The Process of Understanding How We Can Honestly Accept Absurdity

Thesis

Section 1: Introduction

Camus illustrates, both in his essays and his novels, a clear philosophical message of accepting the absurd honestly, as our only reality. I argue there are two components which bring about this honest acceptance. One is the recognition that there exists a divorce between the why and the lack of an answer to this why – this is the recognition of meaninglessness. The other is the feeling of the absurd emotions that arise from our reflection on absurdity. These two components create what I argue is Camus’ way of illustrating how to accept the absurdity of life.

Through exploring Camus’ work, I hope to create a clear picture of these two components of honestly accepting the absurd. In section 2, I will explain the idea of absurdity. In section 3, I will explain the idea of honesty, the honest hero, our honest acceptance of the absurd and introduce in more detail the two components which create this absurd acceptance. In Section 4, I explore the realisation of meaninglessness as the first component of accepting the absurd. In section 5, I will address objections to this first component of accepting the absurd. In Section 6, I explore the period of reflection required to generate the relevant absurd emotions necessary for full acceptance of the absurd. In Section 6, I will discuss how the term ‘hero’ makes the idea of absurd acceptance seem inaccessible and evaluate whether the ambiguities in Camus’ work affect my argument of absurd acceptance.

Section 2: Explaining the Absurd

The absurd to Camus is a divorce between man and the world. It is not that the world itself is absurd, but rather the relationship between humans and the world creates the absurd. As put by Camus, “this divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of the absurd” (Camus, 2005, p.5). The cold, meaningless, apathetic objective reality we live in and humanity’s inherent desire for meaning sought out in this reality is the contradiction from which absurdity spawns. We ask the world for meaning and we are met with silence, and so enters a tension between what humans wish for, which is clarification, and what they receive, which is silence. Camus meant for this relationship of humans and the world to be the notion of absurdity. He clarifies this absurd relationship as such, “If I see a man armed only with a sword attack a group of machine guns, I shall consider his act to be absurd. But it is so solely by virtue of the disproportion between his intention and the reality he will encounter, of the contradiction I notice between his true strength and the aim he has in view” (Camus, 2005, p. 28). Thus the absurd “bursts from the comparison between a bare fact and a certain reality” (Ibid.). The bare fact for Camus is that the world gives no answer, the certain reality is that this is absurd.

The absurd is best illustrated in his essay on ‘the Myth of Sisyphus’. Sisyphus is condemned by the Gods to roll a rock up a mountain, only for it to roll back down once it has reached the top (Camus, 2005, p.115). All of humanity faces this singular futility that Sisyphus faces, states Camus, when he says, “the workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks” (Ibid, p.117). For Camus, the absurd represents an inevitable reality. Camus does not make an argument for this reality because he felt the absurd was a fact of our lives, a definitive part of our human experience. Put as such, “the absurd follows with merciless logic from the most everyday thinking” (Solomon, 2006, p.38). To Camus, there is no need for a method of reasoning to illustrate the absurd, its reasoning is found in its presence alone.

Section 3: Camus’ Honesty, The Honest Hero and the Argument of Absurd Acceptance

Camus’ Honesty

The idea of honesty is a recurring theme in Camus’ work. To Camus, Meursault in The Outsider and Sisyphus in The Myth of Sisyphus, are heroes, because of their honesty. That is, Camus has portrayed the honest hero as the person who readily accepts the absurdity of life. As said by Camus, his absurd heroes are those who “refuse to lie” (Camus, 1955). Characters such as Meursault of the Outsider, do not wish to “simplify life” and avoid the absurd, and so Meursault only “says what is true” (Solomon, 2006, p.14). He does so by feeling only those emotions that come from his sensory feelings. In one of Camus’ earliest works, Nuptials, he argues for the detachment “from legitimate social commitments and the habitual social routine” (Lazere, 1973, p.9). Under this philosophy Camus feels we should live only through our sensuous experiences. I would argue this forms the basis for Camus’ idea of living honestly. His heroes in the Outsider and A Happy Death, in many ways, conform to this ideal of honesty.

The Honest Hero

Why should Camus take this idea of honesty to be what creates a hero? I argue it is because the acceptance of the world as meaningless is intolerable on a fundamental level to humans. We cannot help but crave some form of meaning and our desire for this meaning means that the natural response to our absurd reality is intolerance and ultimately, avoidance (in this context, avoidance takes the form of dishonesty). As reason seeking creatures, a meaningless world where our questions go unanswered is unbearable, all the more so because it seems that our main tool of ‘reasoning’ can no longer apply to what cannot be reasoned with – meaninglessness. Therefore, avoiding the absurd is the easier route to take, as it removes the anguish which comes with having our questions about life remain unanswered. Camus felt this to be the reason for why in many cases humans defer to science and religion as consolation (Camus, 2005, p.18). We do not do it for the conviction that these concepts provide real meaning, only that it is preferable to facing what for many is a horror; that there isn’t any meaning. Such a reality makes Camus’ characters heroic, as they accept, without any deviation, the absurdity of life.

The Argument of Absurd Acceptance

My claim is that this honest acceptance of the absurd takes two distinct components to be achieved and that these components can be found throughout Camus’ work. The first component is to accept unconditionally that the world is meaningless. That is, to avoid any attribution of meaning, be it of a religious or existential form. In avoiding this external attribution of meaning, we avoid committing what Camus felt to be ‘philosophical suicide’. Philosophical suicide to Camus is the avoidance of the reality of our absurd position and for Camus, its practice leads to a certain dishonesty towards our actual, absurd position (Camus, 2005, p.27).

However, meaninglessness, the acknowledgment of divorce, cannot be the only criteria for which we can accept the absurd. Only allowing the acceptance of meaninglessness creates a nihilistic and apathic state, seen in Camus’ initial portrayal of Mersault in ‘a Happy Death’ and Meursault in ‘the Outsider’. The implication is that it excludes any reflection towards the absurd and as a consequence of this, there is an exclusion of certain emotions which create the ‘feeling’ of absurdity. Thus, in order to form a whole conception of our absurd experience, it cannot solely be done through the realisation that life is meaningless.

The second component that creates the absurd acceptance, therefore, is that we also possess the ability to reflect on how absurdity ‘feels’. The absurd arises out of distinct emotional states, but to achieve these states requires a necessary period of reflection. Only taking life as meaningless can lead to an absence of reflection, which Camus and other authorities on Camus believed prevented the development of absurd emotions (Solomon, 2006, p.17). The emotions of absurdity are as essential for creating the honest acceptance of the absurd as is the realisation that life is meaningless, and so the two must go hand in hand for a true sense of absurdity to come into consciousness.

Section 4: Accepting the Meaninglessness of Life as One Aspect of Absurd Acceptance

The realisation and acceptance of our meaningless reality is one aspect of absurd acceptance. I argue Camus illustrated this through the absurd hero Sisyphus in his Myth of Sisyphus and the indifference his characters of Mersault and Meursault both display. Before I explore these ideas, I will discuss the Plague as a book in which Camus illustrates the dishonesty of those who do not accept the absurdity of life.

The Plague – Exploring Dishonesty to our Absurd Position

In the Plague, Camus explores the reactions of individuals to a contagion that has afflicted the town of Oran. Rather than the response being one of acceptance, many of the individuals in the town avoid their reality. The avoidance of this reality is an illustration of how not to accept the absurd. No discernible reason can be given to the outbreak of plague and this inexplicability creates a meaninglessness that the inhabitants fail to comprehend. Many of those in Oran exclaim “it’s impossible it should be the plague, everyone knows it has vanished from the West” (Camus, 2013, p.29). Yet it is a real reality, as Camus intends it to be, for it is the reality of the absurd. The impending susceptibility to death renders our lives meaningless, and all reasoning falls flat in the face of this reality. The reasonlessness of their position is heightened by the setting; there is a distinct lack of communication with anywhere outside the town. This initiates the natural question of why this town in particular is being afflicted. The lack of any reasonable answer to this ‘why’ is Camus’ way of stressing absurdity. Far from embracing the absurd, particular characters reject it. The Priest, Father Paneloux, proclaims the plague to be a message from God and says it is sin that has caused the outbreak, “my brethren, a calamity has befallen you; my brethren, you have deserved it” (Camus, 2013, p.73). This is a senseless and dishonest claim, for in the same chapter Dr Rieux mentions how a young, innocent child died from contagion. Dr Rieux is not deceived by Father Paneloux’s attributions of meaning, the death of the child reflects the randomness of mortality and heightens the absurd. Attempting to find meaning in a religious capacity, as Father Paneloux does, is being dishonest to the absurd position.

Camus felt that existentialists commit this same error. Existentialists were right in concluding the world is meaningless, but wrong to search for external meaning (Aranson, 2021). Realising the world is meaningless does not allow for deviation; there is no exceptional case through which meaning can be grasped. Therefore, in contrast to the characters of the Plague, I introduce the Myth of Sisyphus as a way in which we can understand the absurd hero who has accepted with honesty, his absurd position.

The Myth of Sisyphus – The Absurd Hero who has Accepted his Fate

Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus depicts Sisyphus, the epitome of the absurd hero who has accepted his fate. Sisyphus is condemned to rolling a rock up a mountain for defying the Gods. Once the rock has reached the top of the mountain, however, it rolls back down. His punishment is therefore not made in the physical demands of the task itself but in the futility of his own efforts - his “unspeakable penalty” was his exertions towards “accomplishing nothing” (Camus, 2005, p.116). Sisyphus is fully conscious of his fate, he knows the “full extent of his wretched condition” (Camus, 2005, p.117). Yet far from shying away from his Herculean task, Sisyphus commits himself fully to his absurd position and begins to roll the rock back up the mountain. In this act, “his fate belongs to him” (Camus, 2005, p.118). Sisyphus has realised and accepted with honesty the nature of his reality. He knows his position is absurd but he embraces it and in doing so, he “silences his tormentors” (Camus, 2005, p.119). Accepting absurdism is the honest conclusion we must arrive at. We must maintain the tension that the contradiction between the desire for meaning and meaninglessness offers. To do so preserves our integrity and acts as the only sincere response to our predicament. A life with acute consciousness of our mortality, knowing there is no consolation of meaning, is the life we must accept. Sisyphus offers us a philosophical model by which we can achieve this acceptance.

However, the Myth of Sisyphus is a mythological story and this reveals its own problem. I discussed how ‘The Plague’ illustrates the difficulty in accepting the absurd. Given that there is this struggle to accept absurdity, the use of a myth, particularly one of such epic proportions, may not be relevant to the average person who experiences a noticeably different reality. Whilst Camus illustrates Sisyphus as possessing similar characteristics to ourselves, his “passion for life” and his “hatred of death” (Camus, 2005, p. 116), the analogy of the absurd and accepting the absurd through mythology makes Sisyphus too remote to be relatable. The consequence of this is that the notion of absurd acceptance also feels remote. It is hard, in any practical sense, to apply the absurd acceptance framed under an extreme fictional case, to our own reality. To remedy this, therefore, I will turn to the Outsider and a Happy Death, whose characters are depicted in a more realistic setting that allows for the acceptance of absurdity to feel less remote.

The Outsider – Accepting the Absurd through Indifference

As the Outsider is not based on a mythological tale, the novel can act as a more realistic way for readers to understand how to accept the absurd. In Camus’ eyes, Meursault in the Outsider is heroic. He does not shy away from the absurd. Meursault, in his honesty, is meant by Camus to capture the maintenance of the tension of the absurd. His honesty is reflected in the indifference within him that arises out of this acceptance. As put by Camus in the Rebel, ‘the sense of the absurd...makes murder seem a matter of indifference’ (the Rebel, page xi). Meursault’s mother dies and he does not cry, he does not even know the day on which she died, saying “mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don’t know” (Camus, 1998, p.3). He expresses nothing as his neighbour Raymond describes how he had beaten the woman he was seeing (Ibid, p.35). He kills a man and feels no guilt.

I believe Camus meant this evident lack of emotion to be the consequence of honestly accepting the absurd. Meursault’s choice for killing a man was to confirm whether it would evoke a different reaction within him, whether there would be any difference between this action and any other action that had left him indifferent in the past. The response: the feeling for him is the same. He notices the sweat on his brow after he kills ‘the Arab’, he notices the sky “raining down sheets of flame”, but no emotion is given to the man he has just murdered (Ibid, p.55). Camus, through his description of the event, makes the reader as removed from the scene as possible. There is no point at which the intention is stated to kill ‘the Arab’ and so there is no signalling to the reader that such a violent event is about to take place. Meursault only describes how the trigger ‘gave way’ and that there was a ‘deafening noise’ (Ibid.). This removal of the reader from the scene of the killing, I believe, has a philosophical intention. Camus is attempting to make the reader see how Meursault experiences the event: as something far removed from himself, due to his acceptance of the absurd.

A Happy Death – A Continuation of Indifference

The acceptance of meaninglessness through indifference also occurs in Camus’ ‘a Happy Death’. The character Mersault has the same apathetic state as Meursault in the Outsider, revealed in the similar reaction to his mother’s death. Whilst the guests expected Mersault to mourn, to express a deep grief at the loss of his mother, during the funeral proceedings Mersault merely “watches” (Camus, 2013, p.11). Moreover, he evokes no emotion, other than the look of “surprise” as he expresses regret at the fact that “there were so few cars for those that attended the service” (Camus, 2013, p.11). He kills a man and shows no remorse (Camus, 2013, p.5). Mersault is expressing the same lack of emotion for the same reason that Camus feels Meursault in the Outsider is honest – he has recognised the absurd and has arranged his feelings accordingly - Mersault’s honesty to the absurd is revealed in his indifferent nature.

Are these Heroes?

Before I continue the discussion, it must be asked whether the two Meursault’s can be called ‘heroes’. Both men kill a man in cold blood and both express a lack of remorse for their crimes. This does not embody the typical idea of a ‘hero’ and nor should it. In section 6, once I have introduced the second component to absurd acceptance, namely the reflection that generates ‘feeling’, I hope that a clearer picture of Camus’ absurd hero should emerge. As put by Solomon, it is only in reflection that the Meursault’s become “a semblance of the absurd hero” (Solomon, 2006, p.26).

Section 5: Meursault as Nothingness and Questioning Meursault’s Honesty

Meursault as Nothingness

A critique of Meursault’s honesty and his honest feelings can be made. For instance, an objection was raised that Meursault of the Outsider cannot possibly be displaying honesty through his feeling of indifference because he possesses a complete absence of all feeling (Solomon, 2006, p.21). Solomon argues that rather than indifference characterising Meursault, it is nothingness that characterises him (Solomon, 2006, p.19). When Meursault glances in the mirror, he doesn’t see himself, only the corner of his table (Camus, 1998, p.23) and when he speaks, he hears his own voice (Solomon, 2006, p.19). To Solomon, Meursault is more ‘like a vampire’ (Ibid.) who doesn’t possess a reflection and because of this, he doesn’t possess any feeling, indifference or otherwise. Therefore, we cannot interpret Meursault as accepting his absurd position through indifference if in reality he does not possess any indifference, but rather, represents nothingness.

I would argue that there are ‘feelings’ expressed by Meursault, it is just that the feelings expressed are only of a sensuous nature, echoing the earlier mentioned philosophy of Camus’ ‘Nuptials’, where he explores humans as being immersed in the physicals senses as a legitimate response to our inevitable mortality (Aronson, 2021). Whilst Meursault does not feel for his mother, he reflects on the sensations he has when drinking a cup of coffee. Whilst he does not respond to the murdering of a man, he recognises the sun on his skin, the scene of the ocean that he physically sees – his sensations are his honesty to the absurd position, his feelings are reduced to the bare bones of human experience. Solomon himself recognises that Meursault is “located” as this “seeing” and “feeling” being (Solomon, 2006, p.15). I feel Solomon makes a mistake in not acknowledging this to be a continuation of the philosophy of Camus’ Nuptials, in which the display of sensuous feelings alone reveals an honest acceptance to the absurd. The honesty of Meursault to the absurd is apparent, exactly because it is expressed in the sensuous alone. By going to the extreme of a complete absence of emotion, Meursault is illustrating his faithfulness to the absurd.

Questioning Meursault’s Honesty

Camus felt the absurd hero is made a ‘hero’, because of his honesty (Camus, 1955). Yet in reading his work, particularly the Outsider, there are many instances in which Meursault is not honest. He concocts a deceitful letter for his friend Raymond and he lies to the police to get Raymond discharged (O’Brien, 1970). As put by Solomon, even when Meursault does not lie outright, he is “less than the ideal honest man” (Solomon, 2006, p.15). Thus, it is hard to see how we can accept the absurd through the idea of Camus’ absurd hero if in reality what makes him the ‘hero’, namely, telling the truth, turns out to be false.
However, the point is not that Meursault must be honest in all aspects of his life, but only those that relate to his feelings. Under this notion, Meursault’s honesty is present throughout the book. This “passion...for the truth” (Camus, 1955) is most apparent in a scene with his lawyer. His lawyer, in preparing a defence for Meursault, suggests in confidence that Meursault should say the lack of emotion he displayed at his mother’s funeral was because he had composed himself. Meursault in response says, “no, because it’s not true” (Camus, 1998, p.61). The interaction between lawyer and his client is one typically filled with discretion, yet Meursault does not take advantage of this and aid his defence. Instead, he remains true to his feelings. Camus’ identification of Meursault as the man who is a hero for his honesty remains accurate, and because of this we can still engage with the philosophy of the absurd hero as a way in which we can accept absurdity.

Section 6: The feeling of Absurdity – How Reflection Causes the Emergence of Certain Emotions that Allow for Full Acceptance of the Absurd

The two Meursault’s indifference makes it hard to relate to them as humans and harder to visualise them as heroes. Emotion is a quality found extensively in human nature and so to accept absurdity under their terms would be in contradiction to the many emotions that we as humans ‘feel’. We cannot say, and I would argue nor can Camus, that in accepting the philosophy of the absurd we will immediately be devoid of all emotion as the Meursault’s are. This is why I argue Camus presented another, distinct component to accepting the absurd – the period of reflection whereby emotions surrounding the absurd are allowed to surface. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus wrote that the emotions cause those facing the absurdity of life to “light up with their passion an exclusive world in which they recognise their climate” (Camus, 2006, p.9). Both Meursault’s were never the true heroes who had accepted the absurdity of life until they experienced the emotions that came with absurdity. In doing so, they realised the full, absurd ‘climate’, something that would not have been possible without their reflection. Before I explore this reflection, I will offer a brief, analytic clarification of what the feeling of absurdity means.

The Feeling of Absurdity

The feeling of absurdity and the emotions which come with absurdity are as critical in accepting the absurd as accepting meaninglessness is. The absurd is “better learned by feeling” and Camus argues that in order to talk about absurdity, it should first be “felt” so that in feeling, the foundation is laid for the notion of the absurd (Kim, 2021). Camus’ feeling of the absurd is composed of two distinct parts: there is the feeling of the absurd in the ‘narrow sense’ and then the ‘appearance of this feeling’ (Pölzler, 2018, p.478). In the narrow sense, the feeling of absurdity is akin to a mood, it is indeterminate, directed not on any one thing but captures what one is ‘feeling’ in the moment (Pölzler, 2018, p.480). The appearance of this feeling are the ‘absurd emotions’ (Ibid.) directed at something specific, such as the horror those in the Plague experience when they are facing their own mortality. The relationship between these distinctions is causal - the absurd mood promotes the emergence of the absurd emotions (Ibid.).

To achieve these states of mood and emotion, there must exist a period of reflection. Without reflection of our absurd reality, there is an ‘impoverishment’ of the absurd emotions (Solomon, 2006, p.17). My initial discussion of a Happy Death and the Outsider suggests there to be an absence of this required reflection. This was intentional. Camus separated each work into two distinct parts. Each of the Meursault’s in the latter parts of their respective stories eventually transform their perception of the absurd. This is done through Camus’ introduction of reflective episodes. I argue that by first illustrating the philosophical implications of a complete absence of emotion, Camus is able to reveal the necessity of emotion for accepting absurdity.

Meursault’s Reflection in The Outsider

Camus discusses the emotions of absurdity in the Myth, “that weariness tinged with amazement”, the anxiety and nausea as one faces the certainty of death. It appears Meursault begins to feel similar emotions. The feelings are first simple, the boredom and weariness at being in his cell, but they increase in intensity to frustration (Solomon, 2006, p.28). Eventually, this frustration transforms into anger as he is confronted by a priest at the very end of the book (Camus, 1998, p.112). Questions that, prior to his lack of reflection, he would never have asked, now stream into his consciousness. This is the absurdity Camus intends, the combination not only of realising meaninglessness but the emotions that follow through with this realisation. Meursault then embodies the true absurd hero, for after this bout of anger, he suddenly becomes “calm” (Camus, 1998, p.112) – his own prior absurd acceptance is rekindled, yet now it is also held in place by the absurd emotions that he so evidently lacked before.

Mersault’s Reflection in A Happy Death

There is a similar transformation of ‘feeling’ in A Happy Death as Mersault starts to reflect. This period of reflection begins with the sentence, “alone, Mersault reflected” (Camus, 2013, p.94). The sensuous experiences then described on the following pages are perceived in a new light for Mersault, a perception that can only originate with reflection. The smell of squashed fruit, the patches of sunlight among the shadowed foliage, the red soil and the whispering sea, Mersault contemplates these feelings with a new found awareness of the absurd. The bare feelings of the former, apathetic Mersault, who accepted only meaninglessness, now has a deep sense of reflection for the absurd, so that rather than experience the night in only in a sensuous manner, he shares “the nights deep concentration” (Camus, 2013, p.98). Mersault then, in beginning to reflect, achieves the full acceptance of absurdity.

I believe it was Camus’ intention to first narrate only the apathy that comes with one component of the absurd - accepting meaninglessness. He illustrates that emotion is fundamental to absurd acceptance by revealing how only embracing meaninglessness without reflection leads to an apathetic state. The transformation we see in the two Meursault’s is made all the more poignant as it cements the idea that the ‘feeling’ of absurdity is as important to accepting absurdity. By introducing feeling, Camus makes it explicit that the absurd does not lead to an embrace of nihilism. Rather, in accepting the absurd, we transcend nihilism. Indeed, the final section of Camus’ Rebel is titled ‘Beyond Nihilism” (Camus, 2013, p.244) and I argue that this ‘overcoming’ of nihilism comes about through the absurd as an emotive experience.

Therefore, whilst I offered the sensuous experiences explored in Nuptials as a defence of faithfulness to the absurd, it appears Camus desired his characters to embody more than just sensuous experiences – they must have emotion. The two Meursault’s, through their reflections and emotions become, in some way, the absurd hero of Sisyphus. It is thus the change in Camus’ characters, the need for absurd emotion, which I feel indicates Camus is giving a philosophical template by which we build our experience of absurd acceptance – first through accepting meaninglessness and then embracing, through reflection, the emotions and moods that come with the feeling of absurdity.

Section 7: The Overall Problem with the Term ‘Hero’ and Camus’ Ambiguity The Overall Problem with the Term ‘Hero’

I have argued that by reading Camus’ works we can develop a deep sense of absurd acceptance. However, in order to do so, there must be an element of accessibility by which on a practical level, absurd acceptance can be achieved. In reading his works, it could seem that this acceptance is exclusive only to the ‘hero’, and this invites problems for the idea of accessibility. The title of ‘hero’ creates a disassociation between the reader and the acceptance of the absurd. A hero stands above others, a hero exists only in the minority, because if a hero was an occupation of a large majority, the significance of the term ‘hero’ would be lost. Camus’ description of accepting the absurd puts emphasis on this idea of exclusivity: “the end is the absurd universe and that attitude of mind which lights the world with its true colours to bring out the privileged and implacable visage which that attitude has discerned it” (Camus, 2005, p. 10). Camus is indicating that the absurd arises out of those who possess a particular attitude, a ‘privileged attitude’, which enables them to accept absurdity. Focusing on this privileged attitude highlights the element of the exceptional in accepting absurdity. Thus, ‘hero’, brings to mind an exceptional being that holds an exclusive position over others. It seems we cannot accept the absurd if it is only the rare few, the ‘heroes’, that hold this ‘privileged’ position of accepting absurdity. This has the implication that perhaps the two elements I believe engineer absurd acceptance are not enough.

However, I feel the exclusivity of the term ‘hero’ is not an issue if we look at the concept through Camus’ philosophy of a shared human nature. Camus felt the desire for meaning that arises in individuals is evidence of a shared nature. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus says human nature is the same because of this “desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion” (Camus, 2005, p.49). If all of us, under Camus’ belief, share an innate nature, then logically each of us possesses the ability, as much as the ‘hero’, in achieving absurd acceptance. As Camus puts it in the Myth, “at any street corner, the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face” (Camus, 2005, p.9). There is no indication of exclusivity here because there shouldn’t be. The absurd is a reality that relates to human existence as a whole and each of us individually are as likely to encounter this feeling of absurdity as we are to accept it.

Camus’ Ambiguity

The issue of establishing what Camus meant by the term hero is created by the ambiguities in his philosophy. For example, Camus mentions it is Meursault’s honesty which makes him a hero, but does not define it in specific relation to honest feeling, and it is thus up to the reader to make the distinction that he meant honesty in his feelings. This is not the only case of poor definition. Camus gives very little attention to defining the feeling of absurdity, stating the feeling is too ‘elusive’ to allow for characterisation (Pölzler, 2018, p.478). Camus offers little consolation when pressed on this lack of characterisation. Camus felt enough work had been made by others defining the feeling of absurdity (Ibid.). It is not clear who these ‘others’ are, but if we are again to infer what he meant, we may assume he was referring to his contemporary Sartre.

If this is the case, it does not help. Sartre and Camus’ notions and feelings of absurdity are markedly different. Sartre felt absurdity was a property of existence itself (Aronson, 2021), whereas, as I clarified in section 2, Camus’ absurdism is our relationship with the world. Thus the clarification of Sartre’s absurdism, if applied to Camus’, will likely only convolute things further. Making matters worse, much of this imprecision and “looseness of language” is predominantly found in Camus’ main essays on absurdism – the Rebel and The Myth of Sisyphus (Hall, 1960, p.26). These works should offer clarification on his other books which explore absurdity, yet instead, because of their ambiguity, reading the Myth and the Rebel leaves us at times feeling confused as to what Camus really meant.

However, though there is a definite lack of knowledge regarding Camus’ intentions, Camus offers an insight that may be enough to rectify this issue. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus wrote a chapter on Kafka in which he says, “the whole art of Kafka is forcing the reader to reread. His endings give explanations...not revealed in clear language” and because of this “sometimes there is a double possibility of interpretation” (Camus, 2005, p.120). Though Camus’ work is not strictly Kafkaesque, I argue Camus intended this to be how his works should be read. Indeed, this is supported by Lazere, who says, “This is what Camus too wanted in his art” (Lazere, 1973, p.151). Multiple interpretations of his work, therefore, are possible. I argue that the significance of these multiple interpretations in Camus’ work is related to the acceptance of absurdity.

That is, given this insight from Camus, I argue we should approach his ambiguity in the same way as the ideas surrounding absurdity should be accepted. There is no ‘one’ way to look at something, attempting to do so is reminiscent of Camus’ comments on finding external meaning – finding ‘answers’ in concepts such as religion means you begin looking at the world through a distorted lens, a lens that fuels a dishonest relationship with absurdity. In reading Camus’ work, I find myself wrestling with conflicting definitions and ambiguous terminology. I start to look for answers. And in this there exists a certain irony. Wrestling with his works, accepting the struggles of interpretation - I believe this is exactly the philosophy of absurdity Camus wished to convey. Embracing this struggle is another part of accepting absurdity.

Section 8: Conclusion

In this dissertation, I have argued that the process of accepting absurdity can come about through two components: accepting meaninglessness and embracing the feelings of absurdity. In Section 2 I clarified the meaning of absurdity. In section 3 I explained both Camus’ honesty and the idea of the absurd hero before explaining my argument of achieving absurd acceptance. In section 4 I explained the first component of accepting absurdity - accepting meaninglessness. I used Camus’ Plague to illustrate how searching for external meaning leads to a dishonesty with our reality and a rejection of absurdity. I then introduced Sisyphus as the hero we can use as a philosophical template to accept absurdity, before introducing The Outsider and A Happy Death as texts that show an honest acceptance of the absurd through indifference. Before I moved on to evaluating my first component in detail, I questioned whether we could call the Meursault’s heroes, as their indifference casted doubt on whether we could engage with them to achieve an acceptance of the absurd. In Section 5 I defended the first component of my argument of absurd acceptance through meaninglessness against two different objections: Meursault as nothingness and Meursault as dishonest. The issue of whether we can accept the Meursault’s as heroes in order to use them as a philosophical template for accepting absurdity remained. Therefore, in Section 6, I introduced the second component of my argument which allowed for the acceptance of absurdity – the feelings of absurdity. This allowed for an exploration of the Meursault’s as reflective, feeling agents who began to embody the absurd hero of Sisyphus. In Section 7, I evaluated whether the term hero endangered the acceptance of absurdity from being achieved on a practical level. I used Camus’ philosophy of a shared human nature to assuage these doubts. I then suggested it is Camus’ own ambiguity which created issues on how we interpret his philosophy. I argued Camus desired this struggle of interpreting his philosophy and that this acted as another part of accepting absurdity. Therefore, I conclude that my argument still stands. By accepting meaninglessness and embracing the feelings of absurdity, we are able to achieve a philosophical acceptance of the absurd.

---

Bibliography

- Aronson, R. (2021). ‘Albert Camus’, The Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, N.E & Nodelman, U (eds.) Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/#Bib Accessed: 10 April 2023
- Camus, A. (2013). A Happy Death. London: Penguin Classics
- Camus, A. (1955). L’ Étranger, Germaine Brée and Carlos Lynes, Jr. (eds). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
- Camus, A (2005). The Myth of Sisyphus. London: the Penguin Group Camus, A. (1998).
- The Outsider. London: Everyman’s Library Camus, A. (2013). The Plague. London: Penguin Classics
- Camus, A. (2013). The Rebel. London: Penguin Classics
- Hall, H.G. (1960). ‘Aspects of the Absurd’, Yale French Studies, (25), pp. 26-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/2928897
- Lazare, D. (1973). The Unique Creation of Albert Camus. New Haven and London: Yale University Press
- O’Brien, C.C. (1970). Albert Camus. New York: Viking
- Pölzler, T. (2018). ‘Camus Feeling of the Absurd’, Journal of Value Inquiry, (4), pp. 477-490. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-018-9633-1
- Solomon, C.R. (2006). Dark feelings, grim thoughts: experience and reflection in Camus and Sartre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.