PDF Summary:The Myth of Sisyphus, by Albert Camus

In his 1942 essay The Myth of Sisyphus, French Algerian philosopher and journalist Albert Camus describes his philosophy of the absurd. The absurd is both a feeling and a condition of existence—it describes the irreparable tension between the human desire for meaning and purpose in life, and the inevitability of oblivion and death. Camus draws on existentialist theory to argue that humans are doomed to an absurd condition, and rather than denying this via religious belief or surrendering to it via suicide, you should continue to live and try to derive as much fulfillment as you can from your brief existence.

This guide will break down Camus’s theory of the absurd, which is built on the work of existentialist philosophers like Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche and writers such as Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Franz Kafka. We’ll also consider the historical context of Camus’s ideas, how absurdism has influenced other writers, and Camus’s 1942 novella The Stranger, which he intended to be read alongside The Myth of Sisyphus.

(continued)...

Christian Redemption

Redemption by faith is central to Dostoyevsky’s two most popular novels: In Crime and Punishment, murderer Raskolnikov is tormented by guilt until a Christian friend convinces him to accept a crucifix and turn himself in; and in The Brothers Karamazov, Dmitri accepts 20 years in prison as his punishment for a life of violence, gambling, and lust. Dostoyevsky was a devout Russian Orthodox Christian who spent several years in prison, and many scholars have seen autobiographical elements in his fiction.

This type of narrative, in which a sinner is “saved” and absolved of their sins by accepting Christianity, has a centuries-long history that survives into the modern day; for example, in Evangelical “born again” conversions. Camus may have intended to parody this narrative in The Stranger; when provided the opportunity to confess to a prison chaplain, Meursault declares that he “didn’t know what a sin was” and “had only a little time left [before his execution] and… didn't want to waste it on God.”

Kierkegaard similarly treats Christianity as the answer to life’s suffering and argues that it requires a leap of faith, in which people abandon their rationality in order to embrace the personal, emotional truth of God. Without making this leap, people are doomed to the anxiety and angst (in Kierkegaard’s words) brought on by recognition of the absurd. Camus claims that this argument tries to diminish the absurd’s power by equating irrationality with God. Kierkegaard’s framing suggests that while God is unknowable, he is also benevolent, meaning that mortality and death shouldn’t be feared even if they can’t be understood.

(Shortform note: Kierkegaard’s description of Christianity as inherently paradoxical and requiring a leap of faith to fully accept has been contested by some later Christian scholars such as C.S. Lewis and John Warwick Montgomery, who argue that belief in God can be logically inferred and isn’t just a matter of “blind” belief.)

Camus speaks more positively about the work of existentialist philosophers like Martin Heidegger and Friedrich Nietzsche, whom he believes accurately describe aspects of the absurd without proposing “solutions” for it. While Heidegger describes the pain of living in a world where death is inevitable, Nietzsche describes the pleasure that comes from living even in a world with no obvious purpose or meaning. However, Camus argues that both descriptions are merely starting points in the development of an absurd philosophy, since they don’t address the question of how to live an absurd life.

Humanist Rejection

Additional examples of philosophical rejection may be found in secular humanism or utilitarianism, which suggest that life’s meaning is not inherent but created by human action. This may mean improving life as much as possible for the greatest number of people, or working toward the betterment of humanity more generally. Heidegger and Nietzsche both describe humans as being uniquely able to rise above the limits of their existence to affect change on the world around them (these arguments were quickly politicized, inadvertently in Nietzsche’s case).

Camus doesn’t specifically address humanism, and as a philosophy, it shares some similarities with his own argument for living an absurd life, since both propose focusing on earthly existence over the hope of an afterlife or belief in a higher power. However, he would likely argue that humanism’s attempts to provide meaning ultimately fail, since they don’t alleviate the absurd—whatever happiness we find on Earth is temporary, and the shortness of human lives makes affecting truly permanent change impossible.

Suicide

Camus notes that suicide is a much less common response to the absurd than philosophical rejection. He argues that this isn’t because there’s no rational argument to be made for suicide, but because most people value their lives too highly to give them up, even in the face of life’s meaninglessness. The desire to live is itself absurd, since everyone will eventually die no matter what they do, but it’s also an undeniably powerful motivator—people will make almost any sacrifice, even denouncing their own deeply held beliefs, in order to continue living.

(Shortform note: Examples of the power of this drive to live can be seen in the phenomenon of hysterical strength—when life-threatening circumstances cause people to display exceptional strength. Examples can also be seen in the ineffectiveness of torture or brainwashing in actually extracting information or changing people’s minds. Researchers generally conclude that people will say or do nearly anything to avoid pain and death, regardless of whether it’s true or aligns with their morals.)

Camus observes that while many philosophers have considered the question of whether life is worth living, and some even defended suicide as a valid answer, almost none followed their logic to the point of death. Though suicides can be ideologically motivated, as in the case of political or protest suicides, most are emotionally motivated—the person is overwhelmed by feelings of despair or hopelessness, which can have any number of causes. For his part, Camus considers whether suicide is an appropriate reaction to the absurd, but ultimately concludes that it isn’t, as it’s another attempt to escape the absurd rather than cope with it.

(Shortform note: Examples of political suicides can be seen in the self-immolation protests surrounding the Vietnam War—Thích Quảng Đức died by suicide in 1963 to protest the persecution of Vietnamese Buddhists by the South Korean government, and in 1965, several American anti-war protesters did the same in front of US government buildings. Interestingly, some mental health advocates argue that even those who die by suicide for primarily emotional reasons don’t truly want to die. When a person desperately needs change in their life but sees no way to achieve it, suicide becomes the only way out.)

Living an Absurd Life

Though Camus dismisses attempts to define the meaning of life, particularly religious ones, he also believes that life is the only thing that matters, as it’s the means by which you experience consciousness, pleasure, and growth. Life may be given by a benevolent God, or it may lack any deeper meaning; either way, you should attempt to get as much out of it as you can before your inevitable death. Camus describes this as an eternal struggle for freedom, with every person rebelling against the unknowability of the universe. Though this rebellion will fail, he argues that it makes you stronger, more intelligent, and more appreciative of your experiences.

(Shortform note: Camus would expand on the connection between rebellion and self-improvement in The Rebel (1951), which argues that creating a perfect civilization is impossible, but revolting against injustice is still a noble goal that betters the individual and the society they live in. However, Camus was less supportive of rebellion in the real world—he was a pacifist opposed to any form of revolutionary violence and was critical of the Algerian Revolution (1954-1962), which overthrew the French colonial government and triggered the mass exodus of the European pied-noir population to which he belonged.)

Getting the most out of life means living in the present and seeking out as many fulfilling experiences as possible. This doesn’t require you to constantly pursue new, exotic, or extreme experiences, but to take an interest in the world around you at all times and to make choices without being concerned with artificial limitations on behavior, such as morality or social stigmas. Camus argues that you should “feel” your life as intensely as if you’d been condemned to death the next day, and this one was the last you’d ever have—especially since, in a sense, everyone is condemned to death.

(Shortform note: It’s unclear how seriously we should take Camus’s advice to ignore morality. While Meursault is certainly amoral—he feels no remorse for the murder he commits seemingly at random—Camus had deeply held moral convictions, which are made obvious in his other nonfiction work. As a journalist, he reported on the exploitation of native Algerians by the French government, and in his Letters to a German Friend, he condemned the occupying Nazi force for their cruelty and violence, writing that even if “this world has no ultimate meaning,” humans still have an obligation to fight for “justice.”)

Sisyphus as the Absurd Man

Camus describes the Greek mythological figure of Sisyphus as the perfect example of an absurd figure; for crimes he committed in life, the gods condemned Sisyphus to spend eternity in the underworld pushing a massive boulder up a hill, only for it to roll down again as soon as he reached the top. His commitment to this futile task, repeated over and over, represents everyday life, as people strive for meaning or for an escape from death that they can never achieve. Sisyphus himself represents the drive to live, since he was known for his defiance of death—different versions of the myth have him tricking or trapping Hades, the God of the Dead, in order to escape temporarily back to the surface—which still couldn’t save him from it.

(Shortform note: There are many different versions of the Sisyphus myth, though most include his punishment of rolling the boulder and his attempts to “cheat death.” Descriptions of his crimes are less consistent, though most accounts agree that he offended Zeus, king of all the gods. Either Sisyphus violated xenia or guest-relations by killing visitors to his court (he was the founder of Ephyra, or modern-day Corinth in Greece), or he reported on Zeus’s abduction and rape of the nymph Aegina to her father, Asopus. Scholars generally interpret the Sisyphus myth as demonstrating the futility of resisting the gods, and the word “Sisyphean” evolved to describe unending or senseless labor.)

Though Sisyphus is generally invoked as an example of divine punishment or torture, Camus believes that Sisyphus is happy despite his fate. He’s alive—in the sense that he still has a consciousness, even though he no longer has access to the world of the living—and he has a task to commit himself to, even if that task can never be completed. He continues to experience the world and to draw pleasure and strength from it. Camus argues that, like Sisyphus, a person committed to the absurd must dedicate themselves to being fully present for every second of life. Life’s value doesn’t come from the promise of eternity, or from any external source, but is self-evident.

(Shortform note: The advice to “live in the present” can be found in a number of different philosophical, religious, psychological, and self-help movements. Generally, the goal is to encourage people to reduce their stress and unhappiness by focusing on what's right in front of them, rather than a past they can’t change or a future they can’t control. While followers of these movements are often asked to let go of things like painful memories or career plans, Camus asks his readers to let go of the belief that they can avoid or even understand death.)

Additional Examples

Camus ends the essay by providing further examples of absurd figures in fiction and the arts, particularly in the work of novelist Franz Kafka. Kafka’s protagonists struggle to survive in hostile worlds with authoritarian, incomprehensible rules, whether this means Josef of The Trial being sentenced to execution for an unknown crime or K. of The Castle spending years trying and failing to gain entrance to the titular seat of government. Despite their frustration and suffering, Kafka’s characters cling to life, going to work and building relationships with the untrustworthy figures around them, even as their expulsion from the world (via exile or death) seems inevitable.

(Shortform note: Some scholars of Kafka interpret his work more politically than Camus does, arguing that the hostility of the world in his fiction is not truly random or absurd, but the result of specific, violent political forces like fascism, capitalism, and antisemitism. Kafka was a Jewish socialist living during a period of increased antisemitism and authoritarianism in central Europe, and while none of his protagonists are explicitly stated to be Jewish, themes of persecution run through much of his work.)

Speaking generally, Camus describes artists of every type as absurd, and he describes creative work as an inherently absurd venture; dedicating your life to making something that is, like yourself, temporary and doomed to be forgotten. He draws particular attention to stage actors, who take on entire other identities for a few hours at a time, but have no physical record of their performances. Though art is a way of rebelling against and coping with the absurd—reflecting one’s reality back at others for a chance at self-expression and commiseration—it can’t grant true immortality to its artist, or alleviate the struggle of living an absurd life.

(Shortform note: Absurdism became an art movement in its own right after World War II, beginning with some of Camus’s own plays like Caligula and The Misunderstanding. Theater critic Martin Esslin described “the theater of the absurd” as tragicomic, fourth-wall-breaking productions focusing on the ridiculousness of human attempts at communication or progress in an irrational and hostile world. Examples include Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, Eugène Ionesco’s The Bald Soprano, and Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead. The postwar fiction of satirists like Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller has also been called “absurdist.”)