Albert Camus and the problem of Theodicy

 One literary author I really look back in interest with is the celebrated French novelist Albert Camus. I remember reading his novel l’Étranger in my French literature class in high school and not being sure what the hell to make of it. Its philosophy of the absurdity of the human condition struck a nerve with me,  but I couldn't relate to its generally pessimistic philosophy of life. However a year later I picked up a copy of his second novel, La Peste, and since then I have become a fan of Camus and deeply interested in his work. I guess I have found the philosophical and literary qualities much deeper in the Plague then the Stranger.

 For me Camus seems to be addressing a key problem in philosophy and in the ordinary life of humanity, namely the understanding of suffering. One question in particular is how to explain the existence and goodness of God in the face of seemingly meaningless suffering. This in philosophy is called the problems of theodicy. In the Plague different characters represent different human responses to suffering but there seems to be two key points of view. An important one is represented by the character of the Jesuit priest Fr Paneloux. His first sermon on the meaning of suffering inflicted by the plague of Oran is the classical Christian answer that suffering results from the moral failure of humanity. The Plague of Oran is a criticism, the righteous judgment of God.  Humanity must turn from its sinful ways for it is its sinful ways which has caused the suffering.  This view of suffering has a long pedigree. But it has its problems. In the novel The Brothers Karamazov Ivan relates how the attempt to justify God in the face of suffering can break down when one considers a deeply suffering child, like one tortured by an adult. . An adult has tasted the fruit of good and evil and can choose between the two so there is solidarity in adult suffering but not so with innocent children. It seems that this problem was something that Camus considered. Later in the the plague Fr Paneloux witnesses the horrible writhing suffering of a young girl who eventually dies. This death affects him deeply. His second sermon is much more conflicted and convoluted even.

 It seems the character of Dr Rieux, the physician,  is the character that most reflects the author Camus. Dr Rieux fights courageously against the plague,  relieving human suffering in solidarity with all the those fighting the plague. Dr Rieux unlike Fr Paneloux does not attempt to explain suffering or ascertain its grand purpose in the plan of god. He fights against suffering, against the plague . Perhaps that’s all that can be done. Dr Rieux doesn't attempt to explain suffering but he shows how one can be spiritually present to the suffering person. Perhaps a Christian can attempt to see the suffering Christ deeply present in the suffering person as best as he or she can. To the question of the meaning of human suffering we are left with a mystery not something entirely rational or explainable.