What do you think?
Rate this book
Albert Camus: From the Absurd to Revolt
Adopting an interdisciplinary approach that encompasses philosophy, literature, politics, and history, John Foley examines the full breadth of Camus' ideas to provide a rigorous guide to his political and philosophical thought, making a significant contribution to current debates in Camus research. Foley argues that Camus' thought can best be understood through analysis of the concepts of "the absurd" and "revolt" and the relationship between them. The book includes a detailed discussion of Camus' writings for the newspaper Combat, a systematic analysis of the discussion of the moral legitimacy of political violence and terrorism, a reassessment of the prevailing postcolonial critique of Camus' humanism, and a sustained analysis of Camus' most commonly neglected work, L'Homme révolté (The Rebel). Written with sufficient detail and clarity to satisfy both academic and student audiences, Albert Camus: From the Absurd to Revolt is an important discussion and defence of Camus' philosophical thought.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
288 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 2008
About the author
John Foley
118 books4 followersJohn Foley is a high school teacher in Washington State. He previously worked as a newspaper reporter in the Chicago suburbs and Alaska, covering sports, cops, features, and any other beat that didn't require him to attend sanitary sewer meetings. Following a career change to teaching, he worked in Alaskan villages for several years, which led to his memoir Tundra Teacher. Hoops of Steel is based in part on his experiences as a basketball player. Foley was second string on the junior varsity at a Division III school, but prefers to simply say that he "played college ball."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
October 13, 2021
6 months ago, Camus was a French existentialist with an upturned collar and a jaunty cigarette. That’s all I knew about Camus. A month ago he became an absurdist; he of the quote, “The literal meaning of life is whatever you're doing that prevents you from killing yourself.” Then I read this book and found out that Camus was not an existentialist at all, in fact he got a lot of shit from various existentialists, particularly Sartre and de Beauvoir. He also got a lot of shit for his soft position on the fighting in Algeria, at a time when it was hip to encourage the Arab population to collect French colonial skulls. In fact he seems to have got a lot of shit for his soft position on various violent struggles.
The writer of this book is here to defend Camus against these allegations and point out where such allegations are based on a misreading or decontextualising of his words and actions. I would have liked it if the author had gone to more trouble to elucidate what he saw as the Camus’ relevance for the contemporary era rather than leaving this as a trainspotters revision of such words and actions. An interesting read nevertheless. I’d better go read something by Camus himself sometime soon.
Page 10 – ‘For Camus the absurd describes “a tension, born of a discrepancy between external reality and the human desire for familiarity… The doxa of life are a weave of beauty and ugliness, friendship and understanding, health and sickness, insight and opacity. It is a question of living with the mix and not succumbing to the temptation to make an absolute value out of either hope or despair.’
On The Outsider, ‘This form of dishonesty, and Meursault’s confrontation with it, become far more pronounced after his arrest. If we regard the absurd as primarily a claim regarding the severe limits on human knowledge, we shall see that from the perspective of the absurd perhaps the most interesting episode in the novel is that of the judicial process, culminating in Meursault’s trial. Heroically absurd, Meursault comes into conflict with the false positivism of both the state and its proxy, the court. The trial stages a confrontation between the simple and direct language of Meursault, who regularly admits to uncertainty and never admits to more than he knows, and the false and bombastic language of the state. As a confrontation between, on the one hand, conventional and institutional law and morality, and, on the other, the absurd, where law and morality rather than the absurd appear to embody injustice, it is worth looking at more closely.’ …going on over the next couple of pages to lucidly illustrate the protagonist’s failure to recognise the construct of society as an ultimate value.
P52, ‘the struggle against the absurd involves not just metaphysical Sisyphean scorn, but also, and especially, a determined rebellion against human systems that give the absurd social and political extension. Although it can never be a question of “transcending” the absurd (the human condition is characterized by the absurd, and to speak of transcending the human condition is necessarily erroneous), as Letters to a German Friend suggests,
the fact of the absurd requires one to choose between complicity with it and resistance
against it (see Glicksburg 1963: 60). This resistance is premised not on a hope of evading, transcending or triumphing over the absurd, but on the simple assumption that one should not add to the absurdity by conceding to it. This point is clearly expressed in The Plague, where we see solidarity and resistance, but also the awareness that the plague can never be completely vanquished. The novel’s protagonists are conscious that their struggle is against human suffering, and is not an effort to overcome it.’
P59, ‘The utopian ends posited by modern revolutionaries (utopian ends that, says Camus, true “rebellion does not demand”) justify prima facie any means. This totalitarian pathology is a travesty of rebellion (R: 47; E: 457).’
P70, ‘Camus asserts that “Marx’s scientific Messianism” itself has bourgeois roots. The idea of progress and the cult of technology and production are “bourgeois myths”, wholly commensurate with the hopes and desires of the mercantile classes. Indeed, notwithstanding the arguments of Kojève, such a belief in progress can, says Camus, be used to justify conservatism. Injustice in the present can be excused with the hollow consolation that the future belongs to the oppressed: “The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves.”’
P80-85. Camus fight against the absolutes of various political theories, led his critics to call him apolitical and ineffectual. Camus believed that true rebellion knew its limits and did not posit theoretical utopias that justified massacre as a means to an ends.
The book often revisits Sartre and Camus very different understandings of absurdity. At first the two writers supported each other’s ideas and writing but over time philosophical differences become irreconcilable. Foley often reminds us that Camus never called himself an existentialist. Camus found it difficult to justify the corporal punishment of the post war purge, putting him at odds with Sartre and de Beauvoir’s belief that the new society should rid itself of certain individuals. Camus absurdity seems surprisingly spiritual and moral, in fact Sartre said Camus was more like the 17th century French moralists than the existentialists. Finally, Sartre publicly savages the ideas of Camus’ The Rebel in Sartre’s periodical Les Temps modernes. P124 - ‘Sartre has interpreted Camus’s critique of historicism as a rejection of his own historicity, his own historical “situatedness”, the implication of which was his locating the source of all social or political injustice outside history, beyond human agency.’ In turn, Camus criticizes Sartre for believing that Marxian Communism is an end game at which point history is over.
The writer of this book is here to defend Camus against these allegations and point out where such allegations are based on a misreading or decontextualising of his words and actions. I would have liked it if the author had gone to more trouble to elucidate what he saw as the Camus’ relevance for the contemporary era rather than leaving this as a trainspotters revision of such words and actions. An interesting read nevertheless. I’d better go read something by Camus himself sometime soon.
Page 10 – ‘For Camus the absurd describes “a tension, born of a discrepancy between external reality and the human desire for familiarity… The doxa of life are a weave of beauty and ugliness, friendship and understanding, health and sickness, insight and opacity. It is a question of living with the mix and not succumbing to the temptation to make an absolute value out of either hope or despair.’
On The Outsider, ‘This form of dishonesty, and Meursault’s confrontation with it, become far more pronounced after his arrest. If we regard the absurd as primarily a claim regarding the severe limits on human knowledge, we shall see that from the perspective of the absurd perhaps the most interesting episode in the novel is that of the judicial process, culminating in Meursault’s trial. Heroically absurd, Meursault comes into conflict with the false positivism of both the state and its proxy, the court. The trial stages a confrontation between the simple and direct language of Meursault, who regularly admits to uncertainty and never admits to more than he knows, and the false and bombastic language of the state. As a confrontation between, on the one hand, conventional and institutional law and morality, and, on the other, the absurd, where law and morality rather than the absurd appear to embody injustice, it is worth looking at more closely.’ …going on over the next couple of pages to lucidly illustrate the protagonist’s failure to recognise the construct of society as an ultimate value.
P52, ‘the struggle against the absurd involves not just metaphysical Sisyphean scorn, but also, and especially, a determined rebellion against human systems that give the absurd social and political extension. Although it can never be a question of “transcending” the absurd (the human condition is characterized by the absurd, and to speak of transcending the human condition is necessarily erroneous), as Letters to a German Friend suggests,
the fact of the absurd requires one to choose between complicity with it and resistance
against it (see Glicksburg 1963: 60). This resistance is premised not on a hope of evading, transcending or triumphing over the absurd, but on the simple assumption that one should not add to the absurdity by conceding to it. This point is clearly expressed in The Plague, where we see solidarity and resistance, but also the awareness that the plague can never be completely vanquished. The novel’s protagonists are conscious that their struggle is against human suffering, and is not an effort to overcome it.’
P59, ‘The utopian ends posited by modern revolutionaries (utopian ends that, says Camus, true “rebellion does not demand”) justify prima facie any means. This totalitarian pathology is a travesty of rebellion (R: 47; E: 457).’
P70, ‘Camus asserts that “Marx’s scientific Messianism” itself has bourgeois roots. The idea of progress and the cult of technology and production are “bourgeois myths”, wholly commensurate with the hopes and desires of the mercantile classes. Indeed, notwithstanding the arguments of Kojève, such a belief in progress can, says Camus, be used to justify conservatism. Injustice in the present can be excused with the hollow consolation that the future belongs to the oppressed: “The future is the only kind of property that the masters willingly concede to the slaves.”’
P80-85. Camus fight against the absolutes of various political theories, led his critics to call him apolitical and ineffectual. Camus believed that true rebellion knew its limits and did not posit theoretical utopias that justified massacre as a means to an ends.
The book often revisits Sartre and Camus very different understandings of absurdity. At first the two writers supported each other’s ideas and writing but over time philosophical differences become irreconcilable. Foley often reminds us that Camus never called himself an existentialist. Camus found it difficult to justify the corporal punishment of the post war purge, putting him at odds with Sartre and de Beauvoir’s belief that the new society should rid itself of certain individuals. Camus absurdity seems surprisingly spiritual and moral, in fact Sartre said Camus was more like the 17th century French moralists than the existentialists. Finally, Sartre publicly savages the ideas of Camus’ The Rebel in Sartre’s periodical Les Temps modernes. P124 - ‘Sartre has interpreted Camus’s critique of historicism as a rejection of his own historicity, his own historical “situatedness”, the implication of which was his locating the source of all social or political injustice outside history, beyond human agency.’ In turn, Camus criticizes Sartre for believing that Marxian Communism is an end game at which point history is over.
July 22, 2009
This is a lucid appreciation of the political writings of Camus, especially The Rebel. Foley has mastered the scholarship, but provides an original perspective on several contested points. Highly recommended if you want to move beyond an aesthetic appreciation of this courageous writer, whose work remains strong and polemically relevant, even in the age of Obama.
March 24, 2014
This book was great in helping me appreciate Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, as well as Camus' other works and his life. Quite a fascinating guy, particularly in his attempts to translate his philosophical reasoning into political action in a violent world. I can't believe I had never heard of Camus until this past year and I'm glad I've now become familiar with his work.
May 23, 2020
Great read on Camus' conceptualization of 'the Rebel' in relation to the revolutions of the early 20th century. It does lack a detailed discussion on the influence on Dostoevsky, however. Dostoevsky was the reason he did not become an advocate for Marxism and the Soviet Union, unlike his friends Sartre did who argued no human rights could every be violated under Communism, which is one of the reasons Camus is widely read and Sayre is not; Camus was vindicated in many of his political views he gained from Dostoevsky. Camus, like Dostoevsky, saw Marxism, whether expressed in Communism or Socialism, as the result of a radically desacralized society that made itself the object of it's own adoration; a blind self-deification. It is a metaphysical revolution, not merely political and humanitarian. This is thoroughly Dostoevskian and it's hard to understand Camus without understanding his Russian hero.
He exhibited, thanks to his wanderings through Dost, a recalcitrant suspicion of Marxism which was embraced by his contemporaries. His fascination with Dostoevsky is what saved him from falling into the popular insanity of his time. His apoliticism and critique of Materialism/ Utilitarianism and subsequent Socio-Political ideologies of his time made him unpopular in the Liberal press at the time, but history has vindicated his suspicions.
His opposition to political violence has a lyrical foundation, not a moral one. He argues that the goodness of an individual must be rooted in an Absurd adherence to an illogical extemporal fantasy that they must stay in. Camus' writings are a nice thought experiment, but really have no philosophic value. Camus is trying to return to a Hellenistic line of thought, but disagrees with the search for Goodness itself; he selectively applies the Platonic logic he likes, and uses the Absurd as an excuse to dismiss any Platonic logic that contradicts his semi-Nihilism. He writes in Neither Victim nor Executioner:
"All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice. After that, we can distinguish those who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the accomplices of murders, and those who refuse to do so with all their force and being. Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist, it will be a gain if it be clearly marked. Over the expanse of five continents throughout the coming years an endless struggle is going to be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion, a struggle in which, grated, the former has a thousand times the chances of success than that of the latter. But I have always held that, if he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward. And henceforth, the honorable course will be to state everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful and munitions"
He winds in-between philosophy, economics and religion, but ends up giving no concrete answers; only aporetic poetry.
He exhibited, thanks to his wanderings through Dost, a recalcitrant suspicion of Marxism which was embraced by his contemporaries. His fascination with Dostoevsky is what saved him from falling into the popular insanity of his time. His apoliticism and critique of Materialism/ Utilitarianism and subsequent Socio-Political ideologies of his time made him unpopular in the Liberal press at the time, but history has vindicated his suspicions.
His opposition to political violence has a lyrical foundation, not a moral one. He argues that the goodness of an individual must be rooted in an Absurd adherence to an illogical extemporal fantasy that they must stay in. Camus' writings are a nice thought experiment, but really have no philosophic value. Camus is trying to return to a Hellenistic line of thought, but disagrees with the search for Goodness itself; he selectively applies the Platonic logic he likes, and uses the Absurd as an excuse to dismiss any Platonic logic that contradicts his semi-Nihilism. He writes in Neither Victim nor Executioner:
"All I ask is that, in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice. After that, we can distinguish those who accept the consequences of being murderers themselves or the accomplices of murders, and those who refuse to do so with all their force and being. Since this terrible dividing line does actually exist, it will be a gain if it be clearly marked. Over the expanse of five continents throughout the coming years an endless struggle is going to be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion, a struggle in which, grated, the former has a thousand times the chances of success than that of the latter. But I have always held that, if he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward. And henceforth, the honorable course will be to state everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful and munitions"
He winds in-between philosophy, economics and religion, but ends up giving no concrete answers; only aporetic poetry.
November 12, 2019
The best book on Camus' worldview. A necessary document freeing Camus from the dead philosoohy of Existentialism, making Absurdism relevant for our age.
March 12, 2016
If you want to gain an understanding of Camus's thinking and politics this is the perfect book.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews