There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.
Not believing in God, as a transcendent guarantor of meaning, in the rest of the book Camus wrestles with the absurdity and nihilism that threatens the meaningfulness of human existence. Facing a existential void, Camus seeks a godless way forward into cosmic significance and fullness. And at the end of the work, Camus reaches his conclusion: "The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
In Hunting Magic Eels, I raise a question about Camus' concluding "must." Why must we imagine Sisyphus happy? All his struggle is meaningless and absurd. The rock will roll back to the bottom of the hill rendering all effort futile, wasted, and pointless. Why, therefore, should we not imagine Sisyphus despairing and hopeless? Surely that seems to be a more reasonable and understandable emotional reaction given his situation. And yet, it is precisely this despair in the face of nihilism that Camus wants to prevent.
Why? Well, Camus is honest enough to know that nihilism cannot provide a livable human existence. If nihilism is admitted then Camus' question about suicide--judging whether life is or is not worth living--remains a perennial temptation and a real moral option. Perhaps even a virtuous and heroic act. And as Camus rightly sees, this path leads to madness. Here be dragons.
Personally, I don't think Camus' attempt at a constructing a meaningful nihilism or a significant absurdity works. True, one can imagine Sisyphus happy, but one can also imagine him suicidal. What I want to focus upon, however, is how, as an atheist, Camus feels it necessary to land on that "must." Even if existence is devoid of meaning, we must imagine our lot as happy. Living as one accursed isn't a good option. We need to embrace and experience our lives as a positive good. We must imagine Sisyphus happy.
And it's precisely here, with Camus' conclusion about a happy Sisyphus, where I want to introduce Camus as a strange ally into a conversation about "the problem of evil" in Christian theology.
As regular readers know, I've been thinking about the problem of evil for a very long time. Theodicy defines my theological world. And one of the things I've noticed in conversations about theodicy, among others who wrestle with these questions, is how the conversation can tip toward viewing existence itself as accursed. You see this emerge in Ivan Karamazov's arguments in The Brothers Karamazov, in his questions about how God created the world, even if God plans to redeem it all. Notice the deeper challenge here. The question isn't "Why does evil exist?" but a more radical objection: "Why does creation exist?" Given all the pain and suffering, was creation worth the cost? Ivan Karamazov says no, creation wasn't worth cost. Shouldn't have happened. So, he wants to "return his ticket" back to God. Ivan wants nothing to do with existence. Life is accursed.
So that is the question I want to ponder. It's a deeper and far darker question than what what we typically debate when it comes to "the problem of evil." For the most part, we debate the mixed state of the world, how evil exists alongside the good. How suffering and pain intrude upon life. But there is a more radical question that attacks, in light of horrific suffering, the goodness of existence itself. And it's precisely here where I think the happiness of Sisyphus might have something to say. For even the godless can see that existence must be embraced as good.
