that it had some sort of agency - which it does not. Evolution is a blind process with no end in sight. If you want to attribute any purpose to life it is to survive long enough to create more life. We are (apparently) to only creatures to attribute 'purpose' where none exists. Any purpose we have has been created internally and, more often than not, projected onto a dead universe.

Karla said...

Cyber this is what I don't get. You give a list of things telling me that the universe/nature appears to have meaning and purpose with design and life behind it, but even though it all seems to point that way -- it's meaningless and doesn't really point to that. Am I correctly summing that up?

This translates to me as saying 2 + 2 looks like it logically adds up to 4, but we know it doesn't so everything that looks like it does is just our idealistic imagination.

Why ought we not follow the direction of what it appears to be to most the world? Why do we say these notions of meaning, purpose, justice etc. are false when it seems the direction things are pointing?

Would not a philosophy that validates this tension have more credibility than one that makes it all myth?

CyberKitten said...

karla said: You give a list of things telling me that the universe/nature appears to have meaning and purpose with design and life behind it...

Well, I gave you a list of expectations, beliefs and mistaken ideas that see the universe like that. However, if you look beyond mere appearence you can see that meaning and purpose only exist where we project them to exist. Life on Earth is a classic case here. The appearence of design is just that - appearence. Once we investigate further (this was Darwin's great insight) design is replaced by Evolution by Natural Selection which *mimics* design.

karla said: but even though it all seems to point that way -- it's meaningless and doesn't really point to that. Am I correctly summing that up?

Broadly yes. Meaning and purpose in the universe are illusions.

karla said: Why ought we not follow the direction of what it appears to be to most the world?

Because going on appearences misses what's *really* going on. Sure, you can enjoy the light show if you wish but there are those who put on sunglasses so we're not so dazzled. Would you have been happier if we still believed that spirits moved the planets and were responsible for the rain and everything else. Until you know what's really going on appearences can be *very* deceptive!

karla said: Why do we say these notions of meaning, purpose, justice etc. are false when it seems the direction things are pointing?

Because, at least to some people, things simply don't point that way. I for one do not see justice, meaning or purpose when I look at things. Historians have been made to look very foolish when they have predicted the end of history or the final triumph of one empire or another. History is not moving towards any particular end. It will only end when we do - in the mean time it will wander here and there sometimes moving 'forward' and sometimes 'back' depending on your particular perspective.

karla said: Would not a philosophy that validates this tension have more credibility than one that makes it all myth?

Credibility in who's eyes? I was actually very struck by Camus' ideas and think he's really onto something. I've only read two of his books so far but I already own three more which I'll be reading fairly soon. From my PoV I think that Camus thinks and sees very clearly indeed.

Karlo said...

I read this book years ago and have forgotten about it. I should probably go back and look at it again when I have the chance. Camus is one of the few "existentialist" thinkers that I can stand. I do think that this idea that at some point we have to make a choice that isn't dictated by facts is a great insight--perhaps THE great insight--of existentialist thought.