This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Lane [Bob, “The
Absurd Hero” http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/ absurd.htm]
Doesn't this make a futile pessimistic chaos of life? Wouldn't suicide be a legitimate way out of a meaningless life? "No." "No." answers Camus. Although the absurd cancels all chances of eternal freedom it magnifies freedom of action. Suicide is "acceptance at its extreme", it is a way of
This is the only life we have; and even though we are aware, in fact, because we are aware of the absurd, we can find value in this life. The value is in our freedom, our passion, and our revolt. The first change we must make to live in the absurd situation is to realize that thinking, or reason, is not tied to any eternal mind which can unify and "make appearances familiar under the guise of a great principle," but it is: ...learning all over again to see, to be attentive, to focus consciousness; it is turning every idea and every image, in the manner of Proust, into a privileged moment. (p. 20) My experiences, my passions, my ideas, my images and memories are all that I know of this world - and they are enough. The absurd person can finally say "all is well". I understand then why the doctrines that explain everything to me also debilitate me at the same time. They relieve me of the weight of my own life, and yet I must carry it alone. (p. 41) Camus then follows his notions to their logical conclusions and insists that people must substitute quantity of experience for quality of experience. The purest of joys is "feeling, and feeling on this earth." This statement cannot be used to claim a hedonism as Camus's basic philosophy, but must be thought of in connection with the notion of the absurd that has been developed in the early part of the essay. Man is mortal. The world is not. A person's dignity arises from a consciousness of death, an awareness that eternal values and ideas do not exist, and a refusal to give in to the notion of hope or appeal for something that we are uncertain of.
confessing that life is too much for one.
In the following essays, Camus presents examples of the absurd person. We are given Don Juan, the actor, and the conqueror as examples of people who multiply their lives in an attempt to live fully within the span of their mortality. But more important is the creator who is discussed in the essay "Absurd Creation". "The absurd joy par excellence is creation." For in creating a work of art the creator is living doubly in as much as his creation id a separate life. "The artist commits himself and becomes himself in his work." Works of art become, then, the one means for a person to support and sustain a lucid consciousness in the face of the absurdity of the uni verse. The present and the succession of presents before an ever conscious mind, this is the ideal of the absurd man. (p. 81) Art is for Camus an essential human activity and one of the most fundamental. It expresses human aspirations toward freedom and beauty, aspirations which make life valuable for each transient human being. Art defies that part of existence in which each individual is no more that a social unit or an insignificant cog in the evolution of history. In The Myth of Sisyphus then we find the philosophical basis for the stranger, the doctor, and the judge-penitent. This is the starting point of Camus's thought. Camus is concerned here as in his other works with persons and their world, the relationships between them, and the relationships between persons and their history. In The Myth of Sisyphus he opposes himself to the rationalism of classical philosophy which seeks universal and enduring truths or a hierarchy of values which is
The absurd is a revolt against tomorrow and as such comes to terms with the present moment. Suicide consents to the absurd as final and limitless while revolt is a an ongoing struggle with the
crowned by God; he believes that truth is found by a subjective intensity of passion; he maintains that the individual is always free and involved in choice; he recognizes that persons exist in the world and are naturally related with it; he is deeply concerned with the significance of death, its inevitability and its finality.
absurd and brings with it man's redemption.
Vote affirmative to accept poetic revolts based on absurdity as a legitimate framework. Language necessitates constant shifts and redefinitions over time. Without the poetic revolution from the affirmative, language dies. Furthermore this metaphoric revolt allows us to describe and contrast with reality, therefore better understanding reality. Manley [Julian Manley; BA, MA, DipHE, MSc is currently Managing Director of Ecowaves providing consultancy and training to organizations. At the same time he is carrying out
research for a Phd on social dreaming at the University of the West of England. His current focus is to bring psycho-social research into the real world of organizations and the drawing together of experiential and theoretical learning; “Metaphoric Absudity: A psychoanalytically informed approach to text based research”; 2003;http://www.btinternet.com/~psycho_social/Vol2/JPSS2-JM1.html]
Language, then, is like a living substance. If its meanings were ever to be objective and definitive, then it would die, just like a living organism dies as soon as it stops its autopoietic development through time. I would venture to say that the Newtonian physical world of cause and effect and reversibility, and the
association that is made between this way of thinking and rational logical thinking, has been, and is still today, applied to the writing and appreciation of academic texts: the „signifier‟ means the „signified‟ and vice versa. This way of thinking denies the possibility, or at least the usefulness,
The unconscious is an integral part of our being and cannot be separated from any attempt to rationalize. The meanings of words change in time because of their connection with the subjective mind, a mind which is, in Rafael Nuñez‟s words from the recently published book Reclaiming Cognition „situated, decentralized, real-time constrained, everyday experience orientated, culture-dependent, [and] contextualized, and closely related to biological principles – in one word, embodied‟, as opposed to the kind of thinking many would associate with academic thought: „rational, abstract, culture-free, centralized, non-biological, ahistorical, unemotional, asocial and disembodied‟ (Nuñez 1999 p.55).
of the irrational and the unconscious in academic texts. The unconscious is, however, a language. According to Freud and Lacan, the unconscious has a language-like structure.
The latter sounds rather like the „objectivity‟ which is sought after in any research method, while the former, with its „embodied mind‟ accepts the value of subjectivity. The legitimate study of the irrational, the emotional and the unconscious belongs to psychology. By reaching out for an understanding of what psychology has to say, the researcher is empowered to a creative understanding of what might otherwise be rejected as irrational or subjective and therefore unacceptable. Subjectivity can become a valuable tool for thought; and inter-subjectivity, between write and reader, can create its own created objectivity, the inter-subjective objectivity of a created truth rather than a reality , where reality is not equivalent to truth. In some cases, language
The only way I can communicate something beyond rational thought is when I use metaphor, sometimes even what I call metaphoric absurdity. Now, when I communicate with [others] a family, the clearer I become, the better they understand me, the less it helps. This is because I am describing a reality which is an abstraction.‟ (Capra 1989 p.310)
used „objectively‟ is uncreative and destructive: in clinical practice, for example, as expressed by the family therapist Ant onio Dimalanta in conversation with Fritjof Capra: „In my practice, I am very aware of the limitations of language.
Further, language is necessary to interpret signs necessary to reaching truth. Thus there is infinite need for language. Foucault (5) [Michel Foucault; Philosopher, Professor at Institut Francais in Hamburg, Germany, Institut de Philosophie at the Faculte des Lettres in the University of Clermont-Ferrand, France; “The Order
of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences”; 1970; Book]
Knowledge therefore consisted in relating one form of language to another form of language; in restoring the great, unbroken plain of words and things; in making everything speak. That is, in bringing into being, at a level above that of all marks, the secondary discourse of commentary. The function proper to knowledge is not seeing or demonstrating; it is interpreting. Scriptural commentary, commentaries on Ancient authors, commentaries on the accounts of travelers, commentaries on legends and fables: none of these forms of discourse is required to justify its claim to be expressing a truth before it is interpreted; all that is required of it is the possibility of talking about it. Language contains its own inner principle of proliferation. 'There is more work in interpreting interpretations than in interpreting things; and more books about books than on any other subject; we do
nothing but write glosses on one another'. These words are not a statement of the bankruptcy of a culture buried beneath its own monuments; they are a definition of the inevitable re-lation that language maintained with itself in the sixteenth century. This relation enabled
language to accumulate to infinity, since it never ceased to develop, to revise itself, and to lay its successive forms one over another. The AC brings thoughts not yet imagined to the policy makers’ minds; the regime in which this is prohibited and not yet pursued is totalitarian fascism at its finest. Pelevin [Victor, Leo Kropywiansky, post-Soviet science fiction author, Buddhist scholar, “Victor Pelevin” Interview, BOMB
Magazine, Issue 79 Spring 2002, , LITERATURE http://www.bombsite.com/issues/79/articles/2481]
any totalitarian regime is based on its presumed capability to embrace and explain all the phenomena, their entire totality, because explanation is control. Hence the term totalitarian. So if there‟s a book that takes you out of [Rejecting] this totality of things explained and understood, it liberates you because it breaks the continuity of explanation and thus dispels the charms. It allows you to look in a different direction for a moment, but this
Since it happened a long time before I started to write, there‟s no way to determine how it affected my writing. However, the effect of this book was really fantastic. There‟s an expression “out of this world.” This book was totally out of the Soviet world. The evil magic of
It didn‟t liberate you from some particular old ideas . they only made you more enslaved as they explained to which degree you were a slave. Solzhenitsyn‟s books were very anti-Soviet. but rather from the hypnotism of the entire order of things. The Master and Margarita didn‟t even bother to be anti-Soviet yet reading this book would make you free instantly. The Master and Margarita was exactly this kind of book and it is very hard to explain its subtle effect to anybody who didn‟t live in the USSR. but they didn‟t liberate you.moment is enough to understand that everything you saw before was a hallucination (though what you see in this different direction might well be another hallucination). .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?