‘Sisyphus’
Titian, 1548-1549
King Sisyphus was known to be a troublemaker, a liar and a cheat towards his subjects and who defied the Greek gods. He managed to postpone his own death by putting Death in chains so that no people on earth died for days on end.The gods retaliated by banishing him to the underworld and sentencing him to fulfil a futile task. He was ordered for all eternity to push a rock up a mountain; upon reaching the top, the rock would roll down again, leaving Sisyphus to start over.
But this was beside the point when Albert Camus (1913 – 1960) wrote his essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’. Albert Camus was a French philosopher who broke away from mainstream existentialism with this famous essay. It also introduced absurdism as a philisophical movement. Absurdism as terminology already existed from the Latin ab-surd that translates as discordance.
Both existentialism and absurdism purport that the world surrounding mankind is meaningless.The differentiation follows later on. Wheras existentialism focuses on the fact that we make sense of the reality that we exist. Or else, existence is followed by essence. Camus differs from this view by quoting his take on the real basal problem:
”Judging if life is or isn’t worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philisophy. All other questions – if the world is three dimensional, the soul has nine or twelve categories – follow on from there”.
The meaning, the essence comes first.He clarifies this by using an example involving the famous scientist Galilei. Galilei was utterly convinced that the Earth revolved around the sun.Yet, due to a conflict with the church which could ultimately see him being burned at the stake, he denied this important scietific truth in order to save his life.He believed passionately in science but was not prepared to sacrifice his life in a discussion concerning the Earth and the sun. He chose life over the truth.
To cite a further example he places people who give their lives for their ideas or illusions.That which is a good reason to live for is equally a good reason to die for.He also cites people who commit suicide in order to escape their futile life, as they view it to be.Many people who commit suicide appreciate the value of life in general but not for them as individuals. This leads us right back to the core question Camus asks: is life worth living or not?
This question is posed from within the concept and possibility of committing suicide in order to address the essential problems people are facing. He characterises essential problems as those which can either cost someone’s life or enhance their will to live.Because:
“The attachment a human being has to life is stronger than all the world’s misery put together. The body’s judgement is of equal value to that of the soul, and the body is very apprehensive about destruction. We get used to life before we get used to thinking and thought”.
Camus describes the substantial ‘feeling of absurdity’ as the realisation by man that there’s a difference between his life and himself. He’s just an actor on the stage. Stripped of all plausible explanations about the world he lives in, a stranger remains. In many lives of these strangers which we appear to be for ouselves the thought of a self inflicted end has surfaced. Usually this is followed by a longing for recovery instead of death. In some ways the choice for recovery can be seen as hope.
Back to Sisyphus at the bottom of his mountain:
He braces himself under his boulder. With enormous effort he rolls the boulder up the hill. There he goes. Slowly but surely until he reaches the top; then the boulder crashes thunderously downhill again. Does Sisyphus have any hope that this could be the last time? No, he doesn’t.He descends the mountain again following his boulder. His fate.Knowing that he’ll once again roll the bolder up the hill and that it will roll downhill again. He know that.He sees how absurd this is; the absurdity of this futile task, without any purpose to it.
But Sisyphus does but one thing: he says yes. He says yes tot his little futile universe which is his own, He says yes to his boulder, his mountain, his fate.
Does it have any purpose? Maybe not. Probably not.
But saying yes does have a purpose.
As Camus desides:
“His little universe revolves around every grain of sand, every rocksplinter of ore from this night dark mountain.The struggle alone against himself to reach the top of the mountain is sufficient to fill a human’s heart. We must picture Sisyphus as a happy human being”.
King Sisyphus was known to be a troublemaker, a liar and a cheat towards his subjects and who defied the Greek gods. He managed to postpone his own death by putting Death in chains so that no people on earth died for days on end.The gods retaliated by banishing him to the underworld and sentencing him to fulfil a futile task. He was ordered for all eternity to push a rock up a mountain; upon reaching the top, the rock would roll down again, leaving Sisyphus to start over.
But this was beside the point when Albert Camus (1913 – 1960) wrote his essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’. Albert Camus was a French philosopher who broke away from mainstream existentialism with this famous essay. It also introduced absurdism as a philisophical movement. Absurdism as terminology already existed from the Latin ab-surd that translates as discordance.
Zowel het existentialisme als het absurdisme stellen dat de wereld om de mens heen op zichzelf betekenisloos is. De splitsing zit hem in het vervolg hierop; het existentialisme richt zich op een moeten gaan zoeken naar betekenis, vanuit het feit dat we nu eenmaal hier zijn. Ofwel: existentie wordt gevolgd door essentie.
Camus wijkt hiervan af en wijst ons op het volgens hem werkelijk basale probleem:
“Oordelen of het leven wel of niet de moeite waard is geleefd te worden, is antwoord geven op de fundamentele vraag van de filosofie. Al het andere- of de wereld drie dimensies, de geest negen of twaalf categorieën heeft- komt pas daarna.”
De betekenis, de essentie, komt dus eerst. Hij verduidelijkt dit met een voorbeeld over de beroemde wetenschapper Galilei, die weliswaar diep overtuigd was dat de aarde om de zon draaide, maar deze belangrijke wetenschappelijke waarheid vrij gemakkelijk afzwoer op het moment dat voor hem de brandstapel dreigde temidden in een conflict met de kerk. Hij stelde met passie zijn leven in dienst van de wetenschap maar uiteindelijk was de kwestie van de aarde en de zon niet zo van belang als zijn eigen voortbestaan. Zijn leven ging voor de waarheid.
Naast dit voorbeeld plaatst hij de mensen die hun leven geven voor hun idee of illusie (wat een reden om te leven genoemd wordt, is tegelijk een uitstekende reden om te sterven). Ook noemt hij de mensen die hun leven beëindigen omdat zij dit niet de moeite waard vinden te leven, althans niet voor zichzelf. Veel zelfmoordenaars zien zeker wel de waarde van het leven maar niet voor hen als individu. En met dit laatste komen we op het pad van Camus dat hij ging om de vraag naar de zin van het leven als zijnde de meest dringende vraag te behandelen.
This question is posed from within the concept and possibility of committing suicide in order to address the essential problems people are facing. He characterises essential problems as those which can either cost someone’s life or enhance their will to live.Because:
“The attachment a human being has to life is stronger than all the world’s misery put together. The body’s judgement is of equal value to that of the soul, and the body is very apprehensive about destruction. We get used to life before we get used to thinking and thought”.
Camus describes the substantial ‘feeling of absurdity’ as the realisation by man that there’s a difference between his life and himself. He’s just an actor on the stage. Stripped of all plausible explanations about the world he lives in, a stranger remains. In many lives of these strangers which we appear to be for ouselves the thought of a self inflicted end has surfaced. Usually this is followed by a longing for recovery instead of death. In some ways the choice for recovery can be seen as hope.
Back to Sisyphus at the bottom of his mountain:
He braces himself under his boulder. With enormous effort he rolls the boulder up the hill. There he goes. Slowly but surely until he reaches the top; then the boulder crashes thunderously downhill again. Does Sisyphus have any hope that this could be the last time? No, he doesn’t.He descends the mountain again following his boulder. His fate.Knowing that he’ll once again roll the bolder up the hill and that it will roll downhill again. He know that.He sees how absurd this is; the absurdity of this futile task, without any purpose to it.
But Sisyphus does but one thing: he says yes. He says yes tot his little futile universe which is his own, He says yes to his boulder, his mountain, his fate.
Does it have any purpose? Maybe not. Probably not.
But saying yes does have a purpose.
As Camus desides:
“His little universe revolves around every grain of sand, every rocksplinter of ore from this night dark mountain.The struggle alone against himself to reach the top of the mountain is sufficient to fill a human’s heart. We must picture Sisyphus as a happy human being”.
King Sisyphus was known to be a troublemaker, a liar and a cheat towards his subjects and who defied the Greek gods. He managed to postpone his own death by putting Death in chains so that no people on earth died for days on end.The gods retaliated by banishing him to the underworld and sentencing him to fulfil a futile task. He was ordered for all eternity to push a rock up a mountain; upon reaching the top, the rock would roll down again, leaving Sisyphus to start over.
But this was beside the point when Albert Camus (1913 – 1960) wrote his essay ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’. Albert Camus was a French philosopher who broke away from mainstream existentialism with this famous essay. It also introduced absurdism as a philisophical movement. Absurdism as terminology already existed from the Latin ab-surd that translates as discordance.
Zowel het existentialisme als het absurdisme stellen dat de wereld om de mens heen op zichzelf betekenisloos is. De splitsing zit hem in het vervolg hierop; het existentialisme richt zich op een moeten gaan zoeken naar betekenis, vanuit het feit dat we nu eenmaal hier zijn. Ofwel: existentie wordt gevolgd door essentie.
Camus wijkt hiervan af en wijst ons op het volgens hem werkelijk basale probleem:
“Oordelen of het leven wel of niet de moeite waard is geleefd te worden, is antwoord geven op de fundamentele vraag van de filosofie. Al het andere- of de wereld drie dimensies, de geest negen of twaalf categorieën heeft- komt pas daarna.”
De betekenis, de essentie, komt dus eerst. Hij verduidelijkt dit met een voorbeeld over de beroemde wetenschapper Galilei, die weliswaar diep overtuigd was dat de aarde om de zon draaide, maar deze belangrijke wetenschappelijke waarheid vrij gemakkelijk afzwoer op het moment dat voor hem de brandstapel dreigde temidden in een conflict met de kerk. Hij stelde met passie zijn leven in dienst van de weten-schap maar uiteindelijk was de kwestie van de aarde en de zon niet zo van belang als zijn eigen voortbestaan. Zijn leven ging voor de waarheid.
Naast dit voorbeeld plaatst hij de mensen die hun leven geven voor hun idee of illusie (wat een reden om te leven genoemd wordt, is tegelijk een uitstekende reden om te sterven). Ook noemt hij de mensen die hun leven beëindigen omdat zij dit niet de moeite waard vinden te leven, althans niet voor zichzelf. Veel zelfmoordenaars zien zeker wel de waarde van het leven maar niet voor hen als individu. En met dit laatste komen we op het pad van Camus dat hij ging om de vraag naar de zin van het leven als zijnde de meest dringende vraag te behandelen.
Hij denkt vanuit het begrip van , en de mogelijkheid tot, zelfmoord, na over de essentiële problemen van mensen. Essentiele problemen noemt hij dan ook die problemen die iemand het leven kunnen kosten, of die welke de wil om te leven vergroten. Want:
“In de gehechtheid van de mens aan zijn leven is iets, dat sterker is dan alle ellende van de wereld. Het oordeel van het lichaam is evenveel waard als dat van de geest, en het lichaam schrikt terug voor de vernietiging. We wennen ons aan het leven, voordat we het denken verworven hebben.”
Camus omschrijft het wezenlijke ‘gevoel van absurditeit’ als het besef van de mens dat er een verschil is tussen zijn leven en zichzelf. Hij is als een toneelspeler in een decor. Ontdaan van redelijke verklaringen over de wereld waarin hij leeft, blijft er een vreemdeling over. In veel levens van al deze vreemdelingen die we soms voor onszelf zijn tegen dit wegvallend decor, is weleens de gedachte aan een zelfverkozen einde opgekomen. Vaak gevolgd door een verlangen naar herstel, in plaats van de dood. Deze keuze voor herstel kun je in bepaalde zin hoop noemen.
Back to Sisyphus at the bottom of his mountain:
He braces himself under his boulder. With enormous effort he rolls the boulder up the hill. There he goes. Slowly but surely until he reaches the top; then the boulder crashes thunderously downhill again. Does Sisyphus have any hope that this could be the last time? No, he doesn’t.He descends the mountain again following his boulder. His fate.Knowing that he’ll once again roll the bolder up the hill and that it will roll downhill again. He know that.He sees how absurd this is; the absurdity of this futile task, without any purpose to it.
But Sisyphus does but one thing: he says yes. He says yes tot his little futile universe which is his own, He says yes to his boulder, his mountain, his fate.
Does it have any purpose? Maybe not. Probably not.
But saying yes does have a purpose.
As Camus desides:
“His little universe revolves around every grain of sand, every rocksplinter of ore from this night dark mountain.The struggle alone against himself to reach the top of the mountain is sufficient to fill a human’s heart. We must picture Sisyphus as a happy human being”.