PEREY, Patricia Jane L.

2012-02250

Albert Camus
The writer Albert Camus was born on November 7, 1913, in Mondovi, a small village near the
seaport city of Bon (present-day Annaba) in the northeast region of French Algeria. He was the
second child of Lucien Auguste Camus, a military veteran and wine-shipping clerk, and of
Catherine Marie Cardona, a house-keeper and part-time factory worker.
Albert Camus earned a worldwide reputation as a novelist and essayist and won the Nobel Prize
for literature in 1957. Though his writings, and in some measure against his will, he became the
leading moral voice of his generation during the 1950's. Camus died at the height of his fame, in
an automobile accident near Sens, France on January 4, 1960.
Camus is a writer. He never called himself as a philosopher. Unlike Heidegger and Sartre, for
example, he showed very little interest in metaphysics and ontology (which seems to be one of
the reasons he consistently denied that he was an existentialist). In short, he was not into
speculative philosophy or any kind of abstract theorizing. His thought is often related to current
events (e.g., the Spanish War, revolt in Algeria) and is always grounded in down-to-earth moral
and political reality.
His interest in philosophy was almost exclusively moral in character. Camus came to the
conclusion that none of the speculative systems of the past could provide and positive guidance
for human life or any guarantee of the validity of human value.
Camus also concluded that suicide is the only serious philosophical problem. He asks whether it
makes any sense to go on living once the meaninglessness of human life is fully understood.
However, unlike other philosophers, Camus seems uninterested in finding out the motives and
justifications for suicide. Indeed he seems interested in the problem only to the extent that it
represents one possible response to the Absurd. His verdict on the matter is unqualified and clear:
the only courageous and morally valid response to the Absurd is to continue living. Suicide is
not an option.

Simply accept the absurdity, or better yet to embrace it, and to continue living. Since the absurd
in his view is an unavoidable, indeed defining, characteristic of the human condition, the only
proper response to it is full, unflinching, courageous acceptance. Life, he says, can be lived, all
the better if it has no meaning.
Although he was often considered as an existentialist, Camus had his own way of thinking and
often disagreed with many existentialist thinkers An example is the mythical Sisyphus of Camus
philosophical essay. Doomed to forever to push at his rock, fully conscious of the hopelessness
of his fate, Sisyphus nevertheless pushes on. He is Camus prime example of the spirit of revolt
and of the human condition. To rise each day to fight a battle you know youll never win, and to
do this with wit, grace, compassion for others, is to face the Absurd in a spirit of true heroism.
Camus is often classified as an existentialist writer, and it is easy to see why. He aims at nothing
less than a thorough, candid exegesis of the human condition, and like them he exhibits not just a
philosophical attraction but also a personal commitment to such values as individualism, free
choice, inner strength, authenticity, personal responsibility, and self-determination.
However, Camus actively challenged and set himself apart from the existentialists. Ultimately,
against Sartre in particular and existentialists in general, he held to his belief in a common
human nature. In his view, human existence necessarily includes an essential core element of
dignity and value, and in this respect he seems surprisingly closer to the humanist tradition from
Aristotle to Kant than to the modern tradition of scepticism and relativism from Nietzsche to
Derrida (the latter his fellow-countryman and, at least in his commitment to human rights and
opposition to the death penalty, his spiritual successor and descendant).
Camus says, The workman of today works everyday of his life at the same task and his fate is
no less absurd". People today work hard at trying to get ahead and maintain their standards of
living. All these people experience moments of consciousness during which they make crucial
decisions for their lives. Some people decide at this moment that the glass is half-empty. Life
is difficult and it just won't ever get any better. They may take on a negative attitude towards
their future. While on the other hand others decide, just as Sisyphus that the glass is really halffull they will continue to live life the fullest extent and enjoy all it has to offer no matter what

the

obstacles

they

incur.

Camus also states that there is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn. While this
approach worked for Sisyphus I tend to disagree that it would be a viable option for people
today. Let us even set aside, for a moment, the fact that Sisyphus rejects god. But to carry such
hatred on your heart is a horrible way to live since in the process your own heart will become
hardened.
Another important point to consider is that many today consciously choose to forgive when faced
with a traumatic experience. For example a family loses a child in a car accident involving a
drunk driver. Naturally, the family will grieve the loss of the loved one. They will possibly not
even be able to make any good sense of such tragedy but instead of harbouring hate for the
person who committed the act they instead find a way in their heart to forgive.
Often out of these senseless tragedies we even get groups to fight against this sort of thing
happening to others such as the EDSA revolution. When a person is faced with these types of
situations one must have God in order to get through. This is why for many modern people
rejecting God would not be the choice they would make when faced with adversity. Instead many
would choose to seek him during these times for help on coming to terms with the tragedy they
face.