![]() You may be happy in doing anything like rolling in sand, putting hands in a sack of grains, dancing impromptu, or putting ice cubes on your tongue. You don't hope for a greater meaning or purpose. But, if he is sad just because he knows he will never make it to the top, then if this only reason for his unhappiness is taken care of, he will be happy again. If Sisyphus dislikes pushing rocks, he will be never happy with it. If somehow that sadness will be removed, you will be happy once again. Getting up, going to office, succeeding some times and failing other times, coming back home, spending time with wife and children, going back to sleep, waking up next day again and so on. You realise that all this is meaningless. Suddenly you suffer the crisis that Camus is talking about. Because the only reason (in this context) for unhappiness is removed, a man is now happy. Now, when he accepts that, he is no longer sad. A man must accept that the world is unreasonable and that he looks for reason and thus there will always be a conflict between the two. What Camus offers is a solution that arises from making peace with fate (with disdain). Now, for answer to latter part of your question, consider the chain of events.Ī man who realises that there is absurdity in life, that there is a conflict between what he thinks to be rational (should be) and how the world is, is saddened by this knowledge. He is not saddened by lack of meaning and hence he is happy because he realises that. There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn. Sisyphus is happy because he has conquered his fate - not by changing it, but by accepting it and yet revolting against it. However, according to Camus, after acceptance of the absurdity (that absurdity exists), it is important to live it without abandoning it and falling in some kind of hope. Thus, he is content - in a sense that he knows there is no life that is better than his that he should aspire because that is not possible (just like it is not possible for humans to have a better life though they might have more options than Sisyphus). This is because he knows that he will never fulfill his goal and he accepts that. Sisyphus represents thus an ideal absurdist - one that has not failed like others. The moment you try to somehow answer to life's absurdity (which according to Camus is a conflict between reason and unreasonable) by abandoning or elevating reason, you have just compromised on the absurdist's position/feelings. Camus also considers the philosophers that mitigate or eliminate the absurdity by turning to other concepts as having failed in the task - the task of presenting an absurdist's actual point of view accurately. However, there is one way to look into it.Ĭamus starts from presupposition that life is absurd and meaningless. The question is a tough one because it is very hard to know what Camus had in his mind while writing that.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |