Fifty years after Camus
Albert Camus died fifty years ago today. His first impact into my life was with The Myth of Sisyphus which took the myth as a metaphor for life and demanded that the prime question which must be answered first is “…whether life is or is not worth living.” The answer? Life is a pointless Sisyphusian task but still suicide is not the answer: “The struggle itself…is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”
Each of his works open up more and more depth. Even now when I have lost the desire for the existentialist darkness Camus still gets to the point of it all. Quickly and ruthlessly. The Stranger (together with the Myth) taught us that there are always options and Caligula shows that madness is necessary for people to realize system failures. His notebooks are filled to the brim with ideas, short cryptic notes and twitterlike entries among depth and concrete tips.
To write is to surrender. The art requires giving up some things. Write on. An effort that always bears fruit, of one kind or another. A question of laziness of those who fail. (Tranlated from my Swedish translation of his Cahiers 1935-1942)
In closing a quote from Albert Camus’ speech at the Nobel Banquet at the City Hall in Stockholm, December 10, 1957
Each generation doubtless feels called upon to reform the world. Mine knows that it will not reform it, but its task is perhaps even greater. It consists in preventing the world from destroying itself. Heir to a corrupt history, in which are mingled fallen revolutions, technology gone mad, dead gods, and worn-out ideologies, where mediocre powers can destroy all yet no longer know how to convince, where intelligence has debased itself to become the servant of hatred and oppression, this generation starting from its own negations has had to re-establish, both within and without, a little of that which constitutes the dignity of life and death.
Time-appropriate! (First para..)
How apt that you blog is entitled “Sound & Fury”. When might “we” get some intelligence to go along with all the “sound”. LOL.
Camuswasafool your chosen name is enough to prove to me that we have little in common.
“He who despairs of the human condition is a coward, but he who has hope for it is a fool.” — Albert Camus
Camus was no coward. Neither was he neutral about the human condition given that he thought it necessary to convey his thoughts in writing. Paradoxically speaking, he was a secular “holy fool”. Something noble about his position and yet-as is the case with Sartre-it was insufficient to justify existence beyond…pardon the crudeness…fucking, fighting, and writing.
One more thing: Your proof claim reveals that you need to go back and work on all those hard courses in logic and epistemology that didn’t seem to take. (Goodness, could it be that they pass out advanced degrees in philosophy in Sweden as if they were holiday treats for children?)
PS – Never trust a librarian. Ponder that cryptic aside “Herr Doktor” Klang.
SartreSaysWhat: I never called Camus a coward. I reacted to your name which called him a fool. You need to call him a secular holy fool shows how little you understood his work. You have a right to your interpretation but it seems to far from mine to be interesting.
My proof claim is socially valid. As for courses in logic and epistemology I have no need for them in this case.
“…madness is necessary for people to realize system failures.” – Doc Klang
No, madness is NOT necessary for people to realize system failures. W. Edwards Deming was not mad and he certainly understood sytems and how to overcome system failures. (Sorry Doc Klang-ding!-you’ll have to go back to the drawing board on that one.)
Madness or, as some say, doing the same damn crazy thing over and over while engaged in the magical thinking of expecting different and better results, doesn’t help people realize system failures. Madness, by definition, helps people create system failures. (I can think of a Sörmland town in which “madness” rules. LOL!)
I never said you said that Camus was a coward. (Goodness, are you going to put up a staw man so you can knock it down? Is this the sort of approach to argumentation you were taught?) So far as validity goes, use the term “valid” in it’s strict sense as it applies to logic. Besides, you at least thought-I’m going to ask you about thought at the end of this exchange but you’ll likely bail out of the question-I was interesting enough to respond to my comments.
Contradiction!
Now, you are a philosophy prof, so, what is thinking? Give me a brief definition. No, don’t look it up. Give a definition from memory. (Hint: What did Plato/Socrates say about the nature of thinking in and of itself?) Show your students that you know something about the nature of thought itself.
Aside to readers: I’m getting the impression that Doc Klang’s philosophy degree was not awarded for clarity of thought.
Dear Mad Mental Max,
I am not a philosophy professor. You bore me. If you want an education read a book. If you want something to do on a Saturday evening get some friends. Your impressions do not interest me. Your initial comments on Camus show again that we have little in common.
Mathias
Indeed, you are correct. You are no “lover of wisdom”, professor. Psychologically speaking, I don’t bore you. Rather, you are bored. Remember, I don’t control your inner states so don’t shift the blame of your lack of inner control-”You bore me.”-over to me. Furthermore, if I want something to do on a Saturday evening, I can well choose what to do for myself but thanks for the suggestion nevertheless. Besides, how do you know that I don’t have friends over here or even online laughing at your weak rebuttals? Lastly, your comments on my comments on Camus indicate you assume far too much.
(Readers: Let’s see if he ever answers the question about thinking I posed to him earlier. Ah, heck, I should stop. Why so? Because I realize that I’m dealing with a prof who likes to, as it were, hear himself speak but can’t stand to be challenged on his thinking.)
“If you want an education read a book.” – M. Klang, Ph.D.
How curious that an arrogant third rate academician trying to make a career out of pontificating (poorly) about digital life crows “read a book”? Doc, are you mentally somewhat stuck in the Tree Carcass Age? Try this instead: http://www.openculture.com/2008/03/youtubesmartvideos.html.
(Readers: In truth, if wants an education one should expose oneself to First Principles and engage them through inner dialectic, i.e., thinking and one doesn’t need a book nor even a computer to gain an education.)