The Myth of Sisyphus
Camus 1942
9 Oct 2024
Greek mythology tells the story of Sisyphus, a king who was condemned by the gods to roll a boulder up a hill, and to do this endlessly. Everytime he reaches the top, the boulder would roll back down, and he would have to start over.
There are many interpretations to this myth. Camus gave his own in The Myth of Sisyphus, where he uses the story to illustrate his concept of the absurd. Camus invites us to consider the moment when the boulder rolls back down, and Sisyphus realizes that he has to go back down and start over. What could be going through Sisyphus' mind at that moment?
As for this myth, one sees merely the whole effort of a body straining to raise the huge stone, to roll it and push it up a slope a hundred times over; one sees the face screwed up, the cheek tight against the stone, the shoulder bracing the clay-covered mass, the foot wedging it, the fresh start with arms outstretched, the wholly human security of two earth-clotted hands. At the very end of his long effort measured by skyless space and time without depth, the purpose is achieved. Then Sisyphus watches the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again toward the summit. He goes back down to the plain.
And then immediately in the next passage:
It is during that return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me. A face that toils so close to stones is already stone itself!
According to Camus, it is at this moment that Sisyphus realizes the futility of his task. There is no point to rolling the boulder up the hill. No meaning or purpose to it. He is conscious of the absurdity of his situation, and it is this awareness that makes the story a tragic one. Had Sisyphus been unaware, he would not have suffered. Had he hoped for some self-imagined reward at the end of his task, he would not have suffered. But Sisyphus is aware, and he wasn't deluded. He was lucid and conscious of the absurdity of his situation, and yet he continued to roll the boulder up the hill.
Camus uses this story as a metaphor for the human condition. We are all like Sisyphus, condemned to live in a world that is indifferent to our desires and aspirations. We seek meaning, but the universe is silent. This confrontation between our desire for meaning and the silence of the universe is what Camus calls the absurd.
If it is true that the universe is incapable of satisfying our desire for meaning, then what would be the point of living? If we seek meaning, but we also know that our search is in vain, and that it is ultimately futile, then why bother living at all? Does this mean that life is not worth living? Camus explores these questions in his essay, and he writes defiantly that, although life is absurd, although it is devoid of meaning, it doesn't necessarily follow that life is not worth living. These are two separate questions, and they should not be conflated. We can (and should, Camus argues) continue to live, even in the face of the absurd.
What does it mean to live in the face of the absurd? Instead of rejecting life, or seeking to escape from it, Camus suggests that we should embrace the absurd. We must be constantly aware of the futility of our search for meaning, and yet to continue to live despite this, in a way such that our living is an act of defiance itself. We must revolt against the absurdity of the universe, and to rebel against the meaninglessness of existence.
Living an experience, a particular fate, is accepting it fully. Now, no one will live this fate, knowing it to be absurd, unless he does everything to keep before him that absurd brought to light by consciousness. [...] Living is keeping the absurd alive. Keeping it alive is above all contemplating it. [...] One of the only coherent philosophical positions is thus revolt. It is a constant confrontation between man and his own obscurity. It is an insistence upon an impossible transparency. It challenges the world anew every second. Just as danger provided man the unique opportunity of seizing awareness, so metaphysical revolt extends awareness to the whole of experience.
Camus also emphasises that we should avoid the temptation to seek refuge in religion or in any other form of idealism. These are all forms of escape, for they deny the reality of the absurd. We wouldn't be living honestly if we did so, and to live honestly, according to Camus, is to live knowing that life is absurd, without illusions or false hopes. The absurd man doesn't seek to escape from what he knows to be true.
Negating one of the terms of the opposition on which his life is based amounts to escaping it. To abolish conscious revolt is to elude the problem.
In another section, Camus discusses the idea of freedom, though not freedom in the abstract sense, but a concrete freedom that is grounded in our everyday experiences. Camus argues that, although we are condemned to live in a world that is indifferent to our desires, to live a life where nothing is certain but death, we are nonetheless free. But free in a very specific sense, different from the freedom that is often associated with liberation from oppression or tyranny. Camus' absurd freedom is a freedom that is born out of an honest confrontation with the absurd, which acknowledges the conditions and limitations of our existence, without illusions.
The only conception of freedom I can have is that of the prisoner or the individual in the midst of the State. The only one I know is freedom of thought and action. Now if the absurd cancels all my chances of eternal freedom, it restores and magnifies, on the other hand, my freedom of action. That privation of hope and future means an increase in man's availability.
Camus also recommends that we live life to the fullest, to experience as much as we can, passionately and intensely. This is a logical consequence of the absurd:
If I convince myself that this life has no other aspect than that of the absurd, if I feel that its whole equilibrium depends on that perpetual opposition between my conscious revolt and the darkness in which it struggles, if I admit that my freedom has no meaning except in relation to its limited fate, then I must say that what counts is not the best living but the most living.
Quantity over quality. Instead of seeking out the "best" life, we should seek out the "most" life. What does it mean to live the most life? Camus says that the most life is lived by someone who is fully aware of his absurd condition.
Being aware of one's life, one's revolt, one's freedom, and to the maximum, is living, and to the maximum.
There is no meaning or purpose to our existence, no objective standard by which to measure the value of our lives. Therefore, Camus suggests that we should live life passionately, fully, and intensely, without holding back or being bound to false ideals and values, as a way of rebelling against the absurdity of the universe.
Thus, I draw from the absurd three consequences which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide. I know, to be sure, the dull resonance that vibrates throughout these days. Yet I have but a word to say: that it is necessary.
Sisyphus is the absurd hero. He is condemned to a life of futility, and he is aware of the absurdity of his situation. And yet, he continues to roll the boulder up the hill, defiantly and passionately. He doesn't seek to escape from his fate, nor does he resort to illusions or false hopes. He lives honestly. He lives authentically. He lives freely, in a sense different from the abstract freedom that is often expounded in books and discourses. His freedom is concrete and immediate, grounded in his everyday experiences, born out of the confrontation with the absurd.
Is Sisyphus happy? The myth doesn't tell us, but Camus seems to think so:
The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.