5 ms·

Reminds me of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus. If you haven’t read it, basically one of his recommendations of how to live life knowing that the human condition is absu

Reminds me of Camus’ Myth of Sisyphus. If you haven’t read it, basically one of his recommendations of how to live life knowing that the human condition is absurd, is to be an artist. If you’re an actor, you become the role. If you truly become the role, you’ve lived a whole new life. PS - if you’ve read it, I’d love to hear your thoughts. I’m sure people have different interpretations.

westoncb 4y ago
I read the first few pages but it so dense with references to other works/philosophers it felt unreadable to me (and I've read a decent bit of philosophy but not a ton).
- jawarner 4y ago
  If you can get to Chapter 2 it's a lot more approachable.
- yesenadam 4y ago
  I just checked it out, on your recommendation :-) Uh, there's only about one philosopher/fictional character mentioned per page in the first 10 pages, and not unnecessary mentions. Very disappointed. /s It's very readable too. (Well, it would be but I don't read bleak writers these days. From everything I've heard, Camus was vastly superior as man and writer to Sartre. I read a lot of Sartre decades ago and don't recommend it.)
xaleb 4y ago
I didn't read the actual Myth of Sisyphus, but I've listened to some lectures about it and read some descriptions of it. I can't quite convince myself that studying it is worth it, and I'd like to hear why exactly it is worthwhile. From my perspective, absurdism seems like Greek stoicism, but created by a deeply depressed person. The stoic perspective is that we're capable of persevering through the worst possible situations in life and that our intelligences, minds are able to handle such problems, that if we just listen to ourselves we can see how to navigate the most difficult scenarios and to thrive despite them. What is also appealing to me about stoicism is that it's not only a perspective on life, it's a set of practices which can help you adopt the perspective (sort of like Zen koans are supposed to help you adopt the Zen mindset). On the other hand, what I've heard of absurdism seems to tell me that its overall outlook is very similar, but it sounds far, far more depressive, which is quite impressive if I'm comparing it with a philosophy that tries to convince you it's good to think about your child's death when you're telling them goodnight. Sorry if the take seems too hot.
- mercer 4y ago
  For me stoicism was more of a stop along the path, and for now zen buddhism is where I'm at. The main issues I had with stoicism was that 1) it struck me as a bit too much tied to a particular type of person (that I am perhaps not), and 2) while much more practical than the faith I grew up with, it still often felt a bit too much stuck with aphorisms and not enough of an entire 'system'. I found zen, even without the support of a community, to scratch a bit more of that itch I felt every since I left the comprehensive religion that I was part of. That said, I do love the stoics.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- kentrado 4y ago
  I didn't get it to be depressive at all. Perhaps you should read it for yourself. The essay is quite uplifting, actually. I think Nietzsche criticism against stoicism is on point. I would compare Absurdism which Nietzschean thought. The difference being Albert Camus is much more relatedable for the modern working man.
  - xaleb 4y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation! What genuinely surprised me was that the stoic perspective to trust your own self felt incredibly relatable to me. That and the various opinions on Roman society expressed by both Seneca and Aurelius. I definitely want to read Nietzsche. I'm currently trying to get a broader perspective, and it seems that Nietzsche should be next in line. Would you care to outline what exactly was Nietzsche's criticism?
    - kentrado 4y ago
      I was thinking about your comment today. The fact that you found Absurdism depressing is actually the most common response which is addressed in the essay. Albert Camus goes through the reasons why life being absurd does not predicate a depressing conclusion. At the end, he wanted to remind himself and the world of the reasons why life is worth living. As for Nietzsche, I can't outline what he said. Any summary would be a disservice. In order to comprehend his ideas, he must be studied seriously. Otherwise, you might get the impression that he is a madman rambling. I only will paste the following excerpt to give you enough curiosity for further reading: “You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

westoncb 4y ago

I read the first few pages but it so dense with references to other works/philosophers it felt unreadable to me (and I've read a decent bit of philosophy but not a ton).

jawarner 4y ago
If you can get to Chapter 2 it's a lot more approachable.
yesenadam 4y ago
I just checked it out, on your recommendation :-) Uh, there's only about one philosopher/fictional character mentioned per page in the first 10 pages, and not unnecessary mentions. Very disappointed. /s It's very readable too. (Well, it would be but I don't read bleak writers these days. From everything I've heard, Camus was vastly superior as man and writer to Sartre. I read a lot of Sartre decades ago and don't recommend it.)

xaleb 4y ago

I didn't read the actual Myth of Sisyphus, but I've listened to some lectures about it and read some descriptions of it. I can't quite convince myself that studying it is worth it, and I'd like to hear why exactly it is worthwhile. From my perspective, absurdism seems like Greek stoicism, but created by a deeply depressed person. The stoic perspective is that we're capable of persevering through the worst possible situations in life and that our intelligences, minds are able to handle such problems, that if we just listen to ourselves we can see how to navigate the most difficult scenarios and to thrive despite them. What is also appealing to me about stoicism is that it's not only a perspective on life, it's a set of practices which can help you adopt the perspective (sort of like Zen koans are supposed to help you adopt the Zen mindset). On the other hand, what I've heard of absurdism seems to tell me that its overall outlook is very similar, but it sounds far, far more depressive, which is quite impressive if I'm comparing it with a philosophy that tries to convince you it's good to think about your child's death when you're telling them goodnight. Sorry if the take seems too hot.

mercer 4y ago
For me stoicism was more of a stop along the path, and for now zen buddhism is where I'm at. The main issues I had with stoicism was that 1) it struck me as a bit too much tied to a particular type of person (that I am perhaps not), and 2) while much more practical than the faith I grew up with, it still often felt a bit too much stuck with aphorisms and not enough of an entire 'system'. I found zen, even without the support of a community, to scratch a bit more of that itch I felt every since I left the comprehensive religion that I was part of. That said, I do love the stoics.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kentrado 4y ago
I didn't get it to be depressive at all. Perhaps you should read it for yourself. The essay is quite uplifting, actually. I think Nietzsche criticism against stoicism is on point. I would compare Absurdism which Nietzschean thought. The difference being Albert Camus is much more relatedable for the modern working man.
- xaleb 4y ago
  Thanks for the recommendation! What genuinely surprised me was that the stoic perspective to trust your own self felt incredibly relatable to me. That and the various opinions on Roman society expressed by both Seneca and Aurelius. I definitely want to read Nietzsche. I'm currently trying to get a broader perspective, and it seems that Nietzsche should be next in line. Would you care to outline what exactly was Nietzsche's criticism?
  - kentrado 4y ago
    I was thinking about your comment today. The fact that you found Absurdism depressing is actually the most common response which is addressed in the essay. Albert Camus goes through the reasons why life being absurd does not predicate a depressing conclusion. At the end, he wanted to remind himself and the world of the reasons why life is worth living. As for Nietzsche, I can't outline what he said. Any summary would be a disservice. In order to comprehend his ideas, he must be studied seriously. Otherwise, you might get the impression that he is a madman rambling. I only will paste the following excerpt to give you enough curiosity for further reading: “You desire to LIVE "according to Nature"? Oh, you noble Stoics, what fraud of words! Imagine to yourselves a being like Nature, boundlessly extravagant, boundlessly indifferent, without purpose or consideration, without pity or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain: imagine to yourselves INDIFFERENCE as a power—how COULD you live in accordance with such indifference? To live—is not that just endeavouring to be otherwise than this Nature? Is not living valuing, preferring, being unjust, being limited, endeavouring to be different? And granted that your imperative, "living according to Nature," means actually the same as "living according to life"—how could you do DIFFERENTLY? Why should you make a principle out of what you yourselves are, and must be? In reality, however, it is quite otherwise with you: while you pretend to read with rapture the canon of your law in Nature, you want something quite the contrary, you extraordinary stage-players and self-deluders! In your pride you wish to dictate your morals and ideals to Nature, to Nature herself, and to incorporate them therein; you insist that it shall be Nature "according to the Stoa," and would like everything to be made after your own image, as a vast, eternal glorification and generalism of Stoicism! With all your love for truth, you have forced yourselves so long, so persistently, and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature FALSELY, that is to say, Stoically, that you are no longer able to see it otherwise—and to crown all, some unfathomable superciliousness gives you the Bedlamite hope that BECAUSE you are able to tyrannize over yourselves—Stoicism is self-tyranny—Nature will also allow herself to be tyrannized over: is not the Stoic a PART of Nature?... But this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical impulse itself, the most spiritual Will to Power, the will to "creation of the world," the will to the causa prima.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil