/lit/ - Literature

>describes a feeling almost everyone felt in the current day
>only mentions desire and pain once
>doesn't mention the kalam argument to contradict deism or pantheism
>doesn't tell me why i shouldn't commit rope in the end

This didn't age well. Schopenhauer, epicurius and the Buddhists were right about everything bros

Camus' Myth of Sisyphus is absurdly unreadable!
I've now tried at several occasions to pick the book up, but 20% in and I can barely remember anything of what I've read.

The language seems snobbish in its extreme amount of metaphors in nearly every sentence and elitistic in its deceivingly simple wording that when combined into these Nobel Prize-winning sentences makes no sense. If I did not know better I'd read this as the ramblings of a senile intellectual.

I appreciate his contribution to philosophy, but despite understanding dated language like The Decameron and Don Quijote this material feels like reading obscure poetry.

In the end, is there a good answer to this?
People can come up with various systems to pretend there is some kind of specific objective truth or meaning we can reach out there but it all seems like cope.
In the end it seems to me like nobody really has any fucking idea what's going on.

ITT: Books that changed your life for the better

>I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain. One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself, forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.

>One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Am I a brainlet or us half of myth of sisyphos just incoherent rambling?

Also, Iddo Landeau's Finding Meaning in an Imperfect World (minor blue pills but great overall)