In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus interprets the question of the meaning of life as the question of whether it is possible to find a rational ground for continuing to live. His phrasing of the meaning question is this: does not finding a meaning for life entail that one commit suicide. He gives as one example of a character who said yes, Kirilov in Dostoevsky's The Possessed. Kirilov kills himself because he can't find a reason for living. So far, so good. But Camus makes a further move that is not always appreciated, a more subtle one. He challenges, in effect, the tacit key assumption that underlies Kirilov's decision, namely that the burden of proof rests on the decision to live. Perhaps we should not be asking for a reason for living, but rather a reason for dying. But going even beyond that, he points out that the Kirilovian thinking rests on the further assumption that living requires a reason, a justification, a defense. Camus denies this key assumption.
Much has been made of Camus' admiration for Kafka's The Trial, and justifiably so. The Trial is arguably the inspiration of The Stranger and sets the agenda for Camus in his essay, The Myth of Sisyphus. Kafka's Joseph K. is on trial for an unnamed offense. This is a clear representation of the framework of Western "meaning of life" thinkers: just as Joseph K. must defend himself against an unnamed charge, they accept that man must also find a "meaning" to defend his continuing to live just as if he were on trial. The view that life is something that must be justified is deeply rooted in Christianity itself, where it is completely evident in the doctrine of original sin. Every man is born not only charged, but already found guilty.
It is against the background of Joseph K. and his trial that we must interpret Camus when he writes that he wants to approach these puzzles using only what he himself clearly knows and understands, and that is limited to this: I exist and I am innocent.
But note how deep and important the second conjunct is: I am innocent.
A person who is innocent is not in need of a defense, not in need of a justification, not in need of a meaning. Searching for a meaning of life is to treat life itself as some kind of metaphysical offense that is tolerable only if it can be defended by appeal to some kind of transcendental justification.
Camus has not accepted the view that living needs a defense.
And while death does not need justification, defense, or meaning, it does need to be denied, rejected, and fought. Death is the ultimate enemy.
Dear Dad, perhaps I can shed some light on the question at hand. You see, I have some experience in both justification and rejection. To Camus' assertion, 'I exist and I am innocent', I would offer the following: I exist, I eat, I sleep, I bill ... and so, I hope, that those in search of meaning may now see clearly, innocent or guilty, that they shall find it in billing. M.
ReplyDeleteYes, you're quite right, and it is probably the case that had Camus had the ability to bill, he would not have written all of his dreary European "what-does-it-all-mean" stuff. You have something here, maybe a book ...
ReplyDelete