Throughout the essay, Camus purports to be examining a certain stance that we can take toward the world rather than advancing his own philosophical position. As such, he would deny that his essay contains any metaphysical assertions, nor does he give any good reasons for adopting the position he does, or at least none that stand up as sound philosophical arguments. They seem born more of a profound conviction than of a reasoned position. This in itself is not a bad thing. It simply means that he is committed to approaching his subject from a psychological rather than from a metaphysical angle. 

A primary issue with The Myth of Sisyphus, however, is that Camus seems to have been either unaware or unconcerned with the need to choose between philosophy and descriptive psychology. He does not seem interested in arguing philosophically at length, but he often comes quite close to adopting a contestable philosophical position. This is particularly so in his assertion that the absurd is our fundamental relationship with the universe and that the two truths of the absurd (that we desire unity and that the world gives us none) are the only two that we can know with certainty. If nothing else, this conception of knowledge is born from a rationalist background that sees knowledge as something apprehended by reason alone, unaided by the senses. An empiricist might argue that we can know plenty else besides: we can know what we see, hear, feel, taste, and smell, for instance, far better than we can know whether or not the universe has meaning. Camus never really considers the empirical position since it is outside the tradition he is working within, but he also doesn't seem to consider that an empiricist—or even a rationalist—response to his position is worth confronting.  He does not have to consider possible counter-arguments if his position is not a philosophical one. However, when he starts discussing what we can know, what our fundamental relationship with the universe is, and certain truths that we are aware of, he begins to edge toward a philosophical position that would have benefited from being defended better than it was.

Popular pages: The Myth of Sisyphus