Sisyphus, science and prophetic religion

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

In the myth of Sisyphus, a dead king is punished by the gods to eternally roll a heavy stone stone up a hill to always see it roll back down. It has been a metaphor for nihilists, to absurdists, but I think that rather than nihilist or absurd, the myth is honest about what it means to be alive.

I think that science can often resemble religion as religion can often resemble science. But this can either mean that sometimes each becomes authoritative, and looses the ability to challenge itself and it’s assumptions because for each they have become unquestionable. Yet, other times, this can mean that they agree on adapting concepts to experience, or as MMP puts it “true rhythim”.

I compare the myth of Sisyphus to the endeavour of science and to prophetic religion (which is different from just “religion” in that the prophets often went against convention to challenge what had become “common sense”), EXCEPT that the rock never rolls for us all the way down. Through tradition, through memory, oral or written, every generation has a body that sort of stops the freefall of the rolling boulder down hill. But, regardless, the new plateau always add to the height of the hill we must climb. The more we know, the more we know of what we don’t know. Science will never be out of a job, nor for that matter honest religion, art and philosophy. But it is a fatigating pursuit that often makes people weary.

So? Is it pointless? IF there no end in sight? Camus commented that we must imagine Sisyphus as smiling, enigmatically. Could such existence, thought of by gods as punishment, give pleasure to anyone? I say yes, the pursuit is it’s own reward. Marx said that religion is the opium of the people, in reference to the comon medical procedure of his time. he envisioned religion as something we make do until something real comes along, which he intended to bring. But that was incorrect because it took for granted the age of religion, the wide practice of their sort, even by those that were comfortable, who needed no consolation. For a while philosophy often was associated with religion. We see this is Cicero. And it was also believed that it was practiced for practical purpose of consolation. It may be a consolation, but that was not the cause of it.

We are pattern pursuing creatures. The greatness of the human mind is in just this ability that is the use of our imagination. The reason why Sisyphus smiles has nothing to do with the rock itself but with himself. Pursuing these ends, while never leading us to something final, define us as men and women, as individuals and represent the honest engagement of reality. But what is reality? “Reality” is the object of our pursuit, whether scientific or religious. True, often this “reality” is made into an unquestionable value by those that are exhausted of being human. They want instead to be gods. This is very pleasurable, but crushes individuality and the honest encounter with what is the case.
True, Sisyphus is never done with his chores, but it is the pursuit of exherting himself, his mind that is pleasurable in itself.

2

Some goals are not attainable and when we invest a lot of energy in pursuit of them we tend to sidestep the real situation and the real complexities associated with it.

To sidestep the complexities of this society is one of the biggest mistakes that we are making. But there is nothing out there. If your energy is not wasted in pursuit of some mythical certainties offered to us, life becomes very simple. But we end up being wasted, misled and misspent individuals. If that energy is released, what is it that we can’t do to survive in the midst of these complexities of the world created by our culture? It is very simple. The attempt to sidestep these complexities is the very thing that is causing us all these problems.

3

I wonder if energy is wasted in religious pursuit. I think that energy is always being wasted, in some way or another, if we believe thermodynamic theory. Being human is about doing stuff, some of it useful, some of it idle. Some of the finest activities of man are “useless”, like abstract art.
Religion does not waste people’s energies by it’s own design. It may define your efforts within a context. Is it wasteful to help the poor in the name of God?

4

Hello Churro:

— As for religion, I am not under the impression that it significantly betters the conscious world, but rather quite frequently serves to harm it, and as such, it has a negative value, and is indeed a waste of energy. Abstract art, on the other hand, can serve as an aesthetically pleasing visual, releasing endorphins and thus creating pleasure, so it can be valuable in that way.
O- How does it “harm” a subject? Note first of that the majority of our species believes in god, gods or practices some form of religion. But it is not about belief here itself but about what happens with those beliefs. For example, religion often allows a subject to both define himself as complete, as fulfilled (whether or not we agree do not matter as to the pleasure he may feel about his own illusions), while at the same time feel as part of something larger, a larger community. Belief in a Higher Power is often used by organizations like AA, in trying to heal, not harm, the individual. If we want to judge religion by it’s works, by it’s consequences, then they are not ALL harmful, and it makes sense to believe that belief has positive consequences for otherwise we would be incapable of explaining it’s survival.

— Helping poor, likewise, can create pleasure and/or alleviate pain for both parties in question, so in the same way as art, it is valuable, but because its effect is usually greater than that of art, it’s value is much higher. Doing it in the name of “God” doesn’t really matter, it’s doing it at all that counts.
O- Helping strangers is not a natural disposition. Highly charged events, like the quake in Haiti, can bring us to help the poor. It is not the pleasure but perhaps the guilt one may feel at his own priviledged position and we imagine how random this priviledged position is, so we help those who find themselves in a position which we can imagine we could find ourselves in as easily.
The motivation of helping is that we are not helping “others” but that we are helping “us”. This feeling of solidarity follows disaster, but then is lost in time. Religion tries to simulate disaster and to erase divisions between strangers to stimulate communality. We are very social beings but our sociality ends at the doorstep of our home, so to speak and always needs the contrast of an Other, of a “them”. This tribality follows bloodlines closely- that is the default system for cooperation. But religion expands the horizons of the in-group beyond bloodlines, stimulating communality.

5

Camus said that we must imagine Sisyphus as having a smile on his face, while his burden is perpetual, extending indefinitely. The joy remains in the pursuit, not in the acquisition of that goal. It is interesting to realize that science (and religion) do often function in just this manner. As one approaches the object of desire, it leaps ahead to an even greater degree than before.

With science this is most certainly true. As we study phenomena of nature (and of man, and man’s mind) the set of knowledge expands at such a rate that the ultimate end (or goal, desire, etc.), which is hazy and distanced to begin with, only becomes increasingly obscured and distanced. Can this not be interpreted as either motivating, daunting, or both? If interpreted as both, then the paradoxical nature of this pursuit would serve to entice and create a sense of purpose that extends and outlives the timeline of man, simply a parallel to the initial problem.

I view this scenario, and Sisyphus’ struggle, as a disconcerting ordeal. It shifts my emotional state to one of uneasiness and causes me to question all aspects of reality. Therefore when we look over our shoulder, and glance at Sisyphus, maybe we should wonder what the true nature of that smile is, for in my eyes it is a most contemptuous smile.

6

Maybe we should value that hill, that rock as vital to our existence and not as an obstruction to it.
I imagine the gods may have simply seen Sisyphus the way we see a hamster. They put this hamster in a cage and put alongside a steep hill and a rock. The hamster is never forced to run on that wheel we see in their cages, but they enter it freely and run. Is it the value of excersice? Perhaps. Or is it the avoidance of boredom, of having nothing else to do? Who knows. What we do know is that the body wastes away with no excersice. Lifting dumbells is pointless in itself, but valuable in relation to our fitness. And perhaps this is the reason why Sisyphus COULD be immagined as happy.

A key component in Camus take on it was the exceptionality of every instance. That though something, like a room may seem boring that there is always something new, some new detail, because everything in the room changes- in infinite time. Someone once said that the value of a cup is the emptiness of the cup. Once it is full you cannot put anything else you probably need. To be reminded of the newness of each moment, to break from tradition, from dogma, from that which has become “common sense”, I think could be the morality of the tale. Of course, this is hard for man to do and he hides behind labels. But this is, this means, the slow death of the mind. Those who want labels want to rest and while repose is good for us, eternal repose is death.

7

Camus writes… The struggle itself…is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

I feel that it is the nature of which our heart becomes full. The irony in this is that a ‘lower’ creature, one that is a biological automaton fills its heart with tasks that pertain to its physiological maintenance. Just as this creature fills its heart, it ostensibly has a mind and fills this mind to the capacity of its innate biological rhythm. The common point is that its mind is ordained with a functionality that arbitrates a level of external interaction. My argument is that our level of interaction has been hijacked, or at least ‘excited’.

We, as humans, with our exquisite and cursed condition fill our hearts (just as the creatures), and our minds (but differently than our ancestral counterparts). It seems that we are many steps removed from the automaticity of the aforementioned creature. The interaction with our external environment acquires a dynamic complexity that is unmatched. Or is it us who seek to make the relationship more complex?

While Sisyphus is smiling I still see this scenario as affording an element of unhappiness and instability. Most certainly we question the unquestionable influence of culture and its adornments and seek out a higher purpose. Are we really just suited with a primitive carapace that serves a biological clock? Is there truly any transcendence from this stone wheel, this mountainside? This is why I would perceive his smile as so utterly contemptuous. A violent contention with his maker and the absolute inability to alter this relationship with reality.