Why I Hate Albert Camus
Preface
I am a philosophy student, but I am not an expert in Camus' work. I've read his major works (The Stranger, The Plague, Myth of Sisyphus) This post is mostly focused on The Myth of Sisyphus, because it is the text that pretends to be philosophy, which is my main problem. This is to be read as an educated critique, but not a formal critique.
Introduction
The landscape of pop-philosophy is sadly quite limited. Really, only The Matrix is "required reading" for the pop-philosophy fan. The first step for the incoming reader will almost certainly be into Existentialism. This is because it directly concerns a feeling we're all very familiar with. It's strange then, that the most popular choice would be a man who wouldn't claim the label for himself. I am, of course, talking about Albert Camus. Although Camus warrants attention, I see no reason for him to be the first. In fact, I see harm in it.
Many people who start with Camus, finish with Camus. This is my core complaint. Camus is not really cited in the following literary tradition he comes from. I think this is because he doesn't interact with philosophy in the way you would expect. He isolates himself with his own language and pithy gestures towards the aesthetics of philosophy. I find it irritating. I see connections and think "yes! okay! this is where he's going! this is the point!"* only to find he stops prematurely.
For example, his refusal to accept the label of Existentialism does make sense in a way (in spite of his Wikipedia entry.). His existentialist peers typically heavily interact with Phenomenology, Sociology, and later Psychoanalysis. Their thought is very directly a successor of Modern philosophy *(roughly starting with Descartes and ending with Kant.) Camus does not write this way, not really. Aside from the brief mention of Kierkegaard's Leap of Faith, he doesn't mention other writers. But then again the infamous "immanent and immediate" question of Philosophy is suicide, right? That's pretty Existential!
With Sisyphus, for example. Why is Sisyphus happy? (a question seldom answered by the pop philosophy reader.) The Theologian would ask "Is it because he is the one man with a goal given from the Gods?" The Psychoanalyst would ask "Is it because he comes closer to his objet a (unobtainable desire) every day?" No, no, Camus has a better answer! He comes to the conclusion that Sisyphus is "happy" because the situation is... funny. This is the sum of Absurdism. You can find humor in anything, this is the conclusion. In the history of art and philosophy no one has ever thought to find things funny! How ground breaking! This will surely bring the enshrouded masses to light! This is the way to live! No. The absurd is a coping mechanism, not a philosophy. The attribute of "absurd" really changes nothing. It's as helpful as the nihilist preaching "everything is meaningless!" or the pitiful Aurelian stoicism (repression) that is so popular with the male youth.
To paraphrase Adrian Mitchell: "Most people ignore most philosophy, because most philosophy ignores most people." Camus' resolution here is to ignore philosophy, and turn towards "most people." In this way, I respect him. He doesn't write for the academics, he writes for the common reader. His fictional work is usually pretty solid, and communicates his meaning better than through the instrument of philosophy.
To quote my professor: "If you want to read Camus, read Dostoevsky." He will give you what you want. People cite Dostoevsky. Philosophers cite Dostoevsky. Existential artists like Dostoevsky or Kafka say in passing what takes Camus an entire book to say. Camus does art that pretends to be philosophy. Dostoevsky does philosophy that happens to be art.