4 ms·

Titanic (1997) is a pretty well-known example. There isn't much of a lesson to draw from that movie that would have averted the disaster. It simply uses the dis

Titanic (1997) is a pretty well-known example. There isn't much of a lesson to draw from that movie that would have averted the disaster. It simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. >rejecting the idea that we live in the best possible world is necessary if suffering is to motivate achievement This is a very important point. I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Essentially, you can't use the belief that the world is perfect as a justification for anything, because nothing you do (or refrain from doing) can alter the perfection of the world. And that means you can't look at civilians dying and just shrug your shoulders because hey, it's all perfect, right? It's not something that can be used to justify inaction. It doesn't offer any moral guidance at all. It's just a different way of thinking about the world.

lisper 10y ago
> Titanic ... simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. It does a lot more than that. It has quite a lot to say about the social class system of the early 20th century. > I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. Why not? Our nature is to be angry and jealous and violent some times too. Transcending those qualities is generally considered progress (it's called "growing up") so why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? > I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Camus was an idiot.
- nemo1618 10y ago
  >why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? If you can do so in a way that does not lead to stagnation, I am willing to hear you out. The only people I'm aware of who have transcended suffering are Buddhist monks, and... well, they are exactly models of trans-human progress. They mostly just sit quietly and keep to themselves.
  - lisper 10y ago
    The buddhists have the wrong idea. Their attitude is that suffering is inevitable and so we should just accept it. (They go on to say that when you accept suffering it stops being suffering. Yeah, right. Tell that to the kids in Syria who were gassed by Assad a few days ago.) I'm not talking about accepting suffering, I'm talking about eliminating it, or at least striving to eliminate it even if complete eliminate is not actually possible (c.f. Sisyphus) or desirable. It might be that the optimal level of suffering is not zero, or that the optimal level is lower than the lowest attainable level. But it is clear that both of those are significantly lower than what have now. I don't think any reasonable person can look at what is going on in Syria or South Sudan or Bangladesh and not believe that we can do better without violating the laws of physics.
bobwaycott 10y ago
I think you've misunderstood Camus. Camus says we must imagine Sisyphus is happy because he realizes the absurdity of his condition and finds a contented acceptance in recognizing this truth--thus, robbing the absurdity of his suffering of power to actually lead to misery. Camus does not suggest Sisyphus--or the absurd man, for that matter--is motivated by suffering and the thought of transcending it. We are doomed to suffer through the absurdity of reality because of our need for finding meaning in a world that contains none, our desire for reason in an unreasonable world. Life, this world, and our attempts to make it mean something are all meaningless except for that meaning with which we imbue them. We are the source of the meaning we seek, yet we absurdly look elsewhere for meaning to be found, realized, given to us by that which lies outside us. By recognizing this, we are able to push on and neutralize suffering and absurdity. This is not, however, through some motivation to conquer it. Allowing ourselves to be motivated by suffering toward some vainglorious goal of transcending it only fools us into remaining trapped within and overpowered by the absurdity of our condition. It is inescapable by means of any action to contradict it. We aren't to strive to negate it or overpower it, for then we arrive at conclusions of thought and action that contradict the absurdity of suffering, which means contradicting reality itself. Simply recognize life and its suffering are absurd. Then cease being consumed by it. However, for Camus at least, this does not mean accept the absurd itself--we should always confront it, always revolt against it. But again, not by way of fooling ourselves into thinking we can conquer it. It is recognizing this that gives one reason to imagine Sisyphus is happy. Sisyphus is a bit like Gandalf facing the Balrog, already sure of what is to come. You shall not pass!, he says to the absurdity of his suffering. Then he makes the long walk to the bottom of the mountain and sets his hands against the stone anew.
- nemo1618 10y ago
  Your analysis is much better than my gross simplification. What I meant is that in both situations, the solution is acceptance, not escapism (masquerading as transcendence). I agree with Camus' conclusion that we must create our own meaning, but that also seems to be at odds with our psychology: it's much easier to believe in external sources of meaning. (Perhaps there's an evolutionary bias here, because an external source of meaning can unify a group, whereas an internal source only empowers the individual.) You can reconcile these with a neat trick found in Eastern religion: identifying the subject with the object. Pantheism, Advaita vedanta, Taoism, and Zen all have this at their core. If you erase the distinction between yourself and the higher power/monad/Absolute/Tao, then you erase the distinction between deriving meaning internally and deriving meaning externally. So far, this is the best approach I've found for staving off nihilism once you've rejected traditional Abrahamic religion.

lisper 10y ago

> Titanic ... simply uses the disaster as a plot element to tell a story about love. It does a lot more than that. It has quite a lot to say about the social class system of the early 20th century. > I think the key is to accept that our nature is to be motivated by suffering, and not try to transcend that. Why not? Our nature is to be angry and jealous and violent some times too. Transcending those qualities is generally considered progress (it's called "growing up") so why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? > I suppose this is what Camus was talking about when he described Sisyphus as being happy. Camus was an idiot.

nemo1618 10y ago
>why not strive to transcend our need to be motivated by suffering? If you can do so in a way that does not lead to stagnation, I am willing to hear you out. The only people I'm aware of who have transcended suffering are Buddhist monks, and... well, they are exactly models of trans-human progress. They mostly just sit quietly and keep to themselves.
- lisper 10y ago
  The buddhists have the wrong idea. Their attitude is that suffering is inevitable and so we should just accept it. (They go on to say that when you accept suffering it stops being suffering. Yeah, right. Tell that to the kids in Syria who were gassed by Assad a few days ago.) I'm not talking about accepting suffering, I'm talking about eliminating it, or at least striving to eliminate it even if complete eliminate is not actually possible (c.f. Sisyphus) or desirable. It might be that the optimal level of suffering is not zero, or that the optimal level is lower than the lowest attainable level. But it is clear that both of those are significantly lower than what have now. I don't think any reasonable person can look at what is going on in Syria or South Sudan or Bangladesh and not believe that we can do better without violating the laws of physics.

bobwaycott 10y ago

I think you've misunderstood Camus. Camus says we must imagine Sisyphus is happy because he realizes the absurdity of his condition and finds a contented acceptance in recognizing this truth--thus, robbing the absurdity of his suffering of power to actually lead to misery. Camus does not suggest Sisyphus--or the absurd man, for that matter--is motivated by suffering and the thought of transcending it. We are doomed to suffer through the absurdity of reality because of our need for finding meaning in a world that contains none, our desire for reason in an unreasonable world. Life, this world, and our attempts to make it mean something are all meaningless except for that meaning with which we imbue them. We are the source of the meaning we seek, yet we absurdly look elsewhere for meaning to be found, realized, given to us by that which lies outside us. By recognizing this, we are able to push on and neutralize suffering and absurdity. This is not, however, through some motivation to conquer it. Allowing ourselves to be motivated by suffering toward some vainglorious goal of transcending it only fools us into remaining trapped within and overpowered by the absurdity of our condition. It is inescapable by means of any action to contradict it. We aren't to strive to negate it or overpower it, for then we arrive at conclusions of thought and action that contradict the absurdity of suffering, which means contradicting reality itself. Simply recognize life and its suffering are absurd. Then cease being consumed by it. However, for Camus at least, this does not mean accept the absurd itself--we should always confront it, always revolt against it. But again, not by way of fooling ourselves into thinking we can conquer it. It is recognizing this that gives one reason to imagine Sisyphus is happy. Sisyphus is a bit like Gandalf facing the Balrog, already sure of what is to come. You shall not pass!, he says to the absurdity of his suffering. Then he makes the long walk to the bottom of the mountain and sets his hands against the stone anew.

nemo1618 10y ago
Your analysis is much better than my gross simplification. What I meant is that in both situations, the solution is acceptance, not escapism (masquerading as transcendence). I agree with Camus' conclusion that we must create our own meaning, but that also seems to be at odds with our psychology: it's much easier to believe in external sources of meaning. (Perhaps there's an evolutionary bias here, because an external source of meaning can unify a group, whereas an internal source only empowers the individual.) You can reconcile these with a neat trick found in Eastern religion: identifying the subject with the object. Pantheism, Advaita vedanta, Taoism, and Zen all have this at their core. If you erase the distinction between yourself and the higher power/monad/Absolute/Tao, then you erase the distinction between deriving meaning internally and deriving meaning externally. So far, this is the best approach I've found for staving off nihilism once you've rejected traditional Abrahamic religion.