I love you, Mr. Camus (pronounced Ka-Moo).

I just finished re-reading The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I enjoyed it the first time, and I absolutely loved it the second. Actually that's a god damn lie. I didn't love it at all, but I'll get to that later. There were parts of it I enjoyed, and what I enjoyed most was Camus' description of 'the absurd'. He explains that the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face on any street corner. Perhaps my favorite example of Camus' description of 'absurdity' comes on page 14. He states,

"At certain moments of lucidity, the mechanical aspect of mans gestures their meaningless pantomime makes silly everything that surrounds them. A man is talking on the telephone behind a glass partition; you cannot hear him, but you see his dumb show: you wonder why he is alive."

I find what he describes to be familiar feeling, and one I could never describe myself. This was easily my favorite part of the book. Where I start to loose interest is where he describes the conequences of living an absurd life (revolt, freedom and passion). I also dislike his examples of absurdity, particularly Don Juan (the lover), the actor and the conqueror. The titular character, on the other hand provides the best example of an absurd life (in my opinion of course, but It's my blog so fuck you). He imagined Sisyphus happy, despite the fact he was condemned to roll a rock up a hill for eternity. He imagines this because his rock is 'his thing'. If this is sounding confusing, it's because (a) I can't explain anything to anyone and (b) you probably didn't read the fucking book). What I find most confusing about the absurd is where it stands in relation to other ideas, particularly in relation to existentialism. The two ideas seem so similar I found it hard to differentiate one from the other. Thank God for Wikipedia (there's a little joke for you), I think I am able to make some sense of what is going on here. Existentialists believe that there is a such thing as meaning, but the universe is totally devoid of it. Therefore, people must create their own meaning for their lives. Absurdists also believe that there is a such thing as meaning. However, they acknowledge their may be meaning, but if there is we will never know it, and should not hope to know it. The main difference between the two ideas, so far as I can see, is that absurdists believe that individuals may create their own meaning (much like existentialists, thus the confusion) so long as it faces the absurdity and seemingly pointlessness of life. Sisyphus therefore acknowledges meaning, but knows he can never know what the meaning of life is. So instead he finds 'his thing' (the rock) which is his meaning. Because he knows 'his thing' is pointless, he faces the absurd every day by rolling the rock up the hill. Because he confronts the absurd instead of avoiding it (like Camus accuses just about every philosopher who came before him of doing), he imagines Sisyphus must be happy . I think that makes sense. Kind of. Sort of. Maybe?

Did I completely miss the mark here?