Comparison of Camus' and Kierkegaard's on Absurdity and Murder
In this essay, I will compare Camus’ and Kierkegaard’s theories of the absurd and how they differ from one another and also outline their similarities, it will also discuss both philosophers’ portrayals of the act of murder.
When looking at Kierkegaard’s theory of the absurd, he describes the absurd as “The Absurd, or to act by the virtue of the absurd, is to act upon faith”, he shows this in one of his famous works fear and trembling, Kierkegaard talks about Abraham and god, and how God had told Abraham that he had to sacrifice his son Isaac. Abraham was about to sacrifice his son then an angel appeared and prevented Abraham from completing his actions. In Kierkegaard’s work he shows that he believes that through the virtue of the absurd, Abraham, even though he went against all reason and ethical duties, he got his son back and affirmed his faith. In terms of the portrayal of murder, if Isaac had been killed by Abraham, it would have been put down to an act of faith and therefore justified as god had commanded this of Abraham and that made it ethically okay to commit the murder, as religion plays a part in the absurdity and Abraham did what was commanded by a higher being and reasoning, Abraham was feeling morally and ethically okay coming up to the murder as the murder was portrayed as an act of god. But in the end the angel stopped the murder and Abraham got to keep his son. Kierkegaard’s theory of the absurd believes that the absurd needs an irrational but needed religious leap into the unknown in order to find meaning in a meaningless world.
Whereas Camus, was against this idea of the theory of absurd and referred to it as “philosophical suicide”. Camus’ theory of absurd is a little different from Kierkegaard’s, he believed that the human condition was absurd, as in Camus’ theory there was confrontation between man’s desire for their significance in the world, wanting to know meaning and clarity and the silent world that does not provide the answers. He believed that there are human experiences that can start off absurdity. For Camus when a person comes into contact with one of these experiences the absurd leaves the person with a choice, such as suicide, acceptance, or a leap of faith and for Camus he believes acceptance is the only defensible option. Camus believes that suicide is simply the choice that says life is too much to handle. In Camus’ opinion suicide offers the easiest way out of absurdity and the immediate removal of an individual from the self and the self’s place in the world. He also talks about the leap of faith, just as what Kierkegaard referred to as “virtue of the absurd”. Camus believes that faith is a power that is controlled by the absurd and that is why Camus does not believe that the absurd needs ethical reasoning at all unlike Kierkegaard. But for Camus, acceptance is the winner, this is when an individual embraces the absurd condition they are in, Camus believed that to give life meaning, the answer lies in one’s acknowledgement and acceptance of absurdity, then a person is totally free. The freedom of an individual is defined as the opportunity to create their own meaning and purpose and to decide for themselves. An individual is then a part of a precious existence. Camus shows this in one of his essays the myth of Sisyphus, it reads “thus I draw from the absurd three consequences, which are my revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the mere activity of consciousness, I transform into a rule of life what was an invitation to death, and I refuse suicide”.
To look into how Camus portrays murder we must look at the character Meursault in the novel The Stranger. Meursault has murdered an Arabian as the presence of the Arab disturbs him. While in prison for the murder Meursault comes to the realization that just as he his indifferent to much of the universe, the universe is just as indifferent towards him. This leads Meursault to attain happiness as he has come to terms, he will be put to death, he comes to understand it does not matter if he dies by old age or execution. This understanding enables him to stop thinking about escaping execution as he realises that the hope of escaping execution would just create a false sense that death is avoidable. He comes to terms that his hope for life has been a burden on him. The distance he gets from this hope means he is free to live life to the fullest and to make the most of the last of his days, this plays into Camus’ acceptance of absurdity. Camus also talks about murder in The Plague, as Tarrou had a father who was a lawyer and he demanded a death sentence for a criminal which Tarrou believed was wrong to do, Tarrou believed that man was too involved in murder. Tarrou rejects rationalisations that include a lot of execution of men in the name of justice, So for Tarrou murder is the biggest evil in the world and he plays no part in it.
To conclude, Camus and Kierkegaard agree on the fact that suicide is not the way in which someone should act to find meaning. However, their understanding of absurdity is quite different, Kierkegaard believes that the absurdity requires an irrational but necessary religious leap into the unknown, whereas Camus believes that this is philosophical suicide and that acceptance of one’s absurdity is the only way one can find freedom and meaning and not to rely on religion to find that meaning. The two philosophers agree on a few things in terms of absurdity, but overall, their understandings of absurdity differ. In my opinion I believe Camus’ theory of absurdity is better as I believe it is the individual that needs to accept absurdity in order to truly live and be free as all your decisions are your own and are not determined by an external factor such as god. I believe an individual holds more value in themselves when they themselves create who they are through the choices they make and that is why I believe Camus’ theory is better.
