If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[vulcanlogician]

Wouldn't any reason for anything always be contingent?  If, then.  The basis of facts supplied informing the conclusion, and absent those particular facts, some other conclusion?  Similarly, if camus is arguing anything, he's providing contingent reason, no?

So, I don't think Camus is providing a contingent reason here. I think Camus is standing back and pronouncing existence (at least human existence) absurd. And (in his day) that puts him at odds with most philosophers. I've chosen Plato to carry the torch for all of them, for obvious reasons. But it doesn't have to be Plato, of course. Any philosopher who thinks you can "discover" meaningful truths by examining the truth counts. Spinoza counts, for example. I realize you get all this; I'm just laying the foundations for my point which is:

For good reason, Camus rejects this notion. He thinks the Platonic project is a waste of time-- a waste of life. And, to Camus, that's kind of "not contingent." It's a permanent state of affairs, so why bother taking the Platonic route? That's why he invokes Sisyphus. Is it really good advice to say, "Hey Sisyphus, when examining your predicament, you should try to accurately understand what the truth is." Big waste of time. Any non-Platonist who looks at Sisyphus's ordeal knows it's a big pile of shit--- no bother fixing it, no bother understanding it. It can't be fixed. It can't be understood. It's absurd.

That's Camus's assessment of the world and of the human condition. And I think it's a good assessment.

In Camus's mind, Plato wants to say.... "No, no, no... the world makes a lot of sense. Even for you Sisyphus. Here's a fact: when you get the rock to the top of the hill, it rolls back down. Knowing that, you're closer to the truth." And, as Camus points out, that's a waste of time. I agree, no need to tell Sisyphus that. He's better off assuming the world is absurd.

But what is the world for people not in Sisyphus's predicament? That's when I tend to see Plato's approach as better. Of course, let's try to figure out what is reasonable. Let's figure out what is good and not good (and how to tell the difference)-- ie. the regular business of philosophers.

I see the world as Platonic for the most part. I'll probably carry that habit to my grave.

But I also think 2/3 of people in the world are going to be happier if they take Camus's approach, and see the world the way Camus does. For 2/3 of the people in the world --maybe more-- their predicament is more like that of Sisyphus. So why not endorse Camus? Even me, I think my predicament in life is more like Sisyphus... more in need of Camus's "comfortably pronouncing life absurd" than it is of more Platonic assessment. But, you know... old habits...

But, I suppose it's more than just habit. I think it's worthwhile to try to improve things, promote justice, etc. And even if life is absurd, such pursuits make things more meaningful, more bearable, for me. So you could say, Platonism is my way of "Sisyphus becoming happy." But I think it's more than that. It serves that purpose, yes, but I didn't assume Plato because "it makes me feel happy." It's a compelling vision. There is good reason to think that promoting good in the world makes the world better.

Maybe one day we can even help Sisyphus with his whole "rock" situation.

Worse case scenario, I'm wasting my time. But if the world is absurd anyway, who cares how I waste my time? But anything better than the worst case scenario, and there is good reason to be a Platonist. So that's where I am. I endorse Camus's attitude for the overwhelming majority (to help them be happier). But, in the final analysis, the world is better off being improved (and has enough good in it to work with) that I think the Platonic route is wisest. I like both views for different reasons.