Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus

[Nick_A]

The exerpt i copied included

a philosophical anthropology. Kierkegaard’s own irony served to ‘ mask ’ his deep, personal commitment to Christianity. If Socrates asked, how can I become a man, Kierkegaard asked, how can I become a Christian? In the Concept of Irony Kierkegaard emphasizes the negativity of irony insofar as any knowledge claim is subject to the critical power of the ironic standpoint. Irony is the antithesis of the actual and is oriented in the direction of the ideal infinity of the possible.................

Those like IC have no conception of what it means to be a man mush less a Christian. Yet they stick their nose up in the air without a clue as to why the human condition compels society as a whole to be controlled by an aimless existence

[Immanuel Can]

A myth can only appeal to the person reading it.

You have to answer the question, then: did you read Camus's book, The Myth of Sisyphus, Nick?

If you didn't, then there was nothing to "appeal" to you, in the first place.

A myth doesn't "appeal" to the person "not-reading" it.

[Nick_A]

A myth can only appeal to the person reading it.

You have to answer the question, then: did you read Camus's book, The Myth of Sisyphus, Nick?

If you didn't, then there was nothing to "appeal" to you, in the first place.

A myth doesn't "appeal" to the person "not-reading" it.

I read it years go in college but the real issue is why you don't understand what you read. If you did you would appreciate the intricacies of why Humanity accepts absurdity as a desirable alterntive

[Immanuel Can]

you don't understand what you read...

Prove it. Quote the book, and show me where I'm wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll change my view.

[Sculptor]

A myth can only appeal to the person reading it.

You have to answer the question, then: did you read Camus's book, The Myth of Sisyphus, Nick?

If you didn't, then there was nothing to "appeal" to you, in the first place.

A myth doesn't "appeal" to the person "not-reading" it.

I read it years go in college but the real issue is why you don't understand what you read. If you did you would appreciate the intricacies of why Humanity accepts absurdity as a desirable alterntive

I Can is sysiphus. He is one of the persons absurdly pushing the rock up the hill thinking there there is some sort of meaning to life. He deludes himself the he is god's special creation, and sees his life as a struggle to unpack the truth in the design of the universe.
He'll never get Camus.

[Impenitent]

some people find joy in their work

Did you have a chance to read the book, actually? Or are you talking more about what you would do...

I've read it (several years ago)

if camus finds his life an absurd misery, good for him - it's his life, let him embrace his fate

if someone enjoys their apparent "drudgery" then that which one as an external observer "sees" might look absurd from a fatalist's perspective...

and those who love their fate... but that's a question for fast freddy

-Imp

[Immanuel Can]

some people find joy in their work

Did you have a chance to read the book, actually? Or are you talking more about what you would do...

I've read it (several years ago)

Fair enough. I had no reason to doubt you.

I was only addressing that question to Nick, because his comments suggest that he really has no idea at all what Camus says. I think he never read Camus, but is just looking for a chance to rhapsodize about Simone.

if camus finds his life an absurd misery, good for him - it's his life, let him embrace his fate

if someone enjoys their apparent "drudgery" then that which one as an external observer "sees" might look absurd from a fatalist's perspective...

and those who love their fate... but that's a question for fast freddy

Right.

I think he's wrong about it being possible to make the rock "my rock." He's really just counselling a kind of elaborate self-deception...no more.

[Immanuel Can]

He'll never get Camus.

Oh, do take me on on this one, Scuply. Please do.

Let's hear what you have to say about The Myth of Sisyphus.

[Nick_A]

you don't understand what you read...

Prove it. Quote the book, and show me where I'm wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll change my view.

Camus wrote

“What I know, what is certain, what I cannot deny,
what I cannot reject—this is what counts. I can negate everything
of that part of me that lives on vague nostalgias, except this desire
for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion. I
can refute everything in this world surrounding me that offends or
enraptures me, except this chaos, this sovereign chance and this
divine equivalence which springs from anarchy. I don’t know
whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know
that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me
just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition
mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch,
what resists me—that is what I understand. And these two
certainties—my appetite for the absolute and for unity and the
impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable
principle—I also know that I cannot reconcile them. What other
truth can I admit without lying, without bringing in a hope I lack
and which means nothing within the limits of my condition?”

Camus is not suggesting suicide but admitting that recognizing human meaning and purpose requires more that what our senses are capable of understanding. It is obvious that he believes there must be more beyond the senses. That is why he called Simone Weil the only great mind of our times. She had the will, need, and courage, to experience from above. Camus is really suggesting the conclusion of Ecclesiastes.

Remember him—before the silver cord is severed,
and the golden bowl is broken;
before the pitcher is shattered at the spring,
and the wheel broken at the well,
7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

8 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher.
“Everything is meaningless!”

The Conclusion of the Matter
9 Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also imparted knowledge to the people. He pondered and searched out and set in order many proverbs. 10 The Teacher searched to find just the right words, and what he wrote was upright and true.

11 The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails—given by one shepherd. 12 Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.

Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.

13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.

The world as we know it is meaningless so just obey God's laws and make the best of it as you push the great Rock..

Now the perennial presence of Christianity makes its appearance once again in Jesus' return bringing the Spirit. The tension described in Ecclesiastes can be resolved by the Holy Spirit which connects above and below also described by St.Paul in Romans7

7 and the dust returns to the ground it came from,
and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Camus is in good place as he describes nihilism. Once a person feels the depth of meaninglessness, they have the potential to get out of their own way long enough inwardly turn toward the light and experience the inner direction leading to human meaning.

Camus leads us to nihilism and those capable of inwardly turning towards the light can have a life experience which will change their lives.

[Immanuel Can]

you don't understand what you read...

Prove it. Quote the book, and show me where I'm wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll change my view.

Camus wrote...etc.

Interesting. I found exactly the same quotation, clipped exactly the same way as you did, on this site:
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/8 ... phe?page=2

Amazing that they would clip it exactly at the points, and in exactly the same way, that you have.

Not surprisingly, almost nothing of what you said subsequently accurately reflected Camus's argument, expounded any point he made accurately, or built anything out of what he actually said. It's almost like you never actually read the book at all...

Unfortunately for you, I did...and have it on hand. So bluffs like this are really hard to pull off.

[Nick_A]

Prove it. Quote the book, and show me where I'm wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll change my view.

Camus wrote...etc.

Interesting. I found exactly the same quotation, clipped exactly the same way as you did, on this site:
https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/8 ... phe?page=2

Amazing that they would clip it exactly at the points, and in exactly the same way, that you have.

Not surprisingly, almost nothing of what you said subsequently accurately reflected Camus's argument, expounded any point he made accurately, or built anything out of what he actually said. It's almost like you never actually read the book at all...

Unfortunately for you, I did...and have it on hand. So bluffs like this are really hard to pull off.

This isn't rockett science. You asked for quote so I dug round and found one that describes the human condition which can lead a person to nihilism and the revelations that can take place. The expansion esoteric thought leads to including socratic irony isn't your thing

There is no reason to bluff but for some reason you believe that by proudly waving book around it means you understand something

Camus makes a good point. Why not open your mind to the potential benefits of nihilism.

[Sculptor]

He'll never get Camus.

Oh, do take me on on this one, Scuply. Please do.

Let's hear what you have to say about The Myth of Sisyphus.

It would be pearls before swine.
You are mentally deficient to understand Camus due to your conditioning.

[Immanuel Can]

The expansion esoteric thought...

Nobody asked for that, Nick. Not here.

Again, if you want to talk about Simone, start a thread with her name on it. See how many people want to engage with you about her. There's no need for you to derail the train here.

If you believe Simone is important, then show you do, by starting your own thread. Show you believe that people want and need to talk about her. And if you don't want to do that, how it is that you have so lost faith in Simone?

There is no reason to bluff but for some reason you believe that by proudly waving book around it means you understand something

I've read it. You clearly haven't.

So while, for argument's sake, my having read it may not be an absolute guarantee I understood it, your having not read it is an absolute and ironclad guarantee you don't.

[Immanuel Can]

It would be pearls before swine.
You are mentally deficient to understand Camus due to your conditioning.

And yet...you can't do it. You can't talk intelligently about Camus's book, because you don't know squat about it.

And aren't you charming...

[Sculptor]

It would be pearls before swine.
You are mentally deficient to understand Camus due to your conditioning.

And yet...you can't do it. You can't talk intelligently about Camus's book, because you don't know squat about it.

And aren't you charming...

Puff Puff Puff!