After discussing Existentialism and several articles regarding the subject in English class, I'm not sure what I think about existentialism. From the basic ideas I've learned, I can somewhat agree with the ideas of the philosophy- but only vaguely. I appreciate the idea that one should not solely conform to society's rules and regulations, but find out what you want to do for yourself, and what you believe: not because someone told you to, but because you have truly considered and understood your beliefs. We are all responsible for our own choices, and whatever happens is our responsibility. I sort of like the idea that we should all define who we are ourselves- although this seems like common sense, I find that not many do this.
What I am confused about is the concept that a person should struggle against their nature, and that in struggling one can come upon a realization and break apart from the rules of society. In Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the author attempts to explain the vicious mechanical cycle most humans go through: striving to achieve 'perfection' and better their situation, always focusing on "tomorrow", yet always coming around to where they started. He seems to create the question: what is the point of having a better job, life, or circumstance? It always ends with the same thing: death. Comparing Sisyphus' story of pushing a boulder up the mountain and then watching it roll down, always going round and round, to everyday life in our world, I am not sure what he is saying. I am still not sure how Camus feels that Sisyphus is happy watching the boulder- all of his life's work and purpose- roll down and undo what Sisyphus had probably worked on for quite some time. Pooja mentioned how Camus describes Sisyphus' joy: "His fate belongs to him" and "the master of his days" seem to point at the idea that knowing and owning his life and its future, with no surprises, makes Sisyphus happy. I can follow the idea that once someone gains some kind of victory, it will most likely seem to go downhill from there (since once one feels so high up, even having a normal life again can seem disappointing) I do not understand why Sisyphus would feel joy. Doing the same thing, with never an end, does not seem enjoyable, I have to say.
The last paragraph in this article ends with this:
"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile... The struggle itself toward heights is enough to fill a man's heart."
What Camus could be trying to say in his own explanation of Sisyphus' story is that in life, one always goes up and down, in a never-ending circle, and that once one recognizes this, as Sisyphus does as the boulder rolls down, one can be happy, because defining this for himself (as Akash said) makes him his own master- not the Gods forcing him to push up that rock. What I don't understand is why there is a struggle- can we not enjoy life, not in the way Sisyphus does, by struggling and being his own master, but by
living each day as a day we are proud of and a day where we are truly ourselves: not ones defined by others. We do not have to look for tomorrow (although we can- there is no harm in imagination and hope), and we do not have to fear death. The idea in existentialism that what we have in the end (if I understand this correctly) does not matter, since we will all be dead is hard to wrap my head around. I think that what we have in the end matters: not because of death, but because it represents all that we have done in life. I think the journey is much more important than the finish line- the life that we all have defines who we are. It does not matter if it all ends up in death- even if there is no final purpose: just living contains so much stuff.
I am still not sure what existentialism really is. Reading Hamsun's Hunger helped describe existentialist theories, as well as his article The Fact of Absurdity, and Fred Van Lente's Friedrich Nietzche Comic exaggerated the key points to clearly explain some of the concepts. It seems, however, that I keep finding some things that I disagree with, some that I agree with, and many more questions. This is a good thing, though: questions and thoughts are quite a bit of what I am made of.
What I am confused about is the concept that a person should struggle against their nature, and that in struggling one can come upon a realization and break apart from the rules of society. In Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus, the author attempts to explain the vicious mechanical cycle most humans go through: striving to achieve 'perfection' and better their situation, always focusing on "tomorrow", yet always coming around to where they started. He seems to create the question: what is the point of having a better job, life, or circumstance? It always ends with the same thing: death. Comparing Sisyphus' story of pushing a boulder up the mountain and then watching it roll down, always going round and round, to everyday life in our world, I am not sure what he is saying. I am still not sure how Camus feels that Sisyphus is happy watching the boulder- all of his life's work and purpose- roll down and undo what Sisyphus had probably worked on for quite some time. Pooja mentioned how Camus describes Sisyphus' joy: "His fate belongs to him" and "the master of his days" seem to point at the idea that knowing and owning his life and its future, with no surprises, makes Sisyphus happy. I can follow the idea that once someone gains some kind of victory, it will most likely seem to go downhill from there (since once one feels so high up, even having a normal life again can seem disappointing) I do not understand why Sisyphus would feel joy. Doing the same thing, with never an end, does not seem enjoyable, I have to say.
The last paragraph in this article ends with this:
"I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile... The struggle itself toward heights is enough to fill a man's heart."
What Camus could be trying to say in his own explanation of Sisyphus' story is that in life, one always goes up and down, in a never-ending circle, and that once one recognizes this, as Sisyphus does as the boulder rolls down, one can be happy, because defining this for himself (as Akash said) makes him his own master- not the Gods forcing him to push up that rock. What I don't understand is why there is a struggle- can we not enjoy life, not in the way Sisyphus does, by struggling and being his own master, but by
living each day as a day we are proud of and a day where we are truly ourselves: not ones defined by others. We do not have to look for tomorrow (although we can- there is no harm in imagination and hope), and we do not have to fear death. The idea in existentialism that what we have in the end (if I understand this correctly) does not matter, since we will all be dead is hard to wrap my head around. I think that what we have in the end matters: not because of death, but because it represents all that we have done in life. I think the journey is much more important than the finish line- the life that we all have defines who we are. It does not matter if it all ends up in death- even if there is no final purpose: just living contains so much stuff.
I am still not sure what existentialism really is. Reading Hamsun's Hunger helped describe existentialist theories, as well as his article The Fact of Absurdity, and Fred Van Lente's Friedrich Nietzche Comic exaggerated the key points to clearly explain some of the concepts. It seems, however, that I keep finding some things that I disagree with, some that I agree with, and many more questions. This is a good thing, though: questions and thoughts are quite a bit of what I am made of.
Hamsun wrote Hunger, not Camus!
ReplyDeleteHello there! :D
ReplyDeleteI get your questions on Camus' theories; it is strange that Sisyphus can feel any sort of happiness watching the boulder, what defines his existence, rolling down the hill. But in fact the boulder does not define his existence at all! He himself defines it. Only when he is free from the boulder, in that brief moment when he is walking down to retrieve it, can he understand that. The rest of the time all his thoughts are focused on getting the boulder up the hill, but on that walk down to the bottom he is finally his own master again, master of the boulder, his life; his mind is his own, and he realizes himself and understands his existence. So, while experiencing extreme defeat and coming to the understanding of the pointlessness of his existence, he also experiences extreme contentment and even joy as he comes to realize how important that walk down the hill is, he remembers how joyful his life on earth was, and in this knowledge he is both tragic and euphoric.
And then we expand this as a representation of human life, the boulder being the burden of our daily lives that consume us to the point where life becomes unconscious and meaningless, and the walk down the hill representing 'man' experiencing that moment of existentialist 'consciousness.'
This is, at least, my understanding....Maybe I helped answer some of your questions, which would be great! Anyway, I really like your blog and your writing, so most of all I hope I contributed something of value. :)
interesting post i dont really see much joy in the boulder either. i sort of thought that it showed how the joy from our achievements sort of wear off. like you can feel joyful after you achieve something for a little but then you go back to life and push the boulder up again. so hes saying while it feels good to get the rock to the top most of the time were pushing it up there so we should find some sort of happiness in the process not just the the result. i agree with what you said about the journey being important not the finish line. though im not quite sure what you mean by what we have in the end that matters, do you mean achievements friendships or just a feeling of peace or bitterness. i like how you focus on life rather than death. im not sure how you can not struggle though at least a little bit. in life you have to question, and when you get these questions you dont always find the answer, or you find answer that scares you or undermines who you are and were in the past. surely with all the mysteries,contradictions in the world all the different options you must face some dilemas and confusion. and its also hard to see with all the crap society sourounds us with, like daily chores, what our life really is and who we really are. when you live when you question you conflict with the ideas of your society you conflict with who you are as an individual, its struggle, you just have to find peace in it some how.
ReplyDelete