**Title: The Incomparable Camus**

The essay titled "Incredible" stands out. While other essays may come close, they simply aren't as good. I have a profound perception that Camus' philosophy is, in fact, incredibly optimistic. He depicts a being who is fully cognizant of the futility of his own existence yet still manages to derive joy from it. Some days, I find myself strongly relating to Camus, while on other days, I lean more towards Schopenhauer's total pessimism.

When it comes to their different brands of 'existentialism', I must admit that I prefer Camus to Sartre. Sartre assigns an excessive amount of power to human will, whereas Camus grasps how truly helpless and powerless we are in the face of the tyranny of not knowing. Camus' perspective offers a unique and refreshing take on the human condition, one that acknowledges our limitations yet still finds a glimmer of hope and joy within the chaos of existence.

Oh, I'm so absurd!

It seems that I have this strange habit or tendency. I find myself in a situation where I will probably need to reread and annotate a physical copy before I can give this a full 5 stars.

Maybe it's because I want to make sure I truly understand every detail and nuance of whatever it is I'm evaluating. By rereading, I can catch things that I might have missed the first time around. And annotating helps me to jot down my thoughts, questions, and insights as I go along.

This process allows me to engage more deeply with the material and form a more informed opinion. It might seem a bit excessive to some, but for me, it's an important part of the evaluation process. So, until I've completed this task, I'll hold off on giving that perfect 5-star rating.

My perspective on the story has undergone a significant shift, evolving from nihilism to absurdism.

At first, I was mired in the belief that life had no inherent meaning or purpose, which is the essence of nihilism. However, through various experiences and perhaps a bit of self-reflection, I have been led in a new direction.

I now find myself drawn to the concept of absurdism. It acknowledges the meaninglessness of life but also suggests that we can find a certain kind of happiness or fulfillment in the face of this absurdity.

Imagining Sisyphus happy is a powerful and liberating idea. Sisyphus, condemned to forever push a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down, represents the absurdity of human existence. But if we can envision him finding joy or contentment in his seemingly pointless task, it gives us hope that we too can find meaning and happiness in our own lives, no matter how absurd or difficult they may seem.

I am truly glad that I have been guided into this new way of thinking. It has opened up a whole new world of possibilities for me and has given me a more positive and hopeful outlook on life.

Okay, so the fundamental premise presented in this book is that there are two distinct schools of thought regarding a man's journey towards consciousness.

One school posits that becoming conscious involves a recognition of God, with faith serving as the conduit between this world and the next. In this view, existence is an orderly affair, concrete and adhering to the compelling obligations towards the God in whom one places their faith.

The other option, which this book explores, is the absurd. The central question here is whether it is possible to refrain from suicide in a world devoid of meaning and without faith in God. The absurd man simply states, "I and my plight are ephemeral, yet I still choose life." Why?

The comparison to Sisyphus is drawn through this absurd man. Sisyphus, condemned by the gods to forever push a rock up a mountain that grows steeper as it ascends, only to have the rock inevitably roll back down, must begin again. The absurd man follows the archetype of the Sisyphus myth, as Camus describes it, "wanting to know." In this pursuit of knowledge, the absurd man realizes that the entirety of existence is a continuous cycle of repetition, with nothing truly gained or lost. This is "the sin of which the absurd man can feel both guilt and innocence."

It's important to note that this is not existentialism. In an existence without explanation, it is unreasonable to assume anything concrete. As Camus aptly puts it, "the theme of the irrational, as conceived by the existentials, is reason becoming confused and escaping by negating itself." Instead, Camus confines the absurd to establishing a "lucid reasoning" or a playground for activity, simply "noting limits" to allow one to be free within their living situation.

It's all about cheerful compliance. Realizing that one is in a given situation and is damned to it, yet still choosing to embrace it. It's not about being lost in the void of existence, without a sense of the future or a cause for impetus. Rather, it's about recognizing that there is a chance, however slim or significant, that there is a vastness beyond the constraints of life that makes one wonder, "what's the difference?" If one does anything, they are compelled by the possibility that it may not matter. Camus speaks of a "lucid indifference" to this. He says, "I live it. It would be a crime to strip my life of the possibility of something." Even if one is a slave, they can still sing. One gives up on morality, which is a legitimization of actions based on prescribed foundations that either "okays" or disallows them. Instead, the impetus is for responsibility. What one does in this life has direct consequences in this life. If one steals, there will be recourse. If one lies, but what if someone lies to them? It's like the categorical imperative, but without morality. Morality places things within the purview of God, establishing guilt. But what is guilt? It's mindless and an obscenity. One can feel guilt for not abiding by their addiction, but who can truly identify the real factions of guilt or its sincerity? It's emotional. The absurd man would rather be rational, seeing this whole circus of life, with its floating, tender inevitability of death, as a contraption set for them to build, destroy, collect, and decipher. Camus said, "for the absurd man it is not a matter of explaining and solving, but of experiencing and describing. Everything begins with lucid indifference."

The absurd man may find themselves in a state of despair, feeling that nothing they do has value. On the other hand, they are alive and breathing, and in a strange way, they have a personal freedom that most people who define their own freedoms do not fully understand. All the absurd man has to do is have faith in their freedom, and like a majestic vision laid out in silver robes before them, it is there. They only need to respect that they are living in a free slate, unencumbered by a stratified moral imperative that limits so many people from following their intuition and their actual imperative needs.

Do you believe in destiny? That we all have a purpose and it is designated by our need to incorporate the principles of our life into a system that we can identify for ourselves? There is a mode of philosophy that suggests that we are the people we are meant to be, completely genuine to ourselves and living as that self. Our identity is the world around us coalescing into a single frame that we can represent justly by simply living life as we should. We do not need to conform to a social strata that leads nowhere, but rather live life as we see fit, feeling good and established. So what if our endeavors are like rolling a rock up a hill? At least we have something to do. In the formation of our universe, we need a place to put what is concrete, even if there is nothing truly concrete. As analogous creatures, if we have no basis for comparison, we are no more capable of thought than a bar of soap. The absurd man would rather be the dirt, simply existing in their state of being, minus the will and the infirmity, an obstacle for the righteous, and standing in the way, they can laugh at the adversity and the spectacle of their life, so deranged in its absurdity. And at the last moment before their death, that is how they can acknowledge that they were alive. Or how they are still alive, whatever the case may be.

Do not recommend.

I cannot stand authors who deliberately write long and meandering prose. His philosophical message that "life is absurd" is so simplistic that it could be a tattoo. For Pete's sake, why do I have to read 150 pages of circuitous nonsense to reach that conclusion?!

There are several other essays in this book, and most of them are also trash. The Algiers essay was quite good - very moody and melancholy, dealing with the nature of memory. However, the Oman essay is particularly just racist nonsense. He contends that Oman is charming because it is ugly and lacks history. This is blatant imperialist nonsense that has not aged well. Just because you don't know the history doesn't mean there is no history. It's a classic argument from ignorance.

Overall, this book is a disappointment. The writing is often convoluted and the ideas are not well-developed. I would not recommend it to anyone looking for thought-provoking or engaging essays.

"The Myth of Sisyphus" stands as Albert Camus' most captivating essay, almost serving as a thesis statement of his profound philosophy. But what exactly is his philosophy? From my understanding, it is the absurdist philosophy. Sisyphus is condemned to continuously roll a stone up a mountain. Once it reaches the peak, it tumbles down, and Sisyphus follows it down only to roll it back up again, ad infinitum. Just writing about it sounds exhausting. It must be a living hell for Sisyphus, yet it isn't. This is because he is lucid in his struggles. When he returns to push the stone again, he does so with full conscience and responsibility. This very lucidity becomes a source of nobility and comfort.

Albert Camus commences his essay with the powerful statement, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide." He concludes the essay by firmly rejecting the idea of suicide and substituting it with individual revolt, the quantity of life experiences, and the extreme lucidity in the face of life and death. Moreover, it is a tribute to artists and the power of creation. I may be inadequate in fully explaining what Camus accomplishes in those 140-odd pages, but I am glad that I have at least grasped half of it. I would highly recommend this essay to anyone with an interest in philosophy.

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental questions of philosophy.”

I think that for most healthy individuals, the idea of resorting to suicide is simply unfathomable. Humans, like all other biological organisms, are evolutionarily programmed for survival and genetically hardwired with powerful instincts for self-preservation. It's no wonder that the topic of suicide makes us uncomfortable. Death, the inevitable end of existence, has always had the ability to both fascinate and unnerve us. Its looming inevitability makes staying alive seem like a moral obligation. So, how can the phenomenon of suicide be explained? What compels someone to consider taking their own life?

Camus' answer to this question is what he refers to as the absurd - a conflict between man's search for meaning and the indifference of the universe. Most of the time, we manage to get through life without ever being aware of the absurd. But then, one day, out of nowhere, we might find ourselves taking a long, hard look at the repetitive, futile, and monotonous nature of existence. Every day we wake up, go to work, sleep, and eventually die. On a larger scale, we know that our presence on earth is only temporary, and that everything we have worked for will cease to matter at some point. All of our monuments, technology, and scientific advancements will one day be swallowed up by the vast silence of eternity. And when we become conscious of these things, we naturally think, "Well, fuck."

So, what do we do in the face of this terrible, soul-crushing truth? How are we supposed to deal with the existential despair that comes with the realization that everything is meaningless? How do we convince ourselves that life is even worth the effort of living? According to Camus, we might choose to commit one of two forms of suicide: physical or philosophical.

“The absurd ends with death.”

When we take our own lives, we are committing physical suicide. When we subscribe to religious beliefs about there being a higher purpose that we are not privy to, we are committing philosophical suicide. Either way, we are absolved of the need to confront the absurd and find meaning in our lives. Camus rejects both types of suicides and, instead of trying to escape the absurd, urges us to “revolt” against it. Because only by living in full awareness of the absurd can we be given the opportunity to truly make life beautiful. To赋予 it the meaning that we choose to give it. Like Sisyphus, we are free to see ourselves as the masters of our days. We keep pushing our boulders up the hill every day because each step along the way is a victory; each step is a reminder of our choice to keep going, even when the odds seem insurmountable.

“The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”

Camus, as a writer, elicits a diverse range of responses from readers. Some readers shy away from his works, perceiving him as a challenging writer whose writings can be disconcerting. However, there are also those who appreciate his literary prowess even if they don't necessarily concur with his ideas. Additionally, some argue that Camus' ideas pale in comparison to those put forth by existential philosophers.

Although Camus is often classified as an existential philosopher, he himself vehemently rejected this label. In an interview, he stated, “No, I am not an existentialist. Sartre and I are always surprised to see our names linked.” He further elaborated that they had published their books before ever meeting and upon getting to know each other, they realized their significant differences. Camus emphasized that Sartre was an existentialist, while his own work, The Myth of Sisyphus, was directed against the so-called existentialist philosophers.

When we examine different periods of Camus' life, his writings provide a profound insight into his often tumultuous state of mind. The simultaneous penning of “The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus” occurred during a time when he was grappling with despair about his life, including concerns about his future as a writer and his place in the world. At this time, he was in Algiers, his homeland, away from the hustle and bustle of Paris. His more mature works, such as “The Rebel and The Plague,” came later. In “The Rebel,” he dealt with the problem of “murder” as opposed to the problem of “suicide” which he addressed in “The Myth of Sisyphus.” We can observe a shift in the writer's focus, from the inner to the outer, from the individual to the social. As he evolved from Sisyphus to the Rebel, he matured as a writer and later became disenchanted with his own proposed idea of absurdity. He confessed, “This word ‘Absurd’ has had an unhappy history and I confess that now it rather annoys me.”

What truly amazes me about Camus is his unwavering courage in laying bare his heart, thoughts, and everything that troubles his mind before his readers and the world. In this sense, he can be regarded as a radical and may be approached with skepticism. However, it cannot be denied that his ideas have had a profound influence on generations of writers engaged in the “works of absurd,” such as Samuel Beckett, who made significant contributions to the “theatre of Absurd.” The idea of repetition that Camus proposed with Sisyphus, inspired by Kierkegaard's “Repetition,” is also明显 in Beckett's works. Moreover, his ideas continue to resonate with readers like me, who are suddenly confronted with the “why” of existence. It would not be an overstatement to say that he inspired the mind to seek more and not be content until the response unites thought and experience.

Camus is indeed not an easy writer to read, but his writings are not disturbing if one understands that in The Myth of Sisyphus, he is making a proclamation that life must be lived fully in the awareness of the absurdity of this world. In this work, he terms the world as absurd because it offers no answers to the question of existence, remaining a silent spectator to the suffering of all humanity. In a universe stripped of meaning or illusions, a man feels like a stranger. His exile is without remedy as he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. But does this situation mandate death? Camus ponders the problem of suicide and contemplates whether it is the answer to this absurd world that answers nothing. He opines that in the face of such contradictions and obscurities, we cannot conclude that there is no relationship between one's opinion about life and the act of leaving it. The body's judgment is as valid as the mind's, and the body shrinks from annihilation. We develop the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. In the race towards death, the body maintains its irreparable lead. Killing oneself means allowing both life and death to have dominion over one. Therefore, the absurd does not dictate death but calls for awareness and the rejection of death. It demands that we live with consciousness, with revolt, freedom, and passion.

Neither religion nor science provides a satisfactory answer to a questioning mind. While religion tends to imbue it with the idea of eternity, an extension of life in heaven, science merely attempts to explain it through hypotheses. But Camus cannot believe in either of them. Turning to existential philosophers, he claims that they “without exception suggest escape.” He further explains this by presenting the ideas of different philosophers. For example, Jasper writes, “Does not the failure reveal, beyond any possible explanation and interpretation, not the absence but the existence of transcendence?” Chestov names the fundamental absurdity by saying, “This is God: we must rely on him even if he does not correspond to any of our rational categories.” Kierkegaard calls for the sacrifice of the intellect, saying, “In his failure, the believer finds his triumph.” Camus disagrees with these philosophers, who, in his view, tried to understand the absurd but ultimately gave in to that which they could not define. He calls their giving up “Philosophical suicide.” He cannot believe in Jasper's idea of Transcendence. In response to Chestov, he says, “To an absurd mind reason is useless and there is nothing beyond reason.” He chooses “despair” instead of Kierkegaard's frantic adherence, stating, “I want everything to be explained to me or nothing.”

So, when faced with the absurd and in a state of consciousness, how best should one live life? Camus advocates the life of a seducer (Don Juanism), actor, conqueror, or creator, following the three consequences of absurdity: revolt, passion, and freedom. By revolt, he means keeping the absurd alive by challenging the world anew every second. By freedom, he means losing oneself in that bottomless certainty, feeling sufficiently removed from one's own life to enhance it and take a broader view. By passion, he means being maximally aware of one's life, revolt, and freedom. Although he praises the absurd man in a seducer, actor, or conqueror, it is his stance on the creator that I find more appealing. He says, “Creating is living doubly. The groping, anxious quest of a Proust, his meticulous collecting of flowers, of wallpapers, and of anxieties, signifies nothing else.”

Towards the end of his essay, Camus compares the absurd with Sisyphus, who, according to the myth, was condemned to rolling a rock to the top of a mountain only to watch it roll back down each time he reached the summit. He states that although Sisyphus is fully aware of his fate and the continuous struggle he must engage in, he remains passionate about his life and does not give up. It is during his descent that Sisyphus' silent joy is contained. Similarly, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the countless wondering voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes, and his effort will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is only one that he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man looks back over his life, Sisyphus returning towards his rock, in that slight pivoting, he contemplates that series of unrelated actions that become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye, and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the move. The rock is still rolling.

The other essays in the collection, such as “Summer in Algiers,” “The stop in Oran,” “Helen’s Exile,” and “Return to Tipasa,” are also worth reading. In “Return to Tipasa,” we observe Camus overcome by nostalgia for his home and his land. He writes, “In the direction of the ruins, as far as the eye could see, there was nothing but pock-marked stones and wormwood, trees and perfect columns in the transparence of the crystalline air. It seemed as if the morning were stabilized, the sun stopped for an incalculable moment. In this light and this silence, years of wrath and night melted slowly away. I listened to an almost forgotten sound within myself as if my heart, long stopped, were calmly beginning to beat again. And awake now, I recognized one by one the imperceptible sounds of which the silence was made up: the figured bass of the birds, the sea’s faint, brief sighs at the foot of the rocks, the vibration of the trees, the blind singing of the columns, the rustling of the wormwood plants, the furtive lizards. I heard that; I also listened to the happy torrents rising within me. It seemed to me that I had at last come to harbor, for a moment at least, and that henceforth that moment would be endless.”

What I realized upon rereading these essays is that despite being labeled as the proponent of absurdity, Camus is actually passionately advocating for living. Not just living, but living passionately and fully. Living in awareness and questioning. Although he may seem to be recommending a negative faith (as James Wood says in the introduction) against religious or existentialist ideologies, he nonetheless presents a distinctive way for seekers to come to terms with existence. The way to be chosen, of course, depends on the individual, starting each day with a new light. As he so beautifully put it, “In the middle of winter, I at last discovered that there was in me an invincible summer.”

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. Only Albert Camus, I believe, could have made that statement.

Over the years, I've tried countless times to embrace philosophical reasoning by delving into various books by Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Husserl, Plato, and others. However, the only individual I could truly identify with was Roger Scruton and his "Philosophy, an Introduction and Survey," with its unique logic and especially his views on God. It's no light reading; in fact, it's rather dry. Looking at this book now, I'm even beginning to wonder what I truly felt when I read it twenty years ago.

I've always held Albert Camus in extremely high regard since first encountering his works at university. His writing style is incredibly rich and elegant, yet he seems to lay his heart bare for the reader, and his reasoning is invigorating. In the past, I've thoroughly enjoyed his works, especially "The Stranger." Nevertheless, I found "The Myth of Sisyphus" very hard to come to terms with. It was the meditation on suicide that rather unnerved me. I really don't believe philosophers, unless they have contemplated suicide themselves, should air their opinions. That's just my personal view, of course. If an individual wishes to end his/her life, for whatever reason, they have the choice. However, I feel sorry for those individuals with dreadful terminal diseases who wish to end their lives but are unable to do so due to legal constraints.

Anyway, linking absurdism with suicide was just too much for my psyche, and it went into full revolt. Camus is indeed very persuasive, but what I don't understand is that he is supposedly discussing Absurdism, yet the back cover states that this is a book on Existentialism. I also thought he was an Absurdist? Recently, I've read so many articles regarding this that I believe the following comes closest to my own way of thinking: The Algerian-born French thinker Albert Camus was one of the leading thinkers of Absurdism. He was actually a writer and novelist with a strong philosophical bent. Absurdism is an offshoot of Existentialism and shares many of its characteristics. Camus himself was labeled as an 'Existentialist' in his own life, but he rejected this title.

So, I move on from this section of the book, which also covers Don Juan (rather interesting), to "Absurd Creation with Philosophy and Fiction," and to parts that are quite beyond my comprehension. I'm still in revolt. Here's an example: All those lives maintained in the rarefied air of the absurd could not persevere without some profound and constant thought to infuse its strength into them. Right here, it can be only a strange feeling of fidelity. Conscious men have been sent to fulfill their task amid the most stupid of wars without considering themselves in contradiction. This is because it was essential to elude nothing. There is thus a metaphysical honour in enduring the world’s absurdity. Conquest or play-acting, multiple loves, absurd revolt are tributes that man pays to his dignity in a campaign in which he is defeated in advance. I'm sure many individuals will have no problem interpreting the above paragraph, but I certainly did.

There's an excellent section on Dostoevsky, and in fact, he even discusses logical suicide in his "Diary of a Writer." The individual I really felt sorry for was Sisyphus, who ceaselessly rolled a rock to the top of a mountain only to have the stone fall back under its own weight. It definitely doesn't do to be condemned by the Gods, that's for sure. In the Appendix to this section, hope and the absurd are discussed in the life of Franz Kafka, and it's actually one of the best parts in "The Myth of Sisyphus." I could never really understand Kafka's reasoning until I read two excellent biographies about him.

The following essays are excellent: Summer in Algiers, The Minotaur or The Stop in Oran, Helen’s Exile, and indeed my favorite, "Return to Tipasa." One really gets a sense here of why Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957. I found that this essay spoke to me and resonated with me. It was so touching as he describes his feelings upon returning to the place of his childhood, Tipasa, Algeria, after an absence of twenty years. I absolutely loved this, and there's also a sense of place. This is Camus philosophizing at the highest level, after having lived through a horrific second world war by making comparisons between the two periods. Plus, the descriptions are exquisite. I wanted to go to Tipasa myself when I read: At noon on the half-sandy slopes covered with heliotropes like a foam left by the furious waves of the last few days as they withdrew, I watched the sea barely swelling at that hour with an exhausted motion, and I satisfied the two thirsts one cannot long neglect without drying up – I mean loving and admiring. For there is merely bad luck in not being loved; there is misfortune in not loving. All of us, today, are dying of this misfortune. For violence and hatred dry up the heart itself; the long fight for justice exhausts the love that nevertheless gave birth to it. In the clamour in which we live, love is impossible and justice does not suffice. This is why Europe hates daylight and is only able to set injustice up against injustice. But in order to keep justice from shrivelling up like a beautiful orange fruit containing nothing but a bitter, dry pulp, I discovered once more at Tipasa that one must keep intact in oneself a freshness, a cool wellspring of joy, love the day that escapes injustice and return to combat having won that light. Here I recaptured the former beauty, a young sky, and I measured my luck, realizing at last that in the worst years of our madness the memory of that sky had never left me. This was what in the end had kept me from despairing.

The final essay, "The Artist and His Time," consists of questions and answers of Camus’ views as an artist. An example: Is not the quixotism that has been criticized in your recent works an idealistic and romantic definition of the artist’s role? And this was answered in a rather splendid way. In conclusion, I have my own philosophical views on life, as we all do, and only I can choose what direction my life is going to take, perhaps with a certain amount of serendipitous luck thrown in along the way. This was not an easy book to read, but still, it is excellent and succeeded in bringing happiness and optimism to me for the future. And yes, I mustn't forget Rakhi. Do read her review below as it is excellent: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.

Camus believes this because he feels there is no other philosophical problem that leads to such a radical culmination. Suicide is a confession, a confession of the fact that life is not worth the trouble. The absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when the "appetite for the absolute and unity" meets "the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle."

In this essay, Camus also delves into the illusion of truth and meaning, morality, art, literature. He quotes other philosophers and even critiques existentialism to some degree and religion.

However, my main interest lies in what Camus's reversal is regarding suicide. It is this: Suicide as a possibility makes us think life needs to have a meaning for it to be worth living, but Camus realizes, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. In other words, "only optimist commits suicide" or those who commit suicide might be assured life has meaning and many who feel that life is not worth living still continue to live.

Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully. Now, no one will live this fate, knowing it to be absurd unless he does everything to keep before him that absurd brought to light by consciousness. Living is keeping the absurd alive, contemplating it.

Should the meaninglessness of life always lead to ending one's life? Camus argues that there is no reasonable ground to accept that the purposelessness of life should necessarily lead to the conclusion that there is no point in living. Since suicide does not necessarily follow from the meaninglessness of life, there must be other options.

The feeling of the meaninglessness of life should not prevent us from living to the fullest. As soon as one accepts the meaninglessness of life, and as soon as one does away with the feeling of eternal hope, it becomes less crushing. Sisyphus was happy in the end because he did just that. He knew his struggle would last forever and, most importantly, nothing would come out of it, yet he became content with his life. As soon as we become aware of our limitations and our place in life, we become aware of who we are and what we are capable of.

The absurd freedom is the freedom to fully embrace the finite time one has been given. It's the freedom to suck the marrow from life, to fully embrace one's present experiences, instead of trying to bend one's life to a false future that one hopes exists. It's the freedom to know who you are and what you want from life.

Rebellion in absurdity is rebelling against the fact that life is a nonentity. When we accept the absurdity and move on, living our life how we want to live, that's the sweet rebellion Camus talks about. For instance, the biggest rebellion Sisyphus could do is to embrace, accept, and like pushing the stone forever, like his punishment because if he does that he is making the gods fools because they thought that condemning Sisyphus for pushing the stone for eternity would be the worst sentence.

As Camus eloquently states: "Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious. Sisyphus, proletarian of the gods, powerless and rebellious, knows the whole extent of his wretched condition: it is what he thinks of during his descent. The lucidity that was to constitute his torture at the same time crowns his victory."

What keeps us from suicide? To a large extent, Camus suggests that our instinct for life is much stronger than our reasons for suicide: “We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.” We instinctively avoid facing the full consequences of the meaningless nature of life, through what Camus calls an “act of eluding.” This act of eluding most frequently manifests itself as hope. By hoping for another life, or hoping to find some meaning in this life, we put off facing the consequences of the absurd, of the meaninglessness of life.

In this essay, Camus wants us to face the consequences of the absurd. Camus argues that life is meaningless and absurd. Still, we can revolt against the absurdity, and find some happiness in its midst. Essentially Camus asks if there is a third alternative between acceptance of life’s absurdity or its denial by embracing dubious metaphysical propositions. Can we live without the hope that life is meaningful, but without the despair that leads to suicide? If the contrast is posed this starkly it seems an alternative appears, we can proceed defiantly forward. We can live without faith, without hope, and without appeal. We should imagine Sisyphus happy.

I have just finished my fifth book of 2017! It is currently my top favorite for the year, and there are very good reasons for that. This essay is exceptionally intelligent, honest, lyrical, and charming. To the extent that it now holds a special place in my heart. <3 It is the kind of book that has the power to save lives from the absurd world that one is thrown into and is expected to deal with, a world that seems to be a void of meaning. We are like Sisyphus, condemned to push our rock up the hill, only to have it roll back down upon completion. But despite that harsh reality, we endure nonetheless. We rebel against the absurd and choose to be happy anyway. Never before have I read such a piece that so vividly illustrates the theme of suicide in a way that leaves you feeling liberated after finishing. It is truly a masterful work that serves as a great source of inspiration. I highly recommend reading this essay. Especially for those who suffer, as all humans do, while searching for a place in an indifferent universe. Read it with care, but more importantly, care enough to read it for yourself.

I have relished several of Camus' novels and thus thought I would give his essays a go. To my surprise, I discovered them to be astonishingly bloated despite the dearth of content, rife with historical inaccuracies, and overly simplistic. Most significantly, in the renowned The Myth of Sisyphus, he fails to provide a cogent reason for shunning suicide. Indeed, he is correct in designating it as the preeminent philosophical conundrum, but for what purpose? The form of existentialism he presents (and most of it, to be frank) offers nothing more than a heroic individual. However, even then, in the face of the absurdity that Camus elaborates on at length, what is the point? Essentially, nothing more than the will to live or a fear of death. In this regard, the essay marks the terminus of an existentialism that repudiated the wisdom of Søren Kierkegaard. Only faith in some sort of higher power (be it religion, communism, nation, tribe, etc.) can surmount existential angst. The individual is not robust enough, as we witness in our world where faith in nearly all higher powers has vanished or is at least merely symbolic, as in Havel's Greengrocer. Instead of a world populated by heroic individuals willing to push the boulder uphill, we are confronted with skyrocketing suicide rates.

I perceive this essay as the culmination of a philosophical movement that could only flourish in a world that was simultaneously highly individualistic yet still maintained some ties to the community through higher aspirations. That is, the majority of the 20th century. However, what might have sounded audacious and hopeful after World War II now seems rather quaint, as the limitations of individualism are patently evident in 2021. This is not to suggest that Camus and others do not have incisive commentary. They do, both today and undoubtedly in their own era. But when it comes to solutions, all they possess are nebulous conceptions of a freedom that only those of a particular class could exercise, albeit scarcely enjoy.