I was thinking of how sometimes we think of some books as changing our lives and still somehow after a few years we forget what it is in them that really influenced us!

Is it with books the same as it is with advice? Do we read books that are in line with our pre-existing beliefs while pretending to be influenced by them, just as we seek advice from those who we already know will validate our decision? Or do we really learn from what we read and become more enlightened?

For instance, I was trying to recall what I read in Albert Camus' Myth of Sisyphus eight years ago. It was the book I most talked about when I read it, and recommended it to everyone I met. I thought I had my whole life figured out as a result of it! Now, when I think back to what I liked about the book, I can barely outline Camus' philosophy on absurdity beyond the obvious themes that he touched upon. For the sake of this post, I'll be honest to my recollection of what he said. Be forewarned that this may not be what he said after all! (which is the point of this post) :)

He talks about the absurdity of human reasoning. We know that our life will eventually come to an end, and with each passing day, we are getting closer and closer to our inevitable death. But, we look forward to tomorrow (and our future) with a feeling of expectation and desire, and go on living our lives in denial, as if there is no death in the end. But, what will happen to us if we question the absurdity of human life? Why must we struggle to make a living, create societal norms, follow moral and ethical rules, go through pain and suffering, or even save for tomorrow, if it is all to end in our demise anyway? When a person attempts to find meaning in life and questions the merit of all these absurd pursuits, he either places his hope on a greater power (god) or concludes that there is no meaning to life.

To those who attempt to explain away this absurdity using the notion of God, Camus says it is a futile exercise that only encourages this denial of death even further and does not do anything to explain the absurdity. To those who accept the meaninglessness of life there is a chance that they may contemplate ending this absurdity by way of suicide. Camus explains that given that the absurdity we feel exists because of our own desire for a meaningful life and that it is inherently human to be absurd, it makes more sense to reject this desire for a meaningful life than commit suicide. (We can't all kill ourselves!)

Meaning, if we fight this feeling of false hope we have for a better tomorrow (even if it is an eternal fight), then we can unburden ourselves of wanting to live a meaningful life (because there is no such thing), free ourselves of moral and ethical norms of society (because there is no need for them) and take pleasure in the irrationality of our pursuits (because that is all there is to do)! The only things worth considering is living longest and happiest and indulging in rich and varied experiences.

In one greek myth, King Sisyphus was punished by the gods with the physically and mentally excruciating task of repeatedly rolling a huge boulder up the mountain only to watch it fall down again. Camus surmises that if Sisyphus were to have a shot at happiness, his best bet is to accept that there is nothing more to his life than this absurd pursuit... and that is the only way he can be free is to take pleasure in it!

Now, going back to my point about whether books really change the way we think, I can't help but wonder if this book really inspired me to pursue rich and varied experiences or accept the absurdity of my life. It certainly hasn't freed me of ethical and moral dilemmas. So what then has it bought me? Is it just another absurd pursuit that is best not analyzed? Should I just accept that there is nothing to gain from reading books? Is it futile to look to them to make my life meaningful? Or should I actually take Camus' advice and seek it only because it is one of those absurd pursuits that indulges me with (the possibility of) rich and varied experiences?

I suddenly see how Camus' book taught me something... and I think it may be the opposite of what he meant to teach me (because I find that I am influenced by his book)... or maybe not!... perhaps I best not analyze it. But, isn't that what Camus said? Am I agreeing with him?

What does Camus have to say about paradoxes?