The Myth of Sisyphus

[G L Wilson]

I'm committing suicide one day at a time.

[cacian]

This is a new to me G L Wilson.
I have never heard of this myth.
Is that sentence from it?

[G L Wilson]

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, and it is not a sentence from it what I wrote. The myth of Sisyphus is that he is happy.

[cacian]

The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus, and it is not a sentence from it what I wrote. The myth of Sisyphus is that he is happy.

Oh...is that your sentence?

[Helga]

I love the Myth of Sisyphus. Camus was a great writer and used that myth very well. I agree with him that you can get used to everything and be happy in any situation life brings you.

but I don't think you do...

[YesNo]

I remember reading this work by Camus as an undergraduate, as well as others, but that was long ago. In looking at the wikipedia article on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus , I wonder what the word "absurd" really means. Camus rejects solutions provided by other philosophers, but I now wonder if his rejection was correct.

Regarding suicide, this is no longer an option for Sisyphus since he is already dead and is in an eternal hell created by the gods just for him. That realization makes me doubt Camus' conclusions where the consciousness of death is prominent, but I would have to re-read the book.

[cacian]

welll looking at the book and then reading this question
Does the realization of the absurd require suicide?
puts into question what absurd mean.
A world devoid of God does not mean absurd or futile because we do live life without god around on a daily basis.
However about the myth one could presume that Sisyhus would kick the boulder to roll to the other side of the mountain hence ridding Sisyphus of his monotonous forever rolling down boulder.
'can I kick it?!! yes you can' is a song that comes to mind.
A stroke of genius and that's one task out of the way.
A twist on how to kick routine out of its habbit.

[G L Wilson]

I take the Absurd to mean the generally bland.

[YesNo]

As cacian mentions, I don't see why Sisyphus couldn't just stop pushing the boulder up the mountain. Even if he could not commit suicide anymore, since he's already dead, what's stopping him from discontinuing his torment? Maybe that would be "suicide" in his hell.

Whether the "absurde" is just blandness as G L Wilson suggests or not makes me wonder if Camus really has anything that is worth writing an essay about. We all have bad days. So what? We'll feel better tomorrow.

In glancing at a French version, the absurd sees to be defined by the following:


Ce divorce entre l'homme et sa vie, l'acteur et son décor, c'est proprement le sentiment de l'absurdité.

This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I don't think it would make any more sense to me in English. My question is not so much what this means, but whether there is any point to the essay at all.

One thing I am picking up from the text is a belief, which seems too close to a flip-side of a Christian belief in resurrection, that suicide is a practical way to achieve nothingness (le néant).

[G L Wilson]

Sisyphus has his honour that is all.

[Hunger Artist]

If I may, the absurd is representative of a meaninglness reality. It coincides with the falsehoods of civilization and the several synthetic facades that have dominated the ideals of mainstream consciousness. The individual phsyci has often been succumbed by misconception and egotistical bickering. Albert Camus reflects upon the absurdity of self-delusion, which is thence the purpose of Sisyphus. Sisyphus is bound to perpetual torment, it never ceases. The central character of the tale, Sisyphus, is representative of the absurd hero, and in a broader spectrum humanity itself. We as a species continuously attempt to alter the inevitable, but unfortunately the reality to which we are linked will never cease to persist. The boulder continues to tumble down a path, built upon a hope and only in the midst of the occasion where everything reverts back to the former do we recognize the obscurity of our place within the universe.

[G L Wilson]

Those that take the Absurd onto themselves are considered normal.

[cacian]

Those that take the Absurd onto themselves are considered normal.

says who?the absurdist himself?

[cacian]

Sisyphus has his honour that is all.

what honour? the fact that he could not work out that the mountain was cleverer then him?

[Charles Darnay]

what honour? the fact that he could not work out that the mountain was clever then him?


It's about the determination, even with the knowledge that it is all futile - there is a determination.

[cacian]

It's about the determination, even with the knowledge that it is all futile - there is a determination.

what determination?
he was told to roll up then watch it roll down again to oblivion.
I 'd rather deal with it then determine myself to watch it roll over and over again.
It says a lot about the mental state of giving to tediousness of this level.


It's about the determination, even with the knowledge that it is all futile - there is a determination.

oh and nothing is futile if you really think about it.

[G L Wilson]

Sisyphus could give up, he just can't.

[Buh4Bee]

Hahaha! To you all. Honor and determination. what choice did he have and I'm sure he stopped for a beer along the way once in a while too. It's a myth!? Not to be intrepretted in a concrete way.

[YesNo]

If I may, the absurd is representative of a meaninglness reality. It coincides with the falsehoods of civilization and the several synthetic facades that have dominated the ideals of mainstream consciousness. The individual phsyci has often been succumbed by misconception and egotistical bickering. Albert Camus reflects upon the absurdity of self-delusion, which is thence the purpose of Sisyphus. Sisyphus is bound to perpetual torment, it never ceases. The central character of the tale, Sisyphus, is representative of the absurd hero, and in a broader spectrum humanity itself. We as a species continuously attempt to alter the inevitable, but unfortunately the reality to which we are linked will never cease to persist. The boulder continues to tumble down a path, built upon a hope and only in the midst of the occasion where everything reverts back to the former do we recognize the obscurity of our place within the universe.
I'm just playing with these ideas, Hunger Artist. I'm no expert. Welcome to the discussion.

When I look at reality, everything that I see is meaningful or it wouldn't be visible to me. There is a lot that I miss when I look around, but what I do pay attention to either I have a name (meaning) for or I could describe it with adjectives which are meaningful. It is only when I look on a text that I can experience meaninglessness and that only occurs when the text does not make sense. So I would say "meaningless reality" is restricted to "meaningless texts". We may be saying the same thing, but I'm not sure.

Why is Sisyphus a "hero". What does he do that is heroic? The word "hero" in this context is an example of a text that appears meaningless to me, but it might gain meaning if I could understand it.

Finally, what does the following sentence mean?


The boulder continues to tumble down a path, built upon a hope and only in the midst of the occasion where everything reverts back to the former do we recognize the obscurity of our place within the universe.
If I understood it better, perhaps it would acquire meaning. Reading Camus, I get the sense that it is his text that is absurd, not reality.

[cafolini]

welll looking at the book and then reading this question
Does the realization of the absurd require suicide?
puts into question what absurd mean.
A world devoid of God does not mean absurd or futile because we do live life without god around on a daily basis.
However about the myth one could presume that Sisyhus would kick the boulder to roll to the other side of the mountain hence ridding Sisyphus of his monotonous forever rolling down boulder.
'can I kick it?!! yes you can' is a song that comes to mind.
A stroke of genius and that's one task out of the way.
A twist on how to kick routine out of its habbit.

I would agree with you in this one.
What goes up must come down and what goes around must come around, and not necessarily the same way. It could b pretty entertaining. It has nothing to do with suicide except that anything has to do with it somehow in any existential way.

[cafolini]

I'm just playing with these ideas, Hunger Artist. I'm no expert. Welcome to the discussion.

When I look at reality, everything that I see is meaningful or it wouldn't be visible to me. There is a lot that I miss when I look around, but what I do pay attention to either I have a name (meaning) for or I could describe it with adjectives which are meaningful. It is only when I look on a text that I can experience meaninglessness and that only occurs when the text does not make sense. So I would say "meaningless reality" is restricted to "meaningless texts". We may be saying the same thing, but I'm not sure.

Why is Sisyphus a "hero". What does he do that is heroic? The word "hero" in this context is an example of a text that appears meaningless to me, but it might gain meaning if I could understand it.

Finally, what does the following sentence mean?


If I understood it better, perhaps it would acquire meaning. Reading Camus, I get the sense that it is his text that is absurd, not reality.

Yes. Perhaps the main topic is the absurd in recurrence. But there might not be actual recurrence; as Cacian points out. It cannot be traced or categorized through a path. The path is suspicious, although in the neiborghood.

[Hunger Artist]

I wouldn't say that the text is meaningless, on the contrary it's a philosophical analyzation of one's existence. Meaning is based purely upon subjectivity. One's interpetation of the environment in which one exists is vital to the development of some sort of individual meaning. Therefore, Camus, I believe is implying that meaning doesn't necessarily exist. Meaning is what we make of it. This conclusion is evident, when the text is read objectively. And the meaning of existence in an existential sense can be traced back to the time of Kieerkegard, therefore to imply that such a work is meaningless would also suggest that the works of varying existential thinkers is meangless, this would thrash an entire lineage of philosophical tradition. Anyhow, as for the idea of the "absurd hero" it's basically a display of sarcasm. Some would argue that Sisyphus is a hero in the sense that he continually challenges the gods in taking up his punishment and if he is a hero by any means then it's in the most absurd fashion.

[YesNo]

OK. It makes sense that Sisyphus is NOT a hero after all, Hunger Artist.

That "meaning doesn't necessarily exist" does not seem to be the case. Suppose I see a tree while taking a walk. What is present to my sight is a "tree" and has meaning because of the name regardless of its nature as an assemblage of quarks and leptons.

When you take a walk have you ever seen anything that is "meaningless"? Can you describe it?

I'm puzzled by the following:


And the meaning of existence in an existential sense can be traced back to the time of Kieerkegard, therefore to imply that such a work is meaningless would also suggest that the works of varying existential thinkers is meangless, this would thrash an entire lineage of philosophical tradition.

I don't see why the meaninglessness, or absurdity, of Camus' writing implies that some other philosopher's writing is meaningless. That other philosopher's writing might make sense for all I know.

[Hunger Artist]

I understand completely what you're saying, when I mention the term meaningless I am not referring to tangable materials. I suppose it's more so directed toward an ideal that transcends any existing superficiality. One can only interpret, but as I read this text I view it as a reflection upon the illusion humanity has created for itself. A facade of rationality in an irrational world. The many delusions that people create for themselves, the way people tend to confine themselves to ideas, concepts, or things for the sake of comfort. I remember one day I saw an independent film entitled "Leaves of Grass" starring Ed Norton. There was one line that relates to this "We are animals whose minds decieve us to think otherwise". That is what Albert Camus is trying to touch upon the deceit, false morality, and the constant tension that exists within humanity. Camus is referring to our mortality, the fact that the reality of so many is dominated by "meaningless" misconceptions. An absurdity that we have created. As for the comment regarding Kierkegaard, I apologize if I seemed a bit rude, but I said this because Albert Camus was influenced by Nietszche, Dostoyevsky, Kierkegaard, Sartre and so many others so remnants of these very thinkers exist within Camus philosophical writings. I hope this helps, after all it is a complex topic to discuss.

[Darcy88]

OK. It makes sense that Sisyphus is NOT a hero after all, Hunger Artist.

That "meaning doesn't necessarily exist" does not seem to be the case. Suppose I see a tree while taking a walk. What is present to my sight is a "tree" and has meaning because of the name regardless of its nature as an assemblage of quarks and leptons.

When you take a walk have you ever seen anything that is "meaningless"? Can you describe it?

I'm puzzled by the following:


And the meaning of existence in an existential sense can be traced back to the time of Kieerkegard, therefore to imply that such a work is meaningless would also suggest that the works of varying existential thinkers is meangless, this would thrash an entire lineage of philosophical tradition.

I don't see why the meaninglessness, or absurdity, of Camus' writing implies that some other philosopher's writing is meaningless. That other philosopher's writing might make sense for all I know.

To Camus the world is absurd. There's no God and "nature as an assemblage of quarks and leptons" is really all there is. Such a world is rather alien to our innate desire for rationality and meaning. People used to make sense of the world through myths and rituals, tame the chaos with meaningful narratives. Nowadays such things seem childish. Myths and rituals and religions are patently the creations of men. If you could see the world through the lens of quantum physics and molecular chemistry and go through all natural history like in that film Tree of Life, then the world, the swirling mess of atoms, would appear most undeniably absurd next to the kind of perspective had by an Ancient Greek offering sacrifice to Zeus, or a Christian praying to an omnipotent human-like God.

Objectively, the argument can easily made that the world is absurd. I think the position falls apart due to the subjective nature of human experience. The world is not absurd to someone who is in love, or to someone who creates and values art. But in an "objective" sense the world really is absurd.

Any philosophy though that posits objective meaning over and above and in addition to the absurd has made a compromise, has betrayed true objectivity, as Camus would say Kierkegaard did. If absolute certainty is the standard for truth, then the world is objectively absurd and trying to pass off subjective meaning as objective meaning is to betray the absurd and in doing so betray truth.

This post of mine here presents a very crude understanding of Camus' work, but its a tough work, and I think I might at least be on to something.

[cacian]

Hahaha! To you all. Honor and determination. what choice did he have and I'm sure he stopped for a beer along the way once in a while too. It's a myth!? Not to be intrepretted in a concrete way.

Hi Buh4Bee haha I agree we have all had a go but that's because it was too easy.
He could have stopped if he wanted to but he chose not to and that is one choice he made, the second choice he also took was to copiously roll that bolder up and down without thinking.
That's one too many silly choices.
the third choice I make it for me because the moral of any story is up to anyone who makes sees or reads it.
It is a myth yes and it is to be interpreted in whichever way one feels like. how else would one justify a myth?

[Hunger Artist]

@Darcy88. It is a tough work, but your interpretation is very honest and very true.

[YesNo]

Thanks for responses, Hunger Artist and Darcy88. All I know about Camus is what I remember reading long ago as an undergraduate in a required general education class that was covering "existentialism", whatever that is. I think both of you know more about the topic than I do. However, I'm re-reading it now to see if any of it makes sense to me.

I am interested in delusions and I have no doubt that they exist, but I would claim that a delusion is only possible in language, that is, only in texts. Those "texts" might be words that go through our minds which we have not written down.

So, when you write, Hunger Artist: "A facade of rationality in an irrational world," I'm not sure what you mean by "irrational world". The world itself is neither rational nor irrational. It just is. However our descriptions of the world could be irrational.

Or, when you write, Darcy88: "To Camus the world is absurd," I'm not sure what you mean by "world". To repeat, the world just is.

My point is this: Meaninglessness is a potential property of a text. It is not a property of reality.

This brings me back to Camus' concern whether someone should commit suicide because the text running through the mind describing the world for that person keeps saying that the world is "absurd". Why should any rational human being commit suicide over their current interpretation of reality? Perhaps this is Camus' point as well since he ultimately does not accept suicide, unless I misunderstood him.

[PoeticPassions]

This brings me back to Camus' concern whether someone should commit suicide because the text running through the mind describing the world for that person keeps saying that the world is "absurd". Why should any rational human being commit suicide over their current interpretation of reality? Perhaps this is Camus' point as well since he ultimately does not accept suicide, unless I misunderstood him.

But why assume that humans are rational beings to begin with? Freud would have argued that humans are not rational at all, but that they (we) rationalize their behavior and thoughts, which is quite different from actually acting rationally.

[Darcy88]

Thanks for responses, Hunger Artist and Darcy88. All I know about Camus is what I remember reading long ago as an undergraduate in a required general education class that was covering "existentialism", whatever that is. I think both of you know more about the topic than I do. However, I'm re-reading it now to see if any of it makes sense to me.

I am interested in delusions and I have no doubt that they exist, but I would claim that a delusion is only possible in language, that is, only in texts. Those "texts" might be words that go through our minds which we have not written down.

So, when you write, Hunger Artist: "A facade of rationality in an irrational world," I'm not sure what you mean by "irrational world". The world itself is neither rational nor irrational. It just is. However our descriptions of the world could be irrational.

Or, when you write, Darcy88: "To Camus the world is absurd," I'm not sure what you mean by "world". To repeat, the world just is.

My point is this: Meaninglessness is a potential property of a text. It is not a property of reality.

This brings me back to Camus' concern whether someone should commit suicide because the text running through the mind describing the world for that person keeps saying that the world is "absurd". Why should any rational human being commit suicide over their current interpretation of reality? Perhaps this is Camus' point as well since he ultimately does not accept suicide, unless I misunderstood him.

The fact that the world "just is" makes the world absurd. Part of us doesn't want a world that "just is." We want a world vested with meaning and purpose. People have been doing it since people have been doing anything - looking at the stars and at history and at everything and laying rational meaning overtop of what simply, as you say, "just is."

Existentialism (whatever that is) is a timeless philosophy, as is Camus' idea of the absurd, but its truth and relevancy was especially pronounced at the time his works were written. You had world war two, you had atheism, you had all these historical and intellectual forces working very hard to divest life of its value and its meaning, rendering it all absurd.


@Darcy88. It is a tough work, but your interpretation is very honest and very true.

Thanks. Having not read Husserl or some of the other philosophers Camus discusses in it makes understanding the text even harder. What helps me "get" Camus' philosophy of the absurd somewhat is actually his fiction. The Stranger and The Plague lay out his ideas quite plainly and vividly.

[Hunger Artist]

@Darcy88. I'm the same way, I've only read some of his fictional works. One I'm really looking forward to reading is Exile and the Kingdom. I've just begun thoroughly exploring philosophy.

[YesNo]

The fact that the world "just is" makes the world absurd.

I disagree. That does not even seem to be Camus' intention. A Google Translate version of what Camus says is this:

This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.
What Camus is saying may be meaningless. It may be incorrect. It may be irrational. All of those things are characteristics or not of Camus' text. But they are not characteristics of the world except to the extent that we are in the world and we can be meaningless, incorrect and irrational.

Part of us doesn't want a world that "just is." We want a world vested with meaning and purpose. People have been doing it since people have been doing anything - looking at the stars and at history and at everything and laying rational meaning overtop of what simply, as you say, "just is."
I wonder if we are saying the same thing or not.

Who vests the world with meaning and purpose? We do. As you say, "People have been doing it since people have been doing anything". To that I agree.

[Darcy88]

@Darcy88. I'm the same way, I've only read some of his fictional works. One I'm really looking forward to reading is Exile and the Kingdom. I've just begun thoroughly exploring philosophy.

The Plague is simply brilliant, both philosophically and as a work of art. I like the Stranger but I don't view it as his masterpiece like so many others do.

[Hunger Artist]

@Darcy88. That's how I was first introduced to his work by reading The Stranger. Unfortunately, I only read it once, but from what I remember it was so beautifully descriptive, and so devastatingly real that I couldn't help but love it.

@YesNo. I recommend, if you haven't done so already, look into Richard Wright's "The Outsider".

[Darcy88]

I disagree. That does not even seem to be Camus' intention. A Google Translate version of what Camus says is this:

This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.
What Camus is saying may be meaningless. It may be incorrect. It may be irrational. All of those things are characteristics or not of Camus' text. But they are not characteristics of the world except to the extent that we are in the world and we can be meaningless, incorrect and irrational.

I wonder if we are saying the same thing or not.

Who vests the world with meaning and purpose? We do. As you say, "People have been doing it since people have been doing anything". To that I agree.

Camus defines the absurd in a whole host of ways. The one I'm talking about is the contrast between man's desire for coherent meaning and the world's seemingly silent inanimateness. If a 1st century worshipper of the Roman pantheon of gods, someone used to interpreting the entrails of sacrificed animals and subject to all sorts of superstitions, seeing meaning everywhere in everything, were suddenly revealed the truth behind all natural phenomena, his eyes abruptly shown a world divested of all its veils of fanciful man-made meaning, he would be struck to the core by the sheer absurdity of everything.

A being that experiences love and pain and possesses an ever-active imagination that strives to make meaningful a world that silently and inhumanly "just is," well I think such a being could fairly be called in a way "absurd."

You yourself YesNo have beliefs about God and consciousness and the universe that Camus did not share. I'm not saying they're necessarily wrong and he necessarily right, but if you look at the world from his radically atheistic perspective, its not hard to see the rationale behind his labelling man and the world absurd.

Hunger Artist - have you read his book The Rebel? Its amazing stuff. Talks about the philosophy of murder and rebellion, about the bases of fascism and communism and revolution. Discusses the french revolution, Nietzsche, Rimbaud, even mentions Hamlet and Heathcliffe. A great and profound book. I know I'll have to re-read it possibly several times to really "get it."

[Hunger Artist]

@Darcy88. No not yet, but I intend to read it.

[YesNo]

@YesNo. I recommend, if you haven't done so already, look into Richard Wright's "The Outsider".

Thanks for the recommendation, Hunger Artist. I'm beginning to think that Camus is not important as a philosopher. The main interest in him is as a novelist.

[YesNo]

Camus defines the absurd in a whole host of ways. The one I'm talking about is the contrast between man's desire for coherent meaning and the world's seemingly silent inanimateness.
If you're in the center of a large city the world can be quite animate and noisy.

Do you have any alternate quotes from Camus that would help clarify the word "absurd"? In the one I provided where the feeling of absurdity is about the divorce between the actor and the setting, it doesn't make sense to say the setting is absurd or meaningless or irrational.

[Darcy88]

If you're in the center of a large city the world can be quite animate and noisy.

Do you have any alternate quotes from Camus that would help clarify the word "absurd"? In the one I provided where the feeling of absurdity is about the divorce between the actor and the setting, it doesn't make sense to say the setting is absurd or meaningless or irrational.

Well this thread has made me want to re-read M of S and so I'll post pertinent sections as I come across them.

Even if the city is noisy, its noisy because of man, and even the tall red-wood-like skyscrapers, the rivers of concrete, and the growling four-wheeled beasts all confront one as inhumanly aloof, beyond sympathy or meaning, unlike a numinous Grecian river with its attendant deity and its mythical story and its centaur inhabitants. They actually bestowed upon rivers personality and will, unlike we who reduce rivers to natural scientifically rather than spiritually coherent phenomena.

Walk to the ocean or lake-side on a clear day. Look upon the illimitable landscape of water and sky. Try and regard it as it is - a great amalgamation of molecules composed of basic chemical ingrediants, hyrdogen and oxygen and such. See it as that and only as that. Its hard, but without man, without us imposing meaning and beauty upon it, its nothing more than that. Its terrifying really, just how mute and unfeeling is this world, this universe we inhabit. Without God or gods we are utterly insignificant and alone, like ants on a mound of dirt.

Or if you want to undertand the absurdity of the actor, imagine some epic scene at the end of an epic film. Imagine right before Martin Sheen is about to plunge the blade into Brando, the great and mysterious and awe-inspiring Colonel Kurtz, in the thick of the deep dark jungle as forboding drums play and hellish flames dance in a flickering rage.... imagine the passion and terror of the scene, the actors and the audience taken wholly in, every thought and every breath arising with utmost profundity and trepidation, totally rapt... and all of a sudden a small smiling caucasion child holding a bright blue balloon on a string wanders through the shot. The emotion and meaning and everything about the scene have suddenly become strikingly absurd. When God died, when world war 1 introduced into the world and the mind of man such utter depravity as had never been imagined or seen, all the fabricated layers of meaning, of truth and morality, were then cataclysmically rent, and man's absurdity became henceforth plainly and unavoidably known. His script was made up, his passions and beliefs false, his setting natural, turned out by the amoral and purposeless cosmic machine.

[Darcy88]

Thanks for the recommendation, Hunger Artist. I'm beginning to think that Camus is not important as a philosopher. The main interest in him is as a novelist.

And that's not true. I thought so too, but in certain contexts, particularly political activism and left-wing intellectualism, Camus is often regarded as THE philosopher, the most important - ever.

[YesNo]

Well this thread has made me want to re-read M of S and so I'll post pertinent sections as I come across them.

Even if the city is noisy, its noisy because of man, and even the tall red-wood-like skyscrapers, the rivers of concrete, and the growling four-wheeled beasts all confront one as inhumanly aloof, beyond sympathy or meaning, unlike a numinous Grecian river with its attendant deity and its mythical story and its centaur inhabitants. They actually bestowed upon rivers personality and will, unlike we who reduce rivers to natural scientifically rather than spiritually coherent phenomena.

Walk to the ocean or lake-side on a clear day. Look upon the illimitable landscape of water and sky. Try and regard it as it is - a great amalgamation of molecules composed of basic chemical ingrediants, hyrdogen and oxygen and such. See it as that and only as that. Its hard, but without man, without us imposing meaning and beauty upon it, its nothing more than that. Its terrifying really, just how mute and unfeeling is this world, this universe we inhabit. Without God or gods we are utterly insignificant and alone, like ants on a mound of dirt.

Or if you want to undertand the absurdity of the actor, imagine some epic scene at the end of an epic film. Imagine right before Martin Sheen is about to plunge the blade into Brando, the great and mysterious and awe-inspiring Colonel Kurtz, in the thick of the deep dark jungle as forboding drums play and hellish flames dance in a flickering rage.... imagine the passion and terror of the scene, the actors and the audience taken wholly in, every thought and every breath arising with utmost profundity and trepidation, totally rapt... and all of a sudden a small smiling caucasion child holding a bright blue balloon on a string wanders through the shot. The emotion and meaning and everything about the scene have suddenly become strikingly absurd. When God died, when world war 1 introduced into the world and the mind of man such utter depravity as had never been imagined or seen, all the fabricated layers of meaning, of truth and morality, were then cataclysmically rent, and man's absurdity became henceforth plainly and unavoidably known. His script was made up, his passions and beliefs false, his setting natural, turned out by the amoral and purposeless cosmic machine.
I'm reading it now but I won't get far without chatting about it with someone. I did find an English version in the library as part of a collection, but it was all in the fiction section.

Camus also has an ethics of "solidarity" which I find suspect, but I guess is the only antidote to his projection of absurdity onto the world. Richard Rorty doesn't like it because it seems to claim that a metaphysical humanness exists to back up Camus' morality making compassion possible. Rorty is too post-modern to accept anything to back up the language we project as meaning.

Recalling Rorty helped me to possibly understand your objection to my claim that meaning is what we project onto the world. When I said that the world "just is" that made it appear unfriendly. For the world to be friendly, there needs to be some others--angels, gods, muses--outside of other humans and the animals and plants around us, who project a powerful, fulfilling, friendly meaning onto us for the world not to be "absurd". We need to be individually the target of meaning as well as the source of meaning for the world to feel like a home.

But I'm not saying those friendly sorts of reality that can project meaning back onto us don't exist when I say the world "just is". The world "just is" with all the gods and demons and angels and what-have-you that we have tried to name by projecting meaning onto the world. When we project meaning onto the world, it is like turning on a flashlight in the dark. It helps us see what is there.

[Darcy88]

But I'm not saying those friendly sorts of reality that can project meaning back onto us don't exist when I say the world "just is". The world "just is" with all the gods and demons and angels and what-have-you that we have tried to name by projecting meaning onto the world. When we project meaning onto the world, it is like turning on a flashlight in the dark. It helps us see what is there.

Camus' idea of the absurd depends, in the context in which we are speaking now, on the inhuman character of the cosmos, on there not being angels and demons, no numinous presences whatsoever. The world itself is not hostile, not anything. I agree that it "just is." But to us, from our human perspective, this world divested of the divine can seem hostile, foreign, like an alien planet next to the earth of our forbears which was as a playground of Gods and mythical beasts and was created with a purpose by a conscious deity.

I really have to read the book again in order to discuss the other meanings Camus has for the absurd. I probably will tonight. Another is the sheer futility of human existence, as like Sisyphus we must push day after day the banal tedium of passionless modern life. Also, we can imagine immortality, we can imagine ourselves as gods, but men we remain, our lives to be extinguished like candles some soon day. There is so wide a chasm between what we want and what we can want, and what we are and will for our short lives always be. There are many facets of the absurd. Its a rich concept.

[YesNo]

Camus' idea of the absurd depends, in the context in which we are speaking now, on the inhuman character of the cosmos, on there not being angels and demons, no numinous presences whatsoever. The world itself is not hostile, not anything. I agree that it "just is." But to us, from our human perspective, this world divested of the divine can seem hostile, foreign, like an alien planet next to the earth of our forbears which was as a playground of Gods and mythical beasts and was created with a purpose by a conscious deity.

I really have to read the book again in order to discuss the other meanings Camus has for the absurd. I probably will tonight. Another is the sheer futility of human existence, as like Sisyphus we must push day after day the banal tedium of passionless modern life. Also, we can imagine immortality, we can imagine ourselves as gods, but men we remain, our lives to be extinguished like candles some soon day. There is so wide a chasm between what we want and what we can want, and what we are and will for our short lives always be. There are many facets of the absurd. Its a rich concept.
I agree with your description of Camus' view. His universe has no gods in it. What is more, the people in his world have no "god within" either.

Currently, I am seeing Camus as an intellectual manic-depressive. The depressive part is his description of our lives as "absurd" and our work as futile (le travail inutile et sans espoir). The manic part is when he believes Sisyphus is happy which I find as hard to accept as his view of Sisyphus as representing us as workers. From my metaphysics, or more generally, my worldview, Camus flips between delusion and sentimentality.

The delusion is in thinking that what we do as work is anything like what Sisyphus is doing. Sisyphus receives no reward for his labor nor do the gods benefit from it. It is truly "inutile". I don't know of any worker employed by someone else who is in this situation. The worker receives a wage and the employer receives a benefit from the work.

The sentimentality comes from the happiness that Camus links with the absurd. He expects Sisyphus, and by his own projection, any worker, to put up with futility. Cacian, earlier in this thread, asked why Sisyphus continues with his labor. Why doesn't Sisyphus just stop doing what is futile? I think it is part of the problem with Camus' philosophy that he doesn't ask this very thing when retelling the myth.

[Darcy88]

Yeah I really have to read the book again to discuss it. Right now I have my head already buried in so many. I'll get to it though.

I do often feel like Sisyphus. I cut a bucket of onions or I build another house and each bucket and each house is just another grain of sand in the great Sahara of this world. Its not delusional to see the analogy between the stone and our work, our lives. Tomorrow there will be more vegetables to chop, more stacks of lumber to move. It can feel like I and everything is nothing but water running endlessly and pointlessly downhill. What real reward do I get for my labor? A small paycheck that goes towards food, housing and tuition? Its better than being a slave for sure. But I still draw no real meaning or pleasure from what I do. For that, for meaning and for delight all I have is love and art really, and I remember some character in some novel of Camus saying precisely that. And for many real love and real art are things unknown. Dulled and deadened by the never-ending quest to move the great stone of necessity and fear and limitation, nothing is really felt, nothing really thought, nothing arises or strikes them with any true profound poignancy.

His novel The Plague is really worth reading. It follows a doctor struggling to keep up with the sheer toll of death wrought upon him and his town by a nasty virulent plague. The doctor maintains this detached but determined air throughout as he faces this impossibly over-powering enemy. It almost seems pointless after a while. The absurdity of opposing this incredibly mighty, almost super-powerful presence occurs to him but does not deter him. He and his friends fight it and fight it, not as heroes but as regular men. They just do it. And they take pleasure in the things we take pleasure in despite our mortality, despite the futility of all that we do and of our very lives themselves. In friendship, in food, in hobbies they find pleasure, solace, a reason to continue.

The book Myth of Sisyphus is about suicide. Why not just give up? I'm still not entirely sure how Camus answers this question but I know he does. As long as there is something then that something is everything and that is more than enough. That's my answer. I probably came up with it after reading Camus years ago.

[Darcy88]

The sentimentality comes from the happiness that Camus links with the absurd. He expects Sisyphus, and by his own projection, any worker, to put up with futility. Cacian, earlier in this thread, asked why Sisyphus continues with his labor. Why doesn't Sisyphus just stop doing what is futile? I think it is part of the problem with Camus' philosophy that he doesn't ask this very thing when retelling the myth.

Sisyphus doesn't stop because the gods have made the stone his punishment. Its like asking why a prison laborer does not stop making license plates. He can't.

The whole point of the book actually is why we, the Sisyphuses, do not commit suicide and escape the futility of life that way.

[YesNo]

Sisyphus doesn't stop because the gods have made the stone his punishment. Its like asking why a prison laborer does not stop making license plates. He can't.

The whole point of the book actually is why we, the Sisyphuses, do not commit suicide and escape the futility of life that way.
Even the prison laborer is not engaged in a futile activity the way Sisyphus is. The license plates provide others with a benefit.

One of the problems with the book is the claim that we are like Sisyphus, but that is not true. I can't think of even one laborer who is like Sisyphus receiving no wage and providing nothing for the employer in return for the wage. Since we are not like Sisyphus, there is nothing absurd about our work and the question of suicide is irrelevant.

Here is something from the book which confirms my assessment, at least for me, of Camus' delusion and sentimentality. It is in the chapter that is also called "The Myth of Sisyphus".


Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd discovery. It happens as well that the feeling of the absurd springs from happiness.

Here the absurdity is the delusion and the happiness in the face of that absurdity is the sentimentality. I might add that the above quote seems a bit inane or at best meaningless, but it is just a text, after all. It is not reality and texts can be meaningless.

[Darcy88]

I don't see why one must be Sisyphus in order to be like Sisyphus. There are degrees of futility, of meaninglessness and of the absurd. Extreme examples help us flesh out the truths of average norms. The prisoner making license plates does work that may contain some benefit and even some reward, but does that make it worthwhile and rewarding? I don't think so. We are like Sisyphus, we are not actually in the exact same situation. The absurd is an almost spiritual experience and truth. Its quite akin to love and to faith. Just because you don't feel it doesn't mean others don't.

[YesNo]

Sorry for the late response. I got sidetracked.

If people want to feel like Sisyphus, I have no power to stop them. I hope they enjoy themselves and get whatever "happiness" Camus thinks this provides.

One thing I think I've been wrong about is that I claimed that only texts have meaning. Well, other species of animals communicate and so there is meaning even outside language texts. To attempt a definition I think I would be defining meaning as a property of a message that some form of consciousness created which points to something else. Meaninglessness would be a characteristic of a message in this broader context that failed to point to something else.

So the universe could be meaningful if it were a message from some form of consciousness. If that form of consciousness were sending drivel to us then it would be meaningless, but that would still imply the existence of some kind of consciousness that created the message. Since the universe had a beginning 13.73 +/- 0.12 billion years ago (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/), it could be a message and possibly meaningful.

[Phocion]

Even the prison laborer is not engaged in a futile activity the way Sisyphus is. The license plates provide others with a benefit.

One of the problems with the book is the claim that we are like Sisyphus, but that is not true. I can't think of even one laborer who is like Sisyphus receiving no wage and providing nothing for the employer in return for the wage. Since we are not like Sisyphus, there is nothing absurd about our work and the question of suicide is irrelevant.

Here is something from the book which confirms my assessment, at least for me, of Camus' delusion and sentimentality. It is in the chapter that is also called "The Myth of Sisyphus".


Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd discovery. It happens as well that the feeling of the absurd springs from happiness.

Here the absurdity is the delusion and the happiness in the face of that absurdity is the sentimentality. I might add that the above quote seems a bit inane or at best meaningless, but it is just a text, after all. It is not reality and texts can be meaningless.You seem completely incapable of comprehending the analogy Camus was actually making. Every single human being is involved in a futile activity the same as Sisyphus, because it is life itself that is the futile activity - he thus seeks to answer the question of why a human being should continue toiling in his effort to push the boulder up the hill, when no positive outcome can arise from it, and eventually the weight of the boulder will become too great, crush and kill us.

You are calling Camus delusional and sentimental, but you have completely misread him, and your posts throughout this thread attest to that lack of comprehension. The sentence you quote is quite simple, and its meaning quite obvious. Feelings of happiness can quite quickly turn to thoughts of futility, and even melancholy at your own happiness and its obvious transience - hence the feeling absurdity arising from these contradictions.

[cafolini]

You seem completely incapable of comprehending the analogy Camus was actually making. Every single human being is involved in a futile activity the same as Sisyphus, because it is life itself that is the futile activity - he thus seeks to answer the question of why a human being should continue toiling in his effort to push the boulder up the hill, when no positive outcome can arise from it, and eventually the weight of the boulder will become to great, crush and kill us.

You are calling Camus delusional and sentimental, but you have completely misread him, and your posts throughout this thread attest to that lack of comprehension. The sentence you quote is quite simple, and its meaning quite obvious. Feelings of happiness can quite quickly turn to thoughts of futility, and even melancholy at your own happiness and its obvious transience - hence the feeling absurdity arising from these contradictions.

I would have to agree with you. I think yes/no misterpreted this. In particular, what does Camus statement that happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth have to do with them springing from a marriage of the two? Ridiculous.

[WyattGwyon]

Way to flog that zombie!


You seem completely incapable of comprehending the analogy Camus was actually making. Every single human being is involved in a futile activity the same as Sisyphus, because it is life itself that is the futile activity - he thus seeks to answer the question of why a human being should continue toiling in his effort to push the boulder up the hill, when no positive outcome can arise from it, and eventually the weight of the boulder will become too great, crush and kill us.

You are calling Camus delusional and sentimental, but you have completely misread him, and your posts throughout this thread attest to that lack of comprehension. The sentence you quote is quite simple, and its meaning quite obvious. Feelings of happiness can quite quickly turn to thoughts of futility, and even melancholy at your own happiness and its obvious transience - hence the feeling absurdity arising from these contradictions.

[hypatia_]

Whether the "absurde" is just blandness as G L Wilson suggests or not makes me wonder if Camus really has anything that is worth writing an essay about. We all have bad days. So what? We'll feel better tomorrow.
.

For Sisyphus, every day was the same. For you, you might feel better tomorrow, but as a result of what?

I particular like the Myth. Camus thought that the only real question in life was whether to commit suicide or not, but you can still interpret this myth however you like. To me, it's an allusion to the monotony of a life based on going to school, getting a job, raising a family, waiting to retire, then not being able to enjoy it because by then you're senile.

[bookowskee]

I'm committing suicide one day at a time.

Ok cool.

As far as The myth of Sisyphus is concern, it's a good book. Really depends on how you took it. If you think that every day or the confrontation of you and the unreasonable fvcked-up silence of the world (which is the absurd) is an attempted suicide, that's yours.

[YesNo]

You seem completely incapable of comprehending the analogy Camus was actually making. Every single human being is involved in a futile activity the same as Sisyphus, because it is life itself that is the futile activity - he thus seeks to answer the question of why a human being should continue toiling in his effort to push the boulder up the hill, when no positive outcome can arise from it, and eventually the weight of the boulder will become too great, crush and kill us.

You are calling Camus delusional and sentimental, but you have completely misread him, and your posts throughout this thread attest to that lack of comprehension. The sentence you quote is quite simple, and its meaning quite obvious. Feelings of happiness can quite quickly turn to thoughts of futility, and even melancholy at your own happiness and its obvious transience - hence the feeling absurdity arising from these contradictions.

How do you know life is futile? It sounds like an assumption that one is trying to build a case to support using the transience of life as the main argument.

If Camus is not correct about the futility of life, then he would be delusional, or at best, mistaken. If he wants to maintain the metaphysical futility of life and then add an ideology of "happiness" onto that, then I would say he is being sentimental.

[YesNo]

For Sisyphus, every day was the same. For you, you might feel better tomorrow, but as a result of what?

I particular like the Myth. Camus thought that the only real question in life was whether to commit suicide or not, but you can still interpret this myth however you like. To me, it's an allusion to the monotony of a life based on going to school, getting a job, raising a family, waiting to retire, then not being able to enjoy it because by then you're senile.

Whose fault is it that life feels monotonous? It seems as if Camus is portraying us as victims of some sort, but who is making victims out of us?

[Phocion]

How do you know life is futile? It sounds like an assumption that one is trying to build a case to support using the transience of life as the main argument.

If Camus is not correct about the futility of life, then he would be delusional, or at best, mistaken. If he wants to maintain the metaphysical futility of life and then add an ideology of "happiness" onto that, then I would say he is being sentimental.I don't know.

Camus purported a random universe where humans inhabit a tiny planet which hurtling to its doom. His assumption is only that consciousness and memory are all that we are, and based on the evidence we have, that is the most realistic assumption that can be made. Once we die we lose everything we have gained through life, and thus our attempts at life are axiomatically futile and our efforts absurd. Of course it cannot be proven, you surely did not expect Camus to do that? It is not even that he has to prove it: it is the contradiction between the human want for meaning and significance, and the sheer inability of the universe to provide any.

Nor is he merely 'adding' an ideology of happiness to his prior conclusions. Recognition of our absurd condition is what makes us free and thus the individual can give his life whatever meaning he wants - that being an act of rebellion, perhaps.

[hypatia_]

Whose fault is it that life feels monotonous? It seems as if Camus is portraying us as victims of some sort, but who is making victims out of us?

Why do you assume that someone causes it? Camus is arguing that it is human nature.

[YesNo]

I don't know.

That's a good starting point. From that you can't draw too many conclusions.



Camus purported a random universe where humans inhabit a tiny planet which hurtling to its doom. His assumption is only that consciousness and memory are all that we are, and based on the evidence we have, that is the most realistic assumption that can be made. Once we die we lose everything we have gained through life, and thus our attempts at life are axiomatically futile and our efforts absurd. Of course it cannot be proven, you surely did not expect Camus to do that? It is not even that he has to prove it: it is the contradiction between the human want for meaning and significance, and the sheer inability of the universe to provide any.

What evidence specifically are you referring to? Regarding the axiomatic part, if you assume a metaphysics of futility, then axiomatically you get futility. That doesn't mean that life is futile, only that you assume a metaphysics of futility.

Of course, I expect him to prove his point.



Nor is he merely 'adding' an ideology of happiness to his prior conclusions. Recognition of our absurd condition is what makes us free and thus the individual can give his life whatever meaning he wants - that being an act of rebellion, perhaps.

I would maintain that "recognition of our absurd condition" does not "make us free". That is an "absurd" thing to claim.

[YesNo]

Why do you assume that someone causes it? Camus is arguing that it is human nature.

No one actually is causing it but the person who feels that life is monotonous. Human nature certainly isn't causing it because there exist people who don't feel life is monotonous.

[hypatia_]

No one actually is causing it but the person who feels that life is monotonous. Human nature certainly isn't causing it because there exist people who don't feel life is monotonous.

Camus argues that people who don't feel life is monotonous are simple-minded. It is easy to be content when you don't understand the problem.

[YesNo]

Camus argues that people who don't feel life is monotonous are simple-minded. It is easy to be content when you don't understand the problem.

Of course, he does. He has to discredit the experience of those who disagree with him. He has no other argument. However, it is just as possible that he doesn't understand the problem and his position is simple-minded, indeed, sentimental, as I've tried to argue.

The sentimentallity in his case is real. For example, Phocton claims he said something like:


Recognition of our absurd condition is what makes us free

Consider for a moment what actually makes you free. A reasonable answer would be "the ability to make a choice". Note, freedom doesn't require accepting your absurdity or anything else for that matter. It doesn't require standing on your head to accept some BS ideology or theology or atheology. It doesn't require believing in Christianity or Buddhism or pick-whatever-belief-you-want. What makes you free? Just the ability to make a choice. There are some today who claim you can't even do that, but that's another discussion for a different thread.

So why did Camus link "freedom", a nice mushy sentiment many people in his audience valued, with believing in just what he happened to be preaching? I think for the same reason some Christians might say you would be "siding with the devil" if you didn't agree with them. He was appealing to your sentiment, not your reason. He was being sentimental.

[hypatia_]

A plausible hypothesis, but one just as valid is that he is right. perhaps he is referring to a dimension of freedom more profound than "making a choice." his argument is that the very essence of life prohibits choice, so realizing that gives you it. a form of nonduality.

[YesNo]

A plausible hypothesis, but one just as valid is that he is right. perhaps he is referring to a dimension of freedom more profound than "making a choice." his argument is that the very essence of life prohibits choice, so realizing that gives you it. a form of nonduality.

I don't actually know that Camus said what I quoted Phocton as claiming he said. Do either you or Phocton have a source? However, from what I remember, it wouldn't surprise me that he linked freedom with some belief in his version of the futility of life. That and the quote on "happiness" I mentioned earlier in the thread are the kinds of pronouncements that make Camus sound sentimental to me. What I am trying to say is if he is going to promote the futility of life, he should stop sugar-coating it.

Regarding a "dimension of freedom more profound than 'making a choice'", does it even exist?

What do you mean by "the very essence of life prohibits choice, so realizing that gives you it. a form of nonduality"? The "nonduality" part sounds a bit too mystical for me.

[hypatia_]

What I am trying to say is if he is going to promote the futility of life, he should stop sugar-coating it.

Okay I understand where you're coming from now. That's true, if life is meaningless, it does seem he is trying to extract some meaning from nothing

Regarding a "dimension of freedom more profound than 'making a choice'", does it even exist?

That is the definition of freedom. The problem arises when people think they are making a choice. The illusion of freedom is very powerful. I'm not saying it is the case, but that is Camus' argument.

What do you mean by "the very essence of life prohibits choice, so realizing that gives you it. a form of nonduality"? The "nonduality" part sounds a bit too mystical for me.

At it's most primal level, you are not given a choice to be born or to exist. The nonduality from my understanding arises in giving in to something to obtain the opposite. It's similar to the concepts of good not existing without evil. They depend on each other. In terms of this discussion, freedom depends on constraint. Giving up the pursuit of freedom (realizing the absurd) is what allows you to obtain it. I don't 100% agree with it, but that's what I get from Camus' works.