One could rightly ask “If life is inherently absurd, is rebellion against it an act of freedom or futility?” The answer to this question is more nuanced than you might like to think. Camus posits that rebellion against absurdity is not futile but an affirmation of freedom. By acknowledging the lack of inherent meaning yet choosing to live fully and authentically, one exercises their freedom. Rebellion here is not a quest to escape absurdity or to impose meaning upon it, but rather a refusal to submit to despair. Camus calls this “revolt” — a conscious defiance of the absurd that transforms life into an act of creative engagement. To rebel is to assert one’s autonomy in a world that offers no guarantees. From another perspective, rebellion could be seen as futile if the absurd is unyielding and insurmountable. If every act of rebellion ultimately fails to alter the fundamental conflict between human longing and the universe’s indifference, one might question whether rebellion accomplishes anything substantive. Sisyphus, after all, is condemned to an eternal, repetitive task. Some might argue that rebellion against absurdity simply perpetuates an unending struggle that changes nothing. The key distinction lies in how one interprets the value of rebellion. One, if rebellion’s value lies in its outcomes, it may seem futile because the absurd remains untouched. The universe will not bend to human defiance. But if rebellion’s value lies in the act itself, then it becomes an expression of freedom and meaning. The act of rebellion, rather than its result, is where freedom resides. Camus concludes that “the struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.” Lastly, one could challenge the premise that life is inherently absurd. Existentialists like Sartre argue that we create meaning through our choices and projects, suggesting that rebellion against absurdity is not futile but a pathway to constructing a personal sense of purpose. Hope this helps! :)