Camus and Feinberg on Absurdity of Human Condition Essay

Introduction

The human condition has been a topic of discussion among philosophers from the very beginning of the development of philosophy as a discipline examining reality and existence. There are multiple theories in regard to the drivers that trigger specific actions and thoughts, influences that impact individuals, and the general nature of the human being. Moreover, the term absurdity is often used as an illustration of the human perception of the world. After the concept of absurdity was established, thinkers were willing to explore how people either embrace the absurdity or overcome it. A contrast can be highlighted when analyzing Camus’ and Feinberg’s views on the absurdity of the human condition. The philosophers, while having similar stands on agreeing that absurdity is a major characteristic of existence, differ based on their explanation of the concept itself as well as how people deal with this phenomenon.

Absurdity

The definition of absurdity can be highlighted as an unreasonable phenomenon, thought, desire, or action that has no meaning. Thus, a person’s desire to be in complete control of their lives or strictly follow plans that largely depend on circumstances is absurd since specific processes and changes cannot be predicted due to human factors that are impacted by irrationality or the general entropy of the world. Hence, the world can be classified as ridiculous since many questions remain unanswered, and an endless pursuit of meaning or purpose is never going to be fulfilled. The two authors differ based on their stands on absurdity yet agree on the significance of the concept from the perspective of human nature.

Camus on Absurdity

While Camus makes allusions to the rather pessimistic explanations of the absurdity of the world and the human condition, he personally approaches the dilemma from an optimistic perspective. In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus summarizes the concept of the absurd and the realization of its existence as the encounter with the reality that the world is irrational. Through the example of Sisyphus, he illustrates the protagonist’s clash with the absurd: “when the images of earth cling too tightly to memory when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy rises in man’s heart” (Camus, 2018, p. 74). The philosopher’s stand on the notion refers to the fact that life has no meaning, yet the absurd humans still want to find it. Moreover, the realization that there is a need for an answer is not intrinsic, meaning that it is related to internal identity and thought, and appears after a chain of meaningless events.

One goes through life without feeling conscious before, “but one day the “why” arises, and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement” (Camus, 2018, p. 69). Thus, individuals become absurd in seeking an explanation or a purpose from an indifferent cosmos. In Camus’s assessment, alienation is the result of the loss of what is the authentic self and can manifest in the world as social alienation, mental illness, crime, or even a general disappointment in the circumstances of reality. Death poses a similar dilemma with its inevitability creating a sense of uncertainty and dread in regard to the future. In Camus’ (2018) own words, the “divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity” (p. 67). Camus specifically states that consciousness is not a negative aspect of the human mind, yet what follows highlights people’s solutions to having a question without an answer. The rebellion that occurs is not the result of the world being absurd, but the conscious realization of this fact as the environment did not change, and only its perception did.

The absurdity of the human condition, as a result, is the reaction to the irrational events one is subjected to or a witness to in the world. The consciousness of the self realizes that the newly acquired void is to be filled, and the two solutions that Camus exemplifies are “suicide or recovery” (Camus, 2018, p. 69). By recovery, the individual should embrace the unpredictable world and the hopelessness of looking for answers and making changes to manage the emptiness. Suicide, on the other hand, is an illustration of a situation in which a person thinks they have found the meaning and lost it. This is a contradiction since the dilemma of life’s purpose does not have a solution. Suicide is a type of squandering of life, essentially a falsified response to the absurdity of reality and not an honest comprehension. According to Camus (2018), the Niezhcean conclusion that those who had chosen “suicide were assured of the meaning of life” was full of constant contradictions (p. 68). This is, again, a reference to the absurdity of the human condition. Rebellion is a recurring theme in Camus’s work, both as an internal response to the question of the absurd and in a larger societal sense. The rebellion consists of the process in which identity, choice, and realizations are formulated despite their nature being vain and hopeless in the grand scheme of existential authenticity. Overall, suicide and denial of the absurd are direct antheses to the rebellion suggested by Camus.

Feinberg on Absurdity

Feinberg explains absurdity in numerous different definitions. The philosopher mentions specific synonyms for absurdity such as disharmony, palpable untruthfulness, disharmony, and triviality (Feinberg, 2018, p. 147). Feinberg does agree with the overall perception of the absurd that Camus presents but contributes to the theme through individual examples that influence the daily lives of individuals. For Feinberg, absurdity correlates with one’s perception of life. An example would be a person looking at the life of an animal whose only purpose is leaving offspring behind so that the species does not go extinct. Though this may seem foreign at first glance, humans are not that different from animals according to Feinberg. After all, survival mirrors work and the passing of wealth or other resources to future generations.

An individual may deem their life’s purpose as trivial and meaningless, yet absurdity is not a concept that animals comprehend. Hence, they achieve self-fulfillment, which is by definition what constitutes their nature. The same concept can be applied to human beings, as Feinberg explains. Feinberg’s argument provides that human lives are objectively meaningless and are absurd from the vantage point of a broader reality. However, in his work, he determines that self-fulfillment is not null even in lives based on the absurd. As the author highlights, “my good is something peculiarly mine, as determined by my nature alone” (Feinberg, 2018, p. 170). Thus, the fulfillment that correlates with a particular way of life does not comprehend the severity of absurdity since one’s desires dictated by the nature of that person are fulfilled. Such examples may be attributed to hobbies that individuals have, and while they are not financially and skill-wise effective most of the time, the person enjoying them is self-fulfilled and does not perceive them as absurd.

Self-Fulfillment

The concept of self-fulfillment may be attributed to one’s goal achievement, feeling of importance, and an overall purpose that a person finds. However, the two philosophers have different approaches to what self-fulfillment constitutes and how one may achieve it. Feinberg’s primary argument against Camus’ solution of rebellion is limited and romanticized, its results are insufficient when contrasted with the magnitude of the absurd. Camus sees existence and identity as a rebel from a more optimistic perspective. It is found in awareness, revolt, the consciousness of one’s freedom, and the realization that specific goals that are intrinsic can never be achieved (Feinberg, 2018, p. 151). Thus, a sense of rebellion or the realization of the absurd is achieved through rationalization and contemplation, which implies a sense of suffering and responsibility for one’s life.

The position, however, implies that each is to leave the comfort of the routine walls to find discomfort in the realization of a lack of universal truth, except for the concept of a meaningless cosmos. The perspective correlates with the idea that each person is to fight against absurdity through the complete awareness of the irrational and the meaninglessness of most human pursuits. In fact, it is central to Camus’ interpretation of rebellion and ascertaining the self despite the futility of such an action. Essentially, Camus acknowledges that the attainment of purpose and then relishing in the present reality, only as a form of rebellion to live in spite of its meaninglessness, does not negate the absurd but may suggest happiness.

Feinberg, on the other hand, believes self-fulfillment is based on the accomplishment of specific goals and objectives that are appropriate based on the person’s nature and potentialities. In order to better understand the disagreement in Feinberg and Camus’ works, it is essential to remark on the idea of ‘non-absurdity’ explained by Feinberg. Essentially, the existence of the absurd hints at the potential of the non-absurd but it is something that “one cannot even describe: and is not “very informative” (Feinberg, 2018, p. 155). Essentially, Feinberg perceives the rebellion to be a stand-in for a form of the ‘non-absurd’ which does not suffice to truly combat the irrationality of the world. The rebellion outlined by Camus, the feeling of awe in regards to certain components of life that may contribute to the formation of a rebellion, are inherent “materials for an argument for human absurdity” according to Feinberg (Feinberg, 2018, p. 156). Still, fulfillment remains viable, simply not as a response to the absurd but as a form of existence in it. Feinberg cites numerous examples including beauty, the love of nature, and even personal evolvement through self-respect and the existential spirit as seen in Sisyphus.

Personal Overview

Feinberg’s approach to absurdity and self-fulfillment appears to be more universally applied since the philosopher considers each person’s subjective way of living and maintaining a sense of happiness and purpose. While Camus believes a person’s purpose is intrinsically wanting to make a difference on a significant scale and attaining immortality, which can never be achieved, Feinberg gives people an opportunity to find individual objectives which they can fulfill as long as circumstances are advantageous. Thus, each person has a different way of looking at life and realizing personal goals. Instead of adopting a universal perspective on the human quest to find meaning, Feinberg talks about nature and how appealing to it creates self-fulfillment. The philosopher mentions, “I have self-love for myself when I accept my nature as given” (Feinberg, 2018, p. 171). A personal example that can illustrate the idea is feeding one homeless person. This did not solve the problem of homelessness and did not help on a global scale in terms of solving the food crisis. However, the action has brought me self-fulfillment and a sense of accomplishment. While absurd, an effort that feeds one’s nature helps progress from the perspective of goal accomplishment. As a result, Camus’ stands are less universally applied, which is why Feinberg appears to be more inclusive in his overview of the absurdity of human nature.

Conclusion

Both Camus and Feinberg agree on the idea that life is relatively absurd. However, the philosophers differ based on their approaches to the phenomenon of absurdity. While Camus suggests a rebellion that begins with self-awareness and leads to the embracing of the reality of human nature being absurd, Feinberg has what can be seen as a less romanticized overview. From his perspective, each person has a different way of maintaining self-fulfillment. While one’s way of life may seem absurd, if the actions are based on the nature of the individuals, the absurdity can take on a more neutral and less detrimental, and hopeless nature. Thus, Feinberg’s approach can be applied to every human being as each person has a different perception of what is important and contributes to the mission of living while recognizing the absurd. As a result, absurdity, and meaning can have a symbiotic relationship, the search for meaning is a direct response to the encounter with the irrational. In reverse, the attainment of a personal meaning occurs as a result of coming face to face with the absurd. Whether the absurd is a natural occurrence is meaningless to both thinkers, as there is no certain method for determining such a statement. As such, there is only one thing that can be deduced by both Feinberg and Camus and it focuses on living amidst the absurd.

References

Feinberg, J. (2018). Absurd self-fulfillment. In E. D. Klemke & S. M. Cahn (Ed.), The meaning of life: A reader. Oxford University Press, 147-179.

Camus, A. (2018). The myth of Sisyphus. In E. D. Klemke & S. M. Cahn (Ed.), The meaning of life: A reader. Oxford University Press, 66-75.