Ruan 1

Only through time time is conquered. T. S. Eliot

Absurd Time: Understanding Camus's Quantitative Ethics Through Bergsonian Duration
In The Myth of Sisyphus, Abert Camus tries to !or" through !hat he cas the #one tru$
serious %hioso%hica %robem& '(): suicide* +e begins b$ ac"no!edging that the human condition
is ,undamenta$ mar"ed b$ absurdit$, !hich he de,ines as an o%%osition bet!een the irrationa
nature o, the !ord and man's innate desire to understand it* The absurd is not the %assive
indi,,erence and irrationait$ o, the !ord around us, it more s%eci,ica$ arises ,rom our encounter
!ith the !ord, our utimate$ ,aied attem%ts to "no! it* This is !h$ Camus %oints out that #'It's
absurd' means 'It's im%ossibe' but also 'It's contradictor$'& '-.)* /ne sim%e !a$ to dea !ith
absurdit$, then, is to remove one term ,rom the e0uation b$ committing suicide* Camus resists this
soution, ,or suicide denies the %o!er that the absurd can give to our ives* B$ iving in absurdit$,
and maintaining its o%%ositions, !e revot against the tem%tation to sh$ a!a$ ,rom e1istence, and
#that revot gives i,e its vaue& '22)* #3iving is "ee%ing the absurd aive,& and it is this insistence
on the absurdit$ o, our condition that ao!s us to ,ind %ur%ose and drive in i,e*
+o!ever, it is at this %oint that Camus ma"es a concusion that seems 0uite troubing* 4ince
i,e has no! been given an absurd aim, our ideas o, !hat constitutes a good i,e have to be
rethought* This is because #beie, in the meaning o, i,e a!a$s im%ies a scae o, vaues, a choice,
our %re,erences* Beie, in the absurd, according to our de,initions, teaches the contrar$& '56)* That
is to sa$, beie, in the absurd necessari$ cannot have a grounded sense o, vaue 7 #the absurd
mere$ con,ers an e0uivaence o, the conse0uences o, 8our9 actions& '5:)* +o!, then, can !e decide
!hat ma"es a i,e !orth!hie; Camus asserts that #!hat counts is not the best iving but the most
iving < Beie, in the absurd is tantamount to substituting the 0uantit$ o, e1%eriences ,or the
0uait$& '56=51)* At ,irst gance, Camus seems to be advocating a "ind o, nihiistic hedonism: it
doesn't matter !hat e1%eriences one has, since no meaning,u di,,erence can be made bet!een
di,,erent "inds o, e1%erience 7 !hat's rea$ im%ortant is to >ust have a ot o, them? This sur,ace
Ruan -
eve inter%retation seems !e su%%orted b$ the te1t, and $et the concusions it dra!s are contrar$
to the aim o, The Myth of Sisyphus, !hich is to give i,e a meaning and substance through ,ideit$ to
the absurd* A more in de%th inter%retation o, Camus's ethics o, 0uantit$ !oud have to tr$ to
serious$ gra%%e !ith !hat "ind o, tem%orait$ is being im%ied here*
Camus !rites that #during ever$ da$ o, an uniustrious i,e, time carries us* But a moment
a!a$s comes !hen !e have to carr$ it* @e ive on in the ,uture < $et a da$ comes !hen a man
notices or sa$s that he is thirt$* Thus he asserts his $outh* But simutaneous$ he situates himse, in
reation to time* +e ta"es his %ace in it& '1()* +ere, a cear distinction bet!een being #carried b$
time& and #carr$ing time& is made* /ne can either be %ushed aong b$ the ever$da$ ,o! o, things,
or one can assert onese, and ma"e the choice to determine their o!n course o, actions* A ma>or
im%ication o, this distinction is that time is not mere$ an im%ersona thing that ,o!s ahead
se%arate$ ,rom us 7 it is e1%erientia and sub>ective* /ur e1%erience o, time changes de%ending on
!hether us or time is doing the #carr$ing*& Though this ma$ seem ,air$ obvious on a
%henomenoogica eve, this %oint is o,ten obscured !hen time is thought o, as a %ure$ ob>ective
reait$* The absurd ethics o, 0uantit$ seems contradictor$ to Camus's %ro>ect on$ i, time is thought
o, in an ob>ective sense* @e can %ro%er$ understand !hat Camus means i, !e instead thin" o, time
sub>ective$*
+enri Bergson's theor$ o, the duration %rovides a use,u !a$ ,or us to do this* At the
beginning o, his essa$ Introduction to Metaphysics, Bergson contrasts t!o !a$s o, "no!ing a
thing:
The ,irst im%ies that !e move round the ob>ectA the second that !e enter into it* The ,irst
de%ends on the %oint o, vie! at !hich !e are %aced and on the s$mbos b$ !hich !e
e1%ress ourseves* The second neither de%ends on a %oint o, vie! nor reies on an$ s$mbo*
The ,irst "ind o, "no!edge ma$ be said to sto% at the relativeA the second, in those cases
!here it is %ossibe, to attain the asolute '-1)*
Ruan (
/ur usua !a$ o, ta"ing about time 's%atiaiBed time) is thus reative: !e use certain
s$mbos 'second, minute, hour) to designate s%eci,ic %eriods o, time, and a o, our coc"s are
reative$ tuned to a centra one in 3ondon* B$ recasting s%atiaiBed time as reative, Bergson
highights the im%ersonait$ o, this tem%orait$* 4ince it uses s$mbos that are going to be inherent$
im%er,ect, #ob>ective time& ignores the sim%e ,act that %eo%e ive sub>ective$ !ithin time, and
one e1%erience o, #an hour& is not necessari$ the same as another* /r, as Abert Einstein 0ui%%ed,
#!hen a man sits !ith a %rett$ gir ,or an hour, it seems i"e a minute* But et him sit on a hot stove
,or a minute and it's onger than an$ hour*& /n the other hand, an absoute understanding o, time
can on$ be gained b$ the e1%erience o, being in time* @hen #I insert m$se, in 8an ob>ect9 b$ an
e,,ort o, imagination,& then I have absoute "no!edge o, it* #@hat I e1%erience !i de%end neither
on the %oint o, vie! I ma$ ta"e u% in regard to the ob>ect, since I am inside the ob>ect itse,& '-1),
nor on the !a$ the e1%erience is transated into s$mbos, because absoute "no!edge is be$ond
descri%tion !ith s$mbos* This method o, inserting onese, is !hat Bergson means b$ intuition, and
an intuition o, time $ieds !hat he cas a duration, or %ure time* 4ince duration is constant$
shi,ting subt$ 7 one moment si%s into the ne1t !ith no cear division in bet!een 7 intuition must
aso ad>ust !ith'in) the duration that is being e1amined* #This means that 8!hereas9 ana$sis
o%erates a!a$s on the immobie, < intuition %aces itse, in mobiit$, or, !hat comes to the same
thing, in duration& 'C1)* It is im%ossibe to e1%ain a duration in !ords, because to do so !oud ,i1 it
in %ace* A descri%tion o, a duration is 0uaitative$ ver$ di,,erent ,rom a duration itse,* Again, this
ma$ seem %ain$ obvious, but as Bergson %oints out ,re0uent$, !e tend to thin" that accurate$
,ormed conce%ts can ade0uate$ substitute ,or the things that the$ s$mboise, !hich is %ain$ not
the case !ith duration*
#Duration is a heterogeneous ,u1 or becoming& '1-)* This means that a duration is a
heterogeneous muti%icit$ o, une0ua moments, and that it itse, is une0ua* Rather than an hour,
!hich !i a!a$s be com%rised o, si1t$ minutes, an$ %articuar duration e1%ands or contracts
Ruan C
de%ending on the intuitive e1%erience that a se, has !ithin it* It is a becoming because the se, in
duration is not static 7 it is striving to!ards ne! e1%ressions o, being, a!a$s %ushing ,or!ard* The
heterogeneous character o, duration im%ies that intuition o, a duration can be directed in t!o
directions, either #u%& or #do!n&:
In the ,irst !e advance to a more and more attenuated duration, the %usations o, !hich,
being more ra%id than ours, and dividing our sim%e sensation, diute its 0uait$ into
0uantit$ < Advancing in the other direction, !e a%%roach a duration !hich strains,
contracts, and intensi,ies itse, more and moreA at the imit !oud be < an eternit$ o, i,e&
'CD=C.)*
The duration does not have some ,i1ed amount o, time, or 0uantit$, a%%ortioned to it b$ an
e1terna s$mboisation o, time 7 the intuition one has o, a duration is !hat gives that duration's
0uantit$* This is the ,irst reason !h$ Bergson's theor$ o, tem%orait$ contributes to a radica re=
understanding o, Camus's ethics o, 0uantit$: the 0uantit$ o, a duration is determined b$ the
e1%erience a se, has in it* Camus !rites, #Eonda$ Tuesda$ @ednesda$ Thursda$ Frida$ and
4aturda$ according to the same rh$thm 7 this %ath is easi$ ,oo!ed most o, the time* But one da$
the '!h$' arises and ever$thing begins in that !eariness tinged !ith amaBement& '1-=1()* @hat he
seems to be getting at here is that certain e1%eriences can brea" us ,ree ,rom thin"ing time soe$ in
a s%atiaiBed manner 7 Bergson cas these e1%eriences intuitions* @hen !e have an intuition o,
time, !e reaise that our duration is heterogeneous, that !e determine its 0uantit$* #Above a,
,reedom means a!areness o, e1istence and a i,e o, ucidit$A 0uantit$ !ithout a!areness is
!orthess& '4agi D2)* It is this a!areness that ma"es the ethics o, 0uantit$ so %o!er,u, ,or !hen !e
e1ercise ,reedom in a duration, !e ta"e contro o, our abiit$ to determine the 0uantit$ o, our
e1%erience* The 0uait$ o, a duration is more or ess meaningess 7 to abstract$ s%ea" o, a
duration's 0uait$ is to ana$se it and ,i1 it in %ace* To thin" o, duration in terms o, its 0uantit$ is to
e1%erience it, and understand that a duration is a!a$s becoming, a!a$s creating ne! %ossibiities*
Ruan 2
@hen Bergson !rites that #0uantit$ is a!a$s 0uait$ in a nascent state& '2-), he a$s out a vita
conse0uence o, an ethics o, durationa 0uantit$: the 0uantit$, or e1%erience, o, a duration is !hat
gives the se, that e1ists !ithin it the ,reedom to become* Camus's ethica in>unction, then, is to ive
each duration to the ,uest 0uantit$*
The se, un,ods in duration, but the se, %recedes the duration* In the s%atiaiBed image o,
time, time %recedes us* To sa$ that a se, e1ists in s%atia time is to %osit an e1terna ,o! o, time
that a se, ha%%ens to be %aced inside* Durationa time, on the other hand, does not e1ist !ithout a
se, that un,ods !ithin it* #From the com%e1 Go! o, time !e %roduce ordered !hoes 7 such as the
notion o, the human se,* @e then imagine that this se, preceded or grounded the !o" of time
rather than eing an effect of time& 'Coebroo" C1)* In this !a$, a duration can be an #ine1haustibe
source o, ,reedom& 'Bergson 1(), because the imit o, !hat can be done inside a duration is soe$
set b$ the se, that grounds the duration* Hies DeeuBe, !hose theor$ o, time is heavi$ based on
Bergson's, em%hasises the ,reedom that a se,=grounded duration ao!s* +e cas time #intensiveA
a!a$s ta"ing the ,orm o, di,,erent and divergent durations& 'Coebroo" C1)* The se, in intensive
time is conscious o, the absurdit$ o, e1istence, and is a!are o, its o!n un,oding in each duration*
The se, and the duration it is !ithin #are strict$ inse%arabe* Cimate, !ind, season, hour are not o,
another nature than the things, animas, or %eo%e that %o%uate them, ,oo! them, see% and
a!a"en !ithin them& 'DeeuBe and Huattari -5()* Again, the ine bet!een 0uait$ and 0uantit$ is
burred* @hat matters is not the 0uait$ o, time that is being s%ent 'it might even be useess to ma"e
such a distinction, an$!a$) 7 it matters ho! the se, un,ods !ithin it, ho! the se, becomes a!are
o, its o!n absurdit$ !ithin the duration* #E1%eriencing the intensive time o, s%eciIc durations ***
,osters intuitive a!areness o, the creative %ossibiities uni0ue to those durations !ith their s%eciIc
convergence o, un,oding ,orces& '3orraine D.)* Jarado1ica$, it is through an a!areness o,
absurdit$ in duration that the se, can be most ,ree* Each duration contains !ithin it man$ di,,erent
%aths o, being that can be ta"en* Absurdit$ tes us that there is no 0uaitative di,,erence bet!een
Ruan 5
these %aths 7 it is b$ choosing one in the ,ace o, absurdit$, !ith an a!areness o, absurdit$, that I can
ive intensive$ !ithin the duration*
Rather than thin"ing o, a %resent time that is static and divorced ,rom our being in it,
DeeuBe urges us to see that #the %resent as durationa !hoe carries !ith it virtua tendencies that
intensi,$ to!ard threshods o, actuaiBation in "ee%ing !ith its d$namic un,oding& '3orraine .)* To
be a!are o, these threshods o, actuaiBation is to be a!are o, the absurdit$ o, e1istence, to tac"e it
,ace on instead o, sh$ing a!a$ ,rom it* This is !hat Camus means !hen he caims that, #the absurd
man is he !ho is not a%art ,rom time& ':-)* The o%%osite o, being not a%art ,rom time is being
!ithin it, un,oding intensive$ in it, being a!are o, the creative %ossibiities uni0ue to an$ given
duration* A this must be done !ith the a!areness o, absurdit$* For Camus, Don Kuan e1em%i,ies
the absurd i,e b$ %assionate$ iving in the %resent* Interesting$ enough, Don Kuan is an absurd
hero even though he acts >ust the same as an$ other seducer* #+e is an ordinar$ seducer* E1ce%t ,or
the di,,erence that he is conscious, and that is !h$ he is absurd*& Camus s%eci,ies that Don Kuan
reaises #an ethic o, 0uantit$ < in action& ':-), !hich em%hasises 0uantit$, and %assion, is
determined b$ action that is a!are o, absurdit$* It is not enough to sim%$ have a ot o, e1%eriences
!ithin a duration* /ne must be a!are o, their o!n absurd ,reedom*
3et us circe bac" to the sentence that !e began !ith: #Beie, in the absurd is tantamount to
substituting the 0uantit$ o, e1%eriences ,or the 0uait$*& Absurdit$ dictates that it is %ointess to ta"
about the 0uait$ o, e1%eriences* A !e have e,t is the e1%eriences themseves, and more
im%ortant$, the duration !ithin !hich these e1%eriences un,od* In the ,ace o, the absurd, one must
un,od ne! %ossibiities o, being !ithin their o!n duration* In other !ords, !e must %ursue
0uantit$ o, e1%erience* To thin" that 0uantit$ is strict$ given b$ a certain number o, hours, or
$ears, is a mista"e* Bergson and DeeuBe sho! us that it is our intuitive, intensive e1%erience o,
un,oding !ithin time that gives i,e its 0uantit$, duration its !eight* This e1%ains ho! at the end o,
The Stranger, Eeursaut can ,ee #read$ to start i,e a over again,& even though his e1ecution is
Ruan :
imminent* B$ being acute$ a!are o, the absurdit$ o, his un,oding e1istence, he a,,irms his
,reedom, the ,act that he determines the 0uantit$ o, his o!n duration* +e does a o, this, in s%ite o,
that ,act that he does not have much time e,t* @e do not have much time either 7 our i,etimes, seen
in s%atiaiBed time, are reative$ short* +o!ever, our duration is as in,inite as our e1%erience !ithin
it, and it is in there that !e must %assionate$ un,od*
@or"s Cited
Bergson, +enri, and Thomas A* Houdge* #n Introduction to Metaphysics* Trans* T* E* +ume*
Indiana%ois: +ac"ett, 1...* Jrint*
Camus, Abert* The Myth of Sisyphus$ and Other Essays* Trans* Kustin /'Brien* Le! Mor": Nintage,
1..1* Jrint*
7* The Stranger* Trans* Eatthe! @ard* Le! Mor": Nintage Internationa, 1.D.* Jrint*
Coebroo", Caire* %illes &eleu'e* 3ondon: Routedge, -66-* Jrint*
DeeuBe, Hies, and FOi1 Huattari* # Thousand (lateaus) *apitalism and Schi'ophrenia* Trans*
Brian Eassumi* Einnea%ois: U o, Einnesota, 1.D:* Jrint*
3orraine, Tamsin* &eleu'e and %uattari+s Immanent Ethics) Theory$ Su,ectivity$ and &uration*
Aban$: 4tate U o, Le! Mor", -611* Jrint*
4agi, Abraham* #lert *amus and the (hilosophy of the #surd* Amsterdam: Rodo%i, -66-* Jrint*