Rousseau_CHN

Life is absurd. All that we do on earth is made useless by death. The wealth we make, the success we make, the love we give...all is thrown back to nothingness.

That is my understanding of existentialism.

And yet, says the existentialist, we must continue to live life.

Now my question is, I failed to finish Camus' Myth of Sisyphus, what should force us to continue to live according to Camus?

Amos

Apparently nothing but life is not absurd and we seem to know better.

There is order in the universe and the chaos we see exists only on our own perception of it. Intuitly we know that negation is not the answer because peace on earth is a reality that is known to us. According to Woodsworth "our souls have sight of that immortal sea which in a moment can come hither."

abe smith

Yeh, well, Rousseau-etc.... You are of course not obliged to read, accept, or discuss anything that offends you. Your privilege. This site, EyeEye, may not be a place whr you care to spend time... Abe

Keith Russell

Rousseau:

Nothing external to your consciousness should force you to do anything. Force should only be used against you, if you first threaten or use force against others.

Other than that, the choice as to how to live your life, should be your own.

If you wish to live by Camus, do it.

If you don't, don't.

Camus is dead; you are alive.

Live if you wish.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

He concluded that book by saying that we should stay alive long enough to finish any books we were planning to comment on, in order to not appear foolish.

Osiris

Have you read "The Stranger"? Its been awhile but I think Camus has your answer in the end when the man sentenced to death sees death approaching.

Also, I don't think Camus considered himself an existentialist. Quite the opposite, as he thought 'the absurd' was how us humans seem to live life, knowing full well it will all end one day. More of a reason to LIVE life, not just exist.

Evangelion

I'm a great fan of Camus and his "absurd man." The Myth of Sisyphus provides a brilliant rebuttal to Nietszche's Ubermensch.

I do not, however, find Camus' conclusion entirely satisfactory - and neither, I believe, did he.

Even Sisyphus ends with a mere platitude...

Beoran

Rousseau_CHN:

I have not read Camus, but the existensialism you describe is like refusing to drink tea because your cup will get empty.

"It's not the net result of one's life that is important. It's the day-to-day concerns, the personal victories, and the celebration of life...and love! It's enough if people are able to experience the joy that each day can bring!"
(Ted Woolsey et al.) It may sound bit trite, but this the answer I have found, and I am content with it. However, your answer might be quite different.

Rousseau_CHN

I would like to comment on several posts:

First is :
What you said is true. It is foolish of me to do what I did. I guess it was my indolence. But, you see, it was something I read in college a long time ago. I am no longer allowed any access in my old school's library.

I could have tried the public library, but public libraries are atrocious in my place.

This of course are explanations, not excuses. If I really wanted to finish I should have exerted more effort. I could have search online; instead of asking you for a summary.

I would also like to comment on:

Your first impression on existentialism is valid. It may seem to be based on fear, but on closer inspection, you will find a very empowering and courageous philosophy.

"Life has no meaning," says the existentialist.

But they did not stop there. When they say that life has no meaning, what they mean is that life has no 'pre-ordained' meaning. Since life has no intrinsic meaning, it only means that we should make one for our own. Everyday of our lives, we must make and remake the meaning of our lives. Everyday of our lives, we must find OUR redemption.

And isn't that very empowering: my own meaning for my own existence--not some meaning handed down by who-knows-what.

Kierkegaard, a Dutch like you, started this philosophy when he said, "What is true is true for me."

Subjective Truth?

Well yes, but is there a truth higher than that?

Galileo believed that the earth revolved around the sum. But when his life was endangered, he quickly 'retracted' it. Simply because life is more important than whether the earth revolved around the sun, or not.

That is just one example, but have you ever heard of anyone dying for the objective truth?

On the other hand, you have heard of people dying for the subjective truth--for their truth!

The Myth of Sisyphus is, as far as I have read, a classic existentialist piece. Someone in the post said that Camus was not an existentialist. He said Camus hated the very idea. I'm not sure about this, but, I think, he is confusing Gabriel Marcel with Camus.

The Myth of Sisyphus tells the story of Sisyphus who must push the stone everyday up the hill; only to see it fall down every night.

Why does he continue with this absurdity?

Because the stone was his making, his reason, his life. He is a hero, like everyone of us. We persist in this life despite the fact that at most time it seems absurd--meaningless.

But we persist---because it is our life---because it is our meaning---because it is our stone.

Lastly:

Man, are you drunk? Are you under the alkufluence of inkohol? You're shmuttering nonsensh (hic)

Hugo Holbling

Not to worry! You'll pardon my quip - the answer to your original question is rebellion; for an explication you could glance at <a href="http://philosophy.fullcoll.edu/res/profiles/camus.pdf" target="_blank">this link</a>, or - better yet - hit the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679733841/qid=1040552099/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_5/102-6575446-7856100?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">books</a> once more.