Living with the absurd › Why Camus rejects two forms of escape

Camus distinguishes continuing to live with the absurd from eliminating the consciousness through which it arises. His objection to suicide is that it ends the confrontation rather than sustaining it. Within his argument, maintaining lucid awareness requires remaining alive. This is a claim about the consistency of a proposed philosophical response.

The other escape is what he calls philosophical suicide. Here a thinker recognizes an inability to provide a final rational explanation, then makes that inability the basis of a saving appeal beyond reason. Camus objects that the movement changes the terms on which the inquiry began.

His discussion of Kierkegaard is a conspicuous example. Camus interprets the religious leap as transforming the absurd into a reason for faith. He sees reconciliation where his own method requires continued opposition. This is Camus's interpretation of Kierkegaard, which should be assessed as an interpretation rather than accepted as a neutral summary of Kierkegaard's philosophy.

The objection is not exhausted by opposition to religious language. Camus says that a leap can also occur through a rational order claiming eternity. The issue is the transition from a difficulty within experience to an ultimate explanation that the argument has not established. Merely replacing religious vocabulary with philosophical vocabulary would not answer that objection.

A believer can reasonably ask whether Camus has given a fair account of faith. Rejecting his description as incomplete would require explaining what grounds the commitment he calls a leap. The chapter's task is to make the disagreement inspectable. It cannot resolve that disagreement by declaring either participant intellectually dishonest.