Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Absurdity of Albert Camus

historytoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#91

Post by Smilliam »

otekengineering wrote: post #77
mkovach wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notice that Camus doesn't say HOW to imagine Sisyphus happy. How do you? The gods controlled the ascent, but they forgot to regulate the walk back down. In those brief, unburdened minutes descending the slope, Sisyphus is completely outside their authority. You can imagine him however you like, laughing at the absurdity of it, studying the mountain, or simply enjoying the breeze. It almost doesn't matter. The walk…

Yeah, it's a question with a personal answer, not an absolute answer. My answer works for me, for now, and I enjoy learning what answers work for other people. I wonder if Camus had his own answer to that question. Could Camus imagine Sisyphus happy? I don't think rebellion or ownership are enough. Rebellion is meaningless when you're alone with nothing to rebel against, and ownership is not inherently positive. Gods…

> Can one learn to smile while falling?

I've never seen an unhappy astronaut on the ISS :P

fwiw, I largely agree with mkovach's interpretation because of the direct analogy to modern work culture. But I do admire your view as well, I get a lot of satisfaction from deep cleaning and maintaining things, and there's a commensurate amount of pride watching the item transform back into something clean again.

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#92

Post by Viability1936 »

jungturk wrote: post #83
halperter wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least for me, the idea of giving up the craving for _everything_ seems to be rather...undesireable. I'd argue that a futile existence, with full knowledge that it is futile but living anyways, is much more "life-affirming" than giving up all desire. I want to feel, to touch, to yearn. Even if those don't mean anything, I think it's much better to do rather than to not do. And I think that humans, more than anythin…

If you substitute "clinging" for "craving" (Burbea's Seeing that Frees expounds on this very clearly) then I think we get a better English interpretation of the material. If the mind's full of clinging (either in demanding what isn't present or refusing to release what was present but which is now leaving the present) then that mind doesn't have any room left to experience aliveness. So (to me) the material doesn't s…

I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental cycles, "you" (me and anyone) ARE craving/clinging. Being is fueled by craving. Without it, there is no 'you'. The buddha taught the practice to reliably abandon craving and devlop the right view of existence. It has nothing to do with living up to you potential or anything like that.

I've listened to all of burbea's talks and read most of the TSTF, so i know where you're coming from. If it works for what you want, that's great. I would just encourage you look deeper if you think its what the buddha taught. Or really even related to what the buddha taught. It's pretty much the opposite direction

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#93

Post by Viability1936 »

throwaway17_17 wrote: post #46
Viability1936 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Camus saw the problem (or got close to it) but kept it. He noticed the craving for meaning, noticed the world won't answer it, and then chose to hold on to the craving anyway and call that defiance freedom. That's just suffering with extra steps and rationalizing it. The buddha didn't offer a "justification for existence." He pointed out that the demand for one is the problem (part of it anyway). You crave meaning, t…

The way you phrased your second block, particularly your last sentence is exceptional. I’m not sure if I agree with the substance (I’m pretty sure I’m about 90% there), but the phrasing is very emphatic. A lot of discussions I’ve seen, and taken part in, when focusing on Camus and his cadre of fellows lead to a comparison between Buddhist thought and existentialist thought. I tend to side closer to the Buddhist outlo…

I think there's a lot of comparison between existensialism and buddhism because a few of them seemed to respect the buddh, but also as far as philosophy goes, they were the closest to understanding the problem (similar to how the buddha did) - but the point im trying to make is that that is as far as any of them went.

That isn't to say it was intentional or to fault them for it, its only natural. What the buddha figured out goes in the opposite direction of how existence is structured. It's essentially impossible to stumble upon, and definitely impossible to figure out purely through thinking. If ones behavior doesn't change, it remains intellectual. In order to abandon craving, you have to not act on it. Otherwise there's no space between 'you' and 'it' so you could never see it for what it is.

That's moreso what i meant by "Camus couldn’t conceive of" - especially in this day and age, you can only get so far without someone else pointing it out. Who would possibly randomly think to just not act on any intention of body, speech, or mind that was rooted in craving? Its in our nature to not do that, so its normal that no one else has gotten there through philosophizing. Shoppenhaur had his whole denial of will thing but he just moved the goalposts and settled on more refined sensuality.

I would even be careful about settling that the buddhist outlook is about acceptance of the ground truth of suyata. Most of that idea comes from later traditions. It definitely is mentioned in the pali canon, but not as some universal ground truth - that often leads to a different dressing around the nihilism you mentioned. The buddha said all determined things are subject to change. All determined things are unsatisfactory. All phenomena are not-self. It's not like there is a nature of reality that is empty or something like that.

(replying to part of another comment you posted): its not about accepting ultimate reality or accepting anything really - quite the opposite. The buddha over and over again told people not to be content with 'progress' they had make. The goal is the inability to suffer amidst things that cause sufferring. Not to learn how to accept them, or quickly deal with them as they come up, as is commonly taught - its to make it so its impossible to suffer no matter what. That can only be done through seeing the structure of your existence. Then you can't take its determined nature for granted anymore (ie take it personally)

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#94

Post by tau5210 »

The Stranger and Sisyphus often seem to receive more attention, and needless to say both are great works, but I've felt that these were still the type of thought of a yet young person struggling to come to terms with absurdity. He is still trying to think about it in terms of ideas and words, which itself is not yet exempt from the absurd. Hence why the conclusion that Sisyphus is happy feels yet a bit forced.

The Plague feels closer to an actual reconciliation with the absurd, through Rieux's whole existence, not just ideas and words.

Indeed The Plague was written later than The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus.

From The Plague:

> Rieux had been listening closely to the journalist. Still looking at him, he said gently:

> "Man is not an idea, Rambert."

> The other man jumped up from the bed, his face contorted with emotion.

> "He is an idea and a very brief one, just as soon as he turns away from love. And that's the trouble: we are no longer capable of love. Let's resign ourselves, doctor, let's wait until we are capable of it and if it's really not possible, wait for the general deliverance, without playing at heroes. As for me, I'm not going any further."

> "You're right, Rambert, quite right and I wouldn't want to divert from what you intend to do for anything in the world, because it seems to me good and proper. But I have to tell you this: this whole things is not about heroism. It's about decency. It may seem a ridiculous idea, but the only way to fight the plague is with decency."

> "What is decency?" Rambert asked, suddenly serious.

> "In general, I can't say, but in my case I know that it consists in doing my job."

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#95

Post by cindyllm »

Viability1936 wrote: post #93
throwaway17_17 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you phrased your second block, particularly your last sentence is exceptional. I’m not sure if I agree with the substance (I’m pretty sure I’m about 90% there), but the phrasing is very emphatic. A lot of discussions I’ve seen, and taken part in, when focusing on Camus and his cadre of fellows lead to a comparison between Buddhist thought and existentialist thought. I tend to side closer to the Buddhist outlo…

I think there's a lot of comparison between existensialism and buddhism because a few of them seemed to respect the buddh, but also as far as philosophy goes, they were the closest to understanding the problem (similar to how the buddha did) - but the point im trying to make is that that is as far as any of them went. That isn't to say it was intentional or to fault them for it, its only natural. What the buddha figu…

[dead]

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#96

Post by kelvinjps10 »

altmanaltman wrote: post #90
kelvinjps10 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Meaningless and absurdity part comes from doing the same thing over and over, and it’s done as a punishment and not to serve a grand purpose. You can see something similar on humans with myth if you can call it that where humans humans must work after the sin of Adam and eve

I think you should read the paper I shared since it explains the prespective much better.

I will, thanks

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#97

Post by EGreg »

Viability1936 wrote: post #92
jungturk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you substitute "clinging" for "craving" (Burbea's Seeing that Frees expounds on this very clearly) then I think we get a better English interpretation of the material. If the mind's full of clinging (either in demanding what isn't present or refusing to release what was present but which is now leaving the present) then that mind doesn't have any room left to experience aliveness. So (to me) the material doesn't s…

I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental c…

Yeah, there are all kinds of spinoffs. How closely does Alan Watts actually teach Buddishm?

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#98

Post by Viability1936 »

EGreg wrote: post #97
Viability1936 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean no offense if this the practice you've settled on and it works for your goals in life, but that is absolutely not what the buddha taught. It took me a long time to learn that what burbea was teaching is not 'buddhist' in any sense of the word. 'Meditating' to have pleasant or mind blowing experiences has nothing to do with developing the inability to suffer. Clinging doesn't sneak in and take over the mental c…

Yeah, there are all kinds of spinoffs. How closely does Alan Watts actually teach Buddishm?

He doesn't, really at all. Even in his labeled buddhist lectures. Its more a new age blend of advaita vedanta/hinduisim/zen (kind of), but really kind of just his own creation. I'm the least familiar with actual advaita, but I'd imagine he's doing the same thing there that he's doing with buddhism. I'm very grateful to Alan Watts, because he was sort of an entry point for me, but ultimately he was what he said he was - a spiritual entertainer. Imo it was basically the most interesting form of self help. Not necessarily bad, but certainly not accurate on any of the topics he claimed to be speaking about

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#99

Post by avador »

pulkitsh1234 wrote: post #79
pandoro wrote: post #75

If you are not familiar with Camus' work, I highly recommend reading the essay collection Nuptials ( Nuptials at Tipasa , The Wind at Djémila , Summer in Algiers and The Desert ). It was written in 1936, when Camus was in his early twenties; several years before he articulated his "philosophie de l'absurde" in The Myth of Sisyphus and The Stranger. Camus himself described Noces as belonging to a pre-absurdist "pagan"…

>At certain hours of the day the countryside is black with sunlight. What does this mean ? Why "black" ?

For me, it’s the following sentence that gives the meaning to that one.

The countryside is literally so beautiful that the beauty cannot (be) beheld [sic]. That is, the sunlight hitting that bit of the world at that bob of time is so intense that the viewing is indistinguishable in its ordinary pieces because of the sheer pleasure. The view is just a singular whole all at once, because the thick and luminous real is everywhere and dripping off of every thing. The abundance drowns out the particulars.

You’re squinting, but not because of pain.

Re: The Absurdity of Albert Camus

#100

Post by avador »

jordanpg wrote: post #71

Before reading The Stranger , I was headlong into the then-popular "New Atheism" movement, which came with a certain air of superiority of brainpower over the naive masses. But reading The Stranger had a profound impact on me, even before I knew anything more formal about existentialist philosophy. It was an awakening: I began to understand that the problem with the world isn't that everyone needs to learn more physi…

“our stupid little lives”.

Stupid and little in relation to _what_? You cannot ascribe lives as stupid or little unless you’ve got a smart and a grand. So: what is the smart and grand you’ve got? I want to take note of it.

Post reply on HN