The Myth of Sisyphus

[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.