Existential crises can be a profound and often challenging experience.

It's that moment when we question the very meaning and purpose of our existence.

We might find ourselves wondering why we're here, what our true calling is, and if our lives have any real significance.

Yee haw!

The meaninglessness of life. Sigh.

I think this is the true path to the wakening of the adult from the child.

It is that bubble bursting awareness that there really may be nothing else out there and that time marches us on toward our inevitable death.

However, something about the myth at the end was fairly reassuring.

I actually found some strange comfort in this.

Perhaps it is the idea that even in the face of the unknown and the certainty of death, there is still a glimmer of hope or a sense of something greater.

This myth, whatever it may be, offers a possible explanation or a way to make sense of the chaos and confusion that life often presents.

It gives us something to hold onto, a belief that there is more to our existence than just the here and now.

Maybe it is this hope that allows us to continue on our journey, to keep searching for meaning and purpose in a world that sometimes seems so devoid of it.

Even if we never fully understand the true meaning of life, the pursuit of it can still bring us joy, fulfillment, and a sense of connection to something larger than ourselves.

There was a part of me that truly, deeply, and passionately desired to award this book 4 stars. The reason being the profound impact it had on my perception of life, compelling me to seriously consider and reevaluate my own conceptions about the meaning we construct in our worlds. It encompassed some truly fascinating ideas concerning the philosophy of absurdism. I would best characterize it as a sort of happy medium between existentialism and nihilism. Although, I am aware that Camus himself might view it as the polar opposite of nihilism.

That being said, I cannot claim that I truly liked it. There were indeed some interesting ideas that were eloquently described. However, Camus became a bit overly burdened by his own verbosity. Perhaps I am shattering the windows of my own glass house when I make this assertion, but his writing simply seemed a touch too ostentatious for my taste. It appeared as if he had things to convey, extremely interesting and thought-provoking things, yet he preferred to dance around them with flowery language and arcane examples rather than simply stating them outright. In conclusion, while I truly relished the ideas within this book, I simply cannot assert that I enjoyed the book itself. Camus had sufficient interesting sentiments to keep me engaged, but it definitely reached a point where it became a chore to read. When you find yourself pondering whether you should read the book you brought onto the T or the 'Metro', you know it's perhaps not the most captivating book.

One of the things that has been occupying my thoughts a great deal lately is the query of whether it is more preferable to have no hope whatsoever or to be persistently faced with dashed hope. There are indeed aspects of my life that I have deliberately arranged in such a manner that I have no hope at all. That is, I conduct my life in a way that makes it impossible for certain things to ever occur, and those are things that otherwise I would passionately desire. And this is largely because 'dashed hope' was proving to be far too burdensome for me to truly endure.

Now, this is part of the reason why I thought I would read this book. The myth of Sisyphus is surely one of the better illustrations of having to live constantly with dashed hope. And so, I was hoping (all very ironic, when you think about it) that this book might offer some answers or guidance. This series of essays basically concludes with Camus recounting the story of the myth – which I found a bit unexpected, as I might have expected him to begin there. But in fact, this myth is sort of the punch line to the series of ideas he is discussing, mostly related to suicide.

His main contention is the assertion that life is fundamentally absurd. We generally do not recognize this absurdity – life presents patterns and ways of being that we enact rather than think about, and so one day follows another. It is only when we pause and wonder 'what is the point?' that the true absurdity of life becomes overwhelming. It is for this reason that Camus says that the only real question of philosophy is 'why do I not commit suicide?' – this does seem a rather predictable response to the 'it is all meaningless anyway' problem.

I view this argument as being somewhat an argument with religion and thus a sort of 'first generation atheist' problem. In the sense that religious people often say things like – 'if life is so meaningless, why don't you just kill yourself then?' To which, I presume, the answer is, 'five more minutes of stupid bloody questions like that and I might welcome it'. As an atheist who has never felt or even felt the need for eternal life, that level of 'confronted meaningless of life' has never really troubled me. The absurdity that Camus speaks of is, as he more or less admits himself, an abstract concept outside of the actual living of life. While we are living life, such absurdity is basically impossible to acknowledge – so, the answer, it seems, is just to get back to living life and shut up.

Anyway, you have a great big rock and your task is to push it to the top of the mountain. You never quite manage to get it there. It always rolls back down to the bottom. And on the trip back down the mountain to start pushing the rock back up again, surely you must say to yourself – 'god, no, not this shit again…' Which is part of the reason why this is a 'punishment'. Camus's response is to say that Sisyphus has to approach his task with a happy heart, despite knowing it is pointless, absurd, meaningless. It is his only refuge from suicide.

Right. But, I'm not sure how well that would prevent me from committing suicide, this sort of 'whistle while you work' idea. We are not informed what reward Sisyphus has been promised if he were to get the rock to the top of the mountain. Presumably, Camus has decided that this is immaterial as Sisyphus would soon realize that was never going to happen. For this reason, I find the myth of Tantalus more immediately confronting of the issues I actually want to grapple with. It is completely obvious what Tantalus desires – he is hungry and thirsty – and all around him there is food and drink. But he is never able to satisfy his hunger or thirst. He is surrounded by what he desires and knows he has no hope of ever fulfilling them. This is what I mean about the choice between no hope and dashed hope. For Tantalus, desire is everything – but he constantly has to live with his desires going unfulfilled, with his hopes being dashed. I don't know if this is a sustainable way to live one's life – when it becomes clear to me that my desires will be constantly dashed, that is one of the hardest things I can think of. I've worked in jobs as meaningless as Sisyphus's, and boredom I can cope with. Dashed desire is quite another matter. And so, I believe Tantalus is likely to seek to blind himself to his desires. I'm not sure how successfully one is able to do this – desire and hope find ways to sneak in while we are unguarded, they find ways to tempt us, despite our will and our reason, but we are soon punished yet again for these hopes and desires in much the same way Tantalus was.

As I said, I had hoped Camus would have discussed these issues – the issues of dashed hope and how to actually live with them. For Camus, Sisyphus is the most proletarian of the myths – something noted previously by Marx and Engels in relation to the meaninglessness of work under capitalist alienation of labor. If Sisyphus is a myth illuminating the horrors of capitalist production – surely Tantalus is the myth that does so for capitalist consumption. We are drowning in desires that can never be satisfied and are never meant to be satisfied. And yet, we seem to constantly choose thwarted desire over abandoned hope every time – despite our repeated experience, despite the pain of that experience. Perhaps it is because we simply could not live in Dante's hell – where all hope is abandoned – and so any alternative is preferable?

If you do decide to read this, I recommend you notice when Camus talks about rocks – given what Sisyphus got up to in his day job, this talk of rocks is always something worth considering and worrying over, always worth noticing.

Okay: I'm not satisfied with The Myth of Sisyphus. I'm equally unsatisfied with my reasons, my critique, and my feelings regarding The Myth of Sisyphus. Both the text and my reservations about it seem equally unconvincing.

Sometimes, The Myth of Sisyphus feels like this: Camus lists a set of rules for what absurdism means. Then he explains what counts under that definition (actors and conquerors), then what doesn't count after that definition (Dostoevsky, Kafka). Camus sets up a convoluted system and then assesses others through it. Especially given the writer's own absence of hope and futility, I cannot explain how much of a waste of time this is. This is some overly grandiose literary criticism, not an eloquent self-help treatise on suicide and life. He just explains how he defines the word "absurd" and then evaluates other people through the construct. Quite honestly, I don't care how he interprets something. I don't quite know why I need to understand that Dostoevsky and Kafka don't fit being "absurd," even if it is good or meaningful or right. But not absurd. So what?

But that's part of the point. Striving for a conviction or a unifying logic is "philosophical suicide." Fine. I get that.

Then sometimes it feels out of touch. It uses literary examples, fictional characters, and outmoded ideas about acting even for 1934. A character is not a whole other person with a whole other subjective life. A character created by a human is, you know, scripted and usually simpler with motives and conflicts that are solvable or relatable within a few hours. I don't know. I'm not convinced with his thoughts on acting. But that opens a can of worms I'm too lazy to deal with.

In point of fact, its execution, I think, is responsible for my not being satisfied with its conclusions. It gets bogged down in his tangential, illogical aphorisms. The prose voluntarily revels in unfocused loftiness. Also, the travel writings are non-required reading. The Plague explains the ideas of absurdity in this essay pretty clearly but also manages to be an amazing book.

And, as far as his code of proper living: sometimes it feels like a glorified way of just living in spite of the predicament we've been provided. This is very dressed-up immaturity. Defiance and revolt just seems like childish flailing against the encroaching void. I understand why suicide is a concession. Perhaps suicides just aren't as stubborn. And, to be satirical for a moment, suicide is the world's fastest-acting anti-depressant. And, if they're carnivores, it saves more lives than it takes.

The last essay - a Q&A about art - is really good. Camus calls nudists "Protestants of the body." That's really great too.

I'm comfortable with not being satisfied with its conclusions especially since Camus states in his foreword that he "moved on" from these conclusions himself. Camus shoehorns some possibility for great philosophy into thought-poetry, and something gets lost there? I haven't quite put my finger on the pulse of that point.

So why do I like it? Because this book is a huge help for creative types who realize how ridiculous and absurd their endeavors are. The world doesn't need more music. It doesn't need more anything. So what is being contributed to the pool? Why bother creating more shit? How ridiculous is it to demand that sort of posterity? Is that what we're doing it for? What about flow? All this white noise about shame in creation gets a really nice treatment by Camus here, and they are some really great words of encouragement for creation and art, in and of themselves. For people like me who don't quite get why they need to be (another) singer-songwriter type, it's got some good tips for dealing with that dissonance. It gives you some good methods to revel in it, and that's a huge help. It's a good self-help book, in parts, in this respect, for the creatives and artists. But you do have to parse it out. A lot.

Plus parts remind me of The Plague, which, if you haven't read it...do it up!

It is difficult to rate this book. If we consider it as philosophy, it will be one way. If we consider it as literature, it will be another way.

Let's start with literature.

As writing, "The Myth of Sisyphus" is wonderful, one of the best essays I have read. What the author wanted to say is clear, distinct, and written in a confident language. In terms of structure, "The Myth of Sisyphus" is also complete and beautiful. At the beginning of each small chapter, the main question or topic of the chapter is raised. The rest of the chapter is filled with explanations. The author does not waste time on excessive descriptions or evidence in the warehouse of facts, because there is one thing in this article that is present in almost all extraordinary writings. The author has raised what he believes and what he has experienced in front of the readers. What is true for him, he has revealed, and has trusted that the readers will take on the responsibility of understanding and judging.

Now let's come to the question of how the book is as philosophy.

First of all, it needs to be said that Camus did not like to call himself a philosopher. He preferred to think as an artist or a writer. "I think according to words and not according to ideas" - he himself said. Nevertheless, starting from Sartre, today's existentialists consider "Sisyphus" as a philosophical essay. So it can be judged as philosophy.

In this essay, Camus' main argument is that the world is meaningless, which many philosophers have accepted before, but not all have admitted. Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and many others have written on this topic. But they all claimed that it is possible to find freedom from the meaninglessness of the world. We have to have "faith", whether it is in God, in reason, or in art. Many philosophers have said that what we consider meaningless is actually the presence of God. We have to believe that there is actually meaning, and that meaning is known to God.

Camus calls this "faith" "Leap", or "Leap of Faith". Even after seeing that the earth is meaningless, believing that there is actually meaning, some hidden meaning - Camus did not like this belief. What he is experiencing, what the experience is - that is the truth. It is not appropriate to rely on anything outside of this, such as hope, religion, or trust in science - this was Camus' argument. Accepting the earth as meaningless is our main responsibility. Where there is no specific, inherent meaning of anything, all decisions are equal. All decisions are meaningless.

Why do we want to live in such a world?

Here lies the problem. Camus has no good answer to this "why". Throughout the essay, he repeatedly says that man has to live. Living while accepting meaninglessness is the true courage. Facing the reality fearlessly, living without any hope, without any "Appeal" is the only open path in front of us.

But why should I live? In a universe where everything is meaningless, why is there any difference between living and dying? Here Camus' opinion is not neutral. His view is that living is good, so one has to live. At one point in the essay, he says: where there is no morality, there will be no increase in crime. Because crime is a matter of satisfying desires. Those who know the truth, who accept meaninglessness (for such people, their name is The Absurd Man), such people will not do such desire-satisfying work. Why? In a world that is meaningless, why should there be a difference between a criminal and a non-criminal?

Why will there be a smile on Sisyphus' face when he is pushing the rock? Why will he not let himself be crushed under the rock?

The answer to this question is not in this essay. So as philosophy (at least for me), the article is incomplete and not powerful enough.

My argument has had to be shortened in several places to fit the reviewer's size (although seeing this extremely long work, there is no way to understand it). I hope to discuss the rest in some future story or novel.

This is also another proof of the power of the essay as literature. That which can give birth to another writing, if it is not literature, then what is it?

Classic for a reason.

This book serves as a powerful tonic for any agnostic or cynic who is grappling with the profound question of the meaning of life. Camus, in a manner that I find completely fulfilling, resolves this issue without resorting to the typical religious evasion of locating meaning beyond this world.

What exactly is wrong with being Sisyphus? Is this a form of punishment, or is it simply what life becomes when you emerge from the bubble for a sufficient period to perceive the truth of things? My fundamental perspective on life is more or less borrowed from Camus and Sartre: it is an absurdist endeavor that you can embrace and live, and even love the act of living it. What I value about Camus in this collection of essays is that he adopts a more positive attitude towards the entire concept compared to Sartre, who presents a rather bleak view.

Camus offers a unique and refreshing approach to understanding life's meaning, one that challenges the traditional notions and encourages us to look at the world from a different angle. His ideas have the potential to inspire and transform our perception of life, making us more open to the absurd and more willing to embrace the challenges and joys that come with it.

In conclusion, this book by Camus is a must-read for anyone who is seeking a deeper understanding of the human condition and the meaning of life. It offers valuable insights and perspectives that can help us navigate the complex and often confusing journey of life with greater clarity and purpose.

The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

One must definitely envision Sisiphus as a teacher. Teaching 15-year-olds every day is very much akin to pushing that colossal boulder up the hill. One is fully aware that it has to be done, for the future of humanity hinges upon proper education. It is arduous work that demands unwavering concentration, and one can never turn a blind eye or take a respite. In the evening, one is utterly exhausted, and yet quite content to witness that cumbersome boulder roll all the way to the deepest recesses of Hades. But tomorrow is another day, and Sisiphus embarks on the task of rolling that boulder up the hill once more.

One must imagine Sisiphus happy.

Imagination, that implies, is the principal tool of any teacher.

I say, while observing today's boulder gathering speed as it hurtles down the hill. See you tomorrow!

One must imagine Sisyphus vibing.

Sisyphus, that tragic figure of Greek mythology, condemned to an eternity of pushing a boulder up a hill only to have it roll back down. But what if we envision him in a different light? What if, instead of a symbol of endless toil and futility, we see him as a being who finds a strange kind of rhythm and joy in his task?

Maybe as he pushes that boulder, he is grooving to an internal beat, a melody only he can hear. His muscles tense and relax in a sort of dance, and with each step, he is not just moving the boulder but also moving himself, in a way that transcends the physical act.

We can picture him with a smile on his face, not a smile of resignation but one of acceptance and even celebration. For in his never-ending struggle, he has found a way to make the most of his situation, to create a kind of beauty and meaning out of the seemingly senseless.

So, let us imagine Sisyphus vibing, and in doing so, perhaps we can find a new perspective on our own lives and the challenges we face.

After weeks of mindlessly scrolling through Instagram, my brain felt like it was rotting. I knew it was high time for me to engage with something more intellectually stimulating.

I recently delved into a couple of fictional books by Camus and, in an effort to gain a deeper understanding of his concept of the Absurd, I decided to read this particular essay.

I have to confess that reading this essay was no easy feat. It demanded active reading skills and a great deal of concentration. Nevertheless, I found myself truly drawn to Camus' theory, as it was also vividly illustrated in "The Stranger."

However, there were certain aspects that eluded me. For instance, his quantitative ethics left me a bit perplexed. He argues that the quantity of human experiences holds more significance than their quality. In his view, since everything is ultimately meaningless, what matters is simply having a plethora of experiences.

Moreover, Camus himself does not identify as a philosopher but rather as someone preoccupied with the practicalities of living in an absurd world. While I appreciate his perspective, I must admit that I didn't necessarily find it overly clear or palpable how one should actually navigate and live in such a world. If we were to consider "The Stranger" as a practical example, I'm not convinced that the protagonist's life would be considered happy. He seemed detached from his experiences, and as a result, not truly content. Additionally, parts 2 and 3 of the essay felt somewhat redundant, as the idea of the Absurd had already been introduced and explored in the first part.

All things considered, I would still highly recommend reading this book for those who wish to gain a better understanding of Camus and his ideas. However, I do think that "The Stranger" offers a more accessible entry point into the concept of the Absurd, especially within its fictional framework.

Albert Camus's "The Myth of Sisyphus" is a profound exploration of the human condition in a godless world. Published in 1942 during World War II, it remains relevant in 2024. Camus aims to answer whether suicide is a legitimate response to the absurdity of existence. He presents his absurdist philosophy, which is not for the faint of heart.

The book is divided into three main sections. In the first, Camus argues for the absurdity of the world and concludes that suicide is not the answer. He engages with Husserl and Kierkegaard. In the second section, he explores different representations of the absurd man, such as Don Juan, the Dramatist, and the Conqueror. The final section examines the absurd man as a creator, through philosophy and literature. Camus concludes with the Greek myth of Sisyphus, who is condemned to roll a rock up a hill forever. He challenges us to imagine Sisyphus happy.
Camus's philosophy of the absurd transforms what was once an invitation to death into a new rule of revolt, passion, and freedom. The absurd man lives in the here-and-now, consumed by the physical world. He struggles and seeks quantity over quality, rejecting all a priori principles. Camus critiques both rationalism and irrationalism, seeing them as two sides of the same coin. The absurd man claims no masters but himself and rejects any hope for the eternal.
Camus offers suggestions for the absurdist individual to live a more lucid life through the profiles of the seducer, the conqueror, and the dramatist. The court jester is also proposed as an additional profile, representing a more subtle form of absurdity. The absurd man must continue to walk, toothache in heel, over the dead embers of bygone eras. He has no hope but rebellion, freedom, diversity, and passion. His creation has no purposiveness, and he can destroy it as easily as he creates it.
Reading Camus is intoxicating, like imbibing on absinthe. His philosophy is both dizzying and alluring, confusing yet beguiling. It invites us to live in a hopeless world and rebel against a fatal fate. However, not everyone may choose to follow Camus's path. Some, like the reviewer, may take the leap into the eternal. In the end, "The Myth of Sisyphus" is a thought-provoking work that challenges us to confront the absurdity of our existence and make our own choices.

In the exploration of the value of existence, we find ourselves in a profound conversation with the Brothers Karamazov and Demons, all framed by Kafka's body of work.

Kafka's unique perspective on the human condition serves as a backdrop, highlighting the absurdity and alienation that often pervade our lives. The Brothers Karamazov, with their complex characters and moral dilemmas, force us to question the nature of good and evil, and the meaning of our actions.

Similarly, Demons delves into the themes of power, corruption, and the consequences of ideological extremism. By juxtaposing these works, we are able to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the various aspects that contribute to the value of existence.

We are forced to confront our own beliefs, desires, and fears, and to consider how they shape our lives. In this way, the conversation with these literary masterpieces becomes a journey of self-discovery and a search for meaning in a chaotic and often incomprehensible world.

It is through this exploration that we may begin to find our own answers and perhaps even gain a new appreciation for the value of our existence.