Albert Camus was born on November 7, 1913. in the small town of Mondovi (North Africa), in a French family who moved from Alsace. His father was an agricultural worker. After the death of his father - moving to Algeria, where in 1923-1930. Albert studied at the gymnasium. In 1930 he contracted tuberculosis, which thwarted his plans for an academic career. In 1932-1936. Camus studied philosophy at the University of Algiers, where after graduation he wrote the work "Christian Metaphysics and Neoplatonism". In 1934 - at a time when many Western intellectuals were inspired by the ideas of Marxism and socialism - Camus joined the French Communist Party, from which he left in 1937 in protest against its policy on the Arab question. Camus had a difficult fate: he was an employee in the export bureau, sold spare parts for cars, and was a home teacher. From 1938 he worked as a journalist.

It is characteristic of Camus's work that he expressed many of his innermost thoughts and ideas through topical journalism. From 1938 until the beginning of the Second World War, he worked for the newspaper "Republican Algiers". main topic his newspaper essays - the lack of rights of the Arab population of Algeria, its disasters, which, as Camus presciently foresaw, should have led to deep social protest. During the Second World War, Camus (who returned to France in 1942) participated as a member of an underground group united around the Combat newspaper in the resistance movement. From the end of August 1944, this newspaper emerged from the underground and became one of the most important organs of the left movement in France. Camus wrote editorials for her. Like many in post-war France, where a broad temporary alliance of anti-fascists was formed, where the ideas of socialism became popular again, Camus called for a transition "from resistance to revolution." But soon temporary alliances began to disintegrate. The Komba newspaper turned into a weekly. The cycles of materials published by Camus (for example, the series of articles of 1946 "Neither Victims, nor Executioners") still attracted the interest of readers.

During the war and after it, remarkable artistic and philosophical works by Camus appeared: the story "The Outsider" (1942), the philosophical essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" (1942), the novel "The Plague" (1947); essay "Rebellious Man" (1951) and other works. Albert Camus was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1957. Philosophical ideas the writer also expressed in his dramatic works - in the plays "Caligula" (it was staged immediately after the war and was very popular in France), "State of Siege" and "The Righteous". Camus staged dramatizations based on W. Faulkner's "Requiem for a Nun" and on "Demons" by F. Dostoevsky at the theater. In the 1950s, in Camus' publicistic work, a special theme was the call for the abolition of the death penalty (a cycle of essays "Reflections on the Guillotine"). His struggle against the colonial policy of France in Algeria continued. January 4, 1960 Camus died in a car accident. Camus, like other French existentialists, was not an armchair philosopher, a follower of any philosophical school. Possessing, according to the testimony of people who knew him, a solid philosophical knowledge, he was not inclined to write systematic philosophical works. In an interview, Camus said that he did not believe in the mind enough to believe in the system. At the same time, what researchers rightly pay attention to, Camus's philosophical writings are distinguished by clarity of thought, clarity of structure and rationality of argumentation.

At the center of Camus's philosophizing is the problem of the main antinomies of human existence. (The word "antinomy" is used in broad sense- as a contradiction, a split). These antinomies express the tension and contradiction between the positivity and the absurdity of life, between the world of rebellion and the world of goodness. How are they analyzed in Camus' philosophy?

The main problems and ideas of the philosophy of Camus.

The philosophical ideas of Camus - to an even greater extent than those of Sartre - are woven into the fabric of characters, images, situations of works of art. The writings of Camus, which can be considered strictly philosophical ("The Myth of Sisyphus" or "The Rebellious Man"), however, bear little resemblance to ordinary philosophical treatises, with their systematic theoretical constructions, definitions, citations, etc. To a large extent, the specificity of Camus's philosophizing was due to the main object of his interest. And they became the world of experiences and thoughts of that person, whom Camus himself called "an absurd person." An absurd person, absurd reasoning (philosophy that caught the absurdity of existence and tried to comprehend it), absurd creativity (literature and art, whose hero becomes an absurd person) - these are the themes of Camus' work "The Myth of Sisyphus".

Absurd person.

"What is an absurd person?" - this is the main question, on the discussion of which the solution of other problems of Camus's philosophy depends. The absurd man, writes Camus, "does nothing for the sake of eternity and does not deny it. Not that nostalgia is alien to him at all. But he prefers his courage and his ability to judge. The first teaches him to lead an unappealable life, to be content with what is; the second gives him an idea of ​​his limits. Convinced of the finiteness of his freedom, the absence of a future for his rebellion and the frailty of consciousness, he is ready to continue his deeds in the time that life allots him. Here is his field, the place of his actions, freed from any court but his own. A longer life means no other life for him."

Camus contrasts his image of an absurd person with traditional and modern philosophical and anthropological, moral, religious constructions, ideas about human essence. In the philosophy and work of Camus, there is a bold claim that he will be able to approach the real essence of man closer than other researchers have been able to. Nevertheless, the "absurd man" is also a specific philosophical construction. Its creation in the works of Camus is a continuous controversy. First of all, it is waged against a religious approach to a person, as well as against teachings that impose moral norms on a person from the outside - in accordance with the prescriptions of society, the commandments of religion, etc. “An absurd person is ready to admit that there is only one morality that does not separate from God: this is morality imposed on him from above. But an absurd person lives just without this God. As for other moral teachings (including moralism), he sees in them only excuses, while he himself has nothing to justify. I proceed here from the principle of his innocence.

Camus outlines the position of an absurd person with the words of Ivan Karamazov: "Everything is allowed." However, "absurdity is not the permission of any actions." Karamazov's words only mean that nothing is forbidden. Why? According to Camus, the absurd person does not accept the traditional concept that establishes a connection between the causes and effects of actions. And although the mind of an absurd person is "ready for retribution," he does this not because he feels behind him any guilt or sinfulness imputed to every person by Christianity. For him, an absurd man, "there is responsibility, but there is no guilt." The formal rules and teachings of ethics, the calculations of the scientific mind lose their essential meaning for an absurd person. Only living examples are instructive, bringing to us the breath of human lives. “I have chosen only those heroes,” writes Camus, “who set as their goal the exhaustion of life (or those whom I consider as such). I do not go further than this. I am talking about a world in which both thought and life are devoid of a future. For everything "What induces a person to work and movement stands hope. Thus, the only unfalse thought turns out to be fruitless. In an absurd world, the value of a concept or life is measured by fruitfulness."

The heroes, on the example of which Camus highlights the concept of "absurd man", are Don Juan (and Don Juanism), Actor (and acting), Conqueror, Writer-creator. At the end of the chapter on the absurd man, Camus remarks: “The above images do not contain moral teachings and do not entail judgments. They are sketches, they outline a lifestyle. A lover, a comedian or an adventurer play an absurd game. and a virgin, and a functionary, and the president of the republic. It is enough to know and not hide anything from oneself ... I have chosen extreme cases when the absurdity gives truly royal power. True, this is the power of principles devoid of kingdom. But their advantage over others is that what do they know about the illusory nature of all kingdoms... Be that as it may, the absurd reasoning had to be given back all the Brightness of colors.Imagination can add many other guises - exiles chained to their time; people who, not knowing weakness, know how to live in proportion to the universe without a future. This absurd and godless world is inhabited by hopeless and clear-minded people."

The world of the absurd man in Camus is written out harshly and strongly. This is a man who does not believe in God, God's Providence and God's grace. He does not believe in the future, is devoid of hopes and illusions. "A sense of absurdity awaits us at every corner." The reason is that the world of nature and the other person always contain something irreducible to our knowledge, eluding him."It happens that the usual scenery collapses. Rise, tram, four hours in an office or factory, lunch, four hours of work, tram, dinner, sleep; Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, all in the same rhythm - this is the path that is easy to follow day after day. But one day the question arises "why?" It all starts with this puzzled boredom."

Boredom takes a person out of the rut of a routine, monotonous life. She pushes him to understand that he has to shoulder the burden of a bleak life on his own shoulders. Boredom is the result of a mechanical life, but it also sets the mind in motion. Boredom awakens him and provokes further: either an unconscious return to the usual track, or a final awakening. And after awakening, sooner or later, there are consequences: either suicide, or the restoration of the course of life. " Boredom becomes almost actor and in the works of art by Camus. She is depicted so vividly, so masterfully, that the path from truly "metaphysical" boredom to suicide does not seem to be an exaggeration. The writer-philosopher reveals a deep, from his point of view, existentially inseparable connection between the "alienity" of the world, its "primitive hostility", between the alienation of other people from us, the loss of faith in God and moral values, between the threat of death, let's say, between the whole absurd (especially for a person) circumstances of life and "absurd feelings" - and a painful desire of a person to end the intolerance of life, to break out of the circle of absurdity. Thus, the question of suicide comes to the fore in Camus's philosophy. "There is only one truly serious philosophical problem- the problem of suicide. To decide whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question of philosophy. Everything else - whether the world has three dimensions, whether the mind is guided by nine or twelve categories - is secondary."

Suicide, Camus notes, is most often seen as a social phenomenon. "We, on the contrary, from the very beginning raise the question of the connection between suicide and the thinking of the individual. Suicide is prepared in the silence of the heart ...". The main aspiration of Camus just turns out to be a truthful, devoid of moralism description of that phenomenon of intellect and feelings, which could be called a craving for suicide. It is generated, as is clear from what has been said, by absurdity, hopelessness as hallmarks human destiny. The world outside of man is not absurd . "If absurdity exists, it is only in the human universe." However, Camus insists, man's vocation is to find the strength to live in a state of absurdity. "So I take out out of absurdity, three consequences, which are my rebellion, my freedom and my passion. With a mere play of consciousness, I turn into a rule of life that which was an invitation to death, and reject suicide. "" All the reasoning and sketches of this essay are summarized by the "myth of Sisyphus." If Nietzsche proposed the myth of the “eternal return” to humanity that had lost the Christian faith, then Camus offers the myth of the affirmation of oneself - with maximum clarity of mind, with an understanding of the fallen lot, a person must bear the burden of life, not resigning himself to it - self-giving and the fullness of existence are more important than all peaks . The absurd man chooses to rebel against all gods."

Philosophy of Camus in the context of existentialist thought.

The construction and description of the world of an absurd person forces Camus to more carefully and thoroughly analyze those closest to him, i.e. existentialist, concept. Camus admits that the main antinomy that permeates the life of an absurd person - "the clash between irrationality and a frenzied desire for clarity" - in the 19th and 20th centuries. was the subject of deep interest of philosophers and writers, who became "defenders of the rights of the irrational." "From Jaspers to Heidegger, from Kierkegaard to Shestov, from phenomenologists to Scheler, on a logical and moral plane, a whole family of minds related in their nostalgia, opposing each other in goals and methods, fiercely blocks the royal path of reason and tries to find the true path of truth. I proceed here from the fact that the main ideas of this circle are known and experienced. Whatever their claims were (or could be), they all repelled from an ineffable universe where contradiction, antinomy, anxiety and impotence reign."

It deserves to be noted that revealing the origins, prerequisites, main lines of development of existential thought, Camus pays tribute to Russian philosophy and culture. So, he analyzes in sufficient detail one of the earliest forms of existentialism in Europe - the philosophy of L. Shestov, which he often analyzes in a certain typological unity with the work of S. Kierkegaard. From noting Shestov's merits in the criticism of reason, Camus gives his approach a contradictory assessment: "Shestov draws a legitimate conclusion about the futility of reason ... The laws of nature are significant within certain limits, beyond which they turn against themselves and give rise to absurdity. Descriptively, regardless of assessments of their truth as explanations, they are also quite legitimate. Shestov sacrifices all this to the irrational. The elimination of the requirement of clarity leads to the disappearance of absurdity - along with one of the terms of comparison. The absurd person, on the contrary, does not resort to such equations. He recognizes the struggle, does not feel the slightest contempt for reason and admits the irrational. His eye embraces all the data of experience, and he is not disposed to contemplate a leap without knowing in advance its direction. He knows one thing: there is no more room for hope in his mind."

Camus paid special attention to the analysis of images, concepts, ideas of Dostoevsky. Perhaps, among the writers whom Camus calls novelists-philosophers (these are Balzac, Sade, Stendhal, Proust, Malraux, Kafka), he puts Dostoevsky in the first place. His works of art, says Camus, "completely stand under the sign of the absurd," i.e. most clearly and transparently outline the antinomies of the consciousness and actions of an absurd person. “So, in the novels, as in the Diary, an absurd question is posed. They affirm logic that goes right up to death, exaltation, “strange” freedom, royal glory that has become human. Everything is good, everything is permitted, and there is nothing hated: such are the postulates of the absurd. But how amazing is the creativity that made these creatures of ice and fire so understandable to us! The world of passions and indifference that rages in their hearts does not seem monstrous to us at all. We find everyday anxiety in this world. Undoubtedly no one, except Dostoevsky, was able to convey all the intimacy and all the torture of the absurd world.

However, Camus does not accept that main path, which (albeit in different ways) is indicated by Russian philosophers like Shestov and "existentialist writers" like Dostoevsky. Calling on God, seriously promising the kingdom of God and the immortality of the soul, Shestov, Dostoevsky and their other followers artificially remove the tension that they themselves so skillfully, and in the case of Dostoevsky - brilliantly, managed to reproduce. And then it becomes clear that before us is not an absurd writer, that his works are not absurd: they only pose the problem of absurdity. "Dostoevsky's answer is humility or, according to Stavrogin, "baseness". An absurd work, on the other hand, does not provide an answer. That's all the difference." Similar accusations are directed at Kierkegaard, despite the fact that he is recognized as one of the best writers on the absurd. "Christianity, by which he was so intimidated as a child, returns in the end in its most severe form." Kierkegaard, according to Camus, demands "the sacrifice of the intellect". Therefore, all the listed writers and philosophers commit "philosophical suicide": they know about the world of the absurd, about the absurd man, they describe him magnificently, but in the end, by their search for the future, hope, consolation in God, and thanks to them, they seem to cross out the antinomies of the absurd. In this regard, Camus gives a peculiar assessment of Husserl's phenomenology. Camus sees the merit of the latter in the fact that the transcendent power of reason was rejected. Thanks to the phenomena, "the universe of the spirit ... has become unheard of enriched. A rose petal, a boundary post or a human hand has acquired the same significance as love, desire or the laws of gravity. Now thinking does not mean unifying, reducing phenomena to some great principle. Thinking means to learn to see again, to become attentive; it means to control one's own consciousness, to give, in the manner of Proust, a privileged position to every idea or every image. Phenomenology "...opens the whole field of phenomena to the intuition and heart...". Using the example of Husserl, Camus nevertheless wants to clarify that the requirement of clarity, distinctness in relation to the knowledge and development of the world is impossible. Hence the great tragedy of the man who believed in reason. "What I am unable to know is unreasonable. The world is inhabited by such irrationalities."

A serious problem for Camus was the disengagement from the existentialists - Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre. Camus objected to being considered a philosopher and existentialist writer. True, he could not deny that he had much in common with the existential thought of Germany, France, and Russia. In fact, the concepts of "existence", "existence", "boundary situation" "work" in the writings of Camus. The novel "The Plague", which was already discussed in the first part of the section, essentially vividly illustrates the existentialist categories of a borderline situation, fear, guilt, and responsibility. In many respects, the "exemplary" existentialist work was the story of Camus "Outsider".

The lonely bachelor Meursault, an office worker and a resident of the Algerian suburbs, is an ordinary man, overwhelmed by boredom and indifference. The mother dies in the orphanage, Meursault goes to the funeral. The next day, life seemed to return to normal. But here Meursault - largely unexpectedly for himself, under the influence of some kind of stupefaction caused by the heat - kills a man. The story is a simple, at first glance, Meursault's story. This short story is written in simple language, brilliantly stylized as the notes of a sincere person who is faced with the threat of death and does not want to hide anything either from himself or from the investigators. Camus contrasts this sincerity with the hypocrisy of the investigation, the ritualism of the actions and judgments of officials. The story "The Outsider" and its author's interpretation (Mursault is convicted because he does not play the game of the people around him, refuses to lie) caused a stormy reaction from readers, gave rise to a whole mountain of responses and interpretations. “Everything looks as if there weren’t an absurd breakdown on the seashore, an “outsider”, you look, and would decide the squaring of the circle of life: how and why to live, if life is an approximation to death. In any case, Camus, who saw in Meursault " a person who, without claiming to be heroic, agrees to die for the truth, "does a lot to inspire faith in the path of decision chosen in the Outsider. And does not achieve what he wants." For we must not forget that the price paid for the unhypocritical, but dangerous following of random impulses and mindsets, for existential insights in a borderline situation is human life, even two lives, if you count the victim and the "stranger" himself. However, after all, Camus’s intention could be that, having sketched the antinomy between the looseness of human behavior and the need to adhere to the rules of morality and the laws of law external to the individual, showing what tragedy an aggravation of the antinomy can lead to, not offer a solution, leave the question open.

In polemics with other existentialists, Camus raises the issue of his fundamental disagreements with them. The reproach against Jaspers is similar to those directed against Shestov and Kierkegaard. On the one hand, Jaspers "realized that the universe was shaken to its very foundations." On the other hand, having found nothing in experience but the recognition of his own impotence, "Jaspers at once affirms the transcendent being of experience and the superhuman meaning of life ... This reasoning is completely illogical. It can be called a leap."

The dispute between Camus and Sartre is no less important. Sartre, as we have seen, believed that in human existence, existence precedes essence, and that man is entirely responsible for how he formulates his essence. Unlike Sartre, who portrays the human essence as a pure possibility, Camus believes that human existence is initially determined by human nature and contains a set of possibilities that limit human freedom.

As for the dispute with Heidegger, its meaning is deeper than can be judged from direct anti-Heideggerian statements. The point is not only that Camus preferred a transparent, almost classical, sincere, devoid of ambiguity, although constantly paradoxical style of writing and reasoning, to the abstract and abstruse style of Heidegger's Works. The main thing is in those conclusions and grounds that Camus's "philosophy of the absurd" could afford. Perhaps the meaning of this delimitation was expressed most sharply in "Letters to a German friend"Of course, there is no direct polemic with Heidegger. But what is meant is that type of existential philosophizing that deeply and eloquently reveals the drama of the human lot, and then leaves a person alone with despair, so that the path to nationalistic or any other intoxication is left open Camus wrote about his position as follows: “On the contrary, I chose justice for myself in order to remain faithful to the earth. I keep thinking that this world has no higher meaning. But I also know that there is something in him that has meaning, and this is man, for man is the only creature that claims to comprehend the meaning of life. This world is decorated, at least, and our task is to equip it with convincing arguments so that with their help it can fight fate itself ". Thus, sharing the judgment about the inconsistency of traditional humanism, Camus is far from sacrificing humanism as such, to take a nihilistic stance on man and human culture.This brings us to the themes of Camus' deep writing "Rebellious Man".

Philosophical anatomy of rebellion.

"The Rebellious Man" is a multi-layered work, difficult to understand and interpret. Briefly, we can say this: Camus seeks to understand how a person and humanity become capable of murders, wars, through what ideas and concepts their justification is carried out.

Camus recalls the results he achieved in the philosophy of the absurd. Since humanity has become adept at both condemning and defending ("when necessary, inevitable", etc.) wars and murders, it should be recognized that the existing ethics does not provide an unambiguous, logically justified solution to the problem. The rejection of suicide in the philosophy of the absurd indirectly testified that arguments could also be made against murder. But the question still remained unanswered. Now, in The Rebel Man, he was on the agenda. Starting from the philosophy of the absurd, Camus argues, we have come to the conclusion that "the first and only evidence" that is given in the experience of the absurd is rebellion.

"The Rebellious Man" is the first theme of Camus' work under consideration. "This is the man who says no. But, denying, he does not renounce: this is a man who already says “yes” with his first action. "The rebellion of a Roman slave who suddenly refused to obey his master, the suicide of Russian terrorists in hard labor out of protest against mockery of comrades in the struggle - examples from the analysis of which Camus concludes: "In the experience of the absurd, suffering is individual. In a rebellious breakthrough, it acquires the character of a collective existence. It becomes a common undertaking... The evil experienced by one person becomes a plague that infects everyone. In our daily trials, rebellion plays the same role that the "cogito" plays in the order of thought: rebellion is the first evidence. But this evidence draws the individual out of his loneliness, it is the common thing that underlies the first value for all people. I rebel, therefore we exist.

Camus analyzes the question of "metaphysical rebellion". "A metaphysical rebellion is a man's rebellion against his destiny and the entire universe. This rebellion is metaphysical, because it disputes ultimate goals of man and the universe." The meaning of metaphysical rebellion is great. At first, the rebellion does not encroach on the elimination of God. It is only "a conversation on equal terms." "But this is not about courtly conversation. We are talking about a controversy inspired by the desire to take over. " Camus traces the stages of metaphysical rebellion - the tendencies gradually emerging in philosophy to "equate" man with God. Then Camus follows an analysis of those forms of rebellion and those "research" of rebellion, which are analyzed using examples of the work of the Marquis de Sade, Dostoevsky (he is recognized as one of the best researchers of the "rebellious spirit"), Nietzsche, surrealist poetry. The main content of the book is an analysis of those forms of rebellion that in the 19th and 20th centuries grew into revolutions that were devastating in their consequences. Camus approaches "historical rebellion" by no means as a historian and not as a philosopher of history. He is most interested in what mindsets and ideas pushed (and are pushing) people to regicide, revolutionary unrest, terror, wars, mass destruction of foreigners and fellow tribesmen. Philosophical and social a truly decisive role in these processes is attributed to political ideas.The philosophy of Hegel and the Hegelians, in a word, varieties of "German ideology" both on German and on "Germanized" Russian soil of the 19th century. are carefully studied as the ideological prerequisites for destructive revolutionary uprisings. Special attention is paid to Belinsky, Herzen, Russian nihilists of the 60s, anarchist theorist Bakunin, Narodnik Nechaev. The chapter "Pickling Killers" dissects the history and ideology of Russian terrorism in the 19th and 20th centuries. Marxism is also analyzed, including its perception on Russian soil. "Rebellion and Revolution" - this theme remains for Camus pivotal throughout his analysis. The connection between the overthrow of principles, the revolutionary upheaval of foundations, and the annihilation of people seems to the author of The Rebellious Man undoubted. "The revolution in the realm of principles kills God in the person of his vicar. The revolution of the 20th century kills what remains of the divine in the principles themselves, and thus sanctifies historical nihilism."

Camus sees similarities between fascism and communism, although he takes into account the differences between them. But there is a similarity, and it stems ultimately from a false philosophy of history, from a call to revolt. "Fascism wanted to institute the advent of the Nietzschean superman. And immediately realized that if God exists, he can be anyone and anything, but above all - the master of death. If a person wants to become God, he must appropriate to himself the right to life and death of others "But, having become a supplier of corpses and subhumans, he himself turned not into God, but into a subhuman, into a vile servant of death. The rational revolution, in turn, seeks to realize the all-man predicted by Marx. But it is worth accepting the logic of history in all its totality, as it will lead the revolution against her own lofty passion, will begin to cripple the person more and more, and in the end she herself will turn into an objective crime.

Despite the harsh criticism of rebellion and revolution, Camus pays tribute to rebellion and revolutionism, since they are generated by the human lot. And therefore, despite the greatest risk and danger, rebelliousness must go through self-criticism and self-restraint. "... The revolutionary spirit of Europe can, for the first and last time, reflect on its principles, ask itself what kind of deviation pushes it towards terrorism and war, and together with the goals of rebellion, gain loyalty to itself." The closing pages of The Rebel Man are hardly convincing. Having brilliantly debunked the rebellious, revolutionary, nihilistic consciousness and action, Camus tried to convince his reader that "true rebellion" and "new revolutionaryism" are possible, free from destructive consequences. And yet, faith in a person who has taken upon himself "the risk and difficulties of freedom", more precisely, faith in millions of singles, "whose creations and works daily deny the boundaries and former mirages of history" - this is what the outstanding writer and outstanding philosopher Albert Camus.

The absurdity of life as a dream of reason
(Analysis of Albert Camus' essay "The Myth of Sisyphus.")

"To be or not to be - that is the question";
What is nobler in spirit - to submit
Slings and arrows of a furious fate
Or, taking up arms against the sea of ​​troubles, slay them
Confrontation? Die, sleep
But only; and say that you are ending with a dream
Longing and a thousand natural torments,
Legacy of the flesh - how such a denouement
Don't crave?.. »

W. Shakespeare. "Hamlet"

Preface.

“On the following pages we will talk about the feeling of absurdity found everywhere in our age - about the feeling, and not about the philosophy of the absurd, in fact, unknown to our time,” - this is how the essay “The Myth of Sisyphus”, authored by an existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. It must be said that absurdity is only one of the ideas of existential philosophy. But I would like to consider it in the work of Camus, because in our difficult time the absurdity of life has become a hot topic. Why - let's think.
So, the subject of my work will be the analysis of the work of A. Camus "The Myth of Sisyphus".

I. INTRODUCTION.

The idea of ​​the absurd.

IN
In the course of his life, a person faces many situations, and each of them leaves its mark on his soul. But no matter what a person learns, he will always be missing something. Being in constant search, he will languish in uncertainty and ask himself questions to which there is no answer: “Who am I and what is the world? Where does life begin and where does it end? What am I looking for and when will I find, and will I find it at all? »
As a result, one day the paper decorations of the world begin to disappear, and the person realizes that it is time for him to die. And then another question emerges from the depths of his soul, the last one: “What did I live for? And after this question comes the realization that a life spent searching for an ephemeral landmark is over and ready to pass into oblivion. A person feels an unusual contradiction between himself, his thoughts and desires and the world around him.
“A world that lends itself to explanation, even the worst one, is a world we know. But if the universe is suddenly deprived of both illusions and knowledge, man becomes an outsider in it. This phrase concentrates the main idea of ​​the "absurd" philosophy of Albert Camus. In his ordinary life, a person either cognizes, that is, takes his sensations as a starting point, or lives in illusions, that is, he ties his sensations to what he already knows. But if suddenly a person realizes that he has been deceived all his life, because he believed that he knew everything, and everything seemed familiar and obvious to him, then his disappointment has no end. He no longer finds anything familiar in his life. Everything disappeared somewhere, as if the scenery suddenly collapsed during the action in the theater, and the actor, not knowing what to do, wanders around the stage in bewilderment. What to do? The actor and the stage do not fit together, they are from different worlds. A person feels his life as something absurd, something impossible. And then the actor jumps off the stage!
A man shoots himself, hangs himself, jumps out of a window... You can put an end to it. The man realized that he should not live! But Albert Camus puts a semicolon here; he proposes to trace the path of man from the very beginning: have we missed something? “It has been subtly asserted that looking at life as nonsense is tantamount to saying that it is not worth living,” he says, and immediately asks: “Is it really so? »
So it all boils down to a single question: “If life is meaningless, is it worth living? Let's go through the pages of Albert Camus' Essay on the Absurd to find the answer to this question with the author.

II. MAIN PART.

Absurd logic.

P
why should we talk about absurdity? Isn't there anything more important? Camus says no. Indeed, is it possible to decide how to live without deciding whether it is worth living at all? To answer this question means to solve the fundamental problem of philosophy.
What is needed to solve it? In the works of other philosophers (among whom Camus names Lev Shestov, Karl Jaspers, Soren Kierkegaard, Edmund Husserl, etc.), the recognition of absurdity is a conclusion from all givens, while for Camus it is the starting point. He stretches the chain between absurdity and death, and tries to find out if it is intact, are all the links in place?
How does a suicide think? What makes him, having driven a cartridge into the barrel, pull the trigger? In other words, why is he killing himself? Perhaps all his sorrows outweigh the desire to live, or immense boredom makes him leave this world? And a little trouble can drive you into such a mood that you want to take your own life. However, no matter what the reasons are called, there is something else. The desire to live is a hundred times stronger than the desire to die.
There is a logic, a special logic of suicide, which makes one give up life. This logic leads him to his death. The basic principle of this logic is absurdity, all-encompassing and eternal. Absurd logic assumes that being is absurd, while any other logic assumes that being is rational and subject to certain laws. Not everyone can think in accordance with absurd logic.
So, we begin our journey from absurdity to death, not losing sight of anything in our path and guided by absurd logic. Wait! But what is absurdity?

Absurd as such.

D
Indeed, what does it mean? What is this feeling that makes a person give up his life, that prompts him to break the thread of his existence and fall into the abyss of non-existence?
Absurdity, and the very concept of absurdity, implies something impossible, something contradictory. Albert Camus writes: “If I accuse an innocent person of a terrible crime, if I tell a respectable person that he lusts for his own sister, then they will answer me that this is absurd. “But the feeling of the absurd and the concept of the absurd are not the same thing. Let's first look at the essence of the sense of absurdity, which "... underlies ..."
Absurdity is essentially the loss of all illusions. But the wrong side of being, its true essence is so irrational, so unreasonable and not finding a normal explanation for itself, that it seems wrong and impossible. So, the first condition of absurdity is Disorder! Terrible and total, engulfing the entire universe and leaving no stone unturned from the former sweet illusions. A person rushes from side to side, not finding anything familiar.
It is not surprising that he is seized by an unbearable desire to plunge into peace and order, to find again his familiar world that fits into the framework of common sense. This is the second condition of absurdity - Nostalgia, passionate and incessant.
Following Nostalgia comes the realization that the world of logic so dear to his heart has been left far behind, and that fate inevitably overtakes and blocks the way back. The man realizes that he can't do anything. His life becomes wearisome and viscous, he spiritually rots and dies. Here is the third condition of absurdity - Rock. The feeling of ruthlessness of fate burdens a person and makes him suffer. And then, having recognized disorder and nostalgia, having grasped the full depth of fate and the inevitability of fate, a person refuses the absurd. His whole life has been a passionate and heated battle, and suddenly he realizes that he lost it.
But the man does not agree with this. He protests in spite of everything common sense, he rebels and refuses to live by the rules of the absurd. The fourth condition of absurdity is Rebellion. Absurdity ceases to be meaningless if you agree with it. And only if (with full awareness of the reigning Chaos and painful Nostalgia, understanding of the inevitability of Doom) a person still does not agree with all these states objectively recognized by himself, he can feel the absurdity, feel its cold fire, which incinerates everything in its path. “The absurdity becomes a painful passion from the moment it is realized. »
In my opinion, the sense of absurdity in itself is far from positive. A person who feels absurd feels at the same time the deepest inner discomfort, which leads to suicide. But the reasoning is not over yet, and it is too early to draw any conclusions.
In terms of the concept of absurdity, everything is much simpler. What happens when a person, having recognized the existence of a world unfamiliar to him, immediately abandoned it? Two irreconcilable enemies collide - Reason and the Unknown, Absurdity. These two concepts cannot coexist under the same roof, and a crack passes between them, which soon grows into a whole abyss. This means that absurdity is a split, a discrepancy between the world and man.
There is no doubt that through the concept of absurdity, Albert Camus is trying to express the imperfection of our world. The absurd in all its forms is something beyond classification. And the world, often wrong and cruel, rises before us in all its ugly nakedness. What do people do when they see all-encompassing chaos? They either “close their eyes and plug their ears” and sink back into their delusions (meaning they have not reached a state of absurdity), or they lose their heads and protest, falling into binge drinking, quarreling with neighbors, committing murders and acts of terrorism, getting addicted to drugs. or once killing yourself.
After such a disappointing generalization, one might think that Albert Camus is extremely pessimistic. Fortunately, this is not the case! If you think about it, it is not difficult to understand that all these formally protesting people have moved away from the absurd logic that we took as the premise of our reflections. They did not understand one thing: one cannot agree with absurdity, a person must rebel. Departure from this point is deadly. Having agreed with the absurdity, a person begins to be guided by ordinary human logic, thus rejecting either the recognition of disorder or his own nature.
In other words, if a person does not rebel, he either does not understand that there is disorder, or refuses to admit that he is experiencing nostalgia for order, which is contrary to human nature. The result is the same: a person does not reach the state of absurdity and falls into a state of grief and frustration, into an unbearable state of melancholy. But after all, the protest of these people is not a rebellion of an absurd person, but a pitiful self-indulgence.
The question is legitimate: how would a person behave if he had not retreated from absurd logic and followed it to the very end?

Absurd person.

ABOUT
The answer is the same: rebelled! Immersed in a sense of absurdity, he would begin to live it ... But would he or not? Camus clearly puts this question, which is the central problem of our reasoning: “It is necessary to know whether it is possible to live in absurdity, or this logic requires death. » Camus answers this question: absurdity leads to freedom. When a person feels that the world is absurd and ordinary logic does not work, he suddenly realizes that “everything is permitted. » Indeed, if there are no rules in the world that would limit the behavior of a person, he becomes free. “Absurdity is a clear mind that is aware of its limits,” and it is from this state of pure awareness that a person draws strength and a desire to live.
The maxim “Everything is permitted” should not be taken literally. Absurdity does not encourage people to kill, not at all. The absurdity simply negates the need for remorse. The absurd man, guided by his freedom, lives his life as vividly as possible: “The absurd man exhausts everything and exhausts himself; absurdity is the ultimate tension, maintained by all its forces in complete solitude. »
So, the absurd person is acutely aware of the unreasonableness of this world. He thinks clearly and feels like a mortal. Based on the awareness of his freedom, granted to him for the period from birth to death, he lives passionately, exhausting all possibilities. “The universe of the absurd man is a universe of ice and fire, as transparent as it is limited, where nothing is possible, but everything is given. In the end, it will crash and non-existence. He may choose to live in such a universe. From this determination he draws strength, hence his abandonment of hope and perseverance in a life without consolation.
Camus gives a metaphor illustrating the freedom of the absurd. He compares the absurd man to a slave. “They were familiar with freedom, which consists in the absence of a sense of responsibility. “It is not humility that is implied, but the awareness of “permissiveness”.
Camus classifies the types of freedom, revealing the signs of the behavior of absurd people.
Firstly, an absurd person always lives with the same passion all the moments of his life, not preferring any of them to others. So, don Juan (an image given as an example by the author of the essay himself) "... loves women equally fervently, every time with all his soul ..." Thus, he uses his freedom as much as possible in principle. This image does not inspire me with special sympathy. Although don Juan lived a full life, but in his old age, when he had already exhausted himself, he sadly recalls the past days. And, although Camus objects, arguing that "fate is not a punishment", and don Juan knew that he could not escape such an end, I very much doubt that he will live the rest of his life with joy and as fully as her big Part. Don Juan can be compared with the image of a man in black - a man who, knowing the inevitability of fate, lives in spite of it, not caring in the least about tomorrow, until one day it is crushed by its gigantic weight. Of course, you can take the image of Don Juan as an ideal and live in accordance with the principles of Don Juan, but only a very strong and passionate person can do this.
Another thing is a comedian. This is a living mobile nature, which, although it lives every moment with the same passion, but not recklessly, but with an eye, carefully. He lives a thousand lives, and in each he feels himself in place. Absurdity, in all its manifestations, is not able to surprise the actor, because he can take on any role and adjust to any turn of fate. "In his fate, he feels something painful and unique," but these are not the torments that don Juan experiences; this is the romance of youth, which he carries through his whole life. The comedian, like Don Juan, is a stoic. But instead of sadly contemplating his fate, he lives it to the end, he laughs at her, he surprises her with his liveliness and endless love for life. If Don Juan's clothes are black, then the comedian's clothes are full of all possible colors and shades. An actor is a spring, non-drying and eternally fresh.
The third option is a man of action. Life for him is a task, absurdity is a given, and he does not reason or philosophize. He goes and conquers life. Being a conqueror is not a painful existence, but dominion over life. The conqueror sees that he is in an absurd world - no more and no less than anything else, and therefore he lives as he wishes. Nothing is impossible for him, he succeeds in everything, and in his Universe he feels himself to be God. This is a successful person. He does not need to be sad about fate, or laugh at her - he owns her, she is his servant. The unreasonable world is entirely in his power, the conqueror even to some extent sympathizes with him. The conqueror can be compared with a figure in white clothes - with a successful person who cannot be either naively happy or seriously upset, since everything is in his hands.
So, we have gone through the vector of absurdity from beginning to end. We have taken as a fundamental principle the recognition of the absurdity of the world and approved the absurd logic. We looked at a man who, having experienced Disorder, Nostalgia, Doom and Revolt, realized and felt the absurd. We have clarified the essence of the absurd, we have established that it gives a person freedom. We understood how a person would behave in accordance with absurd logic.
It's time to draw the line; it's time to sum up.
We again ask ourselves the question: "Is it worth living in an absurd world?"

Absurdity and death.

D
Let's first rephrase this question in order to better understand its essence. It can also sound like this: “Is it worth dying in an absurd world? Or even otherwise: “Would you like to die in an absurd world? Indeed, would don Juan want to die if there are still many women whom he could passionately love? Will the comedian want to part with his, albeit unreasonable, but native stage? Will the conqueror want to fall from his Olympus into oblivion? No, no and NO!
Absurdity is the element in which the human race lives. The problem is that many treat it not as an element, but as an inevitable punishment.
Life goes on, and don Juan continues to love, the actor continues to play, the conqueror continues to rule. The absurd made them drunk with passion, the absurd gave rise to their lives, and, most impossible, the absurd gave life a meaning. An absurd person lives in an absurd world, realizing that he was once born and that death awaits him somewhere, but rejoicing that he has the freedom to manage his life from birth to death.
So does absurdity lead to death? No. On the contrary, absurdity leads to life. The absurd is the glue that holds man and the world together. But why then do people still kill themselves? We do not know. In any case, not because of the realization of the absurdity of being. Finding out the motives for suicide would require other reflections and other work. This was not originally our goal.
So absurdity does not lead to death. The chain between absurdity and suicide is broken. Existence is absurd and yet beautiful. It is imperfect and at the same time it is unique. A rotting corpse gives life to flowers, absurdity gives life to a man. Absurdity is the joy of life, absurdity is passion, absurdity is freedom. Absurdity is the only happiness available to man.

III. CONCLUSION.

Sisyphus and stone.

IN
Conclusion I would like to draw parallels between the philosophy of the absurd and our life, because no matter how attractive a certain idea is, it will be empty and useless if it turns out to be inapplicable in life.
Absurdity is found everywhere in our time. Today, probably, there is no such place on earth where a terrorist act would not have been carried out. The world is tormented by wars, in which innocent people always suffer first. Numerous man-made disasters have not surprised anyone for a long time. Natural disasters, including those caused by global warming, have become commonplace. The ozone hole is growing, forests are being cut down, animals are dying, falling into the zones of chemical and radioactive contamination...
The world is oversaturated with information that the human brain simply cannot fully perceive and process, and therefore, from its excess, many go crazy and end up in psychiatric clinics.
Let's take a closer look. The war in Chechnya has been going on for many difficult years, more and more people are dying from excessive drinking and addiction to drugs, bureaucratic arbitrariness has become a real disaster for society, AIDS is becoming a tragedy, there is no end to deceit, violence and violation of natural human rights. What nonsense! What an absurdity!
Why is this so and not otherwise? Why is life so difficult? Why is there so much injustice around, growing into absurdity? Is it not possible to live in peace, is it not possible to live in harmony, is it not possible to live in mutual respect? The world seems so unreasonable that you want to drop everything and run headlong somewhere away from all these troubles and troubles. But there is nowhere to run. And then the idea of ​​suicide seems to be saving. But is it right?
Albert Camus says no, and I fully agree with him. Pessimistic absurdity must grow into absurd optimism, and man must find happiness in this world torn apart by contradictions.
All human passions and troubles, all doom and hopelessness is a stone that Sisyphus rolls to the top of the mountain. There is no end to his suffering, and his work is meaningless. But Sisyphus loves his stone: this stone is his Universe, in which he is doomed to live. “... There is only one world, happiness and absurdity are products of the same earth. They are inseparable. »
And a person should seek his happiness not just anywhere, but precisely in this strange world, which is given to him as a possession.
So we leave "... Sisyphus at the foot of his mountain! The burden will always be found. But Sisyphus teaches the highest fidelity, which rejects the gods and moves the stones. He... thinks everything is fine. This universe, devoid of a ruler, does not seem to him either barren or insignificant. Every grain of stone, every gleam of ore on a mountain at midnight is a whole world for him. One struggle for the top is enough to fill a man's heart. Sisyphus should be imagined happy. »

Afterword.

So the time has come to part with Albert Camus and Sisyphus, who taught us their understanding of the world. I think that acquaintance with them can not be useless for anyone. Remaining one on one with this gloomy world, now each of us is free to act as we wish, free to choose our Path...

Feature of philosophy A. Camus (1913-1960) is that he does not have a systematic and comprehensive philosophy, he deals almost exclusively with ethical issues. The first one is the meaning of life. Camus' main philosophical work, The Myth of Sisyphus, opens with the words: "There is only one really serious philosophical problem: suicide. To judge whether a life of labor is worth living or not is to answer the basic question of philosophy. Everything else is whether the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes later. This is already a game, but first you need to answer "(50. P.3). For Camus, it is about whether life is simply a biological given or whether it is actually human values ​​that give it meaning.

In an effort to understand the meaning of his life, a person, according to Camus, turns for a clue, first of all, to the world around him. But the closer he looks into nature, the more he realizes its profound difference from himself and its indifference to his concerns. Like Sartre, Camus interprets this fact as "the original hostility of the world."

If the world is "dehumanized," then, Camus argues, "people also give birth to the inhuman." Not understanding both themselves and others, people are disunited and lonely, cruel senselessness reigns in relations between them. Numerous actual manifestations of such relations acquire the character of universality in Camus. The logical substantiation of this existentialist thesis is replaced in Camus by a purely empirical enumeration and classification of facts of cruelty, irrationality in human relations, or by an artistic depiction of these facts. Meursault, the hero of the novel "The Stranger", appears dispassionately alienated and dying on the basis of a death sentence as a result of people's misunderstanding of his actions. In the play "Misunderstanding" two women kill a man, not recognizing him as their closest relative. One of the murderers declares that in life “no one is ever recognized” and that both for the murdered and for all people “neither in life nor in death there is neither homeland nor peace ... After all, this cramped land cannot be called homeland devoid of light, with which they leave to become food for blind animals.

Doom, misfortune, hopelessness, the absurdity of existence - this is the leitmotif of Camus's works. Unhappy, misunderstood people live with "unhappy" consciousness in an absurd world. "Absurd" is one of the fundamental categories of Camus' philosophy. "I proclaim that I do not believe in anything and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt my exclamation, and I must at least believe in my protest" (51. p.57).

The absurdity of Camus is directed both against reason and against faith. In God, people believe or resort to him in the hope of being saved from the despair and absurdity of the world. But for believers, "absurdity" itself has become a god. Illusions of salvation in God are senseless, just as the horrors of the "Last Judgment" are senseless. After all, everything present for people is an everyday terrible judgment. It is also impossible to believe in the mind, both divine and human, since the mind presupposes the logic of thoughts and actions, and in life everything proceeds meaninglessly and irrationally. Everything real is alien to consciousness, random, and therefore absurd. Absurdity is reality.

Awareness of the meaninglessness of our existence, which turns our consciousness into an "unhappy consciousness", turns the meaning of life into the following dilemma: either realize the absurdity of the world and still hope for something, or commit suicide. Camus chooses the first path. The one who understands that this world is absurd gains freedom. And one can gain freedom only by rebelling against the universal absurdity, by rebelling against it. Rebellion and freedom, according to Camus, are inseparable. It is freedom expressed in rebellion that gives meaning to human life.

Proclaiming the necessity of man's struggle with the irrationality of the world, Camus at the same time emphasizes that it cannot lead to success. The symbol of the "human condition" for him is Sisyphus, who, according to Greek myth, condemned by the gods to hard and useless work: to roll a heavy stone up a high mountain, which, having barely reached the top, rolled down. According to Camus, the greatness of Sisyphus is given by the fact that he knew about the infinity of his work, but nevertheless steadfastly endured the punishment sent down to him and did not think to ask the gods for forgiveness. Although Sisyphus is condemned to eternal torment, he is still a free man in the eyes of Camus, since, having deliberately raised a rebellion against the gods, he himself chose his fate. Thus, having begun his reflections on man with a whole series of pessimistic statements, Camus ultimately comes to a kind of tragic optimism, arguing that even man's hopeless struggle with inhumanity is a source of supreme joy and happiness.

Feature of philosophy A. Camus (1913-1960) is that he does not have a systematic and comprehensive philosophical doctrine, he deals almost exclusively with ethical problems. The first one is the meaning of life. Camus' main philosophical work, The Myth of Sisyphus, opens with the words: "There is only one really serious philosophical problem: suicide. To judge whether a life of labor is worth living or not is to answer the basic question of philosophy. Everything else is whether the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories - comes later. This is already a game, but first you need to answer "(50. P.3). For Camus, it is a question of whether life is simply a biological given, or in it actual human values that give it meaning.

In an effort to understand the meaning of his life, a person, according to Camus, turns for a clue, first of all, to the world around him. But the closer he looks into nature, the more he realizes its profound difference from himself and its indifference to his concerns. Like Sartre, Camus interprets this fact as "the original hostility of the world."

If the world is "dehumanized," then, Camus argues, "people also give birth to the inhuman." Not understanding both themselves and others, people are disunited and lonely, cruel senselessness reigns in relations between them. Numerous actual manifestations of such relations acquire the character of universality in Camus. The logical substantiation of this existentialist thesis is replaced in Camus by a purely empirical enumeration and classification of facts of cruelty, irrationality in human relations, or by an artistic depiction of these facts. Meursault, the hero of the novel "The Stranger", appears dispassionately alienated and dying on the basis of a death sentence as a result of people's misunderstanding of his actions. In the play "Misunderstanding" two women kill a man, not recognizing him as their closest relative. One of the murderers declares that in life “no one is ever recognized” and that both for the murdered and for all people “neither in life nor in death there is neither homeland nor peace ... After all, this cramped land cannot be called homeland devoid of light, with which they leave to become food for blind animals.

Doom, misfortune, hopelessness, the absurdity of existence - this is the leitmotif of Camus's works. Unhappy, misunderstood people live with "unhappy" consciousness in an absurd world. "Absurd" is one of the fundamental categories of Camus' philosophy. "I proclaim that I do not believe in anything and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt my exclamation, and I must at least believe in my protest" (51. p.57).

The absurdity of Camus is directed both against reason and against faith. In God, people believe or resort to him in the hope of being saved from the despair and absurdity of the world. But for believers, "absurdity" itself has become a god. Illusions of salvation in God are senseless, just as the horrors of the "Last Judgment" are senseless. After all, everything present for people is an everyday terrible judgment. It is also impossible to believe in the mind, both divine and human, since the mind presupposes the logic of thoughts and actions, and in life everything proceeds meaninglessly and irrationally. Everything real is alien to consciousness, random, and therefore absurd. Absurdity is reality.

Awareness of the meaninglessness of our existence, which turns our consciousness into an "unhappy consciousness", turns the meaning of life into the following dilemma: either realize the absurdity of the world and still hope for something, or commit suicide. Camus chooses the first path. The one who understands that this world is absurd gains freedom. And one can gain freedom only by rebelling against the universal absurdity, by rebelling against it. Rebellion and freedom, according to Camus, are inseparable. It is freedom expressed in rebellion that gives meaning to human life.

Proclaiming the necessity of man's struggle with the irrationality of the world, Camus at the same time emphasizes that it cannot lead to success. The symbol of the "human condition" for him is Sisyphus, who, according to Greek myth, was condemned by the gods to hard and useless work: to roll a heavy stone up a high mountain, which, barely reaching the top, rolled down. According to Camus, the greatness of Sisyphus is given by the fact that he knew about the infinity of his work, but nevertheless steadfastly endured the punishment sent down to him and did not think to ask the gods for forgiveness. Although Sisyphus is condemned to eternal torment, he is still a free man in the eyes of Camus, since, having deliberately raised a rebellion against the gods, he himself chose his fate. Thus, having begun his reflections on man with a whole series of pessimistic statements, Camus ultimately comes to a kind of tragic optimism, arguing that even man's hopeless struggle with inhumanity is a source of supreme joy and happiness.

The French existentialist Marcel argued that in our time the core of human existence was exposed. Any attempt to forget this is hardly acceptable to a person who strives for clarity of mind. Marcel examines existential problems using the example of the "man from the barracks", i.e. complete outcast of society. It is far from senseless for such a person to ask questions: "Who am I? Why do I live?"

G. Marcel argues as follows: although I have everything that the “man from the barracks” has lost (social behavior, homeland, means of subsistence), I cannot ask the same questions by turning them to myself. But why? Marcel builds his reasoning according to the logical principle "by contradiction". Suppose I, for reasons of prudence, close myself in the privileged part of people who do not concern and do not worry about such questions. After all, having freedom, a person is inclined to think that this is how it should be. But as soon as I put myself in the place of the "man from the barracks" in my imagination, I begin to evaluate through his eyes, by his standards, my attempt to live among the privileged, who are not disturbed by questions about who they are and why they live. Breaking away from my conditions of existence, I instantly realize: I no longer know who I am ... To put myself in the position of an outcast, a person who does not possess anything, means to understand my own existence more deeply.

The absurdity of human existence

Moral issues were the main for Camus, but he never created a complete system of ethics. Nevertheless, in the letters of Camus there is a whole range of information regarding his ethical views.

The moral reflections of Camus are inextricably linked with the theoretical foundations of his philosophical anthropology. The highest point of this philosophy, whose genealogy goes back to Hegel, is the constitution of consciousness in opposition to the world. The result of such an act is the belief in the fundamental heteronomy of the world and the Self. The fundamental dissimilarity between the world and the Self is found not only in the sphere of consciousness, but, even more tragically, in the sphere of self-consciousness. The statement of a fundamental difference and the conviction that it cannot be eliminated gives rise to absurdity. "The absurd is a contradiction in itself."

The absurdity is that such a worldview does not contain evaluation. However, according to Camus, the basis of the absurd is still some evaluative act, namely the recognition that comprehensibility, awareness is desired. Consciousness is given to a person along with other consciousnesses equal in terms of being, and no one has a unique place in the world - it is equated with the existence of things. In this regard, Camus argues that another person can be known practically, mastered, but this will not mean that by mastering the other is really understandable or, as Camus calls it, "transparent." The whole reality is the field of absurdity.

If a person understands the difference between his claims and abilities, then the consciousness of the absurd embraces him entirely. We can agree with this, since part of a person’s aspirations are realized in a world without obstacles, and the rest are not realized at all, and absurdity arises at the point of their collision with the world, as a result of which such a person can be called absurd and not absurd at the same time. However, such a view is alien to Camus: for him, the dignity of a person is precisely in the absurd. The "layers" of the personality are not equivalent - the core of consciousness is the part that recognizes the absurd and henceforth must act in accordance with its laws, and the rest in a person is just accidents.

From the point of view of Camus, the absurdity is born from the confrontation of consciousness and the world, and in order to prevent the disappearance of the absurdity, the existentialist allows suicide and the total destruction of the world. In this way, the confrontation is preserved. If we recognize the legitimacy of this construction, then the person in the world gets only one opportunity - rebellion, which is an indispensable consequence of absurdity. But the rebellion of man, according to Camus, is not the desire to become a master, but the search for equality. "I rebel, therefore we exist" - this is the main position of this philosophy.

It entails the denial of all rights and truths, especially moral rights. Rebellion gives rise to a special ethics based on absurd experience, rejecting the ethics of heroism and hedonism.

The ethics of Camus is characterized by the underdevelopment of the basic concepts, the uncritical definitions, the free approach to the object of reasoning. Not even such a thing as the autonomy of the individual is defined. Often and willingly, in addition to the personality, Camus talks about human nature, which allows him to somehow connect the personality with humanity, bypassing history. The value of historical events is not perceived by him as genuine. Hence the special role assigned to rebellion, which, therefore, is a constant tension, a constant search for a mediator between good and evil, justice and freedom. This process has no end - rebellion gives rise to a new absurd situation and new changes. Under such conditions, a person can only live to reduce suffering. However, when Camus touches on issues of social justice, the rebellion involuntarily ceases to be such. After all, demanding social justice, one should agree to the restriction, the acceptance of other values, for example, freedom. For rebellion to remain itself, it must demand justice, individual freedom, social integration and many other values ​​at the same time.

Human existence, therefore, is a question addressed by man to himself. However, everyday reality constantly captures a person, and he dutifully accepts the conditions of his existence, no matter how ridiculous they may be. A. Camus argued that the meaninglessness and hopelessness of human existence cannot be proven. If a person accepts the circumstances of life, then they suit him.

Thus, some radical means are needed that can pull a person out of the situation of absurdity. Man must keep his dignity. But how? “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” wrote Camus, “the problem of suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question of philosophy.”

However, besides suicide, there is another way to overcome the absurdity. This is a rebellion, a revolt of man against his lot and against the whole universe. What is good about this path? He disputes the ultimate goals of man in the universe. Only in rebellion does a person acquire the meaning of being. The slave protests against the fate that is in store for him as a slave. In no case, according to Camus, should an inauthentic existence be taken as a blessing.

The concept of "rebellion" is closely connected for Camus with the experience of the absurd. In The Myth of Sisyphus, the philosopher gave a description of absurd thinking, which is widespread and has become a disease of the spirit. However, the concept of "absurdity" in Camus does not lend itself to an unambiguous and precise definition. This is a phenomenological concept, which, rather, signals the basic experience of reality than fixes it.

A. Camus described the phenomenon of absurdity as follows: we notice in ourselves a craving for unity, for clarity, for knowledge of the world as a whole; we are tormented by the question: is there a meaning that gives value to life?; we confront a silent world; we are alone with our questions. Questions asked in vain lead to an unexpected leap towards religious conviction, or, on the contrary, to doubt, to nihilism. So we begin to feel abandoned in the desert, but at the same time we crave happiness and fullness of life. Camus called this situation of a torn, split being "absurd" and demanded (this sounds especially expressive in the epilogue of the Myth of Sisyphus) that human honor strives to resist this situation, and not run away from it. However, Camus also speaks in The Myth of Sisyphus about rebellion, which is associated with the phenomenon of the absurd.

There is no self-complacency in the absurd, on the contrary, it brings excitement, indignation at the discord between man and the world, nature and society, man and man, which makes the absurd a chronic conscious pain. Rebellion is at the same time an element of the absurd, since it expresses both discontent and protest against the absurd. Although the concept of tomorrow is not given to the absurd, it does not know hope either, but man finds in it a means of struggle against existence, gains his own dignity and freedom. Suffering, want, injustice, tyranny, evil of every kind (primarily death and murder) put us before the absurd. One can doubt everything, but only not in this phenomenon and not in the protest and rebellion that it causes in us.

So, rebellion for Camus is a conscious act against the natural and historical conditions of our existence. Without this kind of rebellion, human life remains in an atmosphere of staleness, immobility, naivety, in a state of sleep or immaturity. Only rebellion awakens consciousness. Conscious rebellion is expressed, according to Camus, in two forms that limit each other: metaphysical and historical. In a sense, as Camus believed, the history of metaphysical rebellion is identical to the history of religion, since it is a rebellion against the conditions of our existence. Historical rebellion occurs where the demand for freedom and justice leads to specific political actions, i.e. to the revolution.

A more specific definition of this type of rebellion leads, according to Camus, to the "dialectic of rebellion", i.e. to the ambivalence of this phenomenon, changing its original ideals and becoming a revolution.

On closer inspection lyrics by Camus reveal the ambiguity of the concept of "historical rebellion", show the tragic side of his political philosophy.

As you can see, there are many different, unusual subjects in the philosophy of existence. What is valuable in it? First of all, it affirms the dignity and significance of every human person, its indisputable value, its true greatness and indisputable rights to spiritual freedom and worthy living conditions. Existentialists define a person through his actions. It may seem that their philosophy is sad, pessimistic, but such an impression is erroneous. After all, the very concept of "human existence" implies the rise of a person, his readiness to surpass himself. Consequently, existentialism equips man with an inspiring goal.

Existentialism draws attention to the inner world of a person, to the hundred subtlest experiences. Philosophers of this trend show that each person can participate in the overall process of creativity. Existentialism sets tasks for each individual, prompting him to responsibility and freedom.

Thus, the existence of a person is a way of revealing himself, his inner world, a hundred trembling, grasped in borderline situations. Existence is an expression of the uniqueness of being. That is why existentialist philosophers consider the issues of human freedom and responsibility, the meaning of life, guilt and fear, discuss in various aspects the topics of love and death, the distortion of human communication.

The very concept of "being" is ambiguous. Being is not a thing or an object. Among things we will never find being itself. Being appears as a kind of presence of a thing, as now existing. Being always "beings" in beings. But it is immeasurably richer, because it is a designation not only for everything that is, but also for everything that can be. A huge role in philosophy is played by the concept of human existence, reflecting a certain ideal of human existence.

• Camyu A. Rebellious man. Philosophy. Policy. Art. M., 1990. S. 124.
• There. S. 138.
• Camyu A. Rebellious man. Philosophy. Policy. Art. S. 24.