‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ is a philosophical essay by Albert Camus in which Camus presents his philosophy of the absurd. The absurdity consists in opposing the fundamental human need to give meaning to life and the response ‘unreasonable silence’ of the Universe. The main idea of Camus is that the world and existence are absurd.
According to Camus, we can relate our existence to that of Sisyphus who, having made the Gods angry, is condemned to push a huge stone uphill on a mountain only to fall back and have to start again from below for all the eternity, with no possibility of change.
In his essay, Camus proposes that our condition is that of Sisyphus, our awareness of the world and its chaotic future is one of the reasons why this is absurd. He then proposes a new existence: that of the absurd man: the one who waits for the end but despises him, the one who has a science without illusions, unlike the ‘men of the eternal’. For him or her, religion is to take a leap, to avoid the problem of the absurd by denying an unrecognizable part of the world: as I can not understand my existence, I leave it in the hands of something I know I will never understand. So, according to Camus, what do we do here if everything is absurd?
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Place Order
Now, if the absurd annihilates all my possibilities of eternal freedom, it gives me back and exalts, on the contrary, my freedom of action.
The absurd man thus glimpses a fiery and icy, transparent and limited universe in which nothing is possible but everything is given, and beyond which there is only sinking and nothingness. Then he can decide to accept life in such a universe and draw from it his strength, his refusal to wait and the obstinate testimony of a life without consolation. If I am convinced that this life has no face other than that of the absurd, I feel that all its balance is due to the perpetual opposition between my conscious rebellion and the darkness in which I struggle, if I admit that my freedom does not have sense but in relation to their limited destiny, then I must say that what counts is not living the best possible, but living as much as possible.
Then, being aware of us, of the science that composes us and gives us life, being aware that we could create artificial life and not for that reason less alive, without shelter of a religion or a God, what remains is what we ourselves propose as principles and goals to which to consecrate our time. And if a consciousness feels and thinks in the same way, is it less human? My answer would be: no.