Pages

Showing posts with label meaning of life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meaning of life. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Myth of Sisyphus - the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation, constant revolt.


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
HASSNERS.org highlights
HASSNERS.org comments

The Myth of Sisyphus is a philosophical essay by Albert Camus. (120 pages, published 1942)

In the essay, Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd: man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values. Does the realization of the absurd require suicide? Camus answers: "No. It requires revolt." He then outlines several approaches to the absurd life. The final chapter compares the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. The essay concludes, "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."


Chapter 1: An Absurd Reasoning

Camus undertakes to answer what he considers to be the only question of philosophy that matters: Does the realization of the meaninglessness and absurdity of life necessarily require suicide?

He begins by describing the absurd condition: much of our life is built on the hope for tomorrow yet tomorrow brings us closer to death and is the ultimate enemy;

people live as if they didn't know about the certainty of death; once stripped of its common romanticisms, the world is a foreign, strange and inhuman place; true knowledge is impossible and rationality and science cannot explain the world:

their stories ultimately end in meaningless abstractions, in metaphors. "From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all."

It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when "my appetite for the absolute and for unity" meets "the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle."

He then characterizes a number of philosophies that describe and attempt to deal with this feeling of the absurd, by Heidegger, Jaspers, Shestov, Kierkegaard and Husserl. All of these, he claims, commit "philosophical suicide" by reaching conclusions that contradict the original absurd position, either by abandoning reason and turning to God, as in the case of Kierkegaard and Shestov, or by elevating reason and ultimately arriving at ubiquitous Platonic forms and an abstract god, as in the case of Husserl.

For Camus, who set out to take the absurd seriously and follow it to its final conclusions, these "leaps" cannot convince. Taking the absurd seriously means acknowledging the contradiction between the desire of human reason and the unreasonable world. Suicide, then, also must be rejected: without man, the absurd cannot exist. The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged, without false hope. However, the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation, constant revolt.

While the question of human freedom in the metaphysical sense loses interest to the absurd man, he gains freedom in a very concrete sense: no longer bound by hope for a better future or eternity, without a need to pursue life's purpose or to create meaning, "he enjoys a freedom with regard to common rules".

To embrace the absurd implies embracing all that the unreasonable world has to offer. Without a meaning in life, there is no scale of values. "What counts is not the best living but the most living."

Thus, Camus arrives at three consequences from the full acceptance of the absurd: revolt, freedom, and passion.

Chapter 2: The Absurd Man

How should the absurd man live? Clearly, no ethical rules apply, as they are all based on higher powers or on justification. "Integrity has no need of rules." 'Everything is permitted' "is not an outburst of relief or of joy, but rather a bitter acknowledgment of a fact."

Camus then goes on to present examples of the absurd life. He begins with Don Juan, the serial seducer who lives the passionate life to the fullest. "There is no noble love but that which recognizes itself to be both short-lived and exceptional."

The next example is the actor, who depicts ephemeral lives for ephemeral fame. "He demonstrates to what degree appearing creates being." "In those three hours he travels the whole course of the dead-end path that the man in the audience takes a lifetime to cover."

Camus' third example of the absurd man is the conqueror, the warrior who forgoes all promises of eternity to affect and engage fully in human history. He chooses action over contemplation, aware of the fact that nothing can last and no victory is final.

Chapter 3: Absurd Creation

Here Camus explores the absurd creator or artist. Since explanation is impossible, absurd art is restricted to a description of the myriad experiences in the world. "If the world were clear, art would not exist." Absurd creation, of course, also has to refrain from judging and from alluding to even the slightest shadow of hope.

He then analyzes the work of Dostoyevsky in this light, especially The Diary of a Writer, The Possessed and The Brothers Karamazov. All these works start from the absurd position, and the first two explore the theme of philosophical suicide. But both The Diary and his last novel, The Brothers Karamazov, ultimately find a path to hope and faith and thus fail as truly absurd creations.

Chapter 4: The Myth of Sisyphus

In the last chapter, Camus outlines the legend of Sisyphus who defied the gods and put Death in chains so that no human needed to die. When Death was eventually liberated and it came time for Sisyphus himself to die, he concocted a deceit which let him escape from the underworld. Finally captured, the gods decided on his punishment: for all eternity, he would have to push a rock up a mountain; on the top, the rock rolls down again and Sisyphus has to start over.

Camus sees Sisyphus as the absurd hero who lives life to the fullest, hates death and is condemned to a meaningless task.

Camus presents Sisyphus's ceaseless and pointless toil as a metaphor for modern lives spent working at futile jobs in factories and offices. "The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious."

Camus is interested in Sisyphus' thoughts when marching down the mountain, to start anew. This is the truly tragic moment, when the hero becomes conscious of his wretched condition. He does not have hope, but "[t]here is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." Acknowledging the truth will conquer it; Sisyphus, just like the absurd man, keeps pushing. Camus claims that when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the absurdity of his situation and to reach a state of contented acceptance. With a nod to the similarly cursed Greek hero Oedipus, Camus concludes that "all is well," indeed, that "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

Appendix

The essay contains an appendix titled "Hope and the Absurd in the work of Franz Kafka." While Camus acknowledges that Kafka's work represents an exquisite description of the absurd condition, he maintains that Kafka fails as an absurd writer because his work retains a glimmer of hope.

Sources

See also


External links


Creative Commons License
This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Meaning of Life for an Atheist

reposted from Newsline NSS, 17/08/07
From Des Langford:

I read an article in the Daily Mail a while ago (I only got it for the DVD – I don't normally read the Mail). Unfortunately the paper got thrown out. However the 2 page article (which referred to The God Delusion) was titled something like "Militant atheists are on the march. Their arguments are puerile and threadbare, but our church leaders are afraid to criticise them! Won't anyone stand up for God? " [The article is available on-line.]

This article was just so bad, I must comment. Regarding the title: firstly, the author barely commented on why he thinks the atheist's arguments are puerile and threadbare; secondly, why would an omnipotent God need anyone to stand up for him?
I counted the paragraphs and grouped them into sections as follows:
Section 1 acceptance of many of the atheist's arguments
Section 2 minor clarifications
Section 3 alleged rebuttals
Section 4 criticism of church leaders for not responding more forcefully

The sections were not of equal length, with (ironically) more time being spent on sections 1 and 4 than the others. The paucity of argument in section 3 was amazing. Just about all the arguments had already been demolished by Dawkins – to which the article purported to respond. The writer's key point (and this is actually dealt with by Dawkins at least indirectly) is: if atheists are right, life is pointless and without meaning.

I would like to respond to this in my own way as follows, with an imaginary Q&A.
Q What is the meaning of life for an atheist?
A The meaning of life depends on the individual and the meaning he chooses to give it
Q But what is the ultimate, objective meaning?
A I don't believe in such a thing.
Q But that makes life pointless.
A No it doesn't, you can choose your own meaning (Dawkins' is the exploration of science; mine is personal gratification without hurting anyone)
Q But I need an ultimate meaning!!!
A Why?
Q I just do! I want a god, or an afterlife or something. I can't stand being alone!
A That is a matter for you, but it doesn't affect reality.
Q Your philosophy is puerile and threadbare without an ultimate meaning.
A No, it's just more honest. You are not satisfied with the world until you get the answer you want. I look at the world and try and find the true answers, whether or not I like them.
Q You are avoiding the question. There must be an ultimate meaning! What is it?
A That is like asking: what is the name of the present king of France? The question is wrongly framed because it assumes a certain type of answer. You simply won't accept there is no present king of France.
Q How do you know there is no ultimate meaning?
A I don't know, but I find it highly unlikely because I cannot imagine what such a meaning would be like. Would the answer '42' satisfy you?
Q No, I want a God.
A Well, that is a matter for you. Just as long as you realise there is not a scrap of evidence and you are simply making an assumption based on your desires. You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting the Earth. The onus is on the believer to prove their hypothesis, not vice versa.

Ed writes: There is a similar bit of rubbish by Melanie Phillips.

Saturday, June 02, 2007

The meaning of life?

from BHA site:

“I thought that all Humanists believed that our existence had no more meaning than the existence of other animal or vegetable life forms on this planet, and that we choose to lead reasonable ordered lives for our own personal satisfaction and the successful function of society.”

”I don’t recall my children ever asking me this essentially unanswerable question!”