Camus and the concept of the Absurd

In his first major philosophical essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus developed the notion

of the absurd to serve as the existential condition of man. This notion was implicitly

recognized by existentialist writers whom Camus admired, but he thought the absurd was a

broader principle that underpinned certain existential dilemmas

Put simply, the absurd is the existential condition that arises from the confrontation between

the nostalgic human being and the coldly indifferent world in which he or she lives. In

Camus’s own words, it is “the metaphysical state of the conscious man.” (Myth of

Sisyphus p40 ) Human beings desire order, purpose and happiness in their lives, and the

world provides none of these—at least not in any permanent fashion. To clarify this concept

of absurdity, it is necessary to point out that absurdity itself is a characteristic of neither the

human being nor the world solely, but of their interaction. Establishing the concept of

absurdity as a first principle, Camus wrote,

.... “I said that the world is absurd, but I was too hasty. This world in itself is not reasonable,

that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational

[world] and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart. The

absurd depends as much on man as on the world. For the moment it is all that links them

together. It binds them one to the other as only hatred can weld two creatures together. This is all I can discern clearly in this measureless universe where my adventures take

place.” (Myth of Sisyphus p21)

Camus took this to be a symptom of the absurd because it attests to the fact that no unifying

principle can explain the world. Obviously, Camus attributed great significance to the notion

of absurdity. It is not merely one characteristic of the human interaction with the outside

world, but the defining characteristic. Camus saw the absurd as one of three essential

components that constitute the “drama” of existence. Absurdity is born out of the

confrontation between the two other components: the “human nostalgia” for unity or clarity

and the “unreasonable silence of the world.” `(Myth of Sisyphus p28)

Therefore, the concept of absurdity depends upon the qualification of the two other

components. If humans did not possess a nostalgia for unity,

the so-called “unreasonable silence of the world” `(Myth of Sisyphus p21would not seem to

be absurd. Likewise, if the events of the world did represent some reasonable unity of

purpose, the nostalgic human being would not find existence to be absurd. Camus reinforced

the existence of the absurd by showing that the human nostalgia for unity and clarity is real,

and by arguing that the unreasonable world will never satisfy this nostalgia.

“I can negate everything of that part of me that lives on vague nostalgias, except this

desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion.” `(Myth of Sisyphus

p51) Indeed, this very act of negating all uncertainties is itself characteristic of the human

desire for understanding. Camus identified reason as the force that drives the human

nostalgia for understanding. This longing for clarity, known as reason, is inevitably directed

towards the world in which one lives in an attempt to find some meaning or purpose. Camus

argued that the rational pursuit of understanding would always take place on a human scale:

“Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to the human, stamping it with his seal.”

(Myth of Sisyphus p110) Reason demands, not only the existence of a unified meaning of

reality, but also that this unified meaning be comprehensible in human terms.

Neither did he presume that the world is devoid of transcendent meaning, but that human

beings cannot understand such a notion, and therefore, it cannot mitigate the uncertainty that

precipitates the existence of the absurd in the present sense. The epistemological limit of

human reason that Camus recognizes is an essential component of the absurd. The ability to

recognize these limits based on practical experience are called lucidity. Absurdist

consciousness requires reason as well as lucidity. Camus wrote, “The absurd is lucid

reasoning noticing its limits.” `(Myth of Sisyphus p49)

The faculty of lucidity grounds man in his own experience preventing him from abandoning

that experience in the name of false understanding.

“If there is an absurd, it is in man’s universe. The moment the notion transforms itself into

eternity’s springboard, it ceases to be linked to human lucidity.” `(Myth of Sisyphus p35)

Reason tempts, and lucidity restrains. Only the lucid individual will understand the limits of

reason and recognize the divorce between the desire to understand and the inability to

understand as a fundamental aspect of the absurd. From Camus’s description, reason is the

defining quality that sets man apart from the world, which is utterly irrational. “This

ridiculous reason is what sets me in opposition to all creation.” `(Myth of Sisyphus p115)

Much of Camus’s writing in The Myth of Sisyphus is dedicated to establishing a conscious

recognition of the absurd, but consciousness of the absurd was merely a beginning.

The purpose of The Myth of Sisyphus was to determine whether suicide is a logical reaction to

this absurdist consciousness. Camus concluded that suicide is an illogical reaction for the

man who realizes his absurd fate.

“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 that consciousness. Negating one of the terms of the opposition on which he lives amounts to escaping it.” (Myth of Sisyphus p53)

The existence of the absurd allows possibilities for the human being of the existence of the

absurd through a lapse in lucidity or through a “leap” in reason. Such a leap is an “escape” in

which “the struggle is eluded” `(Myth of Sisyphus p36) by imposing some meaning upon

reality that originates outside of the realm of lived experience. Camus insisted that lucidity

must inform man of the limits of reason so that he may avoid leaps and retain his absurdist

consciousness. Second, one may recognize the existence of the absurd and fully accept it.

Therefore, the very recognition of the absurd implies that one rejects one’s fate—although

one is aware of it. This relates to the final possibility of resistance. Resistance is the logical

reaction to an absurd situation, and for Camus this is the essence of life.

According to Camus, resistance, the appropriate reaction to the absurd, is closely linked

to formulating an accurate conception of reality. Those characters in The Plague that refuse

to acknowledge the absurd obviously display delusional tendencies. The absurdity contained

in this work is unavoidable. On the other hand, characters such as Father Paneloux, who

recognize the absurd and repulsive nature of the plague, accept the absurd by giving into their

desire for unity and by assuming that the tortuous events serve a divine purpose. Still others,

such as Dr. Rieux, realize that the plague is beyond human comprehension, and because they

recognize the absurdity of the plague, they resist. Indeed, Rieux limits his reflection to the

immediacy of the situation refusing to try to understand the significance of the plague. He

comments to his friend Tarrou,

“I have no idea what’s awaiting me or what will happen when all this ends. For the

moment I know this; there are sick people and they need curing. Later on, perhaps,

they’ll think things over; and so shall I. But what’s wanted now is to make them well.”( The Plague p127)

Camus was able to illustrate many possible forms of rebellion but I shall limit this to four

characters in particular that represent the full spectrum of rebellious behaviour. All four

characters love life in their own way, but the difference in their outlooks can be explained by

their varying capacities for lucidity and their sensitivities to the solidarity of mankind.

Rambert’s attempt to escape from Oran once the town is quarantined is ostensibly a cowardly

attempt to avoid the absurd. Perhaps it is cowardly, but Camus did not portray Rambert as a

coward. For instance, Rambert mentions to Dr. Rieux that his attempt to escape is not

motivated by self preservation, and his justification for this is his participation in the Spanish

Civil War on the side of the Republicans.

Rambert, by fighting against Franco, serves as the embodiment of resistance to tyranny, and

can hardly be labeled a coward. Indeed, Dr. Rieux is sympathetic to Rambert’s cause because

he acknowledges the necessity of happiness and love. These are values of the present, and

although they are individual, and maybe even selfish, Camus indicated that man is entitled to

opt for love and happiness. In a world characterized as absurd, the struggle for love and

happiness amounts to rebellion. Camus described the “heartrendingly monotonous struggle

put up by some obstinate people like Rambert to recover their lost happiness

. . . While their resistance lacked the active virtues of the other . . . it bore witness, even in its

futility and in coherences, to a salutary pride.” (Resistance, Rebellion and Death Camus p79)

Rambert’s reaction to the absurd is an individual rebellion in the name of happiness, and

Camus suggested that this reaction is justified. Of course, Rambert comes to realize that the

existence of happiness and love for the entire town of Oran is in jeopardy, and he decides to

remain in Oran to work on Dr. Rieux’s sanitary squads. Originally fighting his own absurd

condition in the name of happiness, Rambert decides to fight for the collective happiness of

the townspeople. Through solidarity, Rambert discovers a cause that transcends him as an

individual, and by choosing to fight for the community rather than for his own happiness, he

discovers a productive outlet for his metaphysical impulse to rebel.

The narrator, Dr. Rieux serves as a perfect representation of authentic rebellion that is

lucid and limited. As a physician, Rieux is uniquely exposed to the realities of human

suffering and the ordering of the universe is clearly repulsive to him. Camus wrote, “Rieux

believed himself to be on the right road—in fighting against creation as he found it. (Myth of

Sisyphus p127) He witnesses death and suffering regularly through his occupation, and these

forces shape the world in which he lives. God, for Rieux, is the embodiment of an unjust,

irrational ordering of existence. He poses a rhetorical question to his friend, Jean Tarrou,

“since the order of the world is shaped by death, mightn’t it be better for God if we refuse to

believe in Him and struggle with all our might against death, without raising our eyes toward

the heaven where He sits in silence?”( The Plague p127)

Struggling against the incomprehensible absurdity of existence, Rieux is undoubtedly the

quintessential rebel. The importance of Dr. Rieux for the concept of rebellion is not only the

diligence of his rebellion, but the limited nature of his resistance. When the Jesuit, Father

Paneloux tells Rieux that they are both fighting for man’s salvation, Rieux corrects him,

“Salvation’s much too big a word for me. I don’t aim so high. I’m concerned with man’s

health; and for me his health comes first.” .”( The Plague p209 ) Salvation is a value of the

distant future; health is a value of the present. Rieux’s lucidity grounds him to the immediacy

of the situation, and although the absolute vigilance of the plague prevents him from healing

absolutely, he doggedly persists. The seemingly futile duties of the “sanitary squads” reflect

the necessity of rebellion in the name of present life.

“The essential thing was to save the greatest possible number of persons from dying

and being doomed to separation. And to do this there was only one resource: to fight the plague. There was nothing admirable about this attitude; it was merely logical.” ( The

Plague p127)

Rieux does not consider himself a hero or a saint. His chronicle of the plague merely

represents the absurdity of existence and the logical reaction to that absurdity. “It could be

only the record of what had had to be done, and what assuredly would have to be done again

in the never ending fight against terror and its onslaughts, despite their personal afflictions,

by all who, while unable to be saints but refusing to bow down to pestilences, strive their

utmost to be healers.”. (The Plague p191)

Rieux’s friend, Tarrou, is clearly one who strives to be a healer, but his aim is somewhat

more absolute than Rieux’s. Tarrou is more interested in eradicating the

plague from the face of the earth. Camus presented Tarrou as an utterly decent man, albeit

one who is susceptible to lapses

in lucidity. He appreciates the everyday pleasures of life. “Good-humoured, always ready

with a smile, he seemed an addict of all normal pleasures without being their slave.” .( The

Plague p192)

When Tarrou recognizes the onslaught of the plague; he takes it upon himself to assemble

volunteers into sanitary squads. Tarrou’s enthusiasm is admirable and his display of solidarity

with the townspeople is unquestionable. Unlike Rieux, however, Tarrou’s rebellion more

closely resembles atonement than protest.

Tarrou admits to Dr. Rieux that he once had a form of plague. As a young man, appalled

by the cruelty of capital punishment, Tarrou joined a revolutionary sect in Hungary with

intentions of abolishing the death penalty. Tarrou admits that his metaphysical impulse to

rebel crossed over into the political realm.

“To my mind the social order around me was based on the death sentence, and by fighting the

established order I’d be fighting against murder.”( The Plague p193) Tarrou admits that he

acquiesced to the inevitability of some executions in the name of “building up a new world in

which murder would cease to be.” ( The Plague p193) This is a perfect example of the

dangers involved with any rebellion that does not stay true to its origins. Tarrou’s lapse in

lucidity caused him to take part in the very injustice against which he set out to fight. He

rebelled because he thought society was breaching a threshold of injustice, but in his

rebellion, he breached the same limit. He compromised the present value of human life for

the unattainable future value of a plague- free society. After witnessing an execution by firing

squad, he regained his lucidity and spent the rest of his life trying to avoid the plague

of rationally justified murder. He recounts his lesson learned to Rieux (The Plague p

250.)

“The good man, the man who infects hardly anyone, is the man who has the fewest lapses of

attention.”.( The Plague p253 )Thus, Tarrou spends the rest of his days trying to find peace

and tirelessly avoiding murder. He asks Rieux. “Can one be a saint without God?—that’s the

problem, in fact the only problem, I’m up against today.” .( The Plague p253 ) Tarrou finds

no answer to this inquiry, and his life is one of the last claimed by the plague. Again, Camus

suggested that heroics and saintliness is above the scope of human possibility. Dr. Rieux

realized this. He answered Tarrou, “Heroism and sanctity don’t really appeal to me, I

imagine. What interests me am being a man.” .( The Plague 253)

M. Cottard, the final character examined here, represents the historical expression of

metaphysical rebellion. The reader makes his acquaintance shortly after he tries to hang

himself. Cottard is distressed because a crime from his past has been uncovered by the town

officials and he fears he will be arrested. When the plague sets in, Cottard’s mood changes

dramatically because the officials are preoccupied and because all the townspeople are

similarly imperiled. Tarrou, who observes Cottard’s behaviour closely, discovers that Cottard

values solidarity. “The thing he’d most detest is being cut off from others; he’d rather be one

of a beleaguered crowd than a prisoner alone.”He relishes the fact that “everyone’s in the

same boat.”( The Plague p195)

Cottard takes advantage of the plague, and has no desire to see it end. If the plague

represents the Nazi occupation of France, Cottard is undoubtedly a Vichy collaborator.

Tarrou records in his journal, “In short, this epidemic has done him proud. Of a lonely man

who hated loneliness it has made an accomplice. . . . and doesn’t he relish his complicity”(

The Plague p196) Lonely before the start of plague and quarantine, Cottard discovers a

morbid solidarity in the town of Oran because the overwhelming absurdity of his own life is

shared by all. What he fails to realize is that the plague which he welcomes can destroy the

very solidarity that he values. For Camus, who clearly sympathizes with Cottard’s

unfortunate situation, his complicity in the plague is more despicable than the unmentioned

crime of his past. “His only real crime is that of having in his heart approved of something

that killed off men, women, and children.” ( The Plague p 202))

Cottard would rather see the world destroyed than to be deprived of the solidarity that he

values absolutely. This is the reason that he passionately relates to Dr. Rieux that what Oran

really needs is “An earthquake! A big one!”.(The Plague p204))

The depiction of resistance in The Plague is meant to highlight the usefulness of rebellion

against the absurd. In fact, the entire novel can be read as a myth concerning the nostalgic

human being’s never-ending battle against the absurd. Because of the variety of characters,

Camus was able to illustrate many possible forms of rebellion and resistance. “Just as danger

provided man with the unique opportunity of seizing awareness, so metaphysical revolt

extends awareness to the whole of experience. . . . That revolt is the certainty of a crushing

fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it.(Myth of Sisyphus p54)

Bibliography

Camus, Albert The Myth of Sisyphus Penguin London 1995

Camus, Albert The Plague Penguin London 1992

Camus Albert Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays Hamish Hamilton, London, 1961

Lulu M. Haroutunian Albert Camus and the White Plague MLN, Vol. 79, No. 3, French Issue (May, 1964), pp. 311-315

Louis R. Rossi Albert Camus: The Plague of Absurdity The Kenyon Review, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Summer, 1958), pp. 399-422