The Myth of Sisyphus

Albert Camus

Albert Camus was a French author, journalist and philosopher. He was a believer of absurdism, but often
classified as an existentialist though he never considered himself as one. The 19th century Danish
philosopher Søren Kierkegaard had written extensively about absurdism. Nearly a century later, Camus
devoted his life ‘opposing the philosophy of nihilism’, as he wrote in another piece The Rebel. It was
through Camus’ thought and work that the concept of absurdity has become a part of the world literature
and twentieth century philosophy, and the modern popular culture. Interestingly, Camus’ thought has
often been used to explain episodes of the TV sitcom series The Simpsons.
Originally published in French by Albert Camus as “Le Mythe de Sisyphe” in 1942, the English translation
was published by Justin O’Brien in 1955. The essay talks about the topics of existentialism and
absurdism. In his view, Camus believes that one who can learn the meaninglessness of life and yet live a
brave life in the face of it is an ‘absurd hero’. Making peace with the fundamental fact that life is
inherently meaningless and making constant awareness of it, is, living with absurd. He goes on to talk
about Sisyphus, narrating the Greek tale of a king who was punished by the Gods to repeatedly push a
stone up a mountain only to see it roll back every time. Camus claims Sisyphus is the ideal absurd hero,
for he must struggle perpetually without any hope. Given that he accepts that is there nothing more in life
than struggle, he can find happiness.

Essential arguments and claim

An Absurd reasoning
Camus opens the essay by “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” The
problem of meaning of life, among all other philosophical problems, is the one that has most dire
consequences. One who believes there is no meaning will commit suicide, while the other take a leap of
faith by placing hopes in a God. The idea of absurdity is now introduced. Life is meaningless in itself, but
humans constantly look for meaning, purpose and reason. Does there exist an outcome other than suicide
to address this conflict? The feeling of absurdity is linked to the idea that life is meaningless, and the act
of suicide is linked to the idea that life is not worth living. Camus proposes it is possible to not commit
suicide but live with this absurdity. Acknowledging that this absurdity is not easy to explain, he
elaborates further on it. Asking ‘why’ on our habits, routines leads us to absurdity. The intellect tries to
unify everything under a grand scheme but doesn’t succeed. There are different perspectives to
understand the world, and it is futile effort to look for the one ‘correct’ way to do so. The world is
irrational. Camus then goes on to talk about some past philosophers like Heidegger, Jaspers, Shestov,
Kierkegaard, and Husserl who have confronted this irrationality rather than deny it. However, upon
encountering the conflict, each of them tries to resolve it one way or another. Camus insists that there
must be no transcendence of this absurdity. By reaching conclusions that contradict this absurdity, all
these philosophers have committed ‘philosophical suicide’. For Camus, absurd man lives only off that
that is certain. The ‘leaps’ that other philosophers take to reach conclusion, hence cannot convince him.
The absurdity occurs because of the conflict between human reason and the irrational world. The absurd
man must maintain constant awareness of this conflict and must not try to overcome it. Suicide must
hence be rejected, for without man, absurdity cannot exist. Camus lists three consequences of trying to
live with this contradiction: revolt, freedom and passion. Living the absurd is living in a state of conflict,
a revolt against the meaninglessness of the life. The notion of freedom – we are free to make our
decisions and chart our paths, is rejected by the absurd man since he cannot choose something that is not
certain. With no role to fulfill, the absurd man lives in every moment, truly free. This is also what Camus
refers by passion, living fully in the present.
The Absurd man
In this part, Camus cites examples of men who he believes are living the absurd life. The first example is
of a fictional seducer Don Juan. Juan seduces many women, all of them with the same tactics, and never
stays for long with anyone. Camus tries to defend Juan against the moral judgement of the society. Juan is
not hoping for an ultimate transcendence, he recognizes the meaninglessness of his seductions. He does
not seduce for finding true love, but for the joy of it. Thus, he is living in the present, he is living the
absurd life.
The second example is of a theatre actor. Unlike other artists like writers, his fame is short lived. He
accepts that his performance has no significance beyond the act. He lives many lives in his one life,
playing various roles. An actor plays passions of great many people, living completely in present and has
freedom to play any role.
The last example is of a conqueror. A conqueror is not much concerned with the eternal world, but
chooses to live in the present, the world he inhibits. Political concerns are his greatest concerns, for these
are focused on immediate need. Camus concludes the section by saying that three examples are rather
extreme. Absurdity does not entail a certain style of life but a certain mindset.
Absurd Creation
Here Camus talks about art and artist. An artist invents an entire world that mimics our own. The absurd
man does not hope to explain life, but only to describe it. Art reflects different aspects of life, provides
perspectives, but cannot add anything to it. There is no meaning or transcendence to be found in art, just
like in life itself, but the creative act of asserting one's own perspective on the world epitomizes the
revolt, freedom, and passion of the absurd man. The visual arts and music affect us on an experiential
level, so it is not difficult for them to achieve the absurd ideal of describing without explaining.
Language, however, is primed and suited to explain, and Camus wonders how absurd fiction might be
possible. Like a philosopher, a good writer creates an entire world that he also inhabits. However, he
communicates by means of images rather than reason because he prefers lucid exposition to any attempt
to explain matters. In order to remain true, however, the absurd writer must always remain aware of the
futility of his work: it will never bring clarity or transcendence to him or to others.
The Myth of Sisyphus
In the last section, Camus talks about the legend of Sisyphus. Known primarily for the punishment he
served in the underworld, there are many stories of how he reached there. The back story is not really
relevant to the argument, but it goes along the following lines. Sisyphus witnessed the kidnapping of
Asopus’ daughter by Zeus. Sisyphus made a deal with Asopus to bear witness in return for a fresh water
spring at a citadel. This, earning earthly wealth and happiness for himself, earned him the wrath of the
Gods. He was condemned to roll a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll back once it reached the top.
The punishment was considered extremely severe, futile labor for perpetuity. Camus sees Sisyphus as the
absurd hero who lives life to the fullest and is condemned to a repetitive task, enduring a hopeless
struggle to eternity.
Camus is primarily interested in the Sisyphus’ state of mind when the rock rolls back down and Sisyphus
is going down to be back again. It is then that he is momentarily free from the excruciating labor, aware
of his tragic fate. He would be hit by melancholy thinking about the life, people and the world he has left
behind. However, Camus argues that by merely acknowledging and accepting his fate, he had rendered
the suffering less painful. Seeing his life as a constant struggle, and no hope of escaping it, he sees the
absurdity. Camus suggests that it is only by accepting that there is no alternative, can we accept our fate
without reservations and fear. It is then that we can fully appreciate life and be truly happy. Camus
concludes with "One must imagine Sisyphus happy", which I believe is also the initial premise of his
reasoning.

Camus often just states his believe without stating the logical deduction that he followed to reach the
conclusion. With little argument for the positions he takes, Camus primarily tries to identify a way of life
that does not rely on metaphysical speculation. He introduces absurdity not by arguing that there is no
order in universe, but by talking about few situations where we are hit by absurdity. Often, he also seems
disinterested in experimental knowledge.
Camus’ concept of absurdism often borders with the idea of nihilism. Rejection of moral codes,
welcoming meaninglessness are very close to nihilism. Yet Camus tries to draw a fine line between the
nihilism and absurdism, where all we might have is a blurred one.
This essay is recommended for someone who wishes to have an insight into absurdism. Camus was more
of a novelist interested in philosophy than a pure philosopher. This is evident from both, his novels that
have a slight philosophical bent, and essays which put forward his philosophical arguments. The essay
also has discussion on the work of Kafka, where Camus admires the former’s work for expressing
humanity’s absurdity.

References:
The essay from: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~freeman/courses/phil360/16.%20Myth%20of%20Sisyphus.pdf
The Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
Suicide and Atheism: Camus and The Myth of Sisyphus By Richard Barnetts