Discussion Imagining Sisyphus happy

[Soundgarden]

I don't really understand why we should imagine him happy. Just because he is aware of his tragic destiny, does not mean he is ... happy.

We all roll our stone day after day, we know it, there is no doubt about it, we feel the tragedy in our gut and yet, I don't see anyone feeling serene and at peace.

Am I missing something? I feel like Camus is trying to say something and it is essential that I understand it.

Any thoughts?

 

[woxihuanni]

I've always held Camus is a fool, so I leave the floor to more helpful people.

 

[Soul]

There are people who are serene. The Dalai Lama springs easily to mind.

Being happy not having to do anything other than one's daily routine - not having to worry about achieving more or finding meaning - isn't ambitious or imaginative, but it may be happy. I'm just speculating, of course.

 

[Temporarilyabsurd]

I'm no expert , but I think Camus is missing the emotional component .

I think people live in denial of the harsh realities of existence .

they do this with the aid of culture.

( This is my take away from Ernest Beckers 'denial of death ' - I am a shameless salesman for his ideas.
( because I found them very illuminating .)

Camus is all about "reason' ... and it's inherent limits .

Becker is all about analysing Freuds ideas about the unconscious and how our emotional world
is hidden away because it is so scary in relation to 'reason'.

Becker promotes Kierkaargard (sp i will never spell that right ) and a dude called Otto Rank ( A Freudian
accolite) who revitalized Kierkaargards ideas about the oppressive assimilating process
of 'civilization'.

So , Camus is trying to use reason to understand / explain a humans 'right action ' without
accepting the inherent insanity of the human condition .

If you look at civilization as an abstract construct that houses millions of humans that only a few thousand years ago were bumbling around in a jungle feeling pretty awesome because they could make spears and fire ... then the discomfort and uneasiness a lot of people feel in this world seems more reasonable .

The most liberating and alienating view I have arrived at is that civilization is insane .

I like the material aspects , electricity and chocolate biscuits ... but they have a high price .

A hunter gatherer may have a more ' happy sisyphus' aspect to existence .

( Unrelated but symbolic of that different attitude is the idea that hunter gatherers don't name their
children until they are five years old , because before then they are statistically likely to die ... this may seem brutal ... but civilization does it in a different way at the other end of life by sustaining life when it has become just suffering .)

I am not promoting some bullshit noble savage idea - simply saying one way of life is more attuned to our
evolutionairy roots and the other is artificial and maybe not a good fit for the individual animal ... however slick and sophisticated it appears when functioning as an 'en masse' (?) management process.

(Sorry for the waffle ... coffe and cigarettes and pontificating upon 'what does it all mean ? ' ....
I need to get a job )

 

[woxihuanni]

I'm no expert , but I think Camus is missing the emotional component .

I think people live in denial of the harsh realities of existence .

they do this with the aid of culture.

( This is my take away from Ernest Beckers 'denial of death ' - I am a shameless salesman for his ideas.
( because I found them very illuminating .)

Camus is all about "reason' ... and it's inherent limits .

Becker is all about analysing Freuds ideas about the unconscious and how our emotional world
is hidden away because it is so scary in relation to 'reason'.

Becker promotes Kierkaargard (sp i will never spell that right ) and a dude called Otto Rank ( A Freudian
accolite) who revitalized Kierkaargards ideas about the oppressive assimilating process
of 'civilization'.

So , Camus is trying to use reason to understand / explain a humans 'right action ' without
accepting the inherent insanity of the human condition .

If you look at civilization as an abstract construct that houses millions of humans that only a few thousand years ago were bumbling around in a jungle feeling pretty awesome because they could make spears and fire ... then the discomfort and uneasiness a lot of people feel in this world seems more reasonable .

The most liberating and alienating view I have arrived at is that civilization is insane .

I like the material aspects , electricity and chocolate biscuits ... but they have a high price .

A hunter gatherer may have a more ' happy sisyphus' aspect to existence .

( Unrelated but symbolic of that different attitude is the idea that hunter gatherers don't name their
children until they are five years old , because before then they are statistically likely to die ... this may seem brutal ... but civilization does it in a different way at the other end of life by sustaining life when it has become just suffering .)

I am not promoting some bullshit noble savage idea - simply saying one way of life is more attuned to our
evolutionairy roots and the other is artificial and maybe not a good fit for the individual animal ... however slick and sophisticated it appears when functioning as an 'en masse' (?) management process.

(Sorry for the waffle ... coffe and cigarettes and pontificating upon 'what does it all mean ? ' ....
I need to get a job )

Let me pontificate a little too.

I feel (not even think, just gut feeling) that humans are almost not allowed to (not by someone, just.. as it is) linger or dawdle. All that brain capacity is not for sitting in a tree all day. Capacity hungers for realisation. In a way, denying this and living 'natural' is almost a sin against nature. Those cookies will get themselves made, will you nill you.

That being said, it is another sin against nature to assume that we are somehow no longer animals. Religion is a way of saying don't be an animal, so is psychology and most modern narratives. Animal loves territory, animal loves food and fuck, animal wants a nest, animal is not interested in taking up basket-weaving when its paws are bleeding. Animal cares for its pack, kills to feed. It's just that animal is not cruel in imaginative ways for the pure sake of cruelty.

Modern society is completely insane because it denies instincts, is compassionate towards the imaginatively cruel, and shows no mercy towards its own pack.

 

[Temporarilyabsurd]

That being said, it is another sin against nature to assume that we are somehow no longer animals.

This is essentially the Kierkargardian thesis .
He paints a picture of the 'grey man' , the fully civilized automata who has relinquished his soul , perhaps has never had a soul at all ... in order to be a part of 'the system'.

I fully sympathise with your view of the systemic cruelty of civilization.

We can justify all manner of evil in service of some transcendent Totem or other .


But .

regarding the idea of the 'sin against nature ' .... the conundrum is that nature itself is brutal and oppressive . So ... what nature are we hoping not to sin against ?

Potentially we are on the way towards it ...
( uncharacteristically hopeful thought , but , given our infantile state ( psychologically
) we have a long way to go ... once we stop bickering about command economies v free market and flavours of sky gods etc ... not holding my breath )
but it will be a long time after I'm gone .

 

[Soundgarden]

@Soul

What a great example, I hadn't thought of him! But yes, he is so serene, there's a "lightness" about him, it's almost as if he is walking in the air, a few centimeteres above the ground.

I read a book a while ago "Dialogues with the Dalai Lama" and I can tell you I felt deeply jealous of that man's attitude towars life.

What surprized me was that he seems to live in the world and yet outside of it in a way... like he is marching at a different pace than the rest of us.

I've always held Camus is a fool, so I leave the floor to more helpful people.

Oh :-) Do tell why! Now I am all curious!!!
@Temporarilyabsurd


"Camus is all about "reason' ... "

When you put it that why, yeah, it makes sense. I haven't thought how reductionist his view is, but you are quite right in saying that Sysiphus adopts a very "reasonable" attitude. It makes you wonder where all the rage and despair went?

Suddenly Camus' Sysiphus appears very unlikely to me, incomplete, nothing more than an unfinished sketch.

"A hunter gatherer may have a more ' happy sisyphus' aspect to existence."

Is it now so that tribes in remote areas such as Papua New Guinea do not suffer from depression and anxiety? I wonder if it's because their socities are closely knit, or because they lack the time and propensity to reflect.

"He paints a picture of the 'grey man' , the fully civilized automata who has relinquished his soul , perhaps has never had a soul at all ... in order to be a part of 'the system'."

I am nor sure what exactly you are referring to here. But then again, the man did leave a mountain of works, so... chances are we haven't read the same volumes :-D


With Kierkegaard at least you have a road map towards "happiness", or rather towards absence of despair but that path always leads to faith, to a religious state. Take a leap of faith, leave reason, moral codes and aesthetic pleasures behind, and embrace the absurdity of pure faith, and you will be cured of your despair.

Easier said than done, Mr Graveyard!

 

[Soul]

"Bullshit post-war French rationalism" I heard it referred to last night by someone whose timing was a bit off.

 

[woxihuanni]

Hmm, if Kierkegaard tends towards faith, definitely that is not in keeping with my stance. I tend towards honesty. Life is cruel, pleasures of life are at the cost of some cruelty. If it gets too much, or if you are dealt a bad hand, a peaceful exit should be available. But a world without suffering is, to me, not possible even in theory. Any depiction of heaven is incredibly naive. No hunger pangs but enjoying food? Yeah good luck.

Even the existence of sex is incredibly cruel. That there should be females who take on the burden of reproduction by traumatising their body. But again, sex is the ultimate pleasure, if done as an animal. It is hilarious to me how sex is tamed in modern society, just a little exercise.

Nature is cruel, but not oppressive in the same way the high school bully is. Sinning against nature is a turn of phrase that is convenient, just that. It is not that it is morally wrong to sin against it, it is just... stupid. Not helpful to any degree of fulfillment. In fact, if you are too compassionate, you are sinning against nature as well.

I read Camus almost twenty years ago, so am in no position to offer a detailed critique, but my impression at the time was that he was angsty. Don't have patience with angst.

 

[Soundgarden]

@woxihuanni

Faith is so beyond my reach, I don't even know how to talk about it in relation to myself. I do, nonetheless, think it is a wonderful gift to believe, and true believers find comfort which atheists such as myself can only dream of.

You say you lean towards honesty, and I like that very much, but also would like to add kindness. Nothing compares to kindness, whether it be kindness we bestow on people, or receive from others.

"No hunger pangs, but enjoying food" Hehehe
I guess Weight Watcher would go out of business in heaven!

Regarding Camus, I can say that there is enough angst in The Stranger, for instance, to fill a person's heart for a lifetime, but that's precisely what fascinates me. He doesn't talk about it directly, it just pours out like a cascade from every page. He is not winning and complaining... that which would have made the whole thing repulsive.

 

[woxihuanni]

@woxihuanni

Faith is so beyond my reach, I don't even know how to talk about it in relation to myself. I do, nonetheless, think it is a wonderful gift to believe, and true believers find comfort which atheists such as myself can only dream of.

You say you lean towards honesty, and I like that very much, but also would like to add kindness. Nothing compares to kindness, whether it be kindness we bestow on people, or receive from others.

"No hunger pangs, but enjoying food" Hehehe
I guess Weight Watcher would go out of business in heaven!

Regarding Camus, I can say that there is enough angst in The Stranger, for instance, to fill a person's heart for a lifetime, but that's precisely what fascinates me. He doesn't talk about it directly, it just pours out like a cascade from every page. He is not winning and complaining... that which would have made the whole thing repulsive.

I do value kindness a lot, have truly kind friends and am considered to be kind by them as well. But I think one can only be truly kind once one accepts what sort and degree of cruelty one is fine with. And this may not be what psychology tells you is OK, or other religion tells you is OK. It would probably shock your neighbour or that bubbly vegan colleague. It's me who rejoices in tearing meat off the bone, it's me who cannot turn away from a suffering bug without helping it, maybe turning it the right way around to set it free, maybe killing it if it is damaged and dying slowly. I am as I am, it is OK.

Camus: Probably it was the strength and direct communication of that angst that made me turn away from him. Because what bothers me is not a trashy expression of it vs a high quality one. Probably I see angst as a sin against nature as well. These things I've been able to articulate somehow only recently though have abided by them all my life, so don't know how clear I am.

 

[GlowingCactus]

The Dalai Lama springs easily to mind.

I don't see him as a good person at all. Why ? Because in the 1960s he accepted 180 000$ per year from the CIA. Very questionable morality to say the least. That's not a conspiracy theory by the way, this is well documented, we know it from declassified documents. Anyway personally, I don't bother reading or listening to philosophers or spiritual guides or life coaches or whatever. It simply doesn't interest me at all.

 

[woxihuanni]

I don't see him as a good person at all. Why ? Because in the 1960s he accepted 180 000$ per year from the CIA. Very questionable morality to say the least. That's not a conspiracy theory by the way, this is well documented, we know it from declassified documents. Anyway personally, I don't bother reading or listening to philosophers or spiritual guides or life coaches or whatever. It simply doesn't interest me at all.

Yeah, DL gets on my fucking nerves. Also 'free' Tibet was a wonderful place for little boys to get raped, not different from the catholic church or mosques.

My mentors have been fiction authors and what they were saying between the lines, not authors of serious texts.

 

[Soundgarden]

@woxihuanni

"Probably I see angst as a sin against nature as well."

An intriguing point... but it almost sounds as if angst is a choice. Is that what you mean? We people "do" angst, or does it "befall" them?

The whole idea of sin seems to me to imply vilition, intent, whereas I see angst as something what you suffer from, in the same way you suffer from a cold.

 

[woxihuanni]

@woxihuanni

"Probably I see angst as a sin against nature as well."

An intriguing point... but it almost sounds as if angst is a choice. Is that what you mean? We people "do" angst, or does it "befall" them?

The whole idea of sin seems to me to imply vilition, intent, whereas I see angst as something what you suffer from, in the same way you suffer from a cold.

I'm really enjoying this conversation.

As I said, I just use that phrase for convenience, I need to find something more precise. I think angst is a choice deep down, but not a choice in the following sense: If you just don't have the mental tools to watch and rise above the angst, maybe it is by chance you lack those tools.

The question of what is a choice is so tricky unless you believe in souls (which I don't, but used to). Just like we don't choose our noses, we don't choose our brains as such. It's more of a matter of having an attitude that lets you access life, or an attitude that wastes that chance and still does not protect you from the horrors of it anyway. A choice of wisdom/sense, not morality.

 

[Soundgarden]

@oooBlabla

"What Im trying to say is that imo you have to be even more cautious and demanding when choosing what to read"

You make a valid observation and one which is, in a way, quite obvious. Of course we should practice caution and think twice about what ideas we chose to live by.

I have, however, gotten to a point in life where I can find gold nuggets, interesting and valuable lessons in pretty much everything and everyone. I would even go so far as to say that there are no boring books. It all depends on how receptive you are, and what you make of the material.

I have found great comfort in mindfulness which is originally a buddist concept, and it has helped me deal with crippling anxiety and a rage of other problems. In that sense, I think I gained something by exposing myself to eastern ideologies.

 

[woxihuanni]

Mindfulness is helpful, it is good to be able to take what works without necessarily accepting the entire ideology that is behind it.

 

[Soundgarden]

@woxihuanni

"It's more of a matter of having an attitude that lets you access life, or an attitude that wastes that chance and still does not protect you from the horrors of it anyway."

I see what you mean... I almost feel I need to think about it, in order to decide where I stand on this matter.

But off the top of my head, I then conclude there must be two types of people

1. Those who have the inner strength to access life (and that inner strength could either be innate strength, or a quality which allows you to train your brain to achieve that inner strength)

2. Those who simply lack the wisdom (as you call it) and succomb to angst


Hmmm... now you got me thinking what category I fall in...

Where do you belong?

 

[Jean Améry]

It's just Camus' silly attempt to wiggle out of a moral conundrum (existence is futile, everything we do is absurd yet life is swell and somehow worth living). His 'deus ex machina' if you will. Of course we are not obligated to do anything, least of all accept his irrational contention.

The man was a great writer but a poor philosopher. He ended up with a completely illogical conclusion which he could not defend.

 

[woxihuanni]

@woxihuanni

"It's more of a matter of having an attitude that lets you access life, or an attitude that wastes that chance and still does not protect you from the horrors of it anyway."

I see what you mean... I almost feel I need to think about it, in order to decide where I stand on this matter.

But off the top of my head, I then conclude there must be two types of people

1. Those who have the inner strength to access life (and that inner strength could either be innate strength, or a quality which allows you to train your brain to achieve that inner strength)

2. Those who simply lack the wisdom (as you call it) and succomb to angst


Hmmm... now you got me thinking what category I fall in...

Where do you belong?

I'd say I agree with your conclusion. I'd say I belong in (1), though I don't know if it is inner strength or a quality that helps me achieve it.

 

[Soundgarden]

@Jean Améry

Oh my! When you put it that way, it sure does sound silly.

And it really contradicts Mersaults' fate, because in his case, life is completely futile and emptier than a cubic meter in space. And there's nothing that remeeds this in the book. I am haunted by that episode where he understands that the voice he was hearing was his own. I shudder to think of it. It makes everything seem irretrivably lost. There was nothing, and now there's less than nothing because his sanity is gone.

I was hoping there was more to the essay on Sysiphus, some hidden enigma that escaped me, something that would turn the meaning of "roll your stone" up side down, and provide comfort in the long, dark hours on the night.
@woxihuanni

If anybody asks, I'll say I also belong in 1.

But if I am truly honest, just between us and the entire ss-forum (hahaha) I probably belong in 2, coz I have everything and yet find myself reading NoLifeNoPain's megathread.

Thank you anyway for a great conversation!

 

[Jean Améry]

I was hoping there was more to the essay on Sysiphus, some hidden enigma that escaped me, something that would turn the meaning of "roll your stone" up side down, and provide comfort in the long, dark hours on the night.

Life is silly and irrational: perhaps that's the 'deeper meaning' behind Camus' pseudophilosophical essay. The only way to reconcile with life is to act the fool and embrace the madness wholeheartedly.

If you want comfort try religion. I guarantee you rational thinking about existence will not provide it. Optimism is the stupidest, most insane idea ever. Only true irrationality could breed such a monstrosity. No truly rational person will ever be able to accept it as it so glaringly contradicts the facts it's not even funny.

 

[Soundgarden]

@Jean Améry

There must be some comfort to be had. There must be!

I am like a spectator at the teather: I won't go until something happens! The curtain must be drawn!

 

[woxihuanni]

@woxihuanni

If anybody asks, I'll say I also belong in 1.

But if I am truly honest, just between us and the entire ss-forum (hahaha) I probably belong in 2, coz I have everything and yet find myself reading NoLifeNoPain's megathread.

Thank you anyway for a great conversation!

Thank you as well! To be honest, when I chipped in I expected to be shut down but it's been a pleasure to talk. Please tell me if you find yourself to truly belong in (1) in future (if there is one for both of us). If you can do it, maybe so can the person I want to get through to. :) Their angst has forbid both of our inner animals from experiencing pleasure.

 

[Soundgarden]

As far as religion is concerned, I, for one, do not do drugs.

 

[Soul]

I don't see him as a good person at all. Why ? Because in the 1960s he accepted 180 000$ per year from the CIA. Very questionable morality to say the least. That's not a conspiracy theory by the way, this is well documented, we know it from declassified documents. Anyway personally, I don't bother reading or listening to philosophers or spiritual guides or life coaches or whatever. It simply doesn't interest me at all.

I mentioned him as an example of a serene person, which he remains an example of regardless.

 

[Temporarilyabsurd]

"He paints a picture of the 'grey man' , the fully civilized automata who has relinquished his soul , perhaps has never had a soul at all ... in order to be a part of 'the system'."

I am nor sure what exactly you are referring to here. But then again, the man did leave a mountain of works, so... chances are we haven't read the same volumes :-D

Time for my disclaimer ...
I'm a third hand Kierkargaard reader :

( My exposure to Kierkargaard amounts to
quotes and summations from K to Otto Rank to Becker to me ...
So , not well read ( that's my credibility down the drain ... ))

Otto Rank ( according to Becker ) reinterprets K's 'knight of faith ' ( his trust in God as the ultimate
meaning and reason - living for a future heaven ? ) through the Freudian Atheist lense .

How I am not quite sure ...

The main thrust was that K and Freud were both barking up the same psychoanalyst tree , the difference
being that K was a God believer and Freud was an atheist .

Becker recounts Otto Ranks interpretation of K in this light .

(God thats vague as hell . And I've listened to Beckers Denial of Death several times ! )

I think the grey man idea is that we are all trapped in the civilized narrative , and for some , this prison offers the "freedom from free will " ... because of " following orders " that feedback 'belonging' and publicly lauded 'virtue' .

Whereas , the Freudian rebel , the questioner , the believer in the venal animal inside us all , will not
settle for the arbitrary cultural values that define us .

For me personally , there is the sweet spot of being kind , if possible , and being a rampant doubter of all
the horrors civilization offers .... a kind of atheistic spiritualityy .

Seeing potential for an abstract beauty and wonder , beyond the bog of red tape 'stay in line'
oppressive regulations .

But I digress .

We are all different , and it took me until I was 50 or so to see a difference between existential angst that begets neurosis and the more everyday sadisms ( during childhood )that also beget neurosis .

I found it immeasurabley helpful and it is why I am such a Becker pusher , as it was his ideas that
helped me see that .

( I kind of like the Mr Graveyard thing ... )

 

[ish]

I don't really understand why we should imagine him happy. Just because he is aware of his tragic destiny, does not mean he is ... happy.

We all roll our stone day after day, we know it, there is no doubt about it, we feel the tragedy in our gut and yet, I don't see anyone feeling serene and at peace.

Am I missing something? I feel like Camus is trying to say something and it is essential that I understand it.

Any thoughts?

Ignorance and unconsciousness are a blessing.
Sisyphus may forget his misery, concentrating
on your "Sisyphean work" - this is not happiness, but
moment breather.
Devoting himself to work, he forgets "for a moment" about his fate.

 

[peacefully31425]

The idea is very stoic. If you're interested in understanding how a person can better accept their fate, doing the same dreadful thing day in and day out, I'd recommend you read stoics like Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. Stoic teachings are the foundation of therapeutic methods such as CBT, which has been proven to work.

 

[woxihuanni]

The idea is very stoic. If you're interested in understanding how a person can better accept their fate, doing the same dreadful thing day in and day out, I'd recommend you read stoics like Seneca or Marcus Aurelius. Stoic teachings are the foundation of therapeutic methods such as CBT, which has been proven to work.

Not much, all I've heard about CBT on this forum is that it is crap. I wouldn't know, I don't follow the religion of shinkery.