Absurdity

ABSURDITY
March 9, 2011
Myth of Sisyphus Camus(1942)
Waiting for Godot Beckett
“There always comes a time between contemplation and passion. This is called becoming a man.” (p.81, Myth of Sisyphus)

Thinking of the world’s turmoil at the time of the Myth of Sisyphus’ writing, one can better understand the absurd philosophy of Camus. When considered in this context, the society humanity had constructed must have seemed truly absurd, especially when contrasted with the beautiful existence that could have been. It could have been like the life that Camus was very much attached to, the one he romanticized in The Stranger - that of the Mediterranean sand and Algerian sun. Life must have appeared hopeless and senseless after the barbarism of the Second World War, not to mention during the political instability and threat of annihilation brought on by the Cold War. As beings, we need hope to live. Camus’ philosophy might have been a prescription for Camus himself on how he should live through the turbulent days of his time.

The absurd philosophy pits the human desire for meaning with the fact that the universe remains silent and offers us no answers. Vigilantly keeping this in mind amounts to Camus’ revolt against the universe and its silence! Camus tells us is that we have the power to create our own attitudes and that we can live full lives so long as we stay aware in our opposition to the meaninglessness of existence. If one constantly revolts against the universe - or against his own instinct to understand the inexplicable - and maintains the freedom and passion controllable within one’s grasp, one can live a purposeful life, (even the likes Sisyphus, who repeatedly rolls a stone to the top of the hill). “The Absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in their presence together. For the moment this is the only bond uniting them.” (p.34)

Let’s consider Meursault, from The Stranger, the novella written by Camus around the same time as Myth of Sisyphus: Meursault lives in the moment, without expectation. He does not believe in a God or in anything that is beyond the knowable, the seeable, the here and now. Even though there will always be the mysteries of the universe and of Being and Existence, we can be sure of what we know. Meursault appreciates his life despite the routine and banality of it all. “The opposite of freedom, then, is not a person restrained by the laws of physics, but a person restrained by a repressive government or by his own timidity—earthly, alterable influences. The absurd man is free in this sense 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, he faces every new moment free from the constraints of thought and actions that we normally conform to in society.” This speaks very well to Meursault’s actions, presumed mindset and seeming apathy.

Camus says we should give up hope, and then we will be happy. (Much like giving up certain (culturally manufactured) desires would make us happier!) Like what it is that you have to do, then you will be happy (easier said than done!)

Meursault is ensconced in the reality immediately before him. Even though he doesn’t express enthusiastic appreciation for what he experiences, he is more aware than the average person today. Taking things for granted, we do not stop and smell the roses enough. We don’t spend time with or appreciate our friends or even acknowledge the beauty of a child’s smile. We rush through our mornings and our own free time, only feeling at peace once we are at work. This is an interesting juxtaposition. Is this the Protestant work ethic upon us - do we find comfort and meaning in our jobs only because we don’t have to worry about wasting our own precious time as we are “on the clock” and the next 8 hours are spoken for? Living as simply as Meursault, one might imagine his life dull and that living like him would make for days that endlessly drag on. There is lucidity in the way he lives, nonetheless. He knows what he is doing with his own time and needs not the distractions that many people use today, rushing from one triviality to another.

It is as if the rational age we live in multiplies our desire to understand the universe, as if complete understanding (and therefore meaning?) is possible. We have all sorts of knowledge and information that can explain the “little” questions, but humanity - whether we admit it or not - is still as in the dark on the “big” questions as in any time of its existence. (p.43): “The most widespread spiritual attitude of our enlightened age: the one, based on the principle that all is reason, which aims to explain the world”.

In class, I found it interesting that Camus’ philosophy was more negatively received than, say, Aurelius’ Epicurean philosophy given that both hold similar notions. Camus: (p.35) “A man devoid of hope and conscious of being so has ceased to belong to the future.” Aurelius: (Book XII, 1): (p.111), “…if you will be fair to yourself; that is if you leave all the past behind, commit to Holiness and Justice. … If then, when you arrive at last at your final exit, resigning all else, you honour your governing self alone and the divine element within you, if what you dread is not that some day you will cease to live, but rather never to begin at all to live with Nature, you will be a man worthy of the universe that gave you birth, and will cease to be a stranger in your own country, surprised by what is coming to pass every day, as at something you did not look to see, and absorbed in this thing or in that.” Neither believes one should rely on superstition or religion, believe in gods or demons… but to simply deal with the reality at hand. Deal with the world here and now and don’t fuss over what is disprovable. Let’s live what we know and not get hot and bothered over metaphysical absurdities and uncertainties. There is something in the delivery of their messages, though. As stated by Camus, (p.41) “The important thing … is not to be cured, but to live with one’s ailments”. Since life is a terminal condition, a death-sentence as it were, one must not waste time by hoping and praying for deliverance. Aurelius’ delivery is much less forceful, more elegant and less inflammatory. (Camus, again): (p.49) “The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits”.

Godot.
Reading Myth of Sisyphus before Waiting for Godot made for a more enlightening reading. The essence of both works can create anxiety in those who have religious beliefs or those who - consciously or unconsciously - have a gnawing discomfort in their hearts because they somehow feel lost. Often, these people perform pointless duties that fill their lives while they wait for a pointless future that delivers the same as yesterday. Today, these futile ventures might be video games, Facebook, fashion… People do fill decades of life with the silliness, not to say that my life has any more meaning than theirs, as this is all very subjective. But today it is deemed socially normal to bury our heads in the sand in one way or another and for that reason we do it without feeling strange about it. The result, though, is that it distances us from ourselves and from others. There is power in numbers: Seeing how people communicate through social networking sites (to the extent that some do nowadays) would have seemed absolutely sick just a few decades ago, never mind a few years ago! Recall Huxley’s statement: “One’s fantasy is rich and abundant one’s existence is poor, arid and disenchanted. The mind is full but the world one inhabits is empty.”

People waiting for some “saviour” from the external rather than finding something internal, something within. This is one of the diseases of our modern age and it can be glimpsed in various guises in Waiting for Godot, not the least in the sick and dependent relationship between Pozzo and Lucky, who can’t bear living with one another but expect *something* from each other. The play is also a commentary on human memory - we are as ill-bred and oblivious today as we’ve ever been. Our fundamental nature has not changed; we repeat our mistakes over and over… “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.”

The play is a shell chock-full of archetypes, and we as members of the audience are to fill it in as we see fit. There is a lot of room for analysis and interpretation but it might be difficult to find comfort in such a play. However, some might be comforted (in the same way as Nietzsche suggests was the case in Ancient Greek theatre) because we see ourselves in this play and we don’t feel so alone!

The message I drew from the play, imagining Pozzo and Lucky next to each other, day after day, is that we have each other. Relationships between people is what is important. In the end, this is one thing that really matters (at least to me) and brings fulfillment, happiness, and all those good things.