Camus

     There are very striking philosophical similarities between Camus' The First Man and his first book, A Happy Death. In A happy Death, which he completed in 1938 at the age of twenty-five, the author develops a very interesting, if not altogether original idea that has the thinker attempting to capture the essence and immediacy of death. In this work the young Camus is concerned with living a good life in order to have a “happy” death.

     In other words, Camus’ main contention has everything to do with the Socratic notion that philosophy is a preparation for death through a conscious readiness to die. A Happy Death is essentially a meditation on the values of a future oriented existence that is aware that the future is already imbedded in a vitally lived immediacy.

     The theme of the passage of time is a central and unifying theme in these two works. In A Happy Death, Patrice Mersault, the autobiographical main character comes to the realization that to possess time can be both, magnificent as well as a very dangerous thing. The rallying point of this contention is that idleness is a fatal condition that can foster existential stagnation and mediocrity. However, this cannot be said of the creative life. Instead, Camus argues that true reflection can only take place when framed by the presence of idle time.

     In The First Man Camus equally follows through with this same concern that he had as a younger man. The death of his father in the latter work signifies the horror that the passage of time can mean to a reflective soul. Mersault and Jacques desire transcendence. In both cases, the consensus is that happiness originates from having a pure heart and the necessary will to implement the virtues thereof.

     Camus’ situation as a philosopher and writer was rather precarious. There is a sense in which he can easily be regarded as a stoic. His notion of metaphysical rebellion showcases a courageous engagement with reality that leaves no room for external blame or sentimental rationalization.

 

     In addition, he also does not allow metaphysical rebellion the indiscretion of becoming the basis and escape valve of ideology. This perspective on human reality alone makes Camus' very original, especially for a Twentieth-Century thinker, a time when many intellectuals were mere mouthpieces of Marxism. As a stoic, Camus did not shun the world of men and retire to a private existence. This is evident from his engagement in the French resistance and his voicing concern for those people who suffered  Soviet-bloc, communist atrocities.

 

     However, there is a also a very reserved and dignified side to Camus the man, which he found to be at odds with Camus the public entity. Yet he seems to have found a resolute answer to this dilemma by demanding that the autonomy of the thinker, as one who attempts to bring coherence to what Kant has called the “chaos of sensations,” is respected.

 

     The thinker for Camus is always a creator of worlds. A very strong indication of the respect that he felt for other thinkers and the creative process itself is seen in the scant number of negative references that he makes to the work of others.

 

     In The Myth of Sisyphus Camus does make mention of Dostoyevsky when he writes of The Brothers Karamazov and Kafka’s The Trial and The Castle, but he always does so in a positive light. His references to Nietzsche, Kierkegaard and Chestov are merely instances of praise that allow Camus to argue a particular point. The rest of The Myth of Sisyphus is an exploration of the nature of life and death and the Socratic question of what constitutes a worthwhile life.
 
     Equally true, in the The Rebel Camus stirs clear of offhanded criticism of the thought of others. In the first part of that work the focus is on man’s place in what he considers an absurd universe. The first part of the The Rebel is reminiscent of the vital and intellectual honesty of the thought of such thinkers as Marcus Aurelius, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, to mention just a few.