CAMUS VS. KIERKEGAARD

In their philosophizing, Camus and Kierkegaard battle the same beast: the absurd. Camus arms himself with reason and revolt, while Kierkegaard fights with faith. Camus is a straightforward, face-the-enemy-head-on kind of soldier, reminiscent of pre 20^th century battle paintings. You know, the ones in which the good guys stand so close to the bad guys that they can see 'the whites of their eyes'. Kierkegaard on the other hand, is kind of like a Kamikaze pilot. Neither Kamikaze pilots nor Kierkegaard seem to have much rationale, both are more concerned with 'how' you believe and convey this belief, rather than 'what' you believe. And when you do try to understand what little rationale they may have, they throw in another paradox and leave you just as confused as you were. Kamikaze pilots were willing to take the ultimate leap of faith and Kierkegaard was all about the 'leap of faith'. And in retrospect, they both seem a little crazy.

So, at the end of the day, has either Camus or Kierkegaard defeated the absurd? I'm not sure either philosopher has. What if we pit Camus and Kierkegaard against each other on the brainy battlefield; could we discern a clear victor? Again, I'm not sure we objectively could. (Just to clarify, by objectively I mean factually, without distortion by way of personal opinion or experience; not Kierkegaard's drawn-out definition of a straightforward word). I've always understood the role of artists and writers and great thinkers to be that of revealers rather than changers. They help us interpret the world, but do not necessarily change our beliefs. We are all thrown into this world with some sort of inherent belief system that develops over time and is certainly impacted by personal experiences. However, the inherent facets of our belief systems are steadfast and not easily altered. Thus, each individual is likely to find kinship with others who express similar beliefs. So again, I'm not sure either Camus or Kierkegaard could ever truly reign supreme over the other, but I'll throw them into the ring anyway, because I like Camus and Camus would ask “why not?”

CAMUS VS. KIERKEGAARD

The most glaring difference between Camus and Kierkegaard lies in how they approach the absurd. Kierkegaard seemingly embraces the absurd as an opportunity, a test of sorts. He suggests that in living, man must contend with the absurd, only in death will man truly be revealed. While alive, man must trust, despite the absurd, that there is more to existence than reason and logic can explain. In this respect, Kierkegaard's notion also posits a paradox: after man has exhausted reason and logic, he must deliver himself to the infinite, through faith - blind faith. Kierkegaard suggests that the collapse of reason is inevitable because reason is a human construct; all things human are bound to collapse and only from their collapse can the absolute erect.

Conversely, Camus dismisses the notion of the absolute. He proposes that there is no more to existence than meets the eye. Like Kierkegaard, Camus too, posits a paradox. Camus' paradox lies in the absurdity of living in a world that refuses to reveal its meaning. From this notion, Camus presents Sisyphus as the epitome of the absurd hero. In spite of his complete understanding of the meaningless repetition of rolling a rock up a mountain, just to have it roll back down to the summit, Sisyphus continues to repeat the task over and over again. I think maybe Sisyphus' acceptance of how the task will end, lessens the blow of its meaninglessness. I think in this, Camus presents an extremely effective example of how the acceptance of the meaningless of existence, can actually enhance one's quality of life. Sisyphus knows it will all end without any meaning and once life is over, it's over. As such, he takes pleasure in every action, no matter how repetitive, and in every feeling, painful or pleasurable.

If at all, Camus and Kierkegaard find some common ground in their refusal to surrender to the absurd. Both acknowledge the absurd and may at times seem overpowered by its magnitude, however, at no point does either man surrender. If any, the only form of surrender in either Camus or Kierkegaard's philosophy is the surrender of the mind to the incomprehensible. Both yield themselves to what they (as men) cannot possibly comprehend. Kierkegaard through a of a leap of faith and the belief in something far greater than worldly existence, and Camus through the acknowledgement of the meaningless and the struggle to make meaning of the void.

Ask me, and I'll tell you Camus wins – TKO. Ask the pope, and it's Kierkegaard by a landslide.

I'll take Camus' meaninglessness over Kierkegaard's blind faith any day. To me, if Camus is right and everything means nothing, than every single action we make and every single task we undertake becomes infinitely meaningful. The lack of any post-life atonement and the inability to alter the past or foretell the future, leaves nothing but the present. And with nothing but now, nothing but this life, this instant, means anything. Now is all we have, and it only seems natural to make the best of what we have - now.