The Myth of Sisyphus: Within the Limits of Camus, and the Choices beyond

"There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide"

     So begins, Camus' reflection on whether life is worth living, and his exploration as to why man create. It is one of the most cold, unemotional, condensed works I've come across. It is brutally honest and  difficult to read on at a pace. I took literally months over it. In actuality this writing exercise is the road to another exercise of reading, given that few will take the time to read the resulting essay. I have a very strong hunch that I will read and re-read this book during my life time. Not because I am convinced about Camus' solution, but because the questions he asks are of the utmost importance.

The Essay is divided into four major parts- the first of which is  titled, "An Absurd Reasoning". Here he ponders about why one dies voluntarily ? He comes up with the basic premise that one does so because he or she has identified albeit instinctively the absence of any profound reason to go on living. To quote: "This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity." He argues then, it is logical and legitimate to contemplate on suicide. He conceeds, that there is an attachment to life not withstanding all the ills of the world, and of course the hope for a better place, after life. He makes a worthy observation, that it is not easy to be logical to the bitter end, and usually ending one's life is an emotional conclusion. He ponders on what it is meant, for man to understand the world. He replies that it means to reduce it to terms that he can comprehend. He infers that the world is unknowable, taking a jab at the rationalists, thus: "With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge." There is a subtle twist in words here, that should be appreciated. He shows that intelligence too says that the world is absurd, contrary to all the pretension by reason that all is fine. This however shouldn't be thought of as inferring a legitimacy for Irrationality. Camus says that Irrationality is ever present, and that the irrational is vast. He deplores irrationality from his tone.

He turns his attention to existential philosophies, and says thus:
"I see that all of them without exception suggest escape. Through an odd reasoning, starting out from the absurd over the ruins of odd reason, in a closed universe limited to the human, they deify what crushes them and find reason to hope in what impoverishes them. That forced hope is religious in all of them." In dealing with them he criticises  Chestov, Kiekegard and Jaspers. The following quote captures the gist of the criticism: "To Chestov reason is useless but there is something beyond reason. To an absurd mind reason is useless and there is nothing beyond reason." It is this acceptance of hopelessness, and coming to terms with it, which is a main characteristic of the Absurd Mind. He terms existential attitude as Philosophical suicide.

He further elaborates his position and his choices thus:
"I don't know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition  mean to me ? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me - that is what I understand" This is his position all along. While in this position, Rationality with its present limitations which cannot explain everything, Theology and even Nibbana (which never figure in these pages ) does not measure up a solution. It is when Chestov challenges these limits that Camus identifies, with reason from his point of view, that it is an escape and a deification of the incomprehensible. Camus, prefers to face up the stark truth as he understands it. Thus he says:
"I understand then why the doctrines that explain everything to me also debilitate me at the same time. They relieve me of the weight my own  life and yet I must carry it alone."
Camus does recognize that the loss of  hope of eternity, gives him freedom of action.

The next section is called "The Absurd Man". Here he explores the mind of the absurd man, starting with the thought that the absurd man gives up the comfort of the eternal. To quote, "The certainty of god giving a meaning to life far surpasses in attractiveness, the ability to behave badly, with impunity." He infers the courage involves. He explores the opportunity available to an actor to live a whole exceptional life, within his given role. Camus understands the religion would always be against him. To quote: "We are not ignorant of the fact that all churches are against us. A heart so keyed up eludes the eternal, and all churches, divine or political, lay claim to the eternal. Happiness and courage, retribution or justice are secondary ends for them. It is a doctrine they bring, and one must subscribe to it. But I have no concern with ideas or with the eternal. The truths that come within my scope can be touched with the hand, I cannot separate from them." I am almost inclined to believe that the limitations that Camus sets himself, are parochial in a sense, that only the most obvious of the materialistic manifestations can be included in his convictions. It become evident from the fact that he is ready to give up all that science purport to have discovered since they are not evident. To his credit, most of the ardent supporters of science tend to believe what scientists say, thinking that if the actual experiment is to be carried out, it can be proven ; their argument is that no experiment of that nature can be used to prove the meta-physical. So While Camus is more generic and fair in one sense, he is parochial in another. He has understood that it will not do to broaden his scope of limitations, albeit he leaves no space for exceptions and loopholes.

In the penultimate part of his essay, Camus dwells on creation, artistic creation in particular. He professes that there is no difference between philosopher and the artiste with respect to their life long creation. To quote: "In opposition to the artiste, it is pointed out that no philosopher ever created several systems. But that is true, insofar, indeed,  as no artist ever expressed more than one thing under different aspects."
Camus spends special emphasis on Kirilov, the Engineer who commits suicide on Dostoevsky's "Demons". It was only yesterday I read about the thoughts of Kirilov, on the night he committed suicide. The thoughts of Kirilov are so much similar to Camus, I am not reluctant to believe that Kirilov among other  fictitious characters was instrumental in influencing Camus. Kirilov says: "It is my duty to proclaim unbelief. For me no idea is higher than there is no God. Th history of mankind is on my side. Man has done nothing but invent God, so as to live without killing himself; in that lies the whole of world history up to now. I alone for the first time in world history did not want invent God. Let them know once and for all." ( Demons - Fyodor Dostoevsky )


Kirilov, further says:

"Listen to a big idea: There was one day on earth, and in the middle of the earth stood three crosses. One on a cross believed so much that he said to another: 'This day you will be with me in paradise.' They day ended, they both died, went, and did not find either paradise or resurrection. What had been said would not prove true. Listen: this man was the highest on all the earth, he constituted what it was to live for. Without this man the whole planet with everything on it is--madness only. There has not been one like Him before or since, not ever, even to the point of miracle. This is the miracle, that there has not been and never will be such a one. And if so, if the laws of nature did not pity even This One, did not pity even their own miracle, but made Him, too, live amidst a lie and die for a lie, then the whole planet is a lie, and stands upon a lie and a stupid mockery. Then the very laws of the planet are a lie and a devil's vaudeville. Why live then, answer me, if you're a man.” Yet, Dostoevsky doesn't end up where Camus did. Talking of Dostoevsky's last work, Brothers Karamazov, Camus realises that it is "not an absurd work, but a work that propagates the absurd problem." The problem is the same - yet Dostoevsky ends up taking the side of God.

In the short last section, Camus' compares the choice of the absurd man to Sisyphus and says:

“I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” 

Upon summarizing the book albeit inadequately as I've done above ( for I confess it is beyond my capability to summarise with my limited faculties), I write below as a means of thinking out loud - an extension if you will, which I hope should help me appreciate Camus' treatise more. It is this, which baffles me. I suspect that nine out of ten, after spending many days of pondering upon reading this, eventually accepts a belief. Belief in what the scientists tell us, and they have no reason to doubt ( because science reevaluate itself, and the stark truth that man knows more than he did a hundred years ago ) -  they extend the dotted lines and take comfort in the belief that man will eventually get there - maybe not in their time; not even in their children's', but one day. This is how they look at the question of environmental pollution too - that it is within man's capabilities to understand the world - someday - ( Camus wants a solution, now, in contrast.) He doesn't understand most of what is in the science journals today. Even scientists will not understand, for knowledge is so compartmentalized. It is unlikely that we will ever have a Leanardo Da Vinci ever again, even among the genii. So in effect most of man's bravado claiming that science is the ultimate conqueror and all else is myth, is due to his belief of his kind - the Mankind. In contrast we have an ever diminishing percentage of the world's population which believe in theistic liberation or non-theistic liberation, the writer of this scattered essay, among the latter category. As I've debated above, the question I have is of the limits. I am fully with Camus when he says that life is meaningless. But his solution is to face this meaningless life in its face, and continue either the daily toil or more ambitiously, create. This takes courage, and I concur with Camus on this too. But, outside of the limits, I am told there is science, there is God's eternity and more attractive to me, there is Nibbana. All these are beyond the limits that Camus formulates his equation. The meaningless of life is treated at different levels by the three solutions beyond the limits self-imposed by Camus. Science doesn't accept that life is meaningless ; Theology  accept that life is meaningful, because God gives it meaning ; Nibbana attempts to stop the routine turmoil for good because it accepts that life is meaningless. I stick to this last solution proposed, from here on, because I favour it. I ask myself. Camus, within his defined limits, imagines that Sisyphus is happy. Nibbana, accepts that life is meaningless, or is unsubstantial and hence seeks deliverance from it. It seeks deliverance, through Nibbana, since the Dhamma claims that life is but a samsaric circle that we have no power to stop until, we liberate ourselves. Samsara is beyond the realm of the five limited faculties, and is  beyond the  tools of science too, to date. But Nibbana doesn't give a bonanza as we see understand it today. It doesn't promise eternal enjoyment of faculties. It claims the very opposite. The unsubstantiality of all pleasure of the five faculties. There is no promise at the end of the tunnel, for one who seeks temporal pleasures.

Science is a work in progress; The Dhamma, the proponents claim is a proven solution. I don't see a living example among the proponents. Yet  liberation is Private. If there are those who have liberated themselves, they will not seek to advertise this fact. I find that I am given a choice.  Between, believing in a work in progress which is science, which necessitate me to take the teachings of the scientists at their words, often. I have no strong criticism against them other than the fact that it is a work in progress - an unfinished knowledge system. There is the choice of Sisyphus, who continues, undiminished with courage. Yet, I don't see why I must bind myself within the limits that Camus imposed upon himself.  On the other hand I have Nibbana, which cannot be proven to me until I attain it. It too concede the meaningless nature of life, albeit in a more profound level. Kirilov killed himself to prove that, since there is no God, he is, God. I could take a leaf from his book and seek absolute liberation, to prove its existence. I am much likely to  fail in my endeavor.  But I see that this is my best bet, since I do not want to restrict myself to deception that the whole world can be comprehended by my limited faculties. I know that the reverse is true already. Camus said, famously, "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Why then cannot  I  believe my self happy in search of Nibbana ? 

( Philosophy is best  read on trying to understand how acceptable a certain premise is. It cannot be evaluated sufficiently by focusing on its' literariness alone, I guess. Hence this, my humble effort to understand Camus' treatise, and to what degree I concur with him, and what extension of thought his essay provokes me to indulge in. This should not be read in anyway as a means of forwarding my belief, over that of Camus, to the reader. It is but an exercise of a mental journey, fueled by what Camus forwards, and weighing it with other ideas that influence me )