five reasons why albert camus wasn't an absurdist

I got my master degree in philosophy because of the work of Albert Camus. And while he isn’t the hardest writer to understand, secundary literature mistify his claims immensely. For starters, people claim Camus’ is an absurdist and I cannot blame them. Even the Wikipedia-page of Absurdism mentions Camus’ and Sisyphus. And I think, and that is the thesis of this blog-post, that calling Camus an absurdist is exactly opposite to what he means, in a sense. It is ironic to call him an absurdist. I would even go so far as call it.. absurd.

To start of, I would like to explain why people call him an absurdist and call his philosophy absurdism. Second I will explain why they are wrong.

It is not a surprise that people call Camus’ an absurdist. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does, as the headline of the first paragraph of Camus’ entry is “1. The Paradoxes of Camus’ Absurdist Philosophy”. His philosophy is absurd and it does come with paradoxes. The absurd is, I think, the most important relation or notion in his philosophy.

What then is absurd? Life itself is absurd! And to illustrate this, Camus starts his Myth of Sisyphus with the famous lines:

“*There is but one truly serious philosophcial problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. *“

And later on:

“And if it is true, as Nietzsche claims, that a philosopher, to deserve our respect, must preach by example, you can appreciate the importance of the reply [to the question whether life is worth living, for it will precede the definitive act“

And as a philosopher you should be on edge this very second: for if you cannot positively affirm that life is worth living, you’d have to commit the act of suicide. The tension rises even further when you read on in the Myth and find out that even Camus cannot answer the question. And he goes on rebuking this initial argument to begin explaining the notion of the absurd. Because people even living a fulfilling life commit suicide. What then, is this fulfilling life? Can we even say that life has inherent meaning? And Camus answers that we cannot, following other existentialist writers like Kierkegaard, Sartre and De Beauvoir.

The absurd can be felt, but isn’t necessary a feeling. It can overwhelm you all of a sudden, and can exhaust you completely. Camus writes:

“What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe sudddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land.”

A world that can be explained (even with bad reasons) is a familiar world. And that is what we humans tend to do in life, in philosophy and in science. Science tries to understand the world and categorize it for our use. Religion tries to explain how we came to be and what our purpose should be. Philosophy does the same. And even our own morals, values and reasonings try to make life worth living. We explain why we are here and try to familiarize ourselves with this world we are in.

A great example, I feel, is the way businesses try to forecast profits or other KPI’s. Based on past events professionals try to look in the future and prognose what achievable targets could be for the coming year. One personal example is that I worked in the business of newspaper obituaries. Prior to covid-19 the profits dwindled, because less and less people read the paper newspaper. So, the forecast for the year 2020 was that profits would diminish even further. Then covid happend and people died without being able to host a funeral, due to policies limiting the amount of people in a room, for instance. And all of a sudden, people posted obituaries. And friends and family responded by also placing obituaries to honour the deceased. Profits soared for the company.

Another example is how we try to see patterns in chaotic data: apophenia.

I guess Camus point is apophenia: we try to explain the world, reason on logic that is in its core illogical. And why? The world does not want to be captured by our attempts. If we try to prognose and forecast, the world invents diseases like covid-19, or other black swan events that completely change how we view the world. It is absurd to even try.

Back to Camus: absurdity is the human urge to try to find meaning (apophenia) while there is no meaning to be found. To try to explain what cannot be explained. To live a life that is not worth living. It is like Don Quichot: absurd to try to beat windmills with a lance on your horse. And that feeling does not sit well at all. It is uneasy, it is uncomfortable and we want to make it stop. And so we invented philosophy, spirituality and science, to soothe ourselves. And our philosophies turned to dogmas like hope, business models and schematics that explain us how to live good lifes.

What does it matter to call Camus an absurdist, then? It is a logical name, as I mentioned. And we precisely understand what we mean if we mention absurdism. But there is irony in calling it absurdism if the sole point of the philosophy is that meaning or truth or whatever does not exist in our lives. If truth does not exist, why then would absurdism be a truth? By calling Camus an absurdist we do precisely what Camus wants us to not do: naming that thing we cannot name.

And another point of critique I have is that, as we saw in the opening words from Camus’ Myth, philosophers have to preach by example. People seem to think that the absurdity of our lives means that we can do what we want: we are free and can chose to pursue the lives we want. Whilst I don’t disagree, this seems to be merely to negate responsibility. Why not counteract global warming? Because of absurdism! Why do we steal? It is absurd and therefore not morally wrong.

It seems to me that absurdism has become precisely that which it cannot be: a dogma. And that is what I oppose.

In the arts you will find the same notion of absurdism. And in art, absurdism encaptures precisely what I think the philosophy of Camus is opposing. I quote the Wikipedia mention of the Theatre of the absurd:

“The plays focus largely on ideas of existentialism and express what happens when human existence lacks meaning or purpose and communication breaks down. The structure of the plays is typically a round shape, with the finishing point the same as the starting point. Logical construction and argument give way to irrational and illogical speech and to the ultimate conclusion-silence.“

There is a typical description of absurd theatre. A round shape, plot that does not go anywhere. Illogicallity and irrationality. And -how weird it may seem since the plot does not go anywhere- a conclusion, that is silence.

Something that is so easily capturable in a few words is not absurd. It has a meaning. It has a structure. It can be defined.

And the work of Camus cannot. Isn’t that ironic?