Existential Book Club - Tempe, AZ discussion

This book has always been difficult tor me to read. Camus is very eloquent but there's no clear argument to follow or criticize.

Camus saw that most people want to have some transcendental assurance that (their) life has a meaning and purpose, thus when they confront Absurdity in some form, and come to realize there is no rhyme nor reason or purpose in the world or source external to the world. Then, he points out that Absurdity defines the wall between human aspiration and what the world and life have to offer (eternal life and happiness vs. certain death and suffering). Then, he offers a new vantage. Well, if a meaning were given, then would humanity gain meaning by simplify following suit? What if that given meaning was not what people themselves want? His positive point is that the problem is for people themselves to create meaning by living meaningfully... Like the team that fought the plague, like the resistance against the Nazis, like anything....

This still takes courage in the face of Absurdity. The idea is to grasp Absurdity in Camus' sense to the core. Embrace it. But at the same revolt and resist it by living life strongly and purposefully on one's own terms like Sisyphus himself.

The examples in the early part of the book show the indications of Absurdity that seep into consciousness in life in modern society-- the rat race, the repetition, monotony, boredom... So the solution is either to embrace it like Sisyphus, or if one is larger and more resourceful and creative like the Don Juan, the Actor, the Conqueror, the Artist, etc. They break through the monotony and emptiness of regular, stereotypic living... by the periodic passionate love affairs, by playing the roles of all sorts of human beings in various situations, by exploring new world, expanding territory, having adventures, and of course the artist is king because the imagination is limitless and the greatest art depicts the greatest dilemmas of life, like Bartleby, Notes from Underground, the Brothers K, Nausea....
At the same time, these efforts do not bring about reprieve or transcendence in themselves, but they enrich one's living while in this mortal coil.

Camus' little critique of other existentialists was interesting. They tended to be religious existentialists, like Kierkegaard and Jaspers, I think he distorted Kierkegaard as presenting God as a rational escape... For SK, reaching God is an irrational personal leap of love and passions. It is still embracing the Absurd, there is not way out of SK's paradox: one is left floating over 70,000 fathoms and nothing is guaranteed. Jaspers seems to be liable to Camus' critique. As to Husserl, I never studied the Ideas, which was the object of Camus' criticisms. (Heidegger and Sartre, I guess, drew on his theoretically more innocent earlier works. Husserl is sympathetic in that he was a creative and salient thinker, so dedicated and rigorous, while Heidegger waltzed in and took over his chair at Freiburg U.when the Nazis began purging Jews of seats of authority and honor. Also, Heidegger is an existentialist with no ethical impulse, which is an anathema.
As to Sartre, Camus was so close to Sartre that he manufactured differences and complaints against him. Sartre also mentioned the categories of explorer/adventurer. actor/playwright/artist as ways to resist the Nausea. Also, his idea of constructing meaningful life projects was consistent with Camus' demand. Finally, Sartre's later ethics of mutual recognition and mutual support of each other's freely chosen life projects was essentially consistent with Camus' demands. (By the way, I highly recommend Flynn's wonderful book on Sartre. I read it two or three times a few years ago.) Please let me know if anything looks unclear or doubtful. Live well, my friends!!

Thanks for your thoughtful posting on Myth of Sisyphus. I'm sorry you missed our book club discussion last Sunday.

Our group read the Plague and the Fall last year; two of my very favorite novels. While I agree with you that Myth of Sisyphus is an eloquent explanation of Absurdity in human life, reading it still gives me problems. The consensus of the group Sunday was that Camus was a better novelist than philosopher.

Since he starts out criticizing his contemporary Existentialists one is tempted to regard this as a philosophical essay. But his arguments are specious, his portrayals of Husserl and SK mostly strawmen. If I change my perspective and regard his Myth more like SK's Point of View for my Work as an Author, I get much more out of it.

I tend to think of Camus in relation to his contemporary psychologists. Freud explained man's existence with his Will to Pleasure, Adler channeled Nietzsche's Will to Power, and Victor Frankl explained our Will to Meaning. I tend to think of Camus' answer to absurdity as a natural extension of Frankl in Man's Search for Meaning.

Frankl was not aiming for some transcendent meaning of Life, although some people can find meaning in religion. Frankl wrote about finding meaning in every moment of every day; in the courage to face life in spite of the ever present certainty that we all end up on the same dust heap.

If you haven't already read it, I strongly recommend Sarah Bakewell's At the Existentialist Cafe (2016). It really helped me to understand Camus's relation to Sartre and de Beauvoir.

Hope you can make it to the next book club.

Joe wrote: "Thanks for your thoughtful posting on Myth of Sisyphus. I'm sorry you missed our book club discussion last Sunday.

Our group read the Plague and the Fall last year; two of my very favorite novels..."

Definitely, Joe. The Myth is more of a lyrical essay in the Camus' unique French style. He was persuaded of his correctness and was interested in reaching out to a wide readership, i suppose. The thoughts are tantalizing. The sentences are richer than the pattern of argument, that is for sure... The vision is enchanting, yet also mystifying and potentially terrifying. Ha. The Fall is a fitting capstone to his works, because in that book he implicitly confesses to his former self-righteousness. Ha. Do read his posthumous novel. It is wonderful. Kirill