The Myth of Sisyphus

[everythingafter]

I was just doing some light reading over lunch yesterday, and again came across this profound passage in an anthology on existentialism that I have in my library (Of course, I have the standalone copy of the essay as well, but this is just the first book I grabbed!). It's from Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus," in which Camus imagines that Sisyphus, ever tied to his rock and his ascent up the hill, must have been happy. I was struck yet again by this inspiring passage, in which Camus is responding to the philosophy of Kierkegaard ... especially the last line: "Everything considered, a determined soul will always manage." Whereas the believers can't bear to think that this life is all we have, the "absurd man" is conscious of that despair and moves on. "The point," as Camus beautifully concludes, "is to live."

... I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not therefore negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up. Nothing more profound, for example, than Kierkegaard's view according to which despair is not a fact but a state: the very state of sin. For sin is what alienates from God. The absurd, which is the metaphysical state of the conscious man, does not lead to God. Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God.

It is a matter of living in that state of the absurd. I know on what it is founded, this mind and this world straining against each other without being able to embrace each other. I ask for the rule of life of that state, and what I am offered neglects its basis, negates one of the terms of the painful opposition, demands of me a resignation. I ask what is involved in the condition I recognize as mine; I know it implies obscurity and ignorance; and I am assured that this ignorance explains everything and that this darkness is my light. But there is no reply here to my intent, and this stirring lyricism cannot hide the paradox from me. One must therefore turn away. Kierkegaard may shout in warning: "If man had no eternal consciousness, if, at the bottom of everything, there were merely a wild, seething force produc- ing everything, both large and trifling, in the storm of dark passions, if the bottomless void that nothing can fill underlay all things, what would life be but despair?" This cry is not likely to stop the absurd man. Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable. If in order to elude the anxious question: "What would life be?" one must, like the donkey, feed on the roses of illusion, then the absurd mind, rather than resigning itself to falsehood, prefers to adopt fearlessly Kierkegaard's reply: "despair." Everything considered, a determined soul will always manage.

Also here, Camus, in a short sentence, sums up what myself and I'm sure many here have felt: "Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable." Thoughts on this passage or the essay in general?

[The Omnissiunt One]

Camus wasn't really an existentialist, more an absurdist, if he can be given a label. Still, an interesting passage.

[everythingafter]

People read things differently, but his fiction and non-fiction seem to have an existential tenor to them.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

People read things differently, but his fiction and non-fiction seem to have an existential tenor to them.

Must have been happy? Really?

Just shows how dumb I am,missed the point entirely. I always thought the Sisyphus myth was about the horror of futility;at least that's how I think the Greeks would have seen it and it's how I see it.