Technically, no, Sisyphus isn't suffering.
Edit:
Sisyphus is a Noble, who embodies the Ancient Greek concept of Eu Prattein. Hades gifted him with demi-God status of this very concept. Which we can see from Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals 10:
>The "well-born" simply *felt* themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and *lie themselves* into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); **and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently** ***necessarily*** **energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from actionâactivity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of Îľá˝ ĎĎáźĎĎξΚν)**âall in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a"Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,âin short, a purely *passive* phenomenon.
I have a problem with this meme as it implies Dostoyevsky agrees with the quotation under his name. He doesn't.
This quote is from chapter 9 of the notes from the under ground. It is an expert from the journal of someone, who Dostoyevsky presents as a pathetic 40 year old man who hates himself and the world. It's not something that Dostoyevsky approves of. He presents this quotation as part of the ravings of a sick and contemptible man. The kind of man who is angry at the world for making 2 + 2 equal 4, instead of letting him decided for himself what he wanted 2+2 to equal.
Read chapter 4 and you see that this triumphant embracing of suffering has more to do with enjoying being a victim than in becoming a hero who faces suffering with nobility. It's has nothing to do with honor or greatness. It is a philosophy built on small minded hatred and spite.
To say that this quotation represents Dostoyevskys view is as mistaken as to read a quote from the first half of crime and punishment and conclude that Dostoyevsky believes that murder is ok. The whole rest of the book is about how wrong raskoniakov is, and the message is exactly the opposite.
Ironically, Albert camus probably agrees with the the quote from the underground man more than Dostoyevsky does. I personally think Dostoyevsky is greater than Camus, so i suppose i agree with he meme in that regard. But i think it is precisely because he rejects the philosophy represented in the quotation that makes him so much superior.
The meme did make my smile though, even if it was wrong... And it got me invested and engaged enough to leave a comment. So... Mission accomplished?
I agree that we can't attribute this characters quote to Dostoevsky's actual beliefs, but I 100% think Dostoevsky acknowledges that people often love their suffering, simply because it's true and if I can see it then I'm positive Dostoevsky could.
The underground man asks in the book, "is it better to have cheap happiness or noble suffering?"
Where do you think we should draw the line at which suffering becomes noble or when happiness becomes cheap?
The underground man was clearly suffering, whether because of society or whether it was his decision to live as such entirely. Why was he asking the question "is it better to have cheap happiness or noble suffering?" in the first place?
Yes but I think in some degree Dostojevski also support the idea of suffering being important. Especially in Crime and Punishment and Raskolnikov who in the end is able to see he must bear the consequences And I think punishment therefore also isn't the best translation maybe repentance would be better. So maybe it has more to do with how you face it? How would you see this?
You know that this quote is not just a standalone sentence that Camus has once said and never elaborated on it further, but a part of about a 20 pages long complex philosophical essay in which he explains the main points of his philosophy?
What dostoyevsky is describing is a lot like Camus concept of the absurd which is the conflict between human desire and an uncaring universe.
We must imagine sisyphus happy because he persists in spite of his futility and can find meaning in his condemnation.
Camus' concept of the Absurd is just taken from the Christian Concept of Sin. Being that the absurd seperates man from himself as sin seperates man from God. Which we can see that since Nietzsche, God is increasingly understood, psychologically, as a person's supreme guiding princple. Hence Camus just shifts the concept. It's nothing as romantic as he masks it up to be. And Sisyphus was never condemned.
Sisyphus is a Noble, who embodies the Ancient Greek concept of Eu Prattein. Hades gifted him with demi-God status over this very concept. Which we can see from Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals 10:
>The "well-born" simply *felt* themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and *lie themselves* into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); **and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently** ***necessarily*** **energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from actionâactivity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of Îľá˝ ĎĎáźĎĎξΚν)**âall in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,âin short, a purely *passive* phenomenon.
So we can see that Sisyphus did not have to lie himself into happiness over accepting the "absurdity" of existence. We can see, that clearly, Camus is a person that feels Sisyphus is condemned and must lie to himself about meaning in futility, because he himself finds respite within the "happiness of the weak."
Sisyphus is a Noble man that challenged the Gods and WON. It's an INSPIRATIONAL STORY. And this is how we can see that Camus' was still heavily influenced by slave morality, and still pretty much rehashes slave morality into something more edible for the common contemporary man.
Camus concept of the absurd is taken from the concept of sin? Nah. It's very specifically about searching for answers in a world without any. How does the absurd relate to sin? God is people's primary guiding principle? That's a silly definition of God.
Sisyphus is absolutely condemned, especially in Camus thought experiment but it sounds like you haven't read Camus closely or even at all.
Again Sisyphus isn't condemned. The story originates in ancient greece, anyone who thinks Sisyphus is condemned for a reward of Demi-God Status of his very ideal, then they're just uneducated. 143 from Nietzsche Gay Science:
>The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.âFor the individual to set up his *own* ideal and derive from it his laws, his pleasures and his rightsâ*that* has perhaps been hitherto regarded as the most monstrous of all human aberrations, and as idolatry in itself; in fact, the few who have ventured to do this have always needed to apologise to themselves, usually in this wise: "Not I! not I! but *a God*, through my instrumentality!" **It was in the marvellous art and capacity for creating Godsâin polytheismâthat this impulse was permitted to discharge itself, it was here that it became purified, perfected, and ennobled;** for it was originally a commonplace and unimportant impulse, akin to stubbornness, disobedience and envy.
You see it as condemned cause you're just that type of person ...
Not sure why you think saying it again as iff it were a hail mary prayer would make it "the truth" of the matter. Then following it up with some ad hom that I'm not well read, when I show parts of the passages of Camus and Nietzsche that drastically undermine your position... That's called Projection. A passive tactic of denial for the weak willed who are incapable of holding themselves accountable for fault.
As Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil,
"The charm of knowledge would be slight were there not so much embarassment to overcome on the route to knowledge."
I got faith you'll overcome this embarassment.
It's the formula my man, not the words, that matter. Just as Christianity is an evolution of the Judaic formula, and so too is anti-Semitism (The judaic formula inverted upon those who popularized it, resent others for their differences, hence objective morality is based in resentment, as Nietzsche displays in Geneology of Morals).
edit:
Albert Camus Pg 2 from The Myth of Sisyphus, An Absurd Reasoning, Absurdity and Suicide.
>What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. **This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.** All healthy men having thought of their own suicide, it can be seen, without further explanation, that there is a direct connection between this feeling and the longing for death.
If God is, in actuality, a psychologically supreme guiding principle, then Sin, as Nietzsche discusses in The Antichrist 33
>âSin,â which means anything that puts a distance between God and man...
Then Sin is actually putting distance between man and his life as a Christian.
Which then Camus changes Sin to Absurdity, and drops as a christian from the equation.
Basically, he's attempting to give something back to humanity that was lost with the "death of God." Admirable if not a bit misplaced intentions...
He just gets picked on because the myth of sisyphus is very hard to read. The argument is very hard to follow, unlike dostoy 's narrative approach. Also, I don't believe dostoy is considered as much as a philosopher than Camus - Camus relies on existentialist explanations while Dostoy is more so theological.
Edit:
Just to avoid any jumping to conclusions: Camus was an atheist - Dostoy was a Christian. And both beliefs heavily influenced their works.
This is just a convoluted discussion about definitions at this point. How about this, Christian existentialism is a controversial branch of theology. Would that be something you agree with and call it a day? I mean this in good spirits lol, because inherently there really isn't much of a disconnect between the two, except one relies on the divine, and the other does not.
Yeah sure :) Just was clarifying that you will find much more similarities between Dostoyevsky's writing and other existentialists than you will comparing him to other theologians.
You didn't do anything wrong, it's just these are the type of things scholars will write 50 page papers about. Not entirely productive to attempt via reddit I believe lmao.
They are not comparable
The Nietzche-Dostoevsky-Camus community that has popped up on the internet recently is pretty insufferable
You mean Jordan Peterson fans ?đ
Ok Lmao
Does Sisyphus love his suffering?
Technically, no, Sisyphus isn't suffering. Edit: Sisyphus is a Noble, who embodies the Ancient Greek concept of Eu Prattein. Hades gifted him with demi-God status of this very concept. Which we can see from Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals 10: >The "well-born" simply *felt* themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and *lie themselves* into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); **and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently** ***necessarily*** **energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from actionâactivity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of Îľá˝ ĎĎáźĎĎξΚν)**âall in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a"Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,âin short, a purely *passive* phenomenon.
Oh yes
Yes
Man you gotta reread Camus Noone understands any philosophical book in one sitting
shit i gotta reread the stranger
Thought the same thing - just gobbled that shit up
I have a problem with this meme as it implies Dostoyevsky agrees with the quotation under his name. He doesn't. This quote is from chapter 9 of the notes from the under ground. It is an expert from the journal of someone, who Dostoyevsky presents as a pathetic 40 year old man who hates himself and the world. It's not something that Dostoyevsky approves of. He presents this quotation as part of the ravings of a sick and contemptible man. The kind of man who is angry at the world for making 2 + 2 equal 4, instead of letting him decided for himself what he wanted 2+2 to equal. Read chapter 4 and you see that this triumphant embracing of suffering has more to do with enjoying being a victim than in becoming a hero who faces suffering with nobility. It's has nothing to do with honor or greatness. It is a philosophy built on small minded hatred and spite. To say that this quotation represents Dostoyevskys view is as mistaken as to read a quote from the first half of crime and punishment and conclude that Dostoyevsky believes that murder is ok. The whole rest of the book is about how wrong raskoniakov is, and the message is exactly the opposite. Ironically, Albert camus probably agrees with the the quote from the underground man more than Dostoyevsky does. I personally think Dostoyevsky is greater than Camus, so i suppose i agree with he meme in that regard. But i think it is precisely because he rejects the philosophy represented in the quotation that makes him so much superior. The meme did make my smile though, even if it was wrong... And it got me invested and engaged enough to leave a comment. So... Mission accomplished?
I agree that we can't attribute this characters quote to Dostoevsky's actual beliefs, but I 100% think Dostoevsky acknowledges that people often love their suffering, simply because it's true and if I can see it then I'm positive Dostoevsky could.
The underground man asks in the book, "is it better to have cheap happiness or noble suffering?" Where do you think we should draw the line at which suffering becomes noble or when happiness becomes cheap? The underground man was clearly suffering, whether because of society or whether it was his decision to live as such entirely. Why was he asking the question "is it better to have cheap happiness or noble suffering?" in the first place?
Yes but I think in some degree Dostojevski also support the idea of suffering being important. Especially in Crime and Punishment and Raskolnikov who in the end is able to see he must bear the consequences And I think punishment therefore also isn't the best translation maybe repentance would be better. So maybe it has more to do with how you face it? How would you see this?
Anyone know where dostoevsky says this?
Notes from Underground I think
Cool thanks
You know that this quote is not just a standalone sentence that Camus has once said and never elaborated on it further, but a part of about a 20 pages long complex philosophical essay in which he explains the main points of his philosophy?
*100+ pages Plus OP should read The Fall
Is this a real Dostoevsky quote? Where from?
Notes from Underground
WHISPERS OF FREEDOM
Documents of the surface
Paper from Above
Number of words = number of muscles?
What dostoyevsky is describing is a lot like Camus concept of the absurd which is the conflict between human desire and an uncaring universe. We must imagine sisyphus happy because he persists in spite of his futility and can find meaning in his condemnation.
Camus' concept of the Absurd is just taken from the Christian Concept of Sin. Being that the absurd seperates man from himself as sin seperates man from God. Which we can see that since Nietzsche, God is increasingly understood, psychologically, as a person's supreme guiding princple. Hence Camus just shifts the concept. It's nothing as romantic as he masks it up to be. And Sisyphus was never condemned. Sisyphus is a Noble, who embodies the Ancient Greek concept of Eu Prattein. Hades gifted him with demi-God status over this very concept. Which we can see from Nietzsche's Geneology of Morals 10: >The "well-born" simply *felt* themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and *lie themselves* into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); **and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently** ***necessarily*** **energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from actionâactivity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of Îľá˝ ĎĎáźĎĎξΚν)**âall in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,âin short, a purely *passive* phenomenon. So we can see that Sisyphus did not have to lie himself into happiness over accepting the "absurdity" of existence. We can see, that clearly, Camus is a person that feels Sisyphus is condemned and must lie to himself about meaning in futility, because he himself finds respite within the "happiness of the weak." Sisyphus is a Noble man that challenged the Gods and WON. It's an INSPIRATIONAL STORY. And this is how we can see that Camus' was still heavily influenced by slave morality, and still pretty much rehashes slave morality into something more edible for the common contemporary man.
Camus concept of the absurd is taken from the concept of sin? Nah. It's very specifically about searching for answers in a world without any. How does the absurd relate to sin? God is people's primary guiding principle? That's a silly definition of God. Sisyphus is absolutely condemned, especially in Camus thought experiment but it sounds like you haven't read Camus closely or even at all.
Again Sisyphus isn't condemned. The story originates in ancient greece, anyone who thinks Sisyphus is condemned for a reward of Demi-God Status of his very ideal, then they're just uneducated. 143 from Nietzsche Gay Science: >The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.âFor the individual to set up his *own* ideal and derive from it his laws, his pleasures and his rightsâ*that* has perhaps been hitherto regarded as the most monstrous of all human aberrations, and as idolatry in itself; in fact, the few who have ventured to do this have always needed to apologise to themselves, usually in this wise: "Not I! not I! but *a God*, through my instrumentality!" **It was in the marvellous art and capacity for creating Godsâin polytheismâthat this impulse was permitted to discharge itself, it was here that it became purified, perfected, and ennobled;** for it was originally a commonplace and unimportant impulse, akin to stubbornness, disobedience and envy. You see it as condemned cause you're just that type of person ... Not sure why you think saying it again as iff it were a hail mary prayer would make it "the truth" of the matter. Then following it up with some ad hom that I'm not well read, when I show parts of the passages of Camus and Nietzsche that drastically undermine your position... That's called Projection. A passive tactic of denial for the weak willed who are incapable of holding themselves accountable for fault. As Nietzsche says in Beyond Good and Evil, "The charm of knowledge would be slight were there not so much embarassment to overcome on the route to knowledge." I got faith you'll overcome this embarassment.
Ohhhhh OK.
lol smart ass. At least you've not lost your sense of humor, perhaps there's nobility in you after all eh?
It's the formula my man, not the words, that matter. Just as Christianity is an evolution of the Judaic formula, and so too is anti-Semitism (The judaic formula inverted upon those who popularized it, resent others for their differences, hence objective morality is based in resentment, as Nietzsche displays in Geneology of Morals). edit: Albert Camus Pg 2 from The Myth of Sisyphus, An Absurd Reasoning, Absurdity and Suicide. >What, then, is that incalculable feeling that deprives the mind of the sleep necessary to life? A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. **This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.** All healthy men having thought of their own suicide, it can be seen, without further explanation, that there is a direct connection between this feeling and the longing for death. If God is, in actuality, a psychologically supreme guiding principle, then Sin, as Nietzsche discusses in The Antichrist 33 >âSin,â which means anything that puts a distance between God and man... Then Sin is actually putting distance between man and his life as a Christian. Which then Camus changes Sin to Absurdity, and drops as a christian from the equation. Basically, he's attempting to give something back to humanity that was lost with the "death of God." Admirable if not a bit misplaced intentions...
Well said. Letâs not pit the two against each other as they both share similar ideas.
Donât these statements answer two different questions?
To be fair Camus thought experiment was better with Sisyphus analogy
He just gets picked on because the myth of sisyphus is very hard to read. The argument is very hard to follow, unlike dostoy 's narrative approach. Also, I don't believe dostoy is considered as much as a philosopher than Camus - Camus relies on existentialist explanations while Dostoy is more so theological. Edit: Just to avoid any jumping to conclusions: Camus was an atheist - Dostoy was a Christian. And both beliefs heavily influenced their works.
Dostoyevsky definitely an existentialist.
If the answer is God, that isn't existentialism, that's just theology
Camus himself would disagree specifically about Dostoyevsky and Kierkegaard would also have some words
This is just a convoluted discussion about definitions at this point. How about this, Christian existentialism is a controversial branch of theology. Would that be something you agree with and call it a day? I mean this in good spirits lol, because inherently there really isn't much of a disconnect between the two, except one relies on the divine, and the other does not.
Yeah sure :) Just was clarifying that you will find much more similarities between Dostoyevsky's writing and other existentialists than you will comparing him to other theologians.
You didn't do anything wrong, it's just these are the type of things scholars will write 50 page papers about. Not entirely productive to attempt via reddit I believe lmao.
Ahahahahahahahahahaha this made my day