I am currently reading The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. In it, he gives a fair outline of his philosophy.
Camus says that absurdity isn't just the scrutiny of a single fact; it's the paradoxes that lie in 'bare fact and certain reality'. He also asserts that Absurdism 'lies in neither of these elements compared; it is born of their confrontation'.
He is quick to point out that unlike other philosophers who have mystified the subject matter of their philosophies, he places 'The Absurd' very much within man's realm.
It must be noted here that Camus denies the existence of a 'higher reality'. At the same time, he feels that conflict between 'what is' and 'what should be' is the source of man's helplessness.
In regard to this, he says the following:
If helplessness has its place in the indifferent landscapes of history, it has none in a reasoning whose exigence is now known.
So here goes my question. Camus has put The Absurd in man's realm; however, from what I'm getting out of his book, it looks like a true understanding of this absurd is unattainable to man. Aren't these two things at odds with each other?
So it seems that 'the absurd' can't be pinpointed. Camus just wants us to accept it as a truism.
But can one arrive at the contents (and I'm using the term very liberally here) of the absurd? The friction between 'what is' and 'what should be'? The self-contrasting nature of our world? Since the absurd is wherever the mind goes, can one establish it more concretely, especially through the faculty of reason?