Related Questions:
§ Critically examine Albert Camus’ moral philosophy of revolt and absurdity.
§ Critically examine Albert Camus’ moral philosophy of revolt and absurdity.
THE PHILOSOPHER: ALBERT CAMUS
Albert Camus born 1913 and died 1960 was a contemporary French writer and existentialist philosopher. He was born in Algeria, then a colony of France, which gave him a unique perspective on the life of the outsider. Camus is widely acknowledged as the greatest of the philosophers of “the absurd”. His idea is simple; human beings are caught in a constant attempt to derive meaning from a meaningless world. This is known as the “paradox of the absurd”. Some of Camus’ novels are classics of existentialist fiction. Also, his philosophical writings, “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942) and “The Rebel” (1951) are profound philosophical works. Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. Unlike his fellow existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre, he accepted it.
It is instructive to consider the differences between Sartre and Camus. The men were friends in the war years of their time. Together, they edited the political journal “Combat”. But Sartre and Camus fell out on account of their views on Stalin and communism. In the 1950s, Sartre threw his support behind Stalin’s vision of the global communist struggle. Camus was unimpressed by the “ends justify the means” mentality of the communist revolutionaries, and would have no support for Stalin’s movement for a perfected humanity. In “The Rebel”, Camus made his criticisms plain. Sartre responded in anger and ended their friendship. Philosophically, Camus differed with Sartre on key issues including “the definition of existential authenticity”. Sartre argued that authenticity involves making a fundamental choice about how to live – whether as a philosopher, writer, communist or whatever. The idea here is that we should acknowledge that whatever we do in life is only a choice, and there are as well other choices we can make in life.
CAMUS’ PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT AND ABSURDITY
The central concern of his work, “The Myth of Sisyphus” is what Camus calls "the absurd." Camus argued for what is ultimately a more radical position; that existential authenticity demands that we admit to ourselves that our plans and projects are for the most part, hopeless and in vain; nevertheless, we should still struggle on regardless. This is what Camus calls existential revolt; to affirm the absurdity of life and continue on regardless. Revolt, he says, is a constant confrontation between man and his own mysterious nature. It is about understanding and accepting the certainty of a crushing fate.
Camus expresses the attitude of revolt via the character of Sisyphus, a figure from Greek mythology. In a deterministic sense, the gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, of which, the stone would fall back due to its own weight. They gods had Sisyphus do this because; they had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor. Just as we face challenges that intrinsically seem meaningless everyday, imagine being Sisyphus. Sisyphus is forced each day to roll a boulder to the top of a mountain only to watch it roll down again. This is the human condition, says Camus. Nevertheless, the twist in Camus’ philosophy on the meaninglessness of existence is that he affirms Sisyphus as the absurd hero. Indeed, Sisyphus is heroic not because he suffers his fate, but because “he is superior to his fate”. Sisyphus does not weep and lament his fate. Out of scorn for the gods who condemned him to this fate, he affirms, engages and faces his labor, concluding that all is well. Fixing his eye on the stone at the bottom of the hill, he trudges down the slope to retrieve it again. Camus says, “One must imagine that Sisyphus is happy”.
Therefore, to affirm the absurdity of existence and continue; this is revolt, Camus reflects. We are daily faced with the real possibility that life is meaningless. If this sense of meaninglessness persists, we anticipate suicide; we are forced to ask whether life is worth living at all. He concludes that this too is an unnecessary escape from the reality of life’s absurdity. In his words, “…It may be thought that suicide follows revolt, but wrongly; revolt gives value to life”. Camus says that this question of suicide is the most basic philosophical question; before one would begin to engage in any type of philosophical journey, one must first answer the questions of suicide. He points out that even though life has no meaning, it does not necessarily imply the fact that life is not worth living. In truth, there is no necessary common measure between these two judgments.” Camus’ response to this condition of the absurd is to “live in revolt.” By this he means that we accept the tension of searching for meaning in a totally chaotic world. Hence, Camus believes that a man whom is living an authentic life is one that fundamentally understands the absurd nature of existence and accepts it as it is. This is similar to the philosophical concept of “knowing Ming” in ancient Chinese philosophy.
The absurd is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled, and any attempt to reconcile this contradiction is simply an attempt to escape from it: facing the absurd is struggling against it. Living with the absurd, Camus suggests, is a matter of facing this fundamental contradiction and maintaining constant awareness of it. Facing the absurd does not entail suicide, but, on the contrary, allows us to live life to its fullest. Camus identifies three characteristics of the absurd life;
i. Revolt (we must not accept any answer or solution to our struggle),
ii. Freedom (we are absolutely free to think and behave as we choose), and
iii. Passion (we must pursue a life of rich and diverse experiences).
Conclusively, Sisyphus, according to the Greek myth, was punished for all eternity to roll a rock up a mountain only to have it roll back down to the bottom when he reaches the top. Camus claims that Sisyphus is the ideal absurd hero and that his punishment is representative of the human condition; Sisyphus must struggle perpetually and without hope of success. So long as he accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd struggle, then he can find happiness in it, says Camus.
CRITIQUE OF CAMUS’ PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT
Firstly, Camus’ ideas seems a bit of an odd notion, for how can one be in a state of revolt, how can one struggle, if one has no hope of success? In reality, human’s work hard because they still have some hope for a brighter future; it is what keeps them going and not some revolt mentality. Man does not see struggle as an end in itself; instead he sees struggles as a means towards an end. This concept of revolt without hope largely defines the absurd man, and characterizes the myth of Sisyphus, which Camus takes as the title of this work.
Secondly, the concept of "freedom" that Camus employs is characteristically un- philosophical as it tends to abuse the concept of responsibility. The absurd man being absolutely free in this sense is because he has abandoned the idea that his life has any value or any meaning, and so does not feel committed to living toward any particular goal. As a result, man would face every new moment free from the constraints of thought and actions that we normally conform to in society.
Thirdly, the "passion" that Camus refers to as the final consequence of living the absurd is a matter of living in the present. The absurd man is not concerned with the future and is not preoccupied with the past. It encourages one to let go of the past, because it cannot be changed or undone. Focus only on the “present” and do not waste it by dwelling on thoughts of the past; live in the now. The present moment seems that much more intense and alive to him. This is quite plausible because it is alright to dream and plan. Nevertheless, still take time to appreciate your “now”, because it is the real you. It is deceptive to think that your happiness lays in future achievements, as the truth is, the more you get, the more you want.
Albert Camus born 1913 and died 1960 was a contemporary French writer and existentialist philosopher. He was born in Algeria, then a colony of France, which gave him a unique perspective on the life of the outsider. Camus is widely acknowledged as the greatest of the philosophers of “the absurd”. His idea is simple; human beings are caught in a constant attempt to derive meaning from a meaningless world. This is known as the “paradox of the absurd”. Some of Camus’ novels are classics of existentialist fiction. Also, his philosophical writings, “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942) and “The Rebel” (1951) are profound philosophical works. Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957. Unlike his fellow existentialist, Jean-Paul Sartre, he accepted it.
It is instructive to consider the differences between Sartre and Camus. The men were friends in the war years of their time. Together, they edited the political journal “Combat”. But Sartre and Camus fell out on account of their views on Stalin and communism. In the 1950s, Sartre threw his support behind Stalin’s vision of the global communist struggle. Camus was unimpressed by the “ends justify the means” mentality of the communist revolutionaries, and would have no support for Stalin’s movement for a perfected humanity. In “The Rebel”, Camus made his criticisms plain. Sartre responded in anger and ended their friendship. Philosophically, Camus differed with Sartre on key issues including “the definition of existential authenticity”. Sartre argued that authenticity involves making a fundamental choice about how to live – whether as a philosopher, writer, communist or whatever. The idea here is that we should acknowledge that whatever we do in life is only a choice, and there are as well other choices we can make in life.
CAMUS’ PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT AND ABSURDITY
The central concern of his work, “The Myth of Sisyphus” is what Camus calls "the absurd." Camus argued for what is ultimately a more radical position; that existential authenticity demands that we admit to ourselves that our plans and projects are for the most part, hopeless and in vain; nevertheless, we should still struggle on regardless. This is what Camus calls existential revolt; to affirm the absurdity of life and continue on regardless. Revolt, he says, is a constant confrontation between man and his own mysterious nature. It is about understanding and accepting the certainty of a crushing fate.
Camus expresses the attitude of revolt via the character of Sisyphus, a figure from Greek mythology. In a deterministic sense, the gods had condemned Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, of which, the stone would fall back due to its own weight. They gods had Sisyphus do this because; they had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor. Just as we face challenges that intrinsically seem meaningless everyday, imagine being Sisyphus. Sisyphus is forced each day to roll a boulder to the top of a mountain only to watch it roll down again. This is the human condition, says Camus. Nevertheless, the twist in Camus’ philosophy on the meaninglessness of existence is that he affirms Sisyphus as the absurd hero. Indeed, Sisyphus is heroic not because he suffers his fate, but because “he is superior to his fate”. Sisyphus does not weep and lament his fate. Out of scorn for the gods who condemned him to this fate, he affirms, engages and faces his labor, concluding that all is well. Fixing his eye on the stone at the bottom of the hill, he trudges down the slope to retrieve it again. Camus says, “One must imagine that Sisyphus is happy”.
Therefore, to affirm the absurdity of existence and continue; this is revolt, Camus reflects. We are daily faced with the real possibility that life is meaningless. If this sense of meaninglessness persists, we anticipate suicide; we are forced to ask whether life is worth living at all. He concludes that this too is an unnecessary escape from the reality of life’s absurdity. In his words, “…It may be thought that suicide follows revolt, but wrongly; revolt gives value to life”. Camus says that this question of suicide is the most basic philosophical question; before one would begin to engage in any type of philosophical journey, one must first answer the questions of suicide. He points out that even though life has no meaning, it does not necessarily imply the fact that life is not worth living. In truth, there is no necessary common measure between these two judgments.” Camus’ response to this condition of the absurd is to “live in revolt.” By this he means that we accept the tension of searching for meaning in a totally chaotic world. Hence, Camus believes that a man whom is living an authentic life is one that fundamentally understands the absurd nature of existence and accepts it as it is. This is similar to the philosophical concept of “knowing Ming” in ancient Chinese philosophy.
The absurd is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled, and any attempt to reconcile this contradiction is simply an attempt to escape from it: facing the absurd is struggling against it. Living with the absurd, Camus suggests, is a matter of facing this fundamental contradiction and maintaining constant awareness of it. Facing the absurd does not entail suicide, but, on the contrary, allows us to live life to its fullest. Camus identifies three characteristics of the absurd life;
i. Revolt (we must not accept any answer or solution to our struggle),
ii. Freedom (we are absolutely free to think and behave as we choose), and
iii. Passion (we must pursue a life of rich and diverse experiences).
Conclusively, Sisyphus, according to the Greek myth, was punished for all eternity to roll a rock up a mountain only to have it roll back down to the bottom when he reaches the top. Camus claims that Sisyphus is the ideal absurd hero and that his punishment is representative of the human condition; Sisyphus must struggle perpetually and without hope of success. So long as he accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd struggle, then he can find happiness in it, says Camus.
CRITIQUE OF CAMUS’ PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT
Firstly, Camus’ ideas seems a bit of an odd notion, for how can one be in a state of revolt, how can one struggle, if one has no hope of success? In reality, human’s work hard because they still have some hope for a brighter future; it is what keeps them going and not some revolt mentality. Man does not see struggle as an end in itself; instead he sees struggles as a means towards an end. This concept of revolt without hope largely defines the absurd man, and characterizes the myth of Sisyphus, which Camus takes as the title of this work.
Secondly, the concept of "freedom" that Camus employs is characteristically un- philosophical as it tends to abuse the concept of responsibility. The absurd man being absolutely free in this sense is because he has abandoned the idea that his life has any value or any meaning, and so does not feel committed to living toward any particular goal. As a result, man would face every new moment free from the constraints of thought and actions that we normally conform to in society.
Thirdly, the "passion" that Camus refers to as the final consequence of living the absurd is a matter of living in the present. The absurd man is not concerned with the future and is not preoccupied with the past. It encourages one to let go of the past, because it cannot be changed or undone. Focus only on the “present” and do not waste it by dwelling on thoughts of the past; live in the now. The present moment seems that much more intense and alive to him. This is quite plausible because it is alright to dream and plan. Nevertheless, still take time to appreciate your “now”, because it is the real you. It is deceptive to think that your happiness lays in future achievements, as the truth is, the more you get, the more you want.
Thanks so much ur blog has really help me
ReplyDelete