Camus – The Myth Of Sisyphus: a consolation.

For me, Camus relates’ Sisyphus’ arduous task with life itself. The book within which Camus aimed to enter into dialectic discourse seemed to be about the issue of suicide, and Man’s desire to be rid himself of the trials and tribulations that beset him within the context of his lived-world. Camus pontificates that:

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. (p. 3).

Science and epistemology provide the source for his antithesis, and he proclaims that:

‘This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction.’ (p. 14)

‘have played on words and pretended to believe that refusing to grant a meaning to life necessarily leads to declaring that it is not worth living. (p.7)

Camus challenges the view that ‘in suicide we judge that life no longer has any meaning for us: that living it is too difficult’. Camus argues that even in death we are still confronted by that which seeks to hold us back: to temper our passions. We bring to bear our knowledge of the lived-world on the presenting problem without ascertaining the very nature - the essence - of that which is presented in all its many facets. This Camus suggests is folly, as each problem that befalls may be viewed anew, constructed out our own sense of being in the world, and as such each problem./difficulty rarely appears to us in the same ways, twice.

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)

In imagining we create within our minds a world where the toil of our everyday existence does not existence. We transform our experience into something that delights in our passions. In that moment we forget the task; the issue, the problem. But Camus argues that there is no escape. It is questionable as whether Sisyphus viewed his situation in the same way. It may well be that he was fully aware of his plight, and gave way to the ‘will-of-the-gods’. The will-of-the-gods represents that from which there is no hiding place. It must be carried out for-itself, as life itself must be carried out for itself but no by itself. For even in death these phantoms come to haunt you.

But why should life hold meaning for us? Camus argues that the myth of ‘Sisyphus’ may be used to illustrate how man throws himself into situations without paying due concern for the unforeseen consequences. I make the distinction between the foreseen consequences, and the unforeseen consequences as there seem to be some outcomes of our action within our lived-world that do not materialise in our minds. It is argued that Sisyphus did not seem to consider to the possibility that Zeus may have been a little annoyed with him for having informed Aesophus that he had usurped Aegina, daughter of Aesophus. Camus argues, also, that Sisyphus was so engrossed in his own concerns; his passions; (e.g. having a perennial spring for the City of Corinth), that he did not consider the possibility that he might be punished for his inconsideration. Clearly, Camus is suggesting that Sisyphus pursuit of life was enthused with the aim of giving life meaning. He was intent using his skills and abilities to get what he wanted out of life; to indulge in his passions by any means possible; usually, stealth or guile. The possibility that life itself could seem meaningless did not arise for Sisyphus; and no mention of this possibility is given within the context of the myth itself as Sisyphus continues to give his life-after-death meaning to acting on the world, indefinitely.

Zeus had instructed Hades to usurp Sisyphus, and to take him to Tartarus – the underworld. Why the underworld? Here, ‘Sisyphus’ would be, physically, deprived of the possibility of indulging his passions. He was presented with a task that he knew he must fulfil. Hades had decreed it so. In death, as in life, there is no escape, nor avoidance, from the task that confronts us. Although Sisyphus’ efforts to escape his punishment, (e.g. by cheating death, and destruction), may appear futile to us in hindsight, such attempts to hide form ‘Death’, and ‘the Bringer of Destruction’, may have seemed very real options for Sisyphus at that time. He was however, reminded that there was no escape when he was returned to his position in front of his stone. For me, this suggests that in spite our efforts to avoid the inevitable, we are reunited with that from which we can not escape, nor avoid. The ‘Judges of the Dead’ had presented him with a task that he could not resolve despite his persistence. It reinforces the view that death can not be cheated; avoided.

Camus argues that the task itself is absurd, and as ‘Sisyphus’ was engaged in this absurd activity, he too is to be considered to be absurd. Camus did not support the pursuit of hedonistic ideals, as this does not require a genuine meeting between Man, and his lived-world. Man is accused on acting the world, rather than with it. Instead, Camus argues that without confronting the world in that space ‘in-between’ ourselves, and the object(s) of our attention, we are behaving, absurdly.

The absurd is born of this confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world….The absurd is not in man nor in the world, but in their presence together...it is the only bond uniting them. (p. 21)

Hence, that which is perceived as absurd seems to be created within the concept of our own minds: at the interface between what we believe to be true about ourselves, and what we believe to be true about the world around us – the ‘in-between’. This brings us to Camus’ view that Sisyphus could no longer realise his own passions beyond that which confronted him in his everyday life. The moment, in segment, appears like every other moment, but in the reality of that moment everything is perceived anew. Camus writes:

All that remains is a fate whose outcome alone is fatal. Outside of that single fatality of death, everything, joy or happiness, is liberty. A world remains of which man is the sole master. What bound him was the illusion of another world. The outcome of his thought, ceasing to be denunciatory, flowers in images. It frolics - in myths, to be sure, but myths with no other depth than that of human suffering and like it inexhaustible. Not the divine fable that amuses and blinds, but the terrestrial face, gesture, and drama in which are summed up a difficult wisdom and an ephemeral passion. (p. 87)

The myth does not say that Sisyphus died, only that Death came to take from the world, and to punish him for his treachery. We must assume that Sisyphus died in that Zeus sent Ares to unchain Hades, whom Sisyphus had imprisoned, and to seek Sisyphus out’. Hence, war sought Sisyphus, and by this means Sisyphus may have met his end. In so doing, Sisyphus met Hades (Death). Even then Sisyphus had arranged with his wife, Merope that she should not bury him, but to leave his body unburied. This, apparently, served as a legimate reason for Sisyphus to leave Tartarus. Sisyphus appealed to The Bringer of Destruction (Persephone) to allow him to return to the world to arrange for his burial. Or course having returned to the lived-world Sisyphus was reluctant to leave it. Instead, he fled from Death. But finally, Hermes can in search of Sisyphus and carried him back to Tartarus.

The God may have considered Sisyphus a nuisance. Not only had Sisyphus attempted to “cheat death”, he had “deceived the ‘bringer of destruction’” such that she set him free. His punishment was to reside with death in Tartarus. In addition, Sisyphus was given something to do for the duration of his stay in Tartarus. This, for me, gave Sisyphus something to occupy his mind. The Gods had decreed that it was not enough for Sisyphus to be denied the freedom to delight in his passions; he was, also, to do toil – to do penance to atone for his sins against them. In these ways, we are reminded that there is no escape, nor avoidance from the inevitable. We must, therefore, assume that Sisyphus died at some time during this process; that Sisyphus knows that he is dead, and that there is no escape from the task beset him.

Surely, he ponders his new found existence in the hope that one day his task may be over. He remembers life as it was, and can never be again. He is confronted with that, which he can sense, (i.e. the cold stone, the brow of the hill, and the aches and pains of his labour). In the regularity of his return to the bottom of the brow of the hill, Sisyphus is offered the opportunity to reflect on his life to date. At this moment, his consciousness may not be consumed with the task of rolling the stone up the hill. He may, however, have considered differing ways of rolling the stone up the hill such that he achieves the task.

This I feel would be inline with Sisyphus’ predisposition, (i.e. his pursuit of his passions). He is aware that he can not cheat death in spite of himself; he ‘is’ dead. He is aware that all of his pursuits of passion are as, if, for nought, for he can not hope benefit from their experience, now. This, I feel, is the form ‘tragedy’ assumes in the mind of Sisyphus. However, the tragedy for Camus was that Sisyphus chose to confront his task, over and over again, knowing that what he was doing was absurd. I am not sure that Sisyphus absurdity goes beyond his attempts to cheat ‘Death’ (Hades), and Destruction (Persephone). However, assuming Sisyphus’ tragedy did reflect his realisation that his actions were futile, and pointless, and yet he continued to pursuit his passion, then we must also assume that Sisyphus was happy.

In confronting the stone anew, Camus argues that Sisyphus renewed his vitality: he was as victorious in death as he was in life. He challenged the wisdom of the Gods anew each time the stone was confronted for in his challenge there was the possibility of him completing the task. In this sense, Sisyphus we must imagine Sisyphus happy.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the brow of the hill! 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. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled brow of the hill, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself, towards the heights, is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. (p.91).

Camus argues that Sisyphus’ life and torment are transformed into a victory by concentrating on his freedom, his refusal to hope, and his knowledge of the absurdity of his situation. However, I can not reach such conclusions given Sisyphus is not free; he is dead; trapped for all eternity in Tartarus. We can not say that he refuses to hope, as without hope he would have no reason to do as the Gods had decreed. He continues with the task, relentlessly. Failure to so do may anger the Gods, but what can they do? You can not kill a dead man, so what else would he have to loose. How else might the Gods punish him?

Sisyphus’ world is has been transformed into one that is comprised of the rock, and the brow of the hill. Sisyphus battles with both, indefinitely, as he is required to ‘meet the rock until such time as he overcomes the brow of the brow of the hill such that the rock rolls down the other side’. Camus refers to Sisyphus as ‘an absurd hero’. ‘Hero’; it is assumed; is representative of the ways in which Sisyphus pursuits his passions against all odds, and is so doing, triumphs. Sisyphus triumphs because he keeps coming back for more; he does not give up. Not sure I would call him a ‘hero’, myself: foolish, irresponsible, arrogant perhaps, but heroic? No. There seems to be little that could be construed as being ‘heroic’ in his actions in the realm of Tartarus. In the first instance, he appears to have been given a task from which he can not escape, nor avoid. All-things-considered, where is he to escape to? He ‘knows’ that if he attempted to escape he will be brought right back to confront the rock. The only way forward for him, is to confront the rock. The action on the rock renders his existence meaningless, and reflects his true essence, for he is seen to be pursuing his passions even, now.

It is in these ways, that Camus ‘makes light’ of the work of Suicide. Even in death there is no escape. He argues that even though through our interactions with-the-lived-world (dasein) may seem arduous; even, insurmountable; we can neither avoid, nor escape ‘the inevitable’. Nor can we seek to possess the task beset us; and is do doing, render it powerless. In the end, we must all confront our ‘rocks’, push them towards the desired goal whilst expending the force uncertainty evokes within us: watch, helplessly, as our hopes are dashed: and, find the courage to start all over again, and again, and again.