The Logic of Camus' Cogito

An Analysis of the Logical Consequences of the Absurd in The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel

As is evident in the course of Camus' endeavor in The Myth of Sisyphus, the Absurd functions as his cogito. Perhaps one of his most succinct and precise explications of the notion of the Absurd defines it as: "…that divorce between the mind that desires and the world that disappoints, my nostalgia for unity, this fragmented universe and the contradiction that binds them together."3 Thus, the Absurd represents a relation between humans and the world that they inhabit. It is the ultimate disproportion between what humans demand of the world and what the world provides in response. Humans demand rational clarity and understanding with respect to the world, while the world is a brute, silent fact that fails to respond to the human craving for rational explanations of it. As he claims, the world is fundamentally irrational.4 Instead, humans are forced to formulate responses to their own metaphysical questions.

The notion of the Absurd also serves as Camus' cogito because it is presented as an apodictic certainty. He first maintains

:I can negate everything of that part of me that lives on vague nostalgias, except this desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion. I can refute everything in this world surrounding me, except this chaos, this sovereign chance and this divine equivalence which springs from anarchy.5

This mental whittling down to that which is indubitable is reminiscent of Descartes' employment of methodical doubt. In other words, Camus finds that human nature is grounded in the desire for rational explanation and clarity. This is undeniable, since, in concurrence with the Greeks, he maintains that humans are rational animals; the insatiable appetite for clarity and rational understanding is a fundamental aspect of their constitution.

Furthermore, the world will always remain foreign to humans. There is a sense in which the world negates and alienates humans because they cannot and will not ever truly understand it, since, as Camus asserts: "Understanding the world for a man is reducing it to the human, stamping it with his seal."6 However, as mentioned, the world is irrational, and therefore refuses to be reduced to the level of the human understanding. Thus, humans are continually negated by the world.

Of these certainties, namely, that humans crave rational clarity with respect to the world and that the world is fundamentally irrational, Camus contends: "And these two certainties- I also know that I cannot reconcile them."7 Thus, the Absurd is the divorce or disproportion between humans and the world that is born of the impossibility of their reconciliation. Hence, it is "not in man…nor in the world, but in their presence together."8 After explicating the notion of the Absurd, Camus formulates the fundamental question of The Myth of Sisyphus as a question of whether the Absurd dictates physical suicide.9 By the end of the essay, he concludes that this is not, in fact, a logical consequence of the Absurd.

Camus provides two lines of reasoning in support of this first conclusion; one concerns the formal structure of the Absurd as a relation between humans and world while the other speaks to the nihilist who erroneously posits a direct connection between the concept of refusing to grant a meaning to life and the notion of declaring that it is not worth living. It is also important to note that Camus distinguishes between philosophical suicide and physical suicide.10 In his conclusion that the Absurd does not dictate suicide, he speaks solely of physical suicide, since he believes that instances of philosophical suicide abound, most notably in the thought of the existentialist philosophers who precede him.

Because the Absurd exists as a relation between humans and the world, the elimination of either component effectively annihilates the Absurd. As Camus maintains: "The irrational, the human nostalgia, and the absurd that is born of their encounter-these are the three characters in the drama."11 Because physical suicide destroys the human component in this drama, the relation between human and world can no longer exist once suicide is committed. As he expresses the same point somewhat differently: "The absurd depends as much on man as on the world"12 The elimination of one of these terms is tantamount to the destruction of the Absurd. However, the Absurd serves as his only premise. Hence, the logic of the Absurd does not dictate suicide, since suicide negates the sole premise from which Camus directs his investigation. As he declares early in his inquiry: "For me the sole datum is the absurd."13 Thus, since the conclusion of the legitimacy of suicide would negate the premise of his argument, it must not serve as a logical consequence of the Absurd. Thus, the Absurd does not dictate physical suicide.

An auxiliary line of reasoning employed by Camus in support of his first conclusion concerns the fallacious positing of a direct connection between the notion that life possesses no meaning and the notion that life is not worth living. As Camus maintains: "In truth, there is no necessary common measure between these two judgments."14 He concedes that one commits suicide when life is no longer worth living. However, he claims, it does not follow from this that life possesses no meaning. Even if the connection between the two aforementioned judgments is seen as a hypothetical "if-then" statement, then the truth of the consequent, namely, that life is not worth living, does not, logically speaking, necessarily lead to the truth of the antecedent.

Regardless, Camus is not even concerned with the notion of a transcendent meaning of life, as he confesses in a moment of Socratic humility: "I don't know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible just now to know it."15 Thus, according to Camus, even if life possesses no transcendent meaning, it does not follow that one should commit suicide. Thus, he refutes the purported connection between the antecedent and consequent of the hypothetical statement presented above. Indeed, he claims, the truth of the antecedent in this statement does not affirm the truth of the consequent, so, logically, the hypothetical statement is erroneous in itself. Ultimately, Camus will conclude that one cannot expect such a transcendent meaning to reveal itself to humans in their lives. Instead, one must actively create meaning in one's own life. The preceding two lines of argument serve to justify Camus' first conclusion that suicide is not a logical consequent of the Absurd. Instead, he asserts that humans must live and, more specifically, that they must live in rebellion.

Camus discusses the concept of rebellion in myriad places throughout both The Myth of Sisyphus and The Rebel. For all intents and purposes, he seems to identify the concept of rebellion and the concept of revolt. He asserts that revolt is "one of the only coherent philosophical positions"16 In other words, rebellion is the mode in which he thinks humans must live if they are to live in terms of the Absurd. For Camus, the Absurd retains meaning only insofar as one does not consent to it.17 An appropriation of the Absurd is tantamount to a destruction of it. Thus, if one is to live in terms of the Absurd, although not in acceptance of it, one must live in rebellion.

Camus captures this sense of a living in recognition of, but not in acceptance of, the Absurd that characterizes rebellion by claiming: "…revolt is the certainty of a crushing fate, without the resignation that ought to accompany it."18 Thus, one does not become resigned to the Absurd, since resignation indicates an act of acceptance. He presents a somewhat different, although related, conception of rebellion in The Rebel: "Human insurrection, in its exalted and tragic forms, is only, and can only be, a prolonged protest against death, a violent accusation against the universal death penalty."19 In other words, a rebel recognizes the finitude of humans, thereby acknowledging the death sentence hovering over all humans, while simultaneously living in protest.

Camus reveals the particular sense in which one lives in protest by maintaining: "The rebel obstinately confronts a world condemned to death and the impenetrable obscurity of the human condition with his demand for life and absolute clarity."20 The obscurity of the human condition of which he speaks refers to the impossibility of possessing rational clarity with respect to the world and the inability to feel comfortable or "at home" in the world as a human. However, in spite of this, the rebel lives in protest and demands clarity, while simultaneously being cognizant of the futility of attempting to achieve such clarity. The act of rebellion confers a certain value to life, since the rebel lives in protest and aims to "defend what he is."21 Thus one protests because one identifies something in oneself that is worth preserving. This recognition, however, soon leads to the realization that, once life is recognized as good or worth living, it becomes so for all humans.22 Once one identifies oneself with other humans, rebellion seeks to defend what humans are, not solely what the rebel is. It is from this position that Camus broaches the question of the legitimacy of murder in terms of the Absurd.

Ultimately, he renounces the possibility that murder is a logical consequence of the Absurd. One line of reasoning he employs in support of this second conclusion is the recognition that, "an act of rebellion is not, essentially, an egoistic act."23 There is a certain identification of oneself with the larger community of humankind implicit in an act of rebellion. There is a recognition of commonality with other humans, in which the rebel realizes that suffering pervades the human condition. Thus, the rebel realizes that all humans, rather than solely the one who rebels, are overwhelmed and negated by the "strangeness of things."24 Rebellion therefore gives rise to a sense of human solidarity. This awareness of solidarity develops from every act of rebellion, even if the cognizance of commonality with other humans is transitory.25 Thus, the Absurd does not dictate murder for the reason that one who lives in terms of the Absurd lives in rebellion, and, when one rebels, one identifies oneself with other humans. The feeling of the Absurd that Camus explicates in The Myth of Sisyphus, which includes a sense of alienation from the dense, incomprehensible world, is shared by all humans.26 Thus, since the Absurd dictates that one must live and, more importantly, must live in rebellion, and the act of rebellion leads to an identification of the rebel with other humans, murder is not legitimate in terms of the Absurd.

Camus expands his reasoning in support of his second conclusion by contending that the question of the possibility of sanctioning murder is inextricably tethered to the question of the possibility of legitimating suicide. As he asserts:

…if we deny that there are reasons for suicide, we cannot claim that there are grounds for murder. …Absurdist reasoning cannot defend the continued existence of its spokesman and, simultaneously, accept the sacrifice of others' lives.27                                                                                                                                                                                       

Again, this returns to the fundamental recognition of a sense of solidarity with other humans. While the Absurd dictates that one must live, it also dictates that one is not justified in murdering a fellow human being; the life of that human being is also affirmed by the Absurd. Thus, in a certain sense, rebellion asserts a human nature, namely, the insatiable desire for rational clarity and understanding of a world that continually negates humans. Ultimately, rebellion demands unity, since, "to understand is, above all, to unify."28 More importantly, an act of rebellion is a demand for unity despite the impossibility of its attainment. One rebels in the name of a recognition of the existence of this common nature in all humans. That is, one who rebels identifies oneself with all of humankind. Thus, if one murders a single human being, one contradicts the principle of a human solidarity or community upon which rebellion operates. Hence, murder does not serve as a legitimate consequence of the Absurd.

Camus proceeds in his investigation to distinguish between three forms of rebellion: metaphysical, historical, and artistic. The third significant conclusion that he draws from the logic of the Absurd is that artistic rebellion is the only authentic form of rebellion in which one can live. The basis of the reasoning that leads to this conclusion lies in the fact that both metaphysical and historical rebellion ultimately lead to the sanctioning of murder.

Regarding metaphysical rebellion, he claims that absolute affirmation and absolute negation are both forms of destruction. While absolute negation in metaphysical rebellion is characterized by a renunciation of all that exists, absolute affirmation blindly accepts everything that exists. Consequently, the former concludes that murder is a matter of indifference, since nothing is meaningful, while the latter "says yes" to everything, including murder.29 In either case, murder is sanctioned. However, there is a sense in which authentic rebellion says "yes and no simultaneously."30 In other words, the rebel does not engage in absolute affirmation or absolute negation, both of which result in the legitimating of murder. Of these two positions, Camus asserts: "…in both cases it ends in murder and loses the right to be called rebellion."31 Thus, metaphysical rebellion inevitably ends in revolution. However, Camus maintains a sharp distinction between revolution and rebellion.32 When rebellion leads to revolution, it can no longer be properly regarded as rebellion.

The distinction that Camus maintains is that revolution destroys, while rebellion creates. One can already begin to see why he prizes artistic rebellion as the most authentic or pure form of rebellion. First it is requisite to examine why he rejects historical rebellion as a genuine form of rebellion. As is the case with metaphysical rebellion, historical rebellion ultimately ends in revolution, for the historical rebel engages in acts of destruction and sanctions murder in order to replace an existing authority with a new power.33 Thus, both metaphysical and historical rebellions inevitably sanction murder. However, as murder is not a logical consequence of the Absurd, the life of the artistic rebel must reveal how one is to most authentically live as a rebel, in terms of the Absurd.

It is the artist who discerns a privation of certain things in the world and attempts to recreate the world in acts of creation. As Camus asserts:

In every rebellion is to be found the metaphysical demand for unity, the impossibility of capturing it, and the construction of a substitute universe. Rebellion, from this point of view, is a fabricator of universes. This also defines art.34                                                                                                                                                                                    

However, the artist does not engage in philosophical suicide; the artist recreates, but does not attempt to replace, the existing world. As analogous to his examination of absolute affirmation and absolute negation in metaphysical rebellion, Camus concludes that realism and formalism in art do not characterize artistic rebellion, for the former exalts reality while the latter completely rejects reality, just as absolute affirmation accepts reality and absolute negation rejects it.35 Thus, Camus' partiality to the Aristotelian notion of a mean between extremes becomes evident in the course of his investigation.

In fact, he explicitly claims that rebellion in itself is moderation.36 He asserts that the formal artist cannot dispense with reality while the realist artist cannot exhaustively and perfectly represent it. In other words, the realist must concede the existence of some degree of interpretation of reality, while the formal artist must admit the derivation of something from the exterior world in his or her acts of creation.37 Thus, the true artistic rebel neither completely consents to reality nor entirely rejects it. Perhaps most importantly, Camus posits artistic rebellion as the most pure form of rebellion because it creates, rather than destroys. As mentioned, according to Camus, rebellion that ends in destruction can no longer be referred to as rebellion.

Because the Absurd refutes the legitimacy of suicide and murder, and because the purest form of rebellion in which one can live is artistic rebellion, the logic of the Absurd is ultimately a logic of creation rather than a logic of destruction. It is important to note that Camus does not claim that the logic of the Absurd is solely a logic of creation, but, instead that this serves as its most profound logic.38 Thus, he finally formulates the only original rule of life dictated by the Absurd: "to learn to live and to die, and, in order to be a man, to refuse to be a god."39 This dictum that is to govern one's life must be disassembled and each of its parts must be scrutinized in turn so that one can fully appreciate the inspiring power it offers humans to be able to live in terms of the Absurd.

The first part of this rule that must be examined is the phrase "to live" What is not expressed in this phrase is certainly implicit in it-to live, for Camus, is to live in terms of the Absurd. It has been shown that the Absurd dictates that one live, rather than commit suicide. In other words, to live is to live in rebellion and in protest against death. Furthermore, according to him, life is essentially activity. As he expresses it, "to live is also to act."40 It is impossible to simply become resigned to the Absurd, for resignation implies an act of acceptance. As mentioned, the Absurd only continues to possess meaning if one does not consent to it.

Camus presents a separate explication of the essence of living in The Myth of Sisyphus: "Being aware of one's life, one's revolt, one's freedom, and to the maximum, is living, and to the maximum."41 Thus, he gives great priority to the concept of consciousness and awareness in one's life. Thus, Sisyphus must be imagined happy because he is cognizant of the fact that he controls his own fate. Although the gods have condemned him to a life of ceaseless toil, it is Sisyphus alone who must discover and create meaning in his life. The gods have no control over this aspect of him. However, because mastery of one's fate must be seen as tantamount to happiness, Sisyphus controls what is of supreme importance-the determination of meaning in his life. As mentioned, Camus confesses that the possibility of a transcendent meaning of life remains unknowable. Thus, it is humans who must actively create meaning in their lives, living in terms of the Absurd.

Immediately following the imperative "to live" is the equally crucial phrase "to die" Camus captures the meaning of this phrase in The Myth of Sisyphus: "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."42 Thus, it is important to remember that to live in rebellion is to live in protest of, but not in renunciation of, the death sentence of humans. Certainly, it is undeniable that humans are all condemned to death. However, by no means are they to fall into such despair over this realization that they commit suicide due to the recognition of the inevitability of death, since suicide is not a logical consequence of the Absurd. Nor are they to placate themselves by committing philosophical suicide and deluding themselves into believing in an eternal life after death. Camus captures the meaning of the phrase "to die perfectly" in his notion that one is to die "unreconciled."

The latter part of the rule, namely, "in order to be a man, refuse to be a god," must be examined as a whole. The sentence preceding the declaration of the original rule of life asserts that to be deified is to possess the unlimited power to inflict death.43 However, one of the major conclusions of the Absurd is that it does not sanction murder. Thus, in this sense, humans must refuse to be deified.

If humans were gods, then they would theoretically be omnipotent and, thus, capable of eradicating all suffering and evil in the world. Instead, Camus asserts that humans can only hope to "diminish arithmetically" the suffering that pervades the world.44 Thus, Dostoevsky's perspicacious insight in The Brothers Karamazov, namely that suffering is a metaphysical fact rather than a problem that humans must attempt to rationally solve or eradicate, returns to assume critical importance in Camus' thought. Camus proceeds further with the argument and claims:

But if man were capable of introducing unity into the world entirely on his own, if he could establish the reign…of sincerity, innocence, and justice, he would be God Himself. Equally, if he could accomplish all this, there would be no more reasons for rebellion.45                                                                                                                                         

However, humans are clearly incapable of introducing such unity in the world as would eradicate evil and suffering.

Thus, to live in rebellion as a human and not as a god is to constantly bear in mind the fact of one's finitude. The act of rebellion precisely recognizes and protests the death sentence of humans. This is why, for Camus, rebellion is a protest against death. The rebel stands "crushed between human evil and destiny."46 In other words, the rebel stands between the suffering and inequities in the world and the universal death sentence of humans. From such a position, one must attempt to save as many humans from murder as possible. If humans were capable of saving everyone from evil and suffering, they would be deemed gods. As they are not, they must provide their greatest effort in trying to decrease suffering in the world. Thus, what it means to live as a human is to be cognizant of one's finitude and, therefore, to refuse to be a god.

Camus' assertion that to live is to act asserts the primacy of living in terms of the Absurd by living in rebellion. As rebellion is a protest against the universal human death sentence, the life of the rebel is a life of impassioned activity. The most authentic rebel lives in artistic rebellion, engaging in acts of ephemeral creation.47 Thus, for Camus, absurdist art is art that values and exhibits process rather than art that reveals an obvious concern with the construction of a finished product that will endure permanently. The authentic artistic rebel creates, fully aware that the creation is merely ephemeral and only meaningful for the duration of its construction.

Camus repeatedly asserts that he simply wants to proceed in his inquiries on the basis of what he knows.48 Thus, concern with the notion of a transcendent meaning of life has no place in the life of the rebel. Instead, one creates meaning in his or her own life through a passionate and active engaging of life. As promised in the prefatory remarks to his investigation, Camus has provided humans with "the means to proceed beyond nihilism."49 The logic of the Absurd indeed affirms life and creation, even amidst meaninglessness.  

                Endnotes