So I just read The Myth of Sisyphus. Camus embraces the idea of absurdism rather than try to rebel against it to find meaning, which he claims is what the existentialists do. There is no meaning and one must not run from this idea but rather accept it. Why? To live a more full life, presumably. Sisyphus can be happy embracing his absurd condition, rather than trying to make a “leap” in his mind towards finding meaning. With this in mind, Camus’ ultimate philosophical question – should one commit suicide – is answered in the negative.
I think absurdism addresses the idea of inherent meaning and our inability to find any. So maybe he’s suggesting we can be happy creating our own rather than perpetually seeking what we can’t find.
I like Camus, but it’s been a while since I’ve read his work. As I remember it, Camus advocated the idea of creating personal meaning, which may not be objective, but still gives life value.
I think that by the Absurd, Camus was referring to the limits of the mind. Concepts that the mind uses with language are often absurd. “Infinity”, “zero”, “you”, “good” go beyond what can be known beyond interpretation. When one realizes the fallibility and weakness of reason, one confronts the absurd. At least that is my interpretation.
His book of essays begin with the question about suicide. In fact some have called philosophy a consolation. A consolation for what? For life, or life once we find out that it is absurd that it is all for naught. The life of Sisyphus offers the example of a man whose existence was absurd, without meaning. The rock represents concepts and ideas that eventually we find to be empty and fall away. In a visual metaphor, the rock is Sisyphus depression. Yet he goes down and starts anew, and Camus insist that we should imagine him smiling. Why? This is open to interpretation. Perhaps it is because the will to life is stronger than the conclusions that bring down that rock from the top of the hill and into the valley. Or maybe it is because fitness rest in doing something and death is standing still. Whether it moves up or down, the rock represents life. Whether you pick one of the other (or some other interpretation) does not rest on having clarity, knowledge, objectivity, understanding, but that, like Sisyphus, we pick up a rock and our belief is the effort that carries it up the hill. But we should be, if I understand Camus correctly, just as pleased on pushing the rock up the hill as we are when we see it roll down once again.
If nothing else, think of scientific progress: An idea is presented, becomes accepted, gains authority, but eventually it is discredited. Nevertheless we learn from our errors just as much, and some may say even more, as we do from our “accomplishments”.
I’d rather think it was the other way round. The existentialists taught that man could create his own meaning by determining his own essence: existence precedes essence. Compare Aristotle: the nature or essence of a being is its end or purpose. Existentialism teaches that man can create his own meaning by setting goals for himself. Camus saw the arbitrariness of any such goals and instead sought inherent meaning in the striving after goals: his Sisyphys is happy because he finds joy in pushing the boulder up the slope, in exerting his strength; his happiness is a rejoicing in his own strength.
yes but this striving after goals, is de powered by the failure to over come existenz, because we are thrown into this world. We are the victims of the environment at times, about which we can have no innate knowledge, or control. The existence which
The will to power fails when an essential element falls from it. That is, the power over situations. Nietzche
probably forsaw this, and this missing element
caused the fall, his and societie’s.
Thanks, Orb, I hadn’t realized that my words could be misinterpreted that way. I didn’t mean to suggest that Camus’s meaning lay in the pride one might take in “one’s own” strength. The good thing about “one’s own” strength is not that it’s one’s own–which it isn’t, as it’s deterministic–, but that it’s the only strength one can experience from the inside. It’s the experience of strength from the inside, not the idea that it be one’s own, in which I think Camusian meaning is to be found.
Sauwellos, I appreciate the distinction, it is noted, and , it is apropo that the name of the forum it’s self indicates confusion over his interpretation. It may be, that Camus himself had problems with it.
So whether we can create our own meaning (statiktech), or form our own accomplishments (omar), or seek inherent meaning in the striving after goals (Sauwelios), Camus seems interested in meaning, notwithstanding his apparent dismissal of it with his absurdism.
I like the guy, don’t get me wrong. I just think his reasoning is flawed or incomplete.
Or else I am not understanding it. Probably this is the case. But even so, I can’t separate Camus’ absurdism from existentialism, yet he was adamant that it was, in fact, a different idea.
I think we could expect Camus to say that an existentialist considers the creation of meaning in the absence of objective meaning as a rational act, and considers those created meanings valid. Camus disagrees, but says that we should embrace the fact that the creation of meaning is essentially irrational and do it anyway: this act of revolt makes us free and allows us to create positive values.
I think life is only absurd if your expectations are off. Why is inherent meaning better than emergent meaning? The Stranger had a big impact on me when I first read it, and that existential angst hit hard. In the end, I just chose to think of life as having a ticket to play in a big sandbox world. Even with all of the suffering that comes with life, there are lots of opportunities. We’ll all die anyway, so why not try to hold out for awhile and see what you can do.
I don’t think we are so much the conscious authors of meaning as we are unwitting co-authors or merely capable of chipping in. I think a lot of what has meaning to us develops naturally/automatically in relation to our instincts, inner drives, and our environment that we don’t have full access and control over. At any rate, just like we feel like we have “free will,” so we can feel like we deliberately create meaning in our lives.
The question that I think bothered him was whether meaning was created within or discovered without. Perhaps in saying that he discovered it residing in its own creation, he’s trying to square the circle.
Surely the suicide question is answered in the positive, or at least do it if you want.
I think accepting the absurd is not antithetical to meaning. The meaning IS the absurdity. Camus responses to this thought by being empowered. The thought goes that, as we know that our life is ultimately absurd that gives you the freedom to act without fear or shame. You can fight or die for a cause; sit around doing nothing; no need to comply with authority. For whatever you do, we;ll all be dead in 100 years and forgotten. If not forgotten then you won’t know either way.
Knowing the meaning of life is self determined; that life being absurd is the ultimate liberation.