Reflection for September 16

The readings for this week included The Myth of Sisyphus and The Fall by Albert Camus. While The Fall was much lengthier, and provided more content for analysis, I sincerely believe that I connected with The Myth of Sisyphus on a personal level. For that reason, I believe that the majority of the analysis here will have an emphasis on this particular reading.

            To begin with this analysis of The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus functions from the position that the most important question to be answered is that of the meaning of life. Yet, as he points out, it is not simply the meaning of life that is relevant here, but rather how the meaning of life has a crucial relation with that of the act of suicide. To make this relevance known, Camus introduces the reader with the concept of absurdity. When speaking of the habitual life that so many people can identify with, a life of simple predictability and continual rhythm, there comes a time when “the ‘why’ arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement” (Camus in Solomon, 191). This questioning of the meaning in one’s life and actions begins what can be considered the chain of events that distances an individual from what the actor originally thought of as a well-known world. He begins to feel an outsider in his environment, indeed, similar to how Meursault in The Stranger is identified as an outsider in terms of how he refuses to conform to societal norms and customs.

            From here, Camus proposes the solution, that “at the end of awakening comes, in time, the consequence: suicide or recovery” (Camus in Solomon, 191). Here, I wanted to take the opportunity to explain something that I did not get a chance to say during class discussion. At a certain point an individual in the class seemed to insinuate that Camus proposes that there is no meaning in life and that he “wants you to kill yourself.” Certainly I think Camus proposes the first part of that conditional, however I seriously think that this individual that made this point does not understand what Camus believes to be the logical consequence of consciousness. He very clearly point out that “it may be thought that suicide follows revolt- but wrongly. For it does not represent the logical outcome of revolt. It is just the contrary by the consent it presupposes. Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme” (Camus in Solomon, 193). Thus, while Camus may propose that life will be better lived once we acknowledge the fact that there is no meaning to life at all, he does NOT believe that suicide is a logical response.

            Camus is simply pointing to the fact and the acknowledgement that such a meaningless life is a precursor of sorts to an act of suicide for some people. They realize that life is devoid of any reason to live, and in turn, make the conscious decision to take their lives based upon the feeling that life is not worth the trouble. Yet, what would a life look like without any meaning? Can an individual come to grips with this reality and still be happy? I would certainly say yes to the latter question, as I believe Camus would, and to the former question, I believe we can point to Meursault’s absurd worldview in The Stranger to illustrate such a life. Towards the end of the novel, and in the face of the chaplain, Meursault brings the realization of the meaningless in life to light, by pointing out the fact that he had chosen to live his life a certain way. He certainly could have made different choices, done different things, but he didn’t. And with this, he states that he would do it all over again. In other words, the experiences in life are what matter, and this is what can bring happiness. Just as we must believe that Sisyphus is happy with his meaningless work, we must believe that the meaningless actions that we take in life which produce no real significance can also bring us joy. The path we make in life is irrelevant; it is simply the experience that matters.

            As for The Fall, the real significance that I got out of this reading was the idea that Jean-Baptiste, while making many choices to benefit or help others, can still be considered a hypocrite. A question posed by group 4 was whether at the beginning of the novel we would describe Jean-Batiste as a selfish or selfless man. The significance of this question arises out of the fact that many of these supposedly “selfless” acts were done out of a selfish desire to feel above others in a way. That is, by helping others Jean-Baptiste is fulfilling a deeply-needed desire to assert his dominance. To be sure, the point was made by someone in the classroom that you most definitely cannot label someone as selfless when they describe themselves as selfless. While I have a lot more to say about The Fall, and subsequently the realization of how every individual is implicated within seemingly unconnected spheres of events, I am going to reserve these ideas for next week’s blog. However, to end this blog, I wanted to point out that I seriously believe that almost every individual in the world can identify with the early Jean-Baptiste portrayed in The Fall. Can anyone really ever really say that they have performed a selfless act with absolute certainty?