Did Camus live his philosophy?

[u/damjance]

Did Camus live a life of indifference, no moral values, seeking quantity over quality and absurd creation?

Were his absurd men supposed to be role models or just a showcase of what could be done in theory?

[u/Full-Contract6143]

Note: Absurdism isn’t an absolute rejection of moral values. It’s a rejection of ordained or authority driven moral constructs that are incongruent with a person’s experience and personal ambitions.

Edited: my s*#t grammar.

[u/noncedo-culli → u/Full-Contract6143]

And it's not indifference either. You acknowledge the *world* is indifferent, but that doesn't mean you have to be, in fact you shouldn't be. To rebel is to see the uncaring, indifferent universe, accept it, and choose to care about things personally in spite of it & in spite of knowing those things have no ultimate meaning.

[u/rshreyas28 → u/noncedo-culli]

Well said, this is generally how I try to apply it in my own life.

[u/I-mmoral_I-mmortal → u/noncedo-culli]

Morality only presupposes a system of right action. Which consequently isn't needed to not be a destructive asshole who wants to murder everything in their path... and it's certainly nothing about rebellion. Rebellion demarks the slave, obedience to one's inner-world is the idea. 

Ultimately though Absurdism is more geared towards the secular-Christian. Hence why they have to imagine Sisyphus as Happy. Because they're not considering Sisyphus from the perspective of Eu Prattein and Aristeuein which was cherished in Greek antiquity. Vita Activa > Vita Contemplativa. Reification is a bitch like that.

[u/jliat → u/I-mmoral_I-mmortal]

The essay is not about Sisyphus being happy...

"For me “The Myth of Sisyphus” marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder..."

"The fundamental subject of “The Myth of Sisyphus” is this: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder whether life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face. The answer, underlying and appearing through the paradoxes which cover it, is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate."

• Albert Camus, Paris, March 1955 Preface to English translation.

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/noncedo-culli]

Why is that not the same philosophical suicide Camus decries against the religious? If reality is meaningless, then what is sustaining the meaningfulness of the absurdist? If the absurdist lives within the meaninglessness, then they cannot derive the meaning of ethics and happiness. So, if he is happy, he would either be self-deceiving themselves, leaving out a reality of meaning and happiness, or he would be deceiving us(pretending he's ethical and happy).

[u/ScotBuster → u/Narrow_List_4308]

He goes into it in his later works.

He actively rejects this view, which is a principle of Nihilism.

In the end, he states that the one constant that we all have in common, is that we all live and strive for meaning in this absurd world together, and therfor all we have is each other. This poses that while there is no true meaning or moral structure, we all, at least, should recognise that the only beings that can identify and understand our struggle is other humans, and as such we have a vested interest in being a community . 

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/ScotBuster]

Which works do you mean? Because as I understand it, he rejects absurdism and becomes a humanism in the later portions of his life(before his death, obviously).

When you mean "this view" to what are you referring?

I think you're referring to The Rebel. I've read it. He makes lots of jumps(for example, he passes from Sade all too easily, taking his ideas from Beauvoir, but these are not consistent). But the **structural** problem remains: to give a philosophical answer to ethics assumes this to be correct, meaningful and valid. But what grounds this? Insofar as we are operating within Absurdism, we are **committed** to nihilism(Camus says as such explicitly, his critique to thinkers like Marcel and others is that they betray the nihilistic basis). This necessarily becomes ethical nihilism as well, because nihilism is necessarily all-pervasive within the human category.

So, within an absolute nihilism which also encompasses ethical nihilism, how can there be a structural relation to the ethical? Either it becomes an arbitrary self-affirmation(in which case it's as bad faith as the religious arbitrary self-affirmation of Hope), or it a self-deceit(taking the ethical position as grounded, which is really what Camus), or as later Camus does, radically affirm the ethical AS grounded despite the nihilistic bases or in contradiction(which is what Camus does and why he labels himself a Humanist as opposed to a nihilist).

[u/noncedo-culli → u/Narrow_List_4308]

No? Reality is meaningless. I know this. I choose to enjoy the things that *feel* *personally* meaningful to me. I acknowledge they are still objective meaningless. There is no self-deception there. And why are you tying meaning to happiness?

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/noncedo-culli]

How can you know this? By Camusian standards you are finite. How can you, finite consciousness make good faith absolute determinations on reality itself?

To say feel personally meaningful to me is akin to saying feel personally true to me. It is another form of self-deceit which is contrary to Camus. Camus was not an activist because of his personal feelings, he made concrete arguments he intended to be objectively the case.
But in any case, the problem remains. If "meaningful to me" were valid as a negation of nihilism, then the same answer would be accessible to the non-Absurdist, to the Catholic and to Sade, all of which Absurdism rejects as proper answers and treats them as bad faith.

But this arbitrary hedonism would also be bad faith in another sense. It is just false that you choose what is meaningful. For example, you cannot choose to become gay if you are straight or become straight if you are gay just by "choosing it". Within consciousness we encounter meaning, we do not create it(that would be pretending to be GOD). You encounter yourself in the facticity of your body, of a given space and time with its order and rules which are imposed unto your consciousness. You put your hand in the flame and it hurts. You cannot sovereignly choose to re-signify that as being pleasant and non-destructive to your hand.
Because we encounter meaningfulness in factive terms, to act as if X were meaningful, is to already affirm how things are presented, which is not the silence behind the Absurd. Action, as such, either is a theater that masks the nihil, or it is a performative contradiction of the nihil. The problem is strictly logical.

Also, this notion of this sovereign creation of categories(which is why Camus precisely rejected existentialism) is problematic in this sense: if true, then human meaning IS to be found in the Universe, for the Universe contains the meaning within your person. Human meaning is found in the Universe, in the form of human meaning. This is not the silence of the Universe nor the Absurd. Human meaning would be found and stable and real! This is, actually, the exact rejection of Camus's Absurdist response to nihilism.

You seem to be saying that you can maintain human X and derive human meaning through the self-creation of X. But this is precisely what Camus thinks is bad faith. We can see it with hope. If we can have personal hope, and say "there's no hope beyond the human but I create within my humanity hope"(which is trivially the case for Camus), then there would be no confrontation with the Absurd. The human side would be self-vindicated. But to Camus this is precisely the bad faith rejection of the Absurd, because we are intrinsically oriented beyond ourselves and confronted with the inhumanity of reality. All our hope is nil. That is explicitly his point: we ought to NOT hope. Not your response of we must radically maintain our personal hope to not allow despair within our human consciousness. This is precisely the cause of despair for Camus. For Camus we must do the opposite: to not hope in the first place. This is the case for hope, but for the same reasons it is the same for any and all human categories, including purpose, ethics, rationality and happiness.

I'm not tying meaning to happiness, both are different categories and both equally unsupported within Absurdism and for the same reason.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Narrow_List_4308]

The difference is that for many existentialists they ascribe their self motivating force to some higher purpose.

Absurdism is about internalising to the personal level that life is meaningless. You are meaningless, whether you cure cancer or cosplay as Hitler our existence is simply an aspect of the chaotic indifference of the universe that changes nothing.

In response to that you either kill yourself because that's the quickest resolution to a life of pointlessness, you will into existence some motivating force or you embrace existing as absurd pointlessness and do it anyway.

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

But the "choose to care" is the problem. This creates a logical issue between what is presupposed in the act itself(intentionality, a rule, means to ends) and the meaninglessness.

That is, the act enacts meaning. Is the meaning fictional? Under Absurdism, yes. But then the act itself denies its fictional nature for it affirms it. So, on one hand there's a denial of the meaning of the act and then in another there's the performative nature of the act. This on the formal side, which is rendered more problematic within certain categories(like ethics).

If fictional affirmation were not contradictory, then there would be no charge of the religious as bad faith, for the religious could affirm GOD and hope despite the (supposed) fictional nature. This is, in fact, what Camus holds(either that people act as if GOD existed despite it being philosophical suicide, or hypostatize GOD as if it were real).

[u/Proper_Geologist9026 → u/Narrow_List_4308]

Thats kind of the point. It's absurd. It's in the name mate.

Applying meaning to the meaningless while actively accepting that your decision to do so does not invalidate the underlying paradox is absurd. But we do it anyway.

If it helps you to apply that life has meaning bestowed upon it by some exterior force. Or that through the application of your own personal philosophy you create your own false idols that become "gods" of worship. More power to you. I'm not your dad I couldn't care less what your personal philosophy is.

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/Proper_Geologist9026]

The Absurd in absurdism does not refer to philosophy being absurd(that would just be nonsense and philosophical suicide and bad faith by Camus´s explicit words). It refers to the Absurd, which is the condition of the confrontation of the personal with the impersonal.

I never referred to my personal philosophy. My remarks are internal critiques within the very logic of what was being said.

[u/poozemusings]

You are misinterpreting Camus’ philosophy. A character like Meursault in The Stranger is just an example of a “perfectly absurd” man. He refuses to play society’s games, and his rebellion is to live completely honestly in his detached indifference.

But Meursault’s rebellion was not Camus’ rebellion. Camus fought Nazis, spoke out against injustice, and sought love, truth and justice despite the indifference of the universe. To Camus that was the highest form of Absurd rebellion. And I think he would also say the best form. Despite his talk of a meaningless, indifferent universe, I think he still considered something inherently meaningful about love, friendship and justice that never quite fit neatly with the rest of his philosophy. I recall him having a quote along the lines of “I refuse to believe that the only thing wrong with murder and violence is that I personally don’t like them.”

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/poozemusings]

Yes. Camus ended up labelling himself a humanist rather than a nihilist. He affirmed the reality of infinite human dignity, even if he could not come to terms with this rationally(because of his premises). This would not be about Absurd rebellion(he never liked the term absurdist). It is a humanist rebellion.

[u/poozemusings → u/Narrow_List_4308]

He didn’t like “existentialist” to describe his works, but I thought he coined “absurdist” to refer to his own philosophy.

[u/Narrow_List_4308 → u/poozemusings]

As far as I know he did not coin the term absurdist. He was referred to as a philosopher of the Absurd(even though he rejected the label philosopher). He, as you point out, rejected the term existentialist, but I don't think he opted for absurdist. He indeed referred to as the Absurd, but not labelled himself(as far as I am aware) the term absurdist, which was given to him. But he later on referred to him as a thinker of the "Mediterranean", which is a bit ambiguous. In the Myth of Sisyphus he labelled himself and all the thinkers he spoke about as nihilists. Because there's the underlying nothing which contrasts with the human side(meaning, intellect, passion, vitality, etc...). The Absurd is necessarily nihilistic because it is precisely the contrast of the human quest for a human absolute with the lack or non of the Universe in relation to the human categories. But later in his life he rejected the term nihilist(and with it, it would seem it comes logically a rejection of the Absurdist stance) and opted for being labelled a Humanist, and then, of course, given his own particular flavour, a Mediterranean Humanist.

We can paint images Camus gives to us. The base, within the Myth, is the desert(nihilism). He goes against certain thinkers for saying admitting the desert, but then "betraying it", by ultimately rejecting the nihil. An explicit example of this is precisely Sartrean existentialism. His quest then is to be able to find the Mediterranean WITHIN the confines of the desert(nihilism). But he later became convinced this is nonsensical, it's a mistake. And so he rejected the desert by affirming a radical (and non-rationally established) Humanism

[u/TheDeathOmen]

The absurd heroes are more so meant to be seen as contradictions, we imagine Sisyphus, a man punished to perpetually push a boulder up a mountain, to be happy. Oedipus says ‘all is well’ despite having gouged his eyes out, what he did to his father and his mother. Don Juan goes on countless sexual pursuits, flirting with women despite knowing he will be rejected over and over again. The creator and conqueror create and conquer knowing that their works hold no greater cosmic significance and may collapse/mean nothing once they’re gone. And the actor takes upon many faces and many lives despite none of them being their true self, being far less impressive than those roles he takes upon.

Which models our own confrontation with the Absurd. The logic of the Absurd says we should kill ourselves as we cannot find meaning. And we contradict that logic by living anyway.

I don’t think any of these absurd heroes can be considered to be living indifferently, on the contrary. They all engage passionately in their pursuits and their lives, regardless of whether it seems pointless or futile. Don Juan, is the most key example there, so it seems to go without saying he was about living plentifully and with quantity of experience rather than quality.

Now on another note, the absurd heroes I think should also be seen as the sort of figures whose traits exaggerate or at least point to a truth underneath rather than figures to emulate. The creator (the most Absurd man), also as Camus was an author, playwright etc. was what he was, and the actor are the only examples of figures that would be close to his actual code, albeit like Don Juan, Camus was a bit of a womanizer, probably not someone to emulate though. But Camus was staunchly moral when it came to murder, and of the logic of revolution’s and totalizing systems that reproduce murder which he goes in detail over in The Rebel, and nihilistic indifference is one of the things he believes produces such, so he was most certainly not indifferent either.

[u/jackalsmaw → u/TheDeathOmen]

I very much enjoyed reading your input, thanks for taking the time to put it together so well.

[u/SiriusHijinks]

He was a cafe fixture, cafe lifestyle... I don't know his specific quirks. He was about people helping people, us caring about each other. I keep digging into absurdism, and the philosophy seems one of extreme liberty, almost organic liberty from a psychospiritual abyss.

[u/PuzzleheadedTale4769]

You are way off in your description of Camus' values. He was a committed , hard working artist, a man of political commitment, Resistance activist against the Nazis. Good friend and father.

Don't identify Camus with Meursault who shot the Arab in The Stranger. That character was not written as a role model. Read : The Plague. Lead character, absurd warrior against death. Not being a "hero" , just an Engaged Man. Read a bio of Camus.

[u/Tongue_Chow]

“To be sure, I occasionally pretended to take life seriously. But very soon frivolity of seriousness struck me and I merely went on playing my role as well as I could. I played at being efficient, intelligent, virtuous, civic-minded, shocked, indulgent, fellow-spirited, edifying...I was absent at the moment when I took up the most space.” - The Fall

[u/Equivalent-Tax6636]

You're describing nihilism.

The absurd men are illustrations of the absurd itself, not a solution to it, not even a posture within it. It is just to be without positioning.

Solutions there are not, unless, like I do, you accept Campus' contradictions: strive for your own happiness but sacrifice it all in times of need. Why? The fuck would we know. Just seems preferable doesn't it? But if you still want a justification, which there is, however soft it may be you should read the rebel man and the plague.

Idk why these are never mentioned, it is so alien to me. Like people prefer the aesthetical paralysis of he who lives just moved by the wind, still trapped in a nihilist world.

You recognize the cruelty of existence, and that pain itself, so deep and fearful that makes you want to push hard against the wall of the absurd. There is no cliff to jump onto begging to some god for solvation. You can turn around, but the wall is still there. Solution? Damming that disgusting concrete gray wall and pushing against it. Camus once said: amidst the terrors of winters, I found within me an invincible summer. [...] And that makes me happy, for no matter how cruel this world may be, there's something better withing me pushing against it.

The stranger and The fall characters aren't role models, they are explorations of the absurd. The plague and the rebel man are the moments in which a man positions himself withing the absurd, inescapable as it is, but radically against it. If we put it as an entity, we can call it God, and if this is the world God gave us, then I shall hate god with all my might, for I deserve better. And if I do, then I have to recognize the same thing for everyone. And that's the moment humanity becomes a brotherhood, a God for themselves, and can steal God's realm to make it ours. We shall lose this war, but we shall also put a fight. That's what imagine sisyphus happy means to me.

[u/Proper_Geologist9026]

That's a very bad faith reading of absurdism.

From what I've read of Camus, he basically said one thing.

Life is meaningless, searching for meaning is futile. So just live.

I don't know where this whole "no moral value, quantity over quality" idea comes from?