Camus, in his writings published in the collection ‘The myth of Sisyphus, and other essays’ describes his interpretation of “nausea”, its relationship with suicide, and the meaning of life. His essays discuss absurdity, a concept which is often used by other existentialist writers. Kierkegaard is one of these writers who explored ideas of absurdity. This paper will discuss how Camus argues that suicide is ultimately a “cop out” and how this position is similar to Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith”.
Why does Camus see the question of suicide as the only truly serious philosophical problem? As he states in the preface of ‘an Absurd Reasoning’, “‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ … attempts to resolve the problem of suicide … [its fundamental subject is this]: it is legitimate and necessary to wonder where life has a meaning; therefore it is legitimate to meet the problem of suicide face to face.” When justifying this belief, he uses Galileo as an example, saying that even he was willing to give up what he knew to be the truth for the sake of living longer. He extends this idea by saying that historically, nobody would be willing to die for the sake of a question, and so the question of whether to live or die takes precedence. No matter how deep one's philosophical inquiries are, the decision of life or death is far more pressing because its answer decides whether other questions are worth asking in the first place.
Camus states his answer to the suicide question bluntly: “The answer … is this: even if one does not believe in God, suicide is not legitimate”. He adds that “dying voluntarily implies that you have recognized, even instinctively, the ridiculous character of that habit, the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering”. Although this does give a general idea of what his argument consists of, more explanation is needed.
Camus first states that absurdity is a necessary component of life. After all, he says that “Living, naturally is never easy”. To him, “nausea” (as other writers name it) is derived from the realization of the absurd. In addition, he believes “that there is a direct connection between [the feeling of absurdity] and the longing for death”. Which implies that he believes that by merely cognizing one is condemned to suffer because as a conscious person you are bound to experience absurdity. He believes that “Suicide is a repudiation. The absurd man can only drain everything to the bitter end, and deplete himself.” So it seems like there are two possible options for Camus’ absurd man. Either, one embraces the absurdity and channels it until death, or one succumbs to it and commits suicide. “It is essential to know whether one can live with it or whether, on the other hand, logic commands one to die of it”. To camus, the second option is a blatant confession of failure (a cop out), because one would effectively be renouncing the only thing that makes us true. He writes himself that “... [he refuses] suicide”, and this is exactly what convinces him that suicide is illegitimate because it renounces the truest action we have for ourselves: the voluntary (but difficult) refusal of inherently being “an invitation to death” as a conscious being..
Camus refers to a quote from Nietzsche to support his claim: “It clearly seems that the chief thing in heaven and on earth is to obey at length and in a single direction”. He writes that this “points the way of the absurd man”. We are condemned to an absurd path of resistance just like Sisyphus was condemned to his eternal rock pushing. Although our opportunity, unlike Sisyphus’, lies in the finiteness of our lives.
Kierkegaard’s leap of faith is a theistic commitment to God that uses a renouncement of logic as its core justification. ‘Fear and Trembling’ contains a very clear description that alludes to Genesis 22, in which Abraham, a father, prepares to sacrifice his son Isaac at God’s command. Abraham does not question God and ignores the ethical implications of this request due to his unquestioning faith. Despite doing what would seem logical, namely not to sacrifice his son, especially because performing such an action is shunned by God himself, Abraham is eventually rewarded by God for his unwavering faith. Because Abraham’s teleological suspension of the ethical lead him to the best possible outcome, Kierkegaard believes that in order to find truth, a certain illogical circularity in thought is needed.
Camus definitely uses similar moves to bring his argument against suicide across. He asks if “[there is] a logic to the point of death” and suggests answering it with “the reasoning of which [he is] here suggesting the source … absurd reasoning.”. Just like Kierkegaard, Camus willingly uses recursive reasoning despite its illogical nature to find the true answer which would otherwise be hidden behind the veil of absurdity (which inevitably arises from a rigorous logical analysis). He writes that “The theme of the irrational, as it is conceived by the existentials, is reason becoming confused and escaping by negating itself. The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits.” So, Camus performs a leap of faith to overcome the limits of lucid reason because he is satisfied with the cyclical notion that living is necessary because the contrary would be a renouncement of the only certainty we have: being.
Although both of these authors commit similar argumentative moves to push their views, there are still some very clear differences. Most noticeably, Camus does not attribute his “existential leap” (as he calls it) to God. Quite to the contrary, he prefers to keep theism completely out of the picture in order to solidify his argument independent of any religious inclinations. Kierkegaard, on the other hand, justifies his violation of logic with a higher power. Another difference between these two leaps is their specificity. Kierkegaard only really accepts the use of absurd reasoning when it is for faith related reasons. Camus on the other hand, seems to be pointing out more generally that logic has limitations that will prevent us from reaching the true answer. After all, that assumption is vital to justify his argument. So, it seems that Camus’ use of absurd reasoning is more demanding than Kierkegaard’s insofar that it is a general rule instead of a commitment to one specific absurdity.
One can see that Camus takes careful steps to justify his anti-suicide views. He defines absurdity and its emotional relationship to people. Then he justifies the natural desire for suicide and suggests a viewpoint that interprets this human condition as an opportunity. By employing a “leap of faith”, similar (but also different) to the one described by Kierkegaard in “Fear and Trembling”, Camus makes a philosophical argument that prima-facie justifies the illegitimacy of suicide.
This is great Martin, I'm actually reading 'the Myth of Sisiphus' at the moment and are going to incorporate it in an article soon. Great to see someone posting so much on philosophy. Thanks