Camus' idea to keep the absurd alive by accepting our innate desire for meaning and even pursuing and yet not giving into hope of ever reaching a meaning to life, what he calls the revolt against the absurd, seems impractical to me. He speaks of contemplating and being aware or lucid of the absurd to keep it alive but would such a revolt be sustainable over a lifetime? I know he mentions very elegantly his method(s) of keeping the absurd alive through what he calls the absurd logic, through persistence, avoiding hope and unity(i.e. need to make sense out things),awareness or lucidity of the absurd, etc.
Are there criticism of the Myth of Sisyphus, you guys are aware of, besides the fact that his definition of the absurd is based on circular reasoning?
I am trying to write paper for class in which I want to show that the absurd and/or the revolt against it cannot be so easily "kept alive" because it would seem against that we gravitate towards hope naturally in our day to day experience of life; that hope is too persuasive psychologically to us to be succesfully revolted.
I am already aware of Albert Camus and the Philosophy of the Absurd by Sagi as a resource on google books. Is there any other? Thanks in advance.