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
No comments:
Post a Comment