Third proof of my existence: Musings on the absurd; is Sisyphus like us?

Discussing Albert Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus", one encounters many ways of appreciating, or observing, the absurd. The question, in my mind, is whether or not our lives are comparable to the life of Sisyphus. To me, there's no doubt that Sisyphus is living an absurd life- he's condemned, or allowed, to push a rock up a hill for all eternity, as an immortal punishment for rebelling against the gods; the absurd notion that from that point on, his is an experience limited to a bland, repetitive, and all together meaningless (from my perspective) task. So then the question is whether or not we, as individuals with choices, are similar to Sisyphus; is our collective individual experience absurd?

In class, my table was discussing moments of absurdity, as a momentary and transient occurrence; but through the full discussion while we were in a circle, I began to ponder things a slightly different way. What if it's not a moment of absurdity that we experience, but rather it's this- our existence as a whole is absurd, and our non-experiential moments are the transient ones. That is, when we have those "moments" of cognizant absurdity, we're possibly dipping into our greater individual reality?

So metaphorically, we are starkly similar to Sisyphus, in so far as my classmate Heston put it, and I paraphrase with abandon, "We're born, we do some things, and we die"- that the whole experience from an outsider's perspective would seem entirely pointless without the momentary and individual sense of ascribed meaning. To put it in another light, it could be the case that there is no greater meaning to our lives, that all of the meaning we find in life is found in those moments of triumph, metaphorically when our goals are reached much like when Sisyphus finishes pushing the rock up the hill.

I'm really uncertain about all of this, and I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow; to anybody reading, I've got one question to you- do you think that Sisyphus, if given the opportunity, would commit suicide, or would he continue to roll the rock up the hill? Perhaps not suicide in the literal sense, but maybe in a momentary one- what if Sisyphus had a chance to take a day long break, or something similar? Would that integrally alter the meaning of his experience, if either in the literal or momentary sense?

Second proof of my existence: the case against Meursalt's rationality.

So, today in class we discussed the first part of "The Stranger", by Albert Camus; we spoke of rationality and emotion, choices and individuality, and in large part, whether or not rationality was part of or separate from emotion.

For most of the day, I was on the fence. I felt that rationality, in most circumstances, was completely separate from emotion. However! With new input from my own family's drama, I'm no longer so convinced; as I'm currently extremely rational and extremely emotional, I find the two states of mind to not, in fact, be mutually exclusive. As it turns out, for me at the very least, it's entirely possible to be both entirely rational and simultaneously emotional; were this not the case, I'm almost certain that I would be committing a crime against my sibling for his actions.

Tying this again with Camus' "The Stranger", I, in my earlier iteration, would have found myself going in an entirely different direction; I would have argued that Meursault was an entirely- absurdly, even- rational being, that he grounded himself in nothing but the moment and never once looked forward. However, given my new personal view of the world, I think it could possibly be the opposite. Perhaps Meursault is entirely irrational; perhaps being lost in the moment, entirely at the mercy of his environment (rather than his emotions or his rationality), is his condition. That is, perhaps he's not as astute as I once figured; perhaps the reason that he shot the Arab was only because he felt like it. Not because it would support his bond with Raymond, rather, perhaps he only shot the Arab because it suited him at the moment- it was an instantaneous choice, with absolutely no rational reasoning behind it. Perhaps if he had taken another a breath, he would have held his finger on the trigger and warned the Arab that if he continued, he would shoot. Maybe he would have had another scuffle with the man, maybe he would have shot him without mortally wounding him; regardless, I now feel that he had no part in rationally choosing to shoot the man. Had I committed my previously mentioned crime against my sibling, I might be able to say that there was a rationale; that I consciously made a choice to let my emotions control me.

However, in my livid state, there was no loss of control. I did not commit a crime, and I stayed my emotions, rationally. As such, I no longer feel that the two states of being are opposite sides of a coin; rationality and emotions are not mutually exclusive in my mind, and with this new information, I think that Meursault is not a rational man- I think that he's ruled by the moment, as diametrically opposed to ruling the moment. He is a product of his surroundings, rather than being the multiplier. If this is the case, then I think that the argument against his being a rational being can be made.