Abstract

At first sight, the work of Albert Camus appears to be readily interpretable. However, it is the literary and unsystematic nature of the expression of thoughts that causes different understandings of his texts. It is no wonder that many authors point out to the Camus’s philosophical inconsistencies. In this paper I focus on several interpretations of Camus’s texts, which I consider to be inaccurate. This is, particularly, the critique of “happy Sisyphus” by Eva Beránková in the afterword of Czech edition of The Myth of Sisyphus, but also documentary film Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life by the famous biologist Richard Dawkins. In the context of Irvin Yalom’s reflection on the happiness and meaning of life, I point out that even the recognition of the therapeutic potential of literary-existential texts is not clear.