The Myth of Sisyphus - Albert Camus

Albert Camus. Personal hero. The Myth of Sisyphus is his philosophical essay that explores the meaning and purpose of human existence and the question of suicide. The central theme of the book is the concept of the absurd, which refers to the tension between human desire for meaning and purpose, and the apparent meaninglessness and indifference of the universe. Hence the question of suicide, which Camus says is the “one truly serious philosophical problem. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy,” (p. 3). Camus ultimately comes to the conclusion that because of suicide's finality, it is an irrational response to the absurdity of living. 

That is the most famous response but not the only one he gets into. Camus explores other various philosophical responses to the absurd, like nihilism and religious faith as well. He rejects these responses as inadequate, and argues that the only true response to the absurd is to embrace it and live life to its fullest, despite its inherent meaninglessness. Whether or not life needs meaning to be live, Camus writes “It now becomes clear, on the contrary, that it will be lived all the better if it has no meaning. Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully,” (p. 53) and the “revolt gives life its value,” (p. 55) and later “the point is to live,” (p. 65). Believe it or not, the book is kind of a pick-me-up, which I read every five or ten years. 

Camus starts and ends the book by examining the story of Sisyphus, a Greek mythological figure who was condemned to endlessly push a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. Camus argues that Sisyphus, whom he calls “the absurd hero,” represents the human condition, in which we are faced with the task of finding meaning and purpose in a world that appears to offer none.

Camus suggests that the key to living in the face of the absurd is to adopt a form of rebellion that involves both acceptance of the human condition and a refusal to be defeated by it. He emphasizes the importance of living in the present moment and fully experiencing the joys and pleasures of life, while also acknowledging the inevitability of death. “He is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock,” (p. 121). 

This is why Sisyphus is the ultimate absurd hero. When he must descend the mountain, heading toward his rock, he accepts the absurdity of his existence and finds meaning and purpose in the struggle itself, rather than in achievement. The myth is a metaphor for the human condition, arguing that our lives are similarly absurd and without purpose, as we constantly strive for meaning, a quest that is ultimately futile. 

“All Sisyphus’ silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him... 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,” (p. 123). 

Here Camus plainly offers his remedy for existential dread which afflicts us all. Like Sisyphus, by embracing the absurdity of our existence and living fully in the present moment, we can find freedom and joy that transcends our own mortality.

In this sense, mindfulness is required in a way reminiscent of sudden enlightenment. This concept, also called sudden awakening or sudden realization, is a concept in Zen Buddhism that refers to a sudden and complete understanding of one's true nature or the nature of reality. It is a spontaneous and transformative experience that can happen in a moment of deep contemplation, meditation, or even in daily life activities. This realization is often described as a sudden breaking through of the veil of illusion that separates us from ultimate reality. It can bring a sense of profound joy, liberation, and clarity. However, sudden enlightenment is not something that can be achieved through effort or intellectual understanding alone. It requires a dedicated practice of mindfulness, meditation, and self-reflection, as well as the guidance of a skilled teacher or community.

Like Camus's the absurd, it deals with the nature of reality and the human experience. Sudden enlightenment refers to a sudden and complete understanding of the nature of reality that transcends the ordinary dualistic view of the world and brings a sense of profound clarity and liberation. However, the way in which these concepts are approached is quite different. Camus's absurd is a philosophical stance that requires a critical and rational examination of one's experience, whereas sudden enlightenment is a transformative experience that transcends rational thought and can only be experienced directly. Furthermore, Camus's absurd tends to emphasize the meaninglessness of life and the need to create one's own meaning and purpose, while sudden enlightenment emphasizes the ultimate interconnectedness and interdependence of all things and the realization of one's true nature beyond individualistic desires and attachments.

Anyway, in the final chapter of the book, Camus discusses the concept of the "absurd hero", a figure who lives in the face of the absurd and finds meaning and purpose in the very act of rebelling against it. Camus suggests that the absurd hero embodies a new kind of morality, one that rejects traditional values and embraces the freedom and autonomy of the individual.

Reading this at the same time as I read Percy Shelley, Queen Mab. While Camus and Shelley lived in different time periods and wrote about different subjects they share a lot of similarities, and might have vibed together, although I suspect that Camus would have found Shelley insufferable. 

Most notably, they are both proponents of the idea that heaven and hell are present here on earth, the eternal is absurd. When speaking of Dostoevsky, Camus writes “If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us. For Kirilov, as for Nietzsche, to kill God is to become god oneself; it is to realize on this earth the eternal life of which the Gospel speaks,” (108). Compare this to Shelley, who writes “when the power of imparting joy/Is equal to the will, the human soul/Requires no other heaven,” (III.11-13) and “earth in itself/Contains at once the evil and the cure,” (III.80-81) and so forth.

Also, both writers task the artist with a significant role in their visions of a better world. The artist and the poet are revolutionary figures who can help bring about social and economic change. They both provide calls to action, urging readers to join in the struggle for a better world. Create instead of consume. I too believe that art can be a powerful force for social change. In fact, I think it is one of the most effective means for change. 

Overall, I love this profound and influential work of existentialist philosophy, which is why I try to read it pretty frequently. It's good for the soul explore the human search for meaning and purpose in a universe that appears to offer none. Embrace the absurd. 

Queen Man - Percy Shelley

As I pointed out last time I wrote about poetry, I'm a little out of practice. I can read and write about movies, poetry, and work stuff with no problem. Poetry, I figured it better to go with something super familiar after my Shakespeare foray. Thus Queen Mab by Percy Shelley, whom I once considered myself a disciple of. Now, not so much.

Mab is a long, narrative poem published in 1816. The poem tells the story of a young woman named Ianthe who falls asleep and is taken on a journey by the fairy queen Mab. Mab shows Ianthe a series of visions that reveal the injustices and inequalities of human society, and the need for a new, more just social order.

In the course of her journey, Ianthe witnesses the suffering of the poor and oppressed, the cruelty of rulers and priests, and the ravages of war. She also sees visions of a more ideal society, in which reason and science have replaced superstition and religion. In such a society, human beings live in harmony with nature. I can get on board with that. 

In undergrad I wrote a Marxist critique of the poem. I got a B+, which annoyed me. I thought it was an A paper. The idea behind Marxist literary criticism is that literature reflects the social and economic conditions of the time it was written. Thus my Marxist critique of the poem focused on how it reflects and critiques the economic and social conditions of Shelley's time. The professor's note was that this couldn't be a Marxist text because it was before Marx. Also, Marxism requires violent revolt. You can still read a text through a Marxist lens, I argued, but the professor wasn't having it and is infinitely smarter than me so I'd take what I'm saying for what you will. 

Looking back at the essay, I should have been happy with the B+. As most people know, especially ones that write for a living—gonna borrow, i.e. thieve, something Pynchon said—it is a huge blow to the ego to read over anything you wrote 20 years ago, even cancelled checks. The reaction, for me and Pynchon at least, was oh my God.

My argument still holds up, just hard to read. Also, I had two typos, a frequent issue for me. I had the word “barley” instead of “barely” and, even more horrifying, “veal” instead of “zeal.” Oh my God, plus physical symptoms at this point. 

Anyway, in the paper, I mostly analyzed the poem's portrayal of power and inequality which requires a little historical context. During Shelley's time, England was experiencing rapid industrialization and urbanization. This was accompanied by growing economic inequality and social unrest. In Queen Mab, Shelley depicts a world in which the powerful oppress and exploit the poor and working classes. ound familiar? Ianthe, the poem's protagonist, is a symbol of this oppression, as she is confined to a life of poverty and servitude while the wealthy and powerful live lives of luxury and excess.

I paid particular attention to the poem's treatment of religion. Things like ““What palpable deceit!--but for thy aid,/Religion! but for thee, prolific fiend,/Who peoplest earth with demons, hell with men,/And heaven with slaves!/Thou taintest all thou lookest upon!” (VI.68-72). Shelley was a radical atheist who believed that religion was used by the ruling classes to control and oppress the masses. Shelley criticizes religion as a tool of oppression and calls for its abolition. Speaking to the choir here. 

Something that stuck out for me this reading was the role of the artist in Shelley's vision of a better world. In the poem, he sees the poet as a revolutionary figure who can help bring about social and economic change. The poem itself is a call to action, urging readers to join in the struggle for a better world. Shelley believed that art could be a powerful force for social change, which he lays out in the poem.

According to Shelley, the imagination is the ultimate creative force, and it has the power to transcend the limitations of reality and envision a more perfect world. Art, then, is not just an expression of the human experience, but a means of transforming it. See VIII. 134-144, which reads thus: 

'But chief, ambiguous Man, he that can know
More misery, and dream more joy than all;
Whose keen sensations thrill within his breast
To mingle with a loftier instinct there,
Lending their power to pleasure and to pain,
Yet raising, sharpening, and refining each;
Who stands amid the ever-varying world,
The burthen or the glory of the earth;
He chief perceives the change, his being notes
The gradual renovation, and defines
Each movement of its progress on his mind.

By inspiring the imagination and encouraging people to envision new possibilities, art had the power to shape the course of human history. Shelley believed that the poet had a moral obligation to use the imagination to inspire others and promote social and political progress.

Overall, Queen Mab would focus on the poem's critique of power and inequality, its rejection of religion as a tool of oppression, and its celebration of art as a means of social change. Shelley's doctrine of Necessity comes into play here, “Necessity! thou mother of the world!” (VII. 198), something he goes into detail on in his essay “A Defense of Poetry.” The doctrine posits that the role of the poet is to advocate for social and political change by appealing to the necessity of imagination and the imagination's ability to inspire and create new possibilities. This is borrowed and expounded upon from Enlightenment philosophers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Mary Wollstonecraft (mother of his wife, the author of Frankenstein, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley). However, in pure Romantic fashion, he prioritize imagination over reason.