The Myth of Sisyphus (Penguin Modern Classics)

Well, if Nietzsche killed "god", Camus killed philosophy. This is how life works, congratulations, you're now enlightened. The universe is incapable of care, as are most people. The knowledge and perspective contained within this piece of literature, is probably the most universally applicable item the store sells. Rating: 10/Camus/10

Justin O'Brien's translation reads like a literal translation of a Chinese instruction manual to some piece of imported equipment rather than of one who undestands the substance of the subject. Compare this to the translation of The Stranger by Mathew Ward which is excellent and clearly conveys the meaning of the material. O'Brien's translation is a disservice to Camus.

Simply amazing. The greatest book I have ever read. I have yet to read it, but after buying it I do stare at it often, and this leads me to conclude it is glorious. I have, though, read his other works so I can only falsely conclude that this will shatter my soul with insight, just like you reading this review.

The copy editing on this book was an embarrassment. My rating has nothing to do with the quality of the author's text. As someone who has purchased quite a few books from the store over the years, I was unpleasantly surprised to find that such an error-riddled text would even be offered for sale under your aegis.

these questions are too much "family" oriented or to deter well-thought people please get read of that it seems that youhave no idea of who is Albert Camus and this is not a way to evaluate a book ! get read of that bad stuff and bad attitude !

I'm reading this book based on a strong recommendation, and liking it. It is a small but dense work, with a lot of substance. One frustrating aspect of the style (a translation from French) is that often I am left wondering what a particular sentence refers to - because it ambiguously refers to things by "it" (and I'm wondering - what particular thing are you referring to by by "it"). I'm still trying to get my mind around rather core definitions like "the absurd". Overall, I find this book very deep and thought provoking and unconventional.

In this eminently modern text, Albert Camus proposes a `human' solution for the poisoning of the soul by the absurdity of life, which can lead to suicide (jumping out of life, out of the world).

Suicides
Suicides occur at the individual, but also at the religious and philosophical (intellectual) level.
Religions and some philosophies propose the irrational (the illusion of another world) and the eternal as a solution. The phenomenology of E. Husserl does not even propose a solution at all, by refusing to explain the world and by limiting its aim to a description of the experience of life.
Albert Camus illustrates the religious suicide with the philosophy of S. Kierkegaard, who ultimately demands `the sacrifice of the intellect '. A philosophical suicide are the theories of K. Jaspers, which culminate in `the being of the transcendence'.

A courageous solution
For Albert Camus, we must live the absurd, which is nothing else than a world in which man is his own master and whose fate must be settled among men. This state of affairs has three consequences for man: freedom, passion and revolt.
The absurd man does nothing for the eternal. He lives on earth in the body of the lover, the actor and the conqueror, with Prometheus as the first conqueror who rebelled against the gods.
Best of all, however, is the creator. To create is to live twice; it is nothing less than giving shape to one's own fate. As F. Nietzsche said: `art and nothing but art; we have art in order not to die of the truth.'

Sisyphus, man's model
Sisyphus is the absurd hero par excellence, being convicted for his contempt of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life. His upward struggle with his rock was (is, should be) enough to fill a real man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus as being a very happy man!

Evaluation
For Albert Camus, the fate of the world must be settled among men. This raises the fundamental question of the true nature (biological / psychological) of man. This nature has been profoundly analyzed and dissected by great philosophers and scientists, such as A. Schopenhauer, C. Darwin, B. Russell or R. Dawkins. One should at least take their ideas and findings into consideration if one want to manage `seriously' world affairs.

This key text in the writings of Albert Camus is a must read for all men and women of good will.

Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French author, journalist, and philosopher, who won the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature for his novels such as The Stranger,The Plague,The Fall, etc. He also wrote nonfiction such as The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt,Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays,Lyrical and Critical Essays, etc.

He wrote in the Preface, "For me `The Myth of Sisyphus' marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values which, temporarily perhaps, are absent or distorted in contemporary Europe. 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."

He begins the title essay with the statement, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest---whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories---comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." (Pg. 3)

Later, he says, "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it... one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as it no one `knew.' This is because in reality there is no experience of death... Here, it is barely possible to speak of the experience of others' deaths... All the pretty speeches about the soul will have their contrary convincingly proved, at least for a time. From this inert body on which a slap makes no mark the soul has disappeared. This elementary and definitive aspect of the adventure constitutes the absurd feeling. Under the fatal lighting of that destiny, its uselessness becomes evident. No code of ethics and no effort are justifiable a priori in the face of the cruel mathematics that commands our attention." (Pg. 12)

He laments, "With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge. If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of its successive regrets and its impotences." (Pg. 14) He continues, "all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it... But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realized then that you have been reduced to poetry... You have already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis... that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts?" (Pg. 15)

He asserts, "This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational 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 a 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 adventure takes place." (Pg. 16)

He observes, "I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not thereby negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up... Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God." (Pg. 30) He argues, "I am taking the liberty ... of calling the existential attitude philosophical suicide. But this does not imply a judgment. It is a convenient way of indicating the movement by which a thought negates itself and tends to transcend itself in its very negation. For the existentials negation is their God. To be precise, their god is maintained only through the negation of human reason." (Pg. 31)

He states, "At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions of prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand... he doesn't want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration... He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels---his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything... And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find out if it is possible to live WITHOUT APPEAL." (Pg. 39)

He points out, "It may be thought that suicide follows revolt---but wrongly... Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme. Everything is over and man returns to his essential history... In its way, suicide settles the absurd. It engulfs the absurd in the same death. But I know that in order to keep alive, the absurd cannot be settled... The contrary of suicide, in fact, is the man condemned to death. That revolt gives life its value... it restores majesty to that life... It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one's own free will. Suicide is a repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself. The absurd is his extreme tension, which he maintains constantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that day-to-day revolt he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance." (Pg. 40-41)

In his essay "The Absurd Man," he concludes: "This absurd, godless world is, then, peopled with men who think clearly and have ceased to hope. And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator." (Pg. 68) In the "Absurd Creation" essay, he argues, "To become god is merely to be free on this earth, not to serve an immortal being. Above all, of course, it is drawing the inferences from that painful independence. If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us... to kill God is to become god oneself; it si to realize on this earth the eternal life on which the Gospel speaks." (Pg. 79-80)

This is perhaps Camus' most provocative essay ("The Rebel" is perhaps the exception); it will be "must reading" for anyone studying his and his ideas.

In this text, Albert Camus wanted to use this set of essays to clarify his idea of the absurd and how that is all life is. Also he wanted to give us some idea of how the artist enacts social change.

These essays are entertaining but the points of each essay sometimes fall to the wayside from under the elegant writing and the many asides that occur he introduces. The leads to his desired theme often being lost.

The text itself does outline his ideas about "the absurd," but doesn't do much else. There is no concrete definition. The essay of the myth of Sisyphus did the most to illuminate this idea. A short explanation of this is required he uses this myth to illustrate that life is forever a struggle of pushing a boulder up a hill over and over again and that the next step is to do it again. This is how life would be absurd we are constantly spinning our wheels thinking we are making progress but in the end making none.

He also believes that if you rule something incomprehensible such as the idea of God, which he thinks Kierkegaard does and using Kierkegaard's definition being that just because we can't understand God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. He would say that is absurd you can't argue that which we can't understand to exist, that is absurd.

He also equates the belief in God with a desire for suicide, that being if God is so great and life after death is so great why shouldn't you wish to die?

Other essays read like travel logs and though beautiful and elegant don't really have any purpose outside of mind candy.

As far as what he thinks the artists purpose to influence social change is, I'm not sure because he talks of creating works that highlight the abuse of the downtrodden but doesn't think the artist should be politically active, which often times is a contradiction in terms.

I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys creative nonfiction with a philosophical twist.

Albert Camus observed in "The Myth of Sisyphus" that `There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.' Sisyphus trickster, and the founder of Corinth, who was so bold that he deceived the gods. For his audacity, Zeus banished him to Tartarus, where he was endlessly condemned to roll a rock up a hill, where it rolled back down to the other side and Sisyphus would have to begin his task anew. The consequences of cheating divinity or fate through suicide entail the Sisyphean task, a chance Hamlet, for one, was not willing to take. It is better to bare the humdrum despair of mortality than try to cheat the gods. In short, existence matters more than any questions of essence, or vain egocentrism.

Suicide, as an act of despair , denies the option for redemption from despair in the course of the remaining part of one's life. By causing our own destruction, we turn our whole lives into a hopeless, unending struggle so far as we have lived them. For Camus his fascination with suicide is an absurdity, because the suicide can never, through all eternity, know that his labour of self-murder has succeeded. Only those who survive him can know his success. The potential suicide can resurrect his condition through Camusian revolt, by overcoming a tyrannical force. Camusian revolt consists entails acknowledgement of the absurdity to relief in death; acceptance of the absurdity that exists around him; and a focus on accomplishment over and over of tasks that may seem futile, yet taking pride in this futility, absurd as such pride may be intellectually.
Sisyphus of the myth accepts the absurdity of his task, at least in the version Camus unfolds, transforming Sisyphus to heroic status as he labours with undaunted enthusiasm alone with a rock in the unremitting darkness of Tartarus, undertaking an eternal task in utter oblivion. But because Sisyphus had tricked the gods and abandoned his mortal existence, he can only regain heroic status through an eternity instead of a life of futility.

La verdad muy malo el servicio , lo compre 2 veces en español y lo tuve que donar porque 2 veces me llego en ingles y se comprometieron a solucionarlo pero nada solo cometieron el mismo error 2 veces , muy malo el servicio , gracias igual .

Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French author, journalist, and philosopher, who won the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature for his novels such as The Stranger,The Plague,The Fall, etc. He also wrote nonfiction such as The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt,Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays,Lyrical and Critical Essays, etc.

He wrote in the Preface, "For me `The Myth of Sisyphus' marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values which, temporarily perhaps, are absent or distorted in contemporary Europe. 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."

He begins the title essay with the statement, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest---whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories---comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." (Pg. 3)

Later, he says, "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it... one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as it no one `knew.' This is because in reality there is no experience of death... Here, it is barely possible to speak of the experience of others' deaths... All the pretty speeches about the soul will have their contrary convincingly proved, at least for a time. From this inert body on which a slap makes no mark the soul has disappeared. This elementary and definitive aspect of the adventure constitutes the absurd feeling. Under the fatal lighting of that destiny, its uselessness becomes evident. No code of ethics and no effort are justifiable a priori in the face of the cruel mathematics that commands our attention." (Pg. 12)

He laments, "With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge. If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of its successive regrets and its impotences." (Pg. 14) He continues, "all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it... But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realized then that you have been reduced to poetry... You have already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis... that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts?" (Pg. 15)

He asserts, "This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational 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 a 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 adventure takes place." (Pg. 16)

He observes, "I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not thereby negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up... Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God." (Pg. 30) He argues, "I am taking the liberty ... of calling the existential attitude philosophical suicide. But this does not imply a judgment. It is a convenient way of indicating the movement by which a thought negates itself and tends to transcend itself in its very negation. For the existentials negation is their God. To be precise, their god is maintained only through the negation of human reason." (Pg. 31)

He states, "At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions of prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand... he doesn't want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration... He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels---his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything... And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find out if it is possible to live WITHOUT APPEAL." (Pg. 39)

He points out, "It may be thought that suicide follows revolt---but wrongly... Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme. Everything is over and man returns to his essential history... In its way, suicide settles the absurd. It engulfs the absurd in the same death. But I know that in order to keep alive, the absurd cannot be settled... The contrary of suicide, in fact, is the man condemned to death. That revolt gives life its value... it restores majesty to that life... It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one's own free will. Suicide is a repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself. The absurd is his extreme tension, which he maintains constantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that day-to-day revolt he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance." (Pg. 40-41)

In his essay "The Absurd Man," he concludes: "This absurd, godless world is, then, peopled with men who think clearly and have ceased to hope. And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator." (Pg. 68) In the "Absurd Creation" essay, he argues, "To become god is merely to be free on this earth, not to serve an immortal being. Above all, of course, it is drawing the inferences from that painful independence. If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us... to kill God is to become god oneself; it si to realize on this earth the eternal life on which the Gospel speaks." (Pg. 79-80)

This is perhaps Camus' most provocative essay ("The Rebel" is perhaps the exception); it will be "must reading" for anyone studying his and his ideas.

Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French author, journalist, and philosopher, who won the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature for his novels such as The Stranger,The Plague,The Fall, etc. He also wrote nonfiction such as The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt,Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays,Lyrical and Critical Essays, etc.

He wrote in the Preface, "For me `The Myth of Sisyphus' marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values which, temporarily perhaps, are absent or distorted in contemporary Europe. 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."

He begins the title essay with the statement, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest---whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories---comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." (Pg. 3)

Later, he says, "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it... one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as it no one `knew.' This is because in reality there is no experience of death... Here, it is barely possible to speak of the experience of others' deaths... All the pretty speeches about the soul will have their contrary convincingly proved, at least for a time. From this inert body on which a slap makes no mark the soul has disappeared. This elementary and definitive aspect of the adventure constitutes the absurd feeling. Under the fatal lighting of that destiny, its uselessness becomes evident. No code of ethics and no effort are justifiable a priori in the face of the cruel mathematics that commands our attention." (Pg. 12)

He laments, "With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge. If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of its successive regrets and its impotences." (Pg. 14) He continues, "all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it... But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realized then that you have been reduced to poetry... You have already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis... that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts?" (Pg. 15)

He asserts, "This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational 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 a 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 adventure takes place." (Pg. 16)

He observes, "I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not thereby negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up... Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God." (Pg. 30) He argues, "I am taking the liberty ... of calling the existential attitude philosophical suicide. But this does not imply a judgment. It is a convenient way of indicating the movement by which a thought negates itself and tends to transcend itself in its very negation. For the existentials negation is their God. To be precise, their god is maintained only through the negation of human reason." (Pg. 31)

He states, "At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions of prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand... he doesn't want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration... He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels---his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything... And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find out if it is possible to live WITHOUT APPEAL." (Pg. 39)

He points out, "It may be thought that suicide follows revolt---but wrongly... Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme. Everything is over and man returns to his essential history... In its way, suicide settles the absurd. It engulfs the absurd in the same death. But I know that in order to keep alive, the absurd cannot be settled... The contrary of suicide, in fact, is the man condemned to death. That revolt gives life its value... it restores majesty to that life... It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one's own free will. Suicide is a repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself. The absurd is his extreme tension, which he maintains constantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that day-to-day revolt he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance." (Pg. 40-41)

In his essay "The Absurd Man," he concludes: "This absurd, godless world is, then, peopled with men who think clearly and have ceased to hope. And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator." (Pg. 68) In the "Absurd Creation" essay, he argues, "To become god is merely to be free on this earth, not to serve an immortal being. Above all, of course, it is drawing the inferences from that painful independence. If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us... to kill God is to become god oneself; it si to realize on this earth the eternal life on which the Gospel speaks." (Pg. 79-80)

This is perhaps Camus' most provocative essay ("The Rebel" is perhaps the exception); it will be "must reading" for anyone studying his and his ideas.

Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French author, journalist, and philosopher, who won the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature for his novels such as The Stranger,The Plague,The Fall, etc. He also wrote nonfiction such as The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt,Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays,Lyrical and Critical Essays, etc.

He wrote in the Preface, "For me `The Myth of Sisyphus' marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values which, temporarily perhaps, are absent or distorted in contemporary Europe. 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."

He begins the title essay with the statement, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest---whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories---comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." (Pg. 3)

Later, he says, "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it... one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as it no one `knew.' This is because in reality there is no experience of death... Here, it is barely possible to speak of the experience of others' deaths... All the pretty speeches about the soul will have their contrary convincingly proved, at least for a time. From this inert body on which a slap makes no mark the soul has disappeared. This elementary and definitive aspect of the adventure constitutes the absurd feeling. Under the fatal lighting of that destiny, its uselessness becomes evident. No code of ethics and no effort are justifiable a priori in the face of the cruel mathematics that commands our attention." (Pg. 12)

He laments, "With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge. If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of its successive regrets and its impotences." (Pg. 14) He continues, "all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it... But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realized then that you have been reduced to poetry... You have already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis... that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts?" (Pg. 15)

He asserts, "This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational 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 a 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 adventure takes place." (Pg. 16)

He observes, "I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not thereby negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up... Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God." (Pg. 30) He argues, "I am taking the liberty ... of calling the existential attitude philosophical suicide. But this does not imply a judgment. It is a convenient way of indicating the movement by which a thought negates itself and tends to transcend itself in its very negation. For the existentials negation is their God. To be precise, their god is maintained only through the negation of human reason." (Pg. 31)

He states, "At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions of prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand... he doesn't want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration... He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels---his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything... And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find out if it is possible to live WITHOUT APPEAL." (Pg. 39)

He points out, "It may be thought that suicide follows revolt---but wrongly... Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme. Everything is over and man returns to his essential history... In its way, suicide settles the absurd. It engulfs the absurd in the same death. But I know that in order to keep alive, the absurd cannot be settled... The contrary of suicide, in fact, is the man condemned to death. That revolt gives life its value... it restores majesty to that life... It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one's own free will. Suicide is a repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself. The absurd is his extreme tension, which he maintains constantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that day-to-day revolt he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance." (Pg. 40-41)

In his essay "The Absurd Man," he concludes: "This absurd, godless world is, then, peopled with men who think clearly and have ceased to hope. And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator." (Pg. 68) In the "Absurd Creation" essay, he argues, "To become god is merely to be free on this earth, not to serve an immortal being. Above all, of course, it is drawing the inferences from that painful independence. If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us... to kill God is to become god oneself; it si to realize on this earth the eternal life on which the Gospel speaks." (Pg. 79-80)

This is perhaps Camus' most provocative essay ("The Rebel" is perhaps the exception); it will be "must reading" for anyone studying his and his ideas.

Albert Camus (1913-1960) was a French author, journalist, and philosopher, who won the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature for his novels such as The Stranger,The Plague,The Fall, etc. He also wrote nonfiction such as The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt,Resistance, Rebellion, and Death: Essays,Lyrical and Critical Essays, etc.

He wrote in the Preface, "For me `The Myth of Sisyphus' marks the beginning of an idea which I was to pursue in The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt. It attempts to resolve the problem of suicide, as The Rebel attempts to resolve that of murder, in both cases without the aid of eternal values which, temporarily perhaps, are absent or distorted in contemporary Europe. 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."

He begins the title essay with the statement, "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest---whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories---comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer." (Pg. 3)

Later, he says, "I come at last to death and to the attitude we have toward it... one will never be sufficiently surprised that everyone lives as it no one `knew.' This is because in reality there is no experience of death... Here, it is barely possible to speak of the experience of others' deaths... All the pretty speeches about the soul will have their contrary convincingly proved, at least for a time. From this inert body on which a slap makes no mark the soul has disappeared. This elementary and definitive aspect of the adventure constitutes the absurd feeling. Under the fatal lighting of that destiny, its uselessness becomes evident. No code of ethics and no effort are justifiable a priori in the face of the cruel mathematics that commands our attention." (Pg. 12)

He laments, "With the exception of professional rationalists, today people despair of true knowledge. If the only significant history of human thought were to be written, it would have to be the history of its successive regrets and its impotences." (Pg. 14) He continues, "all the knowledge on earth will give me nothing to assure me that this world is mine. You describe it to me and you teach me to classify it... But you tell me of an invisible planetary system in which electrons gravitate around a nucleus. You explain this world to me with an image. I realized then that you have been reduced to poetry... You have already changed theories. So that science that was to teach me everything ends up in a hypothesis... that uncertainty is resolved in a work of art. What need had I of so many efforts?" (Pg. 15)

He asserts, "This world in itself is not reasonable, that is all that can be said. But what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational 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 a 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 adventure takes place." (Pg. 16)

He observes, "I am told again that here the intelligence must sacrifice its pride and the reason bow down. But if I recognize the limits of the reason, I do not thereby negate it, recognizing its relative powers. I merely want to remain in this middle path where the intelligence can remain clear. If that is its pride, I see no sufficient reason for giving it up... Perhaps this notion will become clearer if I risk this shocking statement: the absurd is sin without God." (Pg. 30) He argues, "I am taking the liberty ... of calling the existential attitude philosophical suicide. But this does not imply a judgment. It is a convenient way of indicating the movement by which a thought negates itself and tends to transcend itself in its very negation. For the existentials negation is their God. To be precise, their god is maintained only through the negation of human reason." (Pg. 31)

He states, "At a certain point on his path the absurd man is tempted. History is not lacking in either religions of prophets, even without gods. He is asked to leap. All he can reply is that he doesn't fully understand... he doesn't want to do anything but what he fully understands. He is assured that this is the sin of pride, but he does not understand the notion of sin; that perhaps hell is in store, but he has not enough imagination to visualize that strange future; that he is losing immortal life, but that seems to him an idle consideration... He feels innocent. To tell the truth, that is all he feels---his irreparable innocence. This is what allows him everything... And it is with this that he is concerned: he wants to find out if it is possible to live WITHOUT APPEAL." (Pg. 39)

He points out, "It may be thought that suicide follows revolt---but wrongly... Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme. Everything is over and man returns to his essential history... In its way, suicide settles the absurd. It engulfs the absurd in the same death. But I know that in order to keep alive, the absurd cannot be settled... The contrary of suicide, in fact, is the man condemned to death. That revolt gives life its value... it restores majesty to that life... It is essential to die unreconciled and not of one's own free will. Suicide is a repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself. The absurd is his extreme tension, which he maintains constantly by solitary effort, for he knows that in that consciousness and in that day-to-day revolt he gives proof of his only truth, which is defiance." (Pg. 40-41)

In his essay "The Absurd Man," he concludes: "This absurd, godless world is, then, peopled with men who think clearly and have ceased to hope. And I have not yet spoken of the most absurd character, who is the creator." (Pg. 68) In the "Absurd Creation" essay, he argues, "To become god is merely to be free on this earth, not to serve an immortal being. Above all, of course, it is drawing the inferences from that painful independence. If God exists, all depends on him and we can do nothing against his will. If he does not exist, everything depends on us... to kill God is to become god oneself; it si to realize on this earth the eternal life on which the Gospel speaks." (Pg. 79-80)

This is perhaps Camus' most provocative essay ("The Rebel" is perhaps the exception); it will be "must reading" for anyone studying his and his ideas.

Albert Camus observed in "The Myth of Sisyphus" that `There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest - whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer.' Sisyphus trickster, and the founder of Corinth, who was so bold that he deceived the gods. For his audacity, Zeus banished him to Tartarus, where he was endlessly condemned to roll a rock up a hill, where it rolled back down to the other side and Sisyphus would have to begin his task anew. The consequences of cheating divinity or fate through suicide entail the Sisyphean task, a chance Hamlet, for one, was not willing to take. It is better to bare the humdrum despair of mortality than try to cheat the gods. In short, existence matters more than any questions of essence, or vain egocentrism.

Suicide, as an act of despair , denies the option for redemption from despair in the course of the remaining part of one's life. By causing our own destruction, we turn our whole lives into a hopeless, unending struggle so far as we have lived them. For Camus his fascination with suicide is an absurdity, because the suicide can never, through all eternity, know that his labour of self-murder has succeeded. Only those who survive him can know his success. The potential suicide can resurrect his condition through Camusian revolt, by overcoming a tyrannical force. Camusian revolt consists entails acknowledgement of the absurdity to relief in death; acceptance of the absurdity that exists around him; and a focus on accomplishment over and over of tasks that may seem futile, yet taking pride in this futility, absurd as such pride may be intellectually.
Sisyphus of the myth accepts the absurdity of his task, at least in the version Camus unfolds, transforming Sisyphus to heroic status as he labours with undaunted enthusiasm alone with a rock in the unremitting darkness of Tartarus, undertaking an eternal task in utter oblivion. But because Sisyphus had tricked the gods and abandoned his mortal existence, he can only regain heroic status through an eternity instead of a life of futility.

Camus's Le Mythe de Sisyphe written to accompany his 1st novel L'Etranger is a philosophy as a branch of literature rather than philosophy in itself.Camus never claimed(a la Sartre)to be a philosopher,he claimed a novel was a philosophy expressed with images.Just as reason is subservient to nostalgia,philosophy is subservient to art.This provides the ballast to his fictional works,with a felicity of style they share. We have the major essay The Myth of Sisyphus and the series of essays based upon places in Algeria,Summer in Algiers,The Minotaur,Helen'sExile and Return to Tipasa,where what concerns him is a passion for the present moment.Camus states he deals with a description,not a metaphysical belief,of an `intellectual malady',an absurd sensitivity citing certain contemporary thinkers,not a philosophy.Camus immediately states the meaning of life deals with the most urgent of questions.The only philosophical problem in an absurd world devoid of eternal values is suicide.We're all mortal,allcondemned to death,we must live in the present,for the here and now,not some imaginary future or other world.Is lifetherefore worth living?Suicide can be due to the ridiculous habits,gestures of existence,"a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights,man feels an alien, a stranger".One learns the truth about the absurd through everyday banal experience, that can hit you on the street corner.

Camus's aim is not to overcome a sense of alienation or separateness from the world. In The Outsider Meursault takes a defiant pleasure in this condition. Sisyphus, the `absurd hero', feels a `silent joy' in living in a world where `man feels an alien, a stranger...his exile...without remedy.' Camus was by his own admission not interested in weighty philosophical topics of a systematic kind like existentialism,being neither a philosopher norsystematic. According to Camus,man has a fundamental `longing for reason',especially for a world as a unitary whole within which everything has its demonstrable station and value.Unfortunately people have recognized the `irrationality ` of reality and hence `despair of true knowledge'.Yet a `nostalgia' for reason remains,and it is the confrontation between this and reality,rather than the latter's irrationality alone,which constitutes absurdity.From the `encounters' between a `human need and the unreasonable silence of the world',the absurd is `born'.Reality is irrational because it is `chaotic',and shot through with paradoxes.Existentialism starts with an attempt to `overcome' people's sense of alienation from the world.But it is precisely this `divorce' between ourselves and the world that Camus revels in,why he is not an existentialist,closer to Neitschze's nihilism,the self-overcomer. But he wants to live with absurdity not overcome it.

The route Camus takes here is committed to shunning philosophy. He purports to be interested only in whether a certain proposition is livable, not whether it is true. If he were to try to assert his own metaphysical position, if he were to try to claim that such-and-such is the case, he would then be burdened with the responsibility of proving the superiority of his metaphysical position over those of other philosophers. All this is relevant because Camus comes dangerously close to metaphysics when he asserts that the absurd is our fundamental relationship with the world and that our need for reasons and the silence of the universe are the two basic facts of human existence. Camus's essay rests on faith, though faith of a negative kind. Camus is determined to believe that there is no God and that life is meaningless more than he is determined to argue for that meaninglessness. He is not presenting a philosophical system so much as he is diagnosing a certain way of looking at the world.To Camus enduring theworld's absurdity is a metaphysical honour.He posits a metaphysics of non-belief:"Even men without a gospel have their Mount of Olives".

Camus identified with the idea that a personal experience could become a reference point for his philosophical and literary writings. Although he considered himself an atheist, Camus came to the idea that the absence of religious belief can simultaneously be accompanied by a longing for "salvation and meaning".His thesis on neo-platonism at university: for Plotinus, philosophy was not only a matter of abstract speculation but also a way of life and a religion. The devotional nature of Plotinus' s philosophy may be further illustrated by his concept of attaining ecstatic union with the One:he turned reason away from contradiction into the magic of participation. Camus describes the absurd man as `innocent',free of `guilt' and `sin',free according to impulse and desire but not respecting human rationality,living in the present.In The Outsider we get the acte gratuite,in the murder of the Arab. Meursault the model existentialist hero,free from morality. In the absence of a moral code, there is nothing to stop people from behaving in a criminal or harmful manner, but Camus does not take this to be much of a problem, even though perhaps he should .He describes what living with absurdity entails.

The Myth of Sisyphus is beautifully written,metaphor takes the place of syllogism,the aesthetic comes before the ethical.Rather than choose suicide or belief in God,man chooses to live life to the fullest.The only sin against life(not despair of life but hoping for another)is eluding the implacable grandeur of this life.Camus uses reason rather than intellectual argument,can he live simply with just what he knows? Suicide, like hope, is just another way out of this conflict. Living the absurd is more akin to the predicament faced by the man condemned to death yet who, with every breath, revolts against the notion that he must die.The absurd man is determined to reject everything we cannot know with certainty,free from metaphysics,meaning,prejudices and preconceptions,free to think and act as he chooses,taking each moment of life as it strikes him.He wants to live with the certainty he has just now and nothing more.The consequences of living with the certainty that there is no certainty are "revolt,freedom and passion".The revolt without hope is the myth of Sisyphus;free from theconstraints of normal society,living in the present moment(passion).His interest is the art of living,a way of life.The question is does Camus go beyond a use of metaphor,describe a way of life that goes beyond the figurative,are we truly living or just playing a role? The great work has a limpid classical style,a homage showing man's thought is his nostalgia

quickly finished 3 books from Camus (whose books in which I read during college years, but had no idea of)..now getting much better understanding..and it suits me well..life sucks, but just suck it up...Absurdism rules...and both physical suicide and philosophical suicide do not solve the problems at all...

In his first essay, Camus states this paradox: There are those who commit suicide because life isn't worth living, and others do so for an ideal that gives their lives meaning. This is not sociology book on suicide. It's a book about meaning. But what gives life a meaning?

Camus says we are free to impose meaning on an absurd universe. We are free to act, but we are also responsible for our actions. We pay a price for an inauthentic life. We may outwardly succeed, but feel a deadness, or sickness. Only when we have the courage to act (and be entirely responsible for those actions) in accordance with our nature can we have any hope of happiness. Without the courage to act we comply, we act in someone else's drama.

The retelling of Sisyphus is a short essay at the back of the book. Despite Sisyphus's predicament, rolling his rock forever up hill, it is his burden. He has brought it upon himself. He is responsible. Camus imagines Sisyphus as content.

There are excellent customer reviews that describe and summarize the essence and ideas of this book. Camus is one of my favorite writers for many reasons, obviously he is a brilliant thinker and writer, I appreciate his ability to transform profound, abstract and difficult thoughts into poetic yet very clear words that are relevant to our history and contemporary society. What is most impressing to me is his realism, humanity and humility and the lack of pretentiousness/hypocrisy in his writing that make his way of existentialism very appealing and respectable. I also liked the selections of the essays in this book, and felt that they are very well balanced, weaving philosophy, mythology, and personal account/ geography(what incredibly visual/philosophical essays! I could almost breathe the air) and interviews all of which helped to understand the concept of absurdity of existence from different resources. I will definitely read this book again and again..

The Myth of Sysiphus deals with what Camus calls the most important question a philosopher can ask: "is life worth living?" The possitive answer is to continue living, while the negative is to take one's own life. Camus discusses the relation of the "absurd world" to a person's decision to live. He also describes, in some legnth, what he means by the term "absurd world." Basically, he's talking about the world as having no meaning by itself. Man attempts to give meaning to the patterns, and chaos that he sees. So, the absurd is humankind attempting to relate to, and explain an inexplicable existence.
He says that a person (at least those who are willing to think about their world) will inevitably be faced with a situation in which the world seems to become meaningless. This is what brings up the inevitable question... "is life worth living?" Camus comes up with his own answer to this question.
This isn't as accessable as his fictional pieces ( e.g. The Stranger, or the Plague), however, it does give you excellent insight into the philosophies that run throughout his other Novels. So, if you are already a Camus reader, I would highly suggest reading The Myth of Sysiphus --and then reading his other works again. However, if you haven't been exposed to him yet, I would recomend starting with The Stranger before reading this.

This is probably, in my estimation, Albert Camus' greatest work in that it explains in detail some of the similar underlying feelings that appear in some of his other books. On the surface, the book is an investigation into an answer of the question "what for?" posed in the face of what seems as being an absurd and senseless universe. Beneath that, it is a sensitive and well-thought out account through a particularly lucid (although not as bleak as one supposes-- especially if one has negelected Camus in favor of Sartre....) mind...
Camus' would have been a philosophy teacher had not his childhood tuberculosis rendered him incapable of recieving his degree in it in Algeria. He shows how good of one he would have been in this work. I love this book because it comes to a hopeful conclusion in the face of an absolutely terrible world (this book was finished in the middle of WWII-- along with the Rebel and Caligula (plays). It is a definate must-read.... especially for a late high school student or early college student who thinks too much and wonders why (that's when I read it!!!)

You have to read this book. Skim it. Wikipedia it. Whatever. If you ever let your mind wander onto the concepts like the real crux of our existence, that we don't know why we're here,we've never known, and that we're going to die without knowing, then you have to read this book. This is the best book for anyone who has ever contemplated suicide.
I can only say this about three books: "The Picture of Dorian Gray, "Notes From Underground" and "The Myth of Sisyphus."
This book changed my life.

Along with Voltaire, Diderot and Montaigne, Camus ranks as one of the greatest of the "philosopher-essayists". "The Myth of Sisyphus" revolves around the question of suicide, in Camus's view the most important philosophical problem. Can it be justified or not? Camus answers in the negative after presenting the reader with a stunning assembly of sophisticated arguments and observations. The writing is free of the dull, discursive, parenthetical style common to serious "academic" philosophers. It is even free of the rhetorical bombast and the whirling, cataclysmic declarations that characterise Nietzsche, to whom Camus himself is indebted. The prose is masculine, elegant, soulful. An electrifying meditation on absurdity and nihilistic despair, rendered with insight and feeling.

Camus' writing is here illuminated in beautiful translation by Justin O'Brien. What a treat.
If you are interested in existentalism or enjoy reading Satre, Hesse, or that fellow who wrote the bit about Zarathustra, I can very certainly think you'll find this lovely text the cause for hours of quality thinking.
Can I give it a much better recommendation? Sure. I could say that I loved every second of it and agreed with it completely, but that wouldn't be accurate. I will say that I found every paragraph a good reason for thinking hard: it is conceptually dense and resounds with sound logic enriched with a velvet world of asthetic ideas masking bare truth. How very absurd indeed.

After reading "The Myth of Sisyphus", I begin to understand my hero, Robert F. Kennedy better now.

It was during the years after the tragic death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, that Robert was finally free for the first time in his life to struggle to create his own identity and sense of purpose.

In his journey of self examination that followed John's assassination, Robert explored the writings of ancient Greeks, beginning with "The Greek Way" by Edith Hamilton.

But it was in the existentialist writings of Albert Camus that Bobby Kennedy finally found a way of thinking that helped him to make sense of life's absurdities.

For anyone who is facing some difficult or very strange challenges in their life, I strongly recommend a serious look at Albert Camus' writings, beginning with "The Myth of Sisyphus".

It's not optimism, to be sure, but it does help one to make some sense out of troubling times.

I agree with the reviewer below who points out that this collection, especially the title essay, is a great companion for reading The Stranger. My AP English students loved The Stranger, but they got a much clearer idea of what Camus' brand of existentialism was after reading this essay. It sounds like a bizarre concept, but Camus regarded Sisyphus as a hero because every single time he toiled to push the rock up the mountain, there is one brief moment when he reaches the top that he is CONSCIOUS of his task, and in this brief glance downwards, Camus feels that Sisyphus experiences a small degree of something close to hope. This realization defeats the gods who sentenced him because he finds consolation in his struggle. For Camus, it is the struggle that must occupy us. The difference between Sisyphus and a factory worker is that Sisyphus experiences the freedom to think and process what he doing. For Camus, this level of consciousness can free any of us from our everyday lives.
This collection is a must to get a better understanding of The Stranger and other Camus novels and ideas.

Albert Camus made one of his masterpieces essays with this clever and fundamental issue .

The sense of the absurd has few times so merciless , incisive and bitter as in this case .

As one of the legitimate descendents of that huge tree , Fedor Dostoievsky , Camus explores meticulously the esssential facets and describes with supreme maestry the roots of the absurd .

He decides to make a journey where the literature , the history , the philosophy and mythology melt to produce an admirable and superb text .

If you are (as I do) a hard fan of Camus ; do not wait for a second and try to get it as soon as you can .

In my opinion , Camus was the most important ambassador of the existencialism movement . He lived as he wrote ; and that remarkable aspect is a glorious and brave statement of living.

"There is but one truely serious philosophical question and that is suicide." That is the famous first sentence. I think that he should've said there is only one practical question in philosophy and that is suicide; that would have been a fact, rather than a value-judgement. He states his conclusion early, perhaps so no-one gets the wrong idea, which is that recognising the absurdity of life is not a reason to die, but rather a reason to live on freer than before. He condemns the concept of hope as a killer of life, later on, as well as all religious meanings given to life.

I think this book is of most use to those who have recently lost their religion, to those who have lost a loved one and to angst-ridden youths. The central conclusion - that just because life is meaningless does not mean that it is bad - is not something that most people would dispute, but it is rather something that is hard for people to accept emotionally, when you may have had meaning provided for you by religion or by your family beforehand. Camus tries to show quite a diverse way in which life can be affirmed, despite its absurdity; he talks of indulgence in the "Don Juan" section, but then glorifies literature later on. On this point, if you are not familiar with the works of Dostoyevsky, Kafka or the figure of Don Juan, you will not understand the last third of the essay.

Camus makes clear in this book that he is not an existentialist. He calls this attitude "philosophical suicide", as it occurs when reason comes up against its limits and choses to negate itself then [e.g. Kirkegaard with faith, Heidegger with anxiety]. Camus thinks that you should recognise your limits and live within them; this means aiming for quantity of pleasure, rather than quality - a more realistic aim. He is, in my opinion, closer to Schopenhauer [despite the lack of metaphysics] than to the existentialists. He also quotes Nietzsche a lot [so that it gets a bit too annoying, at times], although he does not share Nietzsche's grand idea of conquering everything and showing pity to no-one.

Some have commented that this book is heavy in philosophy. I would say that this is the lightest philosophy gets; it is often classified in a "fiction" section, rather than in "philosophy". Someone also said that the absurdist attitude Camus has leaves no room for morals. That was not what this book is about! That person should look up "The Rebel", where he deals with that issue very profoundly.

One thing I found a short-coming in this book is that there are several complications with the issue of suicide that he does not address. For example, if you live under some totalitarian regime, where you can neither indulge in the excesses of Don Juan nor read the books of Kafka nor write anything creatively, where should the meaning of life lie there? Perhaps, this is when the state is trying to be like a religion and assign a value to life for its citizens. As he says on the first page, "a reason to live is an excellent reason to die". Also, in his treatments of religions, he is rather narrow and does not address the Eastern faiths. Schopenhauer saw them as the best answer to the absurdity of the world. Does not Buddhist calm and meditation provide an alternative, without asking to belief in any meaning of life? I was disappointed that he did not address this.

In The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus retells the archaic Greek myth of a man condemned to futile suffering and a meaningless existence. Sisyphus, cursed by the gods, is forced to push a massive stone up a mountainside for the rest of eternity. Upon reaching the summit, the stone rolls back down, and he must begin the task again. Camus artfully utilizes this mythical allusion to offer an answer to the looming inquiry of whether life is worth living if it is found to be meaningless.

“Does the absurdity (of existence) require one to escape it through hope or suicide?” he asks. In answering this question, he offers an alternative solution. When faced with the meaninglessness of existence, instead of fleeing from it (through suicide), or placating oneself with a false ideal of the future (with hope), we can choose to become conscious of our struggle and the absurdity of life. In doing so, the individual can then create his own meaning and happiness. Sisyphus, who is generally considered cursed and miserable due to the nature of his task, is a hero in Camus’ eyes because he is fully conscious of his task; he is free of any hope and understands that his stone will never stay at the mountaintop. It is with this in mind, that Camus asks us to ‘imagine Sisyphus happy’ and in adhering to this idea of consciousness and an acceptance of the absurd, we too can find happiness in the chaos and struggle of our lives.

As many have suggested, this work is an excellent companion to The Stranger. This philosophical essay can really help to understand elements of his fiction and vice versa. Camus writes beautifully and his text is a rich and thought-provoking read. However, in some areas, his wording can be hard to follow, but as readers we must remember that this is a work translated from French.

Most importantly, I feel this book is very accessible considering the nature of its content. Camus is not writing to anyone in particular, but to the individual and his/her struggle, and in this sense, just about anyone can pick up his book and derive meaning and valuable reflection from it.

In his many theoretical books, Albert Camus tries to answer a question that has bothered him: Whether a human life is worth taking?

In this particular book, he tries to answer the question for a special case - that of suicide.

'The Absrud dictates suicide' is one sentence that echoes throughout the book in various forms. Camus believes that it is the absurdity and meaninglessness of our lives that drives us to suicide.

He compares the absurdity to the myth of the greek hero Sisyphus who was condemned to roll a huge rock uphill for eternity. Camus proceeds to uncover the entire existential psychology of The Absurd, but concludes that one's own life is not worth taking.

He then proceed to demonstrate through a collection of anecdotal essays, how human beings can construct meaning from life. His other essays in the book do give a hint about how to find meaning in life, but may not be persuasive enough for someone too much in the dumps.

The logical connection between his analysis and conclusion is weak, but the analysis is brilliant. And for that reason alone, it is really worth reading.