what determination?Originally Posted by Charles Darnay
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.
oh and nothing is futile if you really think about it.
Last edited by cacian; 03-19-2012 at 02:47 AM.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Sisyphus could give up, he just can't.
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.
Last edited by Buh4Bee; 03-18-2012 at 07:01 PM.
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.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
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.
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.
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.
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.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
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.
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.
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?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
@Darcy88. It is a tough work, but your interpretation is very honest and very true.
Last edited by Hunger Artist; 03-19-2012 at 09:24 AM.
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.
My blog: https://frankhubeny.blog/
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.
"All gods are homemade, and it is we who pull their strings, and so, give them the power to pull ours." -Aldous Huxley
"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." -William Blake
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
