Sisyphus is happy

In my view, the entire idea of Sisyphus it's just doing something that ultimately is meaningless and monotonous, and because of this meaninglessness and monotony, Sisyphus must be sad. Camus comes and says that we must image Sisyphus as happy, and now I would want to argue that Sisyphus it's indeed happy.

Psychologically, there is always a conflict between reality and our perspective (standards) about our reality. We can decide if we change reality to fit our perspective (standards) or if we come up with a perspective that embraces reality. Considering that Sisyphus has no alternative but only to push the rock, then reality can't be changed, thus - as a psychological mechanism - his perspective will embrace its current situation and will try to come up with self-defensive mechanisms to avoid mental health issues (e.g. erasing from his interests everything that can't be done considering its circumstances).

Now, what Sisyphus does do? Right. It pushes a stone, infinitely. Good. Psychologically, we're happier when we pursue a goal than when we achieve it. Dopamine is what your brain releases when it anticipates a goal. Acknowledging that getting to the peak of the mountain, with the rock, won't achieve anything, Sisyphus must shift towards goals focused on himself and not the task per se (reaching the peak). This could be anything, but for the sake of it, let's come up with some easy ones: Physical, mental, and crafty goals.

Physical - Pushing the stone through a mountain requires stamina and strength. After each time it gets pushed, Sisyphus becomes stronger and faster on the task. There is no end point on how strong and fast you can become, so Sisyphus will never achieve this goal, the only thing he can do is strive for his ideal.

Mental - When you do something monotonous or mundane your brain switches off and gets into a deliberate thinking mode, thus, Sisyphus can think about many things and come up with his philosophy, which again, doesn't has limits and every day can be improved. This is like the last step into Maslow's hierarchy of needs, where one's self-actualization is the last thing that a person would be willing to do forever as long as his other needs are covered.

Craftsy - Pushing the rock is not only a matter of physical endurance but also, it's what Sisyphus is settled up to do for his entire life. There are no alternatives, so Sisyphus must focus on his new and unavoidable duty. The more he'll try to come up with new ways to be more efficient at what he does (experimenting with different pushing techniques, with different paths on the mountain, etc.), the greater its engagement and flow state. Still, you can only go so far in terms of efficiency. But, when he reaches 100% efficiency with this goal, then he can shift towards the previous 2 (which is also the idea in one's life, when there's no more room for learning or improvement, you find happiness by pursuing something else).

At the end of the day, this only shows that what Sisyphus does it's just a task, and the way he decides to approach will ultimately determine his emotional state. So the entire point of Sisyphus, in my opinion, is not to show that life is meaningless and assume that someone is happy with this meaninglessness, but instead, he must understand why they're happy with this meaningless and see how their ideas, perspectives, thoughts, etc. differ from ours.

Even those that may say that this argument holds true only if we see Sisyphus as some type of Nietzschean ideal, and not in a scenario where Sisyphus is interested in beauty, for example. Well, Sisyphus can definitely appreciate the natural beauty that surrounds its mountain (sky, animals, nature, etc.), but he has no means to express it. Again, because Sisyphus can't change his circumstances, he must lower his aspirations if he is a rational individual.

Disclaimer: I didn't study philosophy. I'm an amateur. I just was cleaning my room and this came to my mind haha. Found it interesting and decided to write it. Happy to hear your thoughts or be redirected to some philosophers who also defend this view.