Read Thần thoại Sisyphus by Albert Camus Trương Thị Hoàng Yến Phong Sa Online

thn-thoi-sisyphus

Trong thần thoại Hy Lạp, Sisyphus bị các vị thần trừng phạt phải suốt đời đẩy một khối đá lớn lên đỉnh núi; khi lên tới đỉnh, anh phải đứng nhìn khối đá lăn xuống chân núi, và Sisyphus phải trở xuống đẩy hòn đá lên đỉnh, cứ như vậy. Với Albert Camus, nhà văn đoạt giải Nobel năm 1957, cuộc đời của Sisyphus đại diện cho bi kịch cuộc sống của đa số chúng ta: là con người có ýTrong thần thoại Hy Lạp, Sisyphus bị các vị thần trừng phạt phải suốt đời đẩy một khối đá lớn lên đỉnh núi; khi lên tới đỉnh, anh phải đứng nhìn khối đá lăn xuống chân núi, và Sisyphus phải trở xuống đẩy hòn đá lên đỉnh, cứ như vậy. Với Albert Camus, nhà văn đoạt giải Nobel năm 1957, cuộc đời của Sisyphus đại diện cho bi kịch cuộc sống của đa số chúng ta: là con người có ý thức, về cơ bản đều muốn sống một cuộc đời tử tế (cao cả nếu có thể) nhưng cuối cùng thường bị “trừng phạt” bằng một cuộc đời với những lặp lại vô nghĩa. Càng là anh hùng, càng muốn vươn tới sự cao cả, tử tế, bi kịch này dường như càng rõ và càng lớn. Và như thế, Albert Camus hỏi: Sống để làm gì?Câu hỏi quan trọng và khó, thậm chí quá khó. Đứng về mô hình, thì cả hành trình sống lẫn đích của hành trình sống – cái chết – khiến toàn bộ mô hình dường như trở nên phi lý, vô nghĩa. Cho nên, với đa số chúng ta, câu hỏi “Sống để làm gì?” trở thành một câu hỏi tu từ chỉ để cười trừ. Có nghĩa hay không có nghĩa, đa số chúng ta hiểu rằng mình phải sống. Cái hiểu này trở thành một bi kịch vì cùng với cái hiểu đó, ta hiểu thêm rằng mình không đủ can đảm (hoặc không đủ hèn nhát) để tự chấm dứt sự sống của mình, do đó ta chới với trong sự phi lý của tồn tại. Với một số nhỏ, câu hỏi này đưa tới câu trả lời quyết liệt bằng hành động: tự tử - một hành vi mà Camus cho là vấn đề triết học duy nhất đáng quan tâm. Với những người không chọn hai cách trên mà muốn xem xét câu hỏi một cách nghiêm túc - họ thường đi tới hai xu hướng: hoặc tìm thấy câu trả lời ở một đấng siêu nhiên (ví dụ như Chúa) hoặc đi tới sự duy lý cực đoan mà rốt ráo cũng chỉ là một thứ đức tin khác – tin rằng con người làm chủ cuộc sống của mình, và do đó câu hỏi “Sống để làm gì?” trở thành một đối tượng của trò chơi tư duy lý tính, chứ không phải một cuộc truy tìm ý nghĩa. Hỏi về ý nghĩa của cuộc sống – với một số nhà triết học – là một câu hỏi dở.Trong Thần thoại Sisyphus, Camus cũng không có câu trả lời rốt ráo, nhưng những suy tư sâu sắc của ông trong việc tìm câu trả lời khiến cuốn sách này rất đáng đọc với bạn đọc thuộc mọi lứa tuổi, nhưng nhất là các bạn đọc trẻ. Ra đời năm 1942, Thần thoại Sisyphus cũng như các tác phẩm văn học của Camus (tiểu thuyết Người Lạ, Dịch Hạch, vv) nằm trong trào lưu triết học hiện sinh với những đại diện như Soren Kierkegaard, Jean Paul Satre, Heidegger…. Đây có thể coi là một cơn động tâm chung của châu Âu trong giai đoạn sau Chiến tranh thế giới I và trước Chiến tranh thế giới II, khi tôn giáo (Chúa) ngày càng không thể thỏa mãn những câu hỏi của con người hiện đại về mục đích, ý nghĩa cuộc sống của mình; khi châu Âu phải chứng kiến sự tiêu vong đột ngột và khả năng tiếp tục tiêu vong của hàng triệu người trong những chuyển động lịch sử mà không ai có thể cam đoan là những chuyển động có sắp đặt và có ý nghĩa. Triết học phi lý của Camus, cùng với trào lưu triết học hiện sinh, có thể được hiểu như một nỗ lực cắt nghĩa câu hỏi “Sống để làm gì?” nhằm tránh biến mình thành nạn nhân vô ý thức trong cơn lốc xoáy của lịch sử. Tuy nhiên, khác với các tác phẩm triết học, Thần thoại Sisyphus là một cuốn tiểu luận triết của một nhà văn thông thái và thông minh; do đó nó chứa những biện luận triết lý trong cái vỏ của những khám phá trực tâm, nhạy cảm, được viết dễ hiểu và đẹp. Trong cuốn sách chỉ hơn 100 trang, Camus trình bày các luận điểm của ông về một thứ triết học mà ông gọi là triết học phi lý (Tư duy phi lý, Con người phi lý, Sáng tạo phi lý); đồng thời xem xét sự áp dụng của triết học đó vào những ca cụ thể, ví dụ Don Juan. Nếu như ta kết luận rằng cả hành trình lẫn đích của hành trình sống – là cái chết – đều phi lý, thì có gì khác nhau nếu một người cư xử như Don Juan hay như Magnum? Don Juan điên rồ hay khôn ngoan tuyệt vời? Don Juan phù phiếm hay thông thái? Don Juan coi thường cuộc sống hay nhìn xuyên qua được tính phi lý (vô thường?) của cuộc sống?Với Camus, có lẽ không nên tìm câu trả lời cho câu hỏi“Sống để làm gì?” ở mô hình tổng quan bởi vì điều đó đồng nghĩa với mặc định có sự hình thành có ý thức và có nghĩa của mô hình tổng quan – một mặc định lập tức biến câu hỏi về mục đích trở thành câu hỏi vòng tròn kiểu con gà và quả trứng. Camus xử lý câu hỏi bằng cách nhận rõ rằng mô hình chỉ là sự tồn tại – có thể hoàn toàn rời rạc - của các lát cắt ngang về thời gian mà ta cảm tưởng là liên tục. Nói cách khác, cuộc sống là phép cộng khổng lồ của các thời điểm sống. Khi xem xét như thế, trong mỗi thời điểm, ta có thể khả dĩ trả lời câu hỏi “Sống để làm gì?”. Với Sisyphus, hãy xem xét thời điểm anh buông tay, đứng nhìn khối đá lăn xuống, hoàn toàn ý thức được việc mình phải đi xuống chân núi đẩy khối đá trở lại. Đấy là đỉnh cao của sự phi lý. Nhưng chính vì Sisyphus ý thức được điều đó, Sisyphus làm chủ, nên Sisyphus trở nên có nghĩa với anh, cuộc đời anh có nghĩa với anh, thuộc về anh – chứ không phải và không cần phải có nghĩa với một tổng thể vũ trụ hay một ai khác cao hơn. Công nhận sự thật – dù là sự thật về sự phi lý – chính là hành vi xóa bỏ sự phi lý.“Con người phi lý, khi suy tư về sự đau khổ của mình, làm im tiếng tất cả thần tượng. Bản thân sự vật lộn đã đủ để lấp đầy trái tim anh ta. Ta buộc phải hình dung rằng Sisyphus hạnh phúc” – Camus viết.Trân trọng giới thiệu với bạn đọc của tủ sách Cánh Cửa Mở Rộng tác phẩm Thần thoại Sisyphus của nhà văn Albert Camus, qua bản dịch của dịch giả Trương Thị Hoàng Yến và Phong Sa....

Title : Thần thoại Sisyphus
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 21548716
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 204 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

Thần thoại Sisyphus Reviews

  • فرشاد
    2018-11-12 18:13

    چگونه می‌توان از پوچی لذت برد؟ تا زمانی‌که کسی فالوده‌ی شیرازی می‌خورد، این مساله وجود دارد.پوچی از نظر کامو چیست؟ یک زندگی کاملا یکنواخت، بدون هدف و مقصود، بدون معنا، بدون خلاقیت و تغییر، بدون پیشرفت و توام با یاس و ناامیدی.سوال اصلی این کتاب چیست؟ این است که آیا بعد از درک این پوچی باید خودکشی کنیم؟پاسخ کامو چیست؟ او می‌گوید پوچی نباید انسان را به خودکشی سوق دهد. پوچی نقطه‌ی آغاز است نه پایان. انسان بعد از درک پوچی، باید با اشتیاق، دست به عصیان بزند. اشتیاق چیست؟ همان میل وافر به تجربه. منظور از عصیان چیست؟ کامو می‌گوید عصیان، یعنی عدم سازش‌پذیری، یعنی شوریدن علیه فریب‌های اجتماعی. پوچی، انسان را به آگاهی از این نکته می‌رساند که خود، خدای خویش است.کامو چه می‌گوید؟می‌گوید نه انسان، پوچ است و نه جهان، بلکه پوچی مربوط به رابطه‌ی انسان با جهان است. او می‌خواهد انسان را با نادانی مخصوص به خودش، در یک مواجهه‌ی دائمی قرار دهد و اندیشه را به مرزهایش برساند. این تلقین، مقدمه‌ی یک عصیان است که به آزادی در معنای ناب خود منجر می‌شود.

  • Ahmad Sharabiani
    2018-10-26 22:16

    Le Mythe de Sisyphe = The myth of Sisyphus and other essays, Albert CamusThe Myth of Sisyphus is a 1942 philosophical essay by Albert Camus. تاریخ نخستین خوانش: ماه مارس سال 1972 میلادیعنوان: افسانه سیزیف؛ آلبر کامو؛ مترجمها: علی صدوقی؛ محمدعلی سپانلو؛ اکبر افسری؛ محمدصادق رئیسی؛ محمود سلطانیه؛ افسانه نجومی؛ نخستین بار مطبوعاتی فرخی در سال 1342 هجری خورشیدی در 154 ص، با ترجمه ی محمدعلی سپانلو و علی صدوقیخدایان سیزیف را محکوم کرده بودند، که دائما سنگی را به بالای کوهی بغلطاند، تا جایی که سنگ بخاطر وزنش فرو افتد. آنها فکر میکردند تنبیهی وحشتناکتر از انجام کاری عبث و بیهوده وجود ندارد. اما به گفته ی هومر، سیزیف خردمندترین و محتاط ترین موجود فانی بود. باز به گفته ی هومر، سیزیف مرگ را در زنجیر کرده بود، و این فرمانروایی، خدایان را خوش نمیآمد. پس پلاتو، خدای جنگ را فرستاد تا مرگ را از دستان اشغالگرش آزاد سازد. ا. شربیانی

  • Erik Graff
    2018-11-19 20:15

    By the end of high school I was a very unhappy person and had been so since our family moved from unincorporated Kane County to Park Ridge, Illinois when I was ten. At the outset the unhappiness was basically consequent upon leaving a rural setting, small school and friendly, integrated working-class neighborhood for a reactionary suburb, large school and unfriendly upper middle-class populace whose children were, by and large, just as thoughtlessly racist and conservative as their parents were. By fifteen, however, the quality of the unhappiness had begun to change as I had made, really made, some friends in the persons of Richard Hyde and Hank Kupjack. By the end of high school, thanks to them and to the rise of the sixties counterculture, I actually had many friends, some of them from the political left, some identified with the avant garde world, some just plain disgruntled teen potheads. But by then unhappiness had become character and had been elevated from an emotional to a philosophical state of being.On the one hand, it had a lot to do with not having had a girlfriend since Lisa in the first grade. On the other hand, and this was more prominently to mind, it had to do with the reasons, the serious reasons, for not having one. They were that I was unusually slow in physical development and unusually short in stature. In my mind, I was uncontestably unattractive. If any girl would like me it would be because of personality and intelligence,I had no insecurity about intelligence as a teen, but quite a bit about personality. Feminism didn't become an issue until college, but I was ashamed about thinking of women sexually when it seemed clear they would be offended or disgusted were they to know of it. I developed the practice of not looking at females unless speaking with them. I walked with my head down, eyes to the ground, in order to avoid such guilt-ridden gazes. While other guys played around with the girls in our circle, I maintained a generally grave persona, holding "serious" conversations or reading while they flirted. A feeling of superiority was confusedly mixed with strong feelings of inferiority to these other, more comfortable, persons. While it was easy to dismiss most of the "straight" kids at school as mindless, this was not possible with many persons in our circle, particularly some of the older ones whom I admired for their learning and critical intellects.The other, philosophically deeper, dimension of this unease was that I myself was so "critically intelligent" that I had no ground upon which to stand. I had strong moral feelings but I was unable to convince myself that they were more than personal tastes. My early public school education had emphasized the sciences. While I could understand human values as having some meaning in terms of biology and evolutionary theory, I could not fit myself positively into that picture. I certainly wasn't biologically "fit". Thoughts of suicide were frequent.Thus I was drawn, upon being exposed to them, to the existentialists, particularly Camus. They alone seemed to be trying to speak openly about the actual human conditionI recall reading "The Myth of Sisyphus" while seated in our family's red Opel Cadet station wagon across from City Hall, at the curb of Hodge's Park on a beautiful spring day. Our friends were all about this area between Bob Rowe's Evening Pipe Shop, Park Ridge's Community Church and the Cogswell Dance Studio (our indoors hangouts), but I was avoiding their frivolity, engaged in serious study, while, obviously, inviting an invitation to join in--which, in my moral confusion, I might well have declined.Just as I was concluding this essay of the collection, the part about Sisyphus being happy with his absurd work, Lisa Cox walked in front of the car, headed west towards the church. Now, Lisa was just another pretty girl in our group, not the particular object of any attention from me. Indeed, she was too young, being two years behind in school. But, not being an intimate friend, she was one of those girls I would tend to guiltily objectify as sexual.Here, however, it happened differently. She was beautiful, simply beautiful. Her long, tightly waved brown hair and matching corduroy pants, all bathed in sunlight dappled by the new leaves of the elms filling the park, were lovely. I didn't feel guilty for thinking this. I noticed the absence of guilt feelings. It seemed quite paradoxical, just as Camus' comment about Sisyphus had appeared, but true.I'd call this an ecstatic experience. It didn't last more than a few minutes at most, though the memory of it, and experiences like it, remains clear and cherished.

  • Samra Yusuf
    2018-10-26 23:25

    No matter in what farthest corner of the world you live, which color is of your skin, what kind of habits you’ve grown over the time for you to be known as a busy person, what are the erogenous fantasies your mind weave in the moments of quiet to make you tremble with pleasure, which, from many doctrines you chose to scale the things as “right” and “wrong” which one from countless delusions you’ve opted as religion, or you weren’t the one to opt it, you inherited it like other concrete property, to which fairy god you sold your reason in exchange of a fabricated assurance of hereafter and a hoax of a succor for your inner void, it is absurd to find meaning in the meaninglessness of life, to keep asking questions for which there’s no answer, because life doesn’t offer any, there’s nothing like “truth” in this senseless world Camus puts it as: “That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh” (MS, 21).So, one is inclined to ask, is life worth living? If not, why don’t we cease to exist, as there’s no meaning to keep going on a path which leads to nowhere but right at the point we started our journey from, if there’s no hope of life after this one, why to live this one to begin with, and this leads us to ‘existential anxiety’, for Camus, it is only when one abandons hope, one can live to one’s fullest, 'Abandon hope all ye who enter here' and live because we are our fate, and our frustration is our very life: we can never escape it, and consequently, the truly one philosophical question “suicide” must be out of question, simply not an option, because if life’s not worth living for someone who strives to have a meaning, so is death, there’s no point in committing suicide, because it entails that one is quitting to something he couldn’t grasp, let we be indifferent to what that simply doesn’t make a difference.So did our absurd hero, Sisyphus, who was punished by gods for airing secrecy, he was to lift a boulder heaviest than skies on his shoulders, and climb the mountain, by reaching up, the boulder will roll down with Godspeed and Sisyphus had to watch it all the while, lift the boulder, ascent the mountain, watch it rolling down, for eternity. But the pleasure lies in knowing, Sisyphus knew the meaninglessness of his act, the absurdity of doing it again and again, with no hope in way, with more passion every time he goes down to lift the boulder, with new intensity, never resigning himself to despair, because despair roots out from presence of hope, if there’s no hope otherwise, certainly never is there despair. And for Camus, Sisyphus' triumph is his act of this absurdity “His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing” (MS, 120)..

  • Zanna
    2018-10-20 21:07

    A good friend introduced me to Nietzsche in my early teens, and Nietzsche and I have had a turbulent relationship ever since. One of the first adult books I read was Kafka's The Trial and Nietzsche was there too, inviting me to step off the city on poles into the bottomless swamp.Oh baby hold my handwe're gonna walk on waterNietzsche said there are no facts, no truth. After he said this, some philosophers stopped writing like Kant and wrote like poets. Camus says here that 'there is no truth, merely truths. From the evening breeze to this hand on my shoulder.' Consciousness creates a 'shimmer' of truths.If there is no god and we are all condemned to death and I am conscious then my life is absurd. Existentialists arrived here and made their leaps of faith to gods. Karl Popper made the leap of faith to reason (reason is Popper's god. There is no a priori argument for reason), but Camus does not want to leap, he asks if we can live with what we have, this absurd life, and not kill ourselves. Nietzsche said we make art in order not to commit suicide. Camus tells us that Dostoyevsky found his 'leap' here - if we cannot bear to live without belief in an immortal soul, then the immortal soul must be!Camus will not leap and he will not choose suicide: he decides we can live with what we have if we remain lucid and conscious and don't succumb to illusion. After Camus, some artists created in order to provoke and maintain the absurd consciousness. This is the effect Beckett gets, I think, in Waiting for Godot. The sleeplessness, the watchfulness, the silliness of Camus' absurdity.I have myself been tempted by the leap, to reason or the immortal soul. But in the main I have lived after Nietzsche, without much anguish. I do not find it so hard to 'imagine Sisyphus happy', to watch with Camus as he walks down to the valley of hell after his rock to start over, stronger than the rock then, striding unencumbered. I've been busy and the birds have sung and food has tasted good and love has touched me. (These White men who had so little to do that they were overwhelmed by grief for lost illusions might have felt better after baking a loaf or sweeping out the house. In all seriousness.)Camus gives three sketches of 'absurd men'. Don Juan and the conqueror I have no use for, as with much of this book, I discard them as too mired in patriarchy to use without starting again. But the sketch of the actor sings out to me. 'What matters,' said Nietzsche, 'is not eternal life but eternal vivacity.' All drama is, in fact, in this choice. Not because we should live as though in the limelight, or even because there is no rehearsal (no eternal return) but because in drama the shimmer of truth is shared. Camus does not seem to have thought of this: his absurd man is oh tragically alone (again I advise him: bath the baby, wash the linen). But in the theatre we are not alone, we are fish in the water of each other's truths, we can live them in these mirrors. As another philosopher said, there has never been one person

  • Saleh MoonWalker
    2018-10-26 02:09

    من عصیان می کنم، پس هستم.یکی از بهترین آثار کامو که تا حالا خوندم، توضیحات کامل و جامع و همچنین بیان تفکرات کامو درباره ی Absurd که به نوع خودش عالیه. به اشتباه کامو رو اگزیستانسیالیت میدونن که در واقع ابسردیست بوده. و نکته مهم و کاربردیِ دیگه ای که این کتاب برای من داشت این بود که راهنماییم کرد که داخل سیستم که پیروز شدن یکنفره درونش معنایی نداره و تمام راه ها از قبل چیده شده و راه خروجی از حلقه ی سیستمی وجود نداره، عصیان وجود داره و جزو معدود جواب های کاربردیِ درون سیستم هستش. کتاب عالی ای بود و حتما پیشنهاد می کنم که بخونیدش.سیزیف هر روز سنگ رو تا بالای کوه هل میداد... کاری که به خودیه خودش بی معناست اما عصیان درونش جریان داره :One must imagine Sisyphus happy

  • Luís C.
    2018-11-18 19:36

    As soon as the character of The Stranger abandoned to his sad fate, the desire to stay a little while in the company of Albert Camus came naturally.From a chronological point of view, the choice of the essay The Myth of Sisyphus, also published in 1942 in the framework of the tetralogy "The cycle of the absurd", seems self-evident."There is only one serious philosophical problem: it is suicide." In spite of this first sentence, the end of which smacks like a whip, this essay does not make the apology of suicide, far from it.According to Camus, passion and revolt are the best weapons to combat the absurdity of life.In order to escape from the torment of his own finitude and the uselessness of a life, man must be inhabited by a spirit of human relations, enamored of freedom in the full awareness of his powers and limits.The conquering man must try constantly to strive for "the astonishing greatness of the human mind".Lisbon Book-Fair 2016. The Myth of Sisyphus is an interesting approach to Camusian thought. The title is eloquent but the reading of this work not the least of the grueling.

  • Ian
    2018-11-07 22:28

    The One True Philosophical Problem"The Myth of Sisyphus" purports to be about the "one truly philosophical problem [of] suicide".Perhaps, it's a little sensationalist to define the problem in these terms, at least in the 21st century. Even Camus himself immediately restated the problem as "judging whether life is or is not worth living".Maybe another way is to ask whether, if life is not worth living, does it follow that we should cease to live, e.g., by committing suicide? (It's interesting how we commit four things: errors, crimes, sins, suicide.)Camus tends to assume that, in the absence of God, there is no meaning of life, at least no superimposed, objective meaning of life.Thus, for him, the resulting absurdity is the starting point, not the result of a deductive process.If life is truly meaningless, the question is how to respond?Do we revert to the meaning of life posited by religion and a supernatural being (an irrational response)? Do we commit suicide in order to escape the absence of meaning (the result of despair)? Or do we embrace the absurdity implicit in an absence of meaning without accepting it (revolt)?Franz von Stuck's "Sisyphus" (1920)The ConfrontationFor Camus, we long for meaning. Yet, we don't readily find it. Partly because it isn't there. The absurd is born of "the confrontation between the human need and the unreasonable silence of the world". (29)The absurd is a divorce: "It lies in neither of the elements compared; it is born of their confrontation."And what is the confrontation between? In effect, "the Absurd is not in man...nor in the world, but in their presence together." (30) Absurdity describes a relationship between the two.Not just is the Absurd a confrontation, but it is also an "unceasing struggle", which struggle "implies a total absence of hope, a continual rejection and a conscious dissatisfaction...A man devoid of hope and conscious of being so has ceased to belong to the future." (31)Arguably, a man with no hope has no reason to continue living into the future. Without hope, what awaits us is inevitable death (which awaits us anyway, with or without hope).The EscapeCamus considers that all existentialist attempts to deal with the Absurd "suggest escape...they deify what crushes them and find reason to hope in what impoverishes them."He maintains that "nothing logically prepares this reason. I can call it a leap." Paradoxically, it shares something with a religious leap of faith: "we turn towards God only to obtain the impossible. As for the possible, men suffice." (33)Nevertheless, the leap is an escape. By it, we seek to elude the Absurd.EnduranceIn contrast, Camus argues that "living is keeping the absurd alive." (47)We must keep it alive so that we can confront and endure it. To do so, we must revolt against it:"It is a constant confrontation between man and his own obscurity. It is an insistence upon an impossible transparency...metaphysical revolt extends awareness to the whole of experience...Revolt gives life its value. Spread out over the whole of a life, it restores its majesty to that life. To a man devoid of blinkers, there is no finer sight than that of the intelligence at grips with a reality that transcends it."(47)Camus' solution therefore is consciousness and revolt. (48)Suicide is an illusory solution:"It is essential to die unreconciled [to the Absurd] and not of one's own free will." (49)The RevoltAccording to Camus, man must never surrender or give in. We must live "without appeal" to some greater natural or supernatural authority. Only then are we truly free and responsible. (52)Camus sees the future, inevitably, as an invitation to death. However, he converts the revolt, the refusal to commit suicide, into a rule of life.The Absurd therefore gives us three qualities: our revolt, our freedom, and our passion (for life over death). (55)Camus distinguishes between "renunciation" and "revolt". "Renunciation" is an irrational denial of the absurd, e.g., like religion. Camus writes "consciousness and revolt, these rejections are the contrary of renunciation." Rejection doesn't deny the existence of the absurd, whereas renunciation does."The Point is to Live"These arguments define a metaphysical process, a way of thinking. However, Camus concludes, "The point is to live." (56) We must live without appeal, but informed of our limits. (57)It is "essential to elude nothing. There is thus a metaphysical honour in enduring the world's absurdity. Conquest or play-acting, multiple loves, absurd revolt are tributes that man pays to his dignity in a campaign in which he is defeated in advance." (77)There is honour in battle, honour in confrontation, honour in revolt.Metaphysical Art and LiteratureCamus finds sustenance in art: "The great novelists are philosophical novelists...what distinguishes modern sensibility from classical sensibility is that the latter thrives on moral problems and the former on metaphysical problems." (85)For me, the focus on the metaphysical points to a bridge between modernism and post-modernism. Both are separate from the realist focus on morality, on problems of good and evil. Art is fundamental to our pursuit of freedom in the short time we have on earth. In art, we find "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." (95)Art captures the ephemeral flame that burns passionate and bright for the duration of our short sojourn. The Myth of SisyphusIt's here that Camus introduces the myth of Sisyphus. The burden of Sisyphus is his fate. Perhaps it is a futile and hopeless labour. However, "all Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing." (98)In the same way, "the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols," the illusions that encourage him to elude Absurdity:"There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night."He who recognises this will be the master of his days:"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." (99)So too, we must imagine Sisyphus happy, if we are to be happy, because ultimately our burden is the same.SOUNDTRAK:Soul II Soul - "Get a Life"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EezvP8P...Soul II Soul - "Keep On Movin'"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1iQl46-...

  • StevenGodin
    2018-11-08 20:18

    This was a fascinating insight into a thought provoking question, Albert Camus suggests that suicide amounts to a confession that life is not worth living. He links this confession to what he calls the "feeling of absurdity", that on the whole, we go through life with meaning and purpose, with a sense that we do things for good and profound reasons. Occasionally, however for some at least, we might come to see our daily lives dictated primarily by the forces of habit, thus bringing into question the following, if one feels that the embodiment of freedom is lost to a drone-like existence, all of our actions and reasons for them to a degree become pointless, with a feeling of absurdity linked to meaningless, meaningless to death by ones own hand. Camus in basic terms simply implies that we start to live before the habit of thinking on a deep level takes hold, thus avoiding the consequences of the meaningless nature of life, through what Camus calls an "act of eluding.", we choose not to think about the absurd because our nature is built on that of hopes and dreams for a meaningful life rather than face the consequences of staring into the void.One the main attributes used throughout his fiction, that of "exile" is also included heavily as a comparative for this essay. No one else but Camus could have wrote this work, as soon as you enter his world, the world around you becomes less apparent.

  • Giss Golabetoon
    2018-10-25 20:23

    نميتونم در مورد كامو و يا فلسفه ش حرفى بزنم چون ترجمه كتاب انقد نامفهوم و گاهى انقد خنده دار بود كه نميتونستم حرفهاى كامو رو بفهمم، به نظر مياد اين كتاب چرك نويس ترجمه باشه و نه ترجمه نهايى، نميدونم ايا اين اولين كتابيه كه خانوم بحرينى دست گرفتن و يا چرا كتابى به اين سختى رو انتخاب كردن، به نظرم ميرسه كتاب رو از انگليسى برگردون كردن نه فرانسه و كاش انتشارات نيلوفر يه ويراستار در اختيار اين مترجم قرار ميداد، در ضمن خانم بحرينى اگه اين نقد رو ميخونى فارسى عبارت vicious circle دور باطل ميشه نه دور خبيث، در ترجمه تسلط به زبان مقصد به اندازه زبان مبدا لازمه

  • peiman-mir5 rezakhani
    2018-10-27 23:32

    ‎دوستانِ گرانقدر، در این کتابِ 200 صفحه ای، <آلبر کامو> به مسائلی چون یک تعقل پوچ- انسانِ پوچ- خلقتِ پوچ و در پایان به افسانهٔ <سیزیف> پرداخته است و البته خودش هدف از نوشتن این کتاب را رابطهٔ میانِ "پوچی" و "خودکشی" میداند و اینکه خودکشی راه حلی مناسب است برایِ پوچی-------------------------------------------------------------------------------عزیزانم، افسانهٔ <سیزیف> در موردِ مردی است که خدایان او را محکوم کرده بودند که پیوسته تخته سنگی را تا قلهٔ کوهی بالا ببرد و از آنجا آن تخته سنگ با تمامی وزنش به پایین رها شود و او دوباره به پایین رود و سنگ را به بالا بیاورد... و باید همیشه این کارِ تکراری و بیهوده را انجام میداد.. خدایان فهمیده بودند که چیزی عذاب آورتر از زندگیِ بیهوده نیست و <آلبر کامو> به نوعی زندگی انسانها را همچون مجازاتی که برای <سیزیف> در نظر گرفته شده بود ، پوچ و بیهوده میداند، کارِ کارگران امروزی را که هر روز باید عملی تکراری برای گذران زندگی را انجام دهند، سرنوشتی پوچ میداند و میگوید تا زمانی که انسانها پی به این موضوع نبرند، انجام این زندگیِ بیهوده برایِ آنها غم انگیز نمیباشد.. این انسانِ پوچ همچون <سیزیف> شکنجهٔ خویش را نظاره میکند و تمامی اشخاصِ موردِ پرستش خود را خاموش میکند... <کامو> اعتقاد دارد که هیچ سرنوشتِ خوب و برتری برایِ انسان در نظر گرفته نشده است و اگر چنین سرنوشتی نیز باشد جبری است و قابل تحقیر میباشد در اصل <کامو> با این افسانه خود را آرام کرده است، برایِ <کامو> پذیرفتنِ این وظیفهٔ بیهوده و تکراری که برایِ <سیزیف> در نظر گرفته شده، و تسلیم نشدنِ <سیزیف> یک ارزش میباشد.. <کامو> از این آرامش میگرد که <سیزیف> با بالا و پایین بردن تخته سنگ، حداقل یک کاری انجام میدهد اما دوستانِ عزیز و بزرگوار، آیا ما میتوانیم در یک کارِ بیهوده و پوچ، معنا پیدا کنیم؟؟ آیا باید همچون <سیزیف> خودمان را تسلیمِ بی عدالتی ها کنیم؟؟ و یا اسیرِ کارهای بیهوده شویم و آن را سرنوشتِ خودمان قلمداد کنیم؟؟ این از خردِ انسانی به دور است، این که زندگی و کارهایِ روزمره تبدیل به عادت برایِ ما شود، از خردِ انسانی واقعاً به دور است‎دوستانِ خردگرا و نورِ چشمانم..، در پشتِ عادات ما، انگیزه هایی نهفته است که برای خود ما نیز، غیر قابل تحلیل و فهم میباشد. پس دوستانِ عزیزم، بسیار مراقب عادات خود باشید، تا زندانی و قربانی اوقاتِ بیهوده ای که در شما کاشته اند نگردید... تا میتوانید عادت کنید، که عادت نکنید‎به عنوانِ مثال باید بگویم که دین و ادیانِ گوناگون، اصلاً برای این آمده اند، تا شما را به عادت کردن، عادت دهند. وقتی آموختید که هر لحظه و هر روزِ زندگیتان را، خرج عادتهای دینیِ خود کنید، دیگر مجالی برای پرورش شعور، و توسعهٔ خرد، در شما نخواهد ماند. دین برای این نیامده است تا شما را خردمند کند، و توسعهٔ شعورِ انسانیِ شما را تضمین نماید.. دین آمده است، تا خِردِ شما را، برای مهملاتِ خود کرایه کند. مراقبِ جان یک بار مصرف خود باشید که با کرایه دادنِ خردتان به دین، در کمترین زمان برای همیشه، قربانی متولیان دین خواهید شد‎دین تنها خندقی است، که اگر در آن سقوط کردید، مجالِ رهایی شما از آن برایِ همیشه غیرممکن خواهد بود و سرنوشتتان میشود سرنوشتِ <سیزیف> که باید مدام یک کارِ تکراری و بیهوده را تا آخرِ عمر انجام دهد‎امیدوارم این توضیحات در موردِ این کتاب کافی و مفید بوده باشه‎<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>

  • Nahed.E
    2018-11-12 02:35

    عنوان الكتاب هو أسطورة سيزيف وسيزيف هو الشاب اليوناني الذي حكمت عليه آلهة اليونان بعقاب غريب ومؤلم للغايةوهو أن يجلس تحت سفح جبل عال تعلوه صخرة عملاقة ثم تسقط الصخرة فجأة فوق رأس الشاب .. إلا انها تتوقف قبل رأسه بأمتار قليلة ولك ان تتخيل رعب الشاب وهو ينظر ويجد الصخرة تهوي فوق رأسه ، والأمر لا يتوقف عند هذا ، بل أن الشاب محكوم عليه بأن يحمل الصخرة فوق كتفيه ويصعد الجبل ليضعها فوق قمته ، ثم تسقط الصخرة مرة أخري ، ليحملها الشاب ، وهكذا إلي الابدوقد اختار ألبير كامي هذا العنوان ليعبر عن الفكرة التي يؤمن بها وهي فكرة العبثية فكل شئ في نظره عبث × عبث ولا غاية منه ، كما كان عقاب الآلهة لهذا الشاب عبث ولا غاية منهويري كامي أن كلنا في الحياة سيزيف فكلنا يعاني ..والحياة تعب × تعب ولا غاية منها ولا إليها .. ولكني طبعا لا أتفق مع حديثه عن فكرة الانتحار والتي لا تتفق علي الإطلاق مع الأديان السماوية وليست حلاً علي الإطلاق ، بل هي هروب ويأس وعبث .. ولا يمكن ان تُقام حياة وتُبني حضارة .. بل لا يمكن أن تبني حياتك أنت الشخصية مع هذه الفكرة المجنونة ..ولو نظرنا للطريقة التي مات بها البير كامي نفسه لوجدنا أنها لا تتفق إطلاقا مع فكرة العبثية .. فلقد كان مضطراً للسفر ، وحجز بالفعل تذكرتين للقطار له ولصديقه الذي سيسافر معه .. ولكن صديقه أراد أن يسافرا بالسيارة ، وفعلا سافرا بالسيارة، وتعرضا لحادث أودي بحياتهما معا، ووجدا التذكرتين في جيبه ..كل شئ له سبب، وله غاية ..يقول الله تعالي :{ أَفَحَسِبْتُمْ أَنَّمَا خَلَقْنَاكُمْ عَبَثًا وَأَنَّكُمْ إِلَيْنَا لَا تُرْجَعُونَ }سورة المؤمنون الأية / 115قد قيمته بــ 5 نجمات لعمق الفكر الفلسفي فيه ، وليس لانني أتفق مع أفكارهجدير بالذكر أن كامي الفيلسوف الفرنسي الشهير قد ولد في الجزائر، وكان طالبا في جامعة الجزائر، ثم لاعبا لكرة القدم في المنتخب الجزائري ، ثم التحق بالمقاومة الفرنسية ضد الاحتلال النازي أثناء إقامته متخفياً في باريس ، ثم التقي بسارتر عام 1943 ، وحصل علي جائزة نوبل في الأدب 1650 وتوفي عام 1960 كامي مع المنتخب الجزائري (من يمسك بالكرة )كامي مع سارتر

  • BlackOxford
    2018-11-11 18:10

    Assisted LivingIt was that Jewish heretic Paul of Tarsus who gave us the idea that we are not in charge of our lives but are merely responsible for them to God who owns us. It was the English philosopher John Locke, a heretic to Pauline Calvinism, who casually pointed out that in fact our lives are the only thing we do have complete charge over, the only thing every one of us owns and can dispose of. And it was Albert Camus, a heretic to any and all sources of power, who took Locke entirely seriously by pointing out that how we dispose of life is the central issue of not just life but philosophy. The result is Sisyphus.The followers of previous heretics - evangelical Christians, PC and wet liberals - don't like Camus. But they can't fault his conclusions. They may not approve of his marketing of suicide as a universally available option for disposing of life, but these are the same people who don't approve of gay sex or the discussion of religion in public. So hardly credible. Clearly Camus's analysis includes both Paul's and Locke's as special cases, and is therefore superior to them both. Camus doesn't advocate suicide; he does advocate its importance to life and thought. Without it we are dead, as it were, all but physically. Habit and chance rule. Life is not inherently absurd but becomes so when death, specifically self-inflicted death, is not on the table. Evasions - illusion, after-life, hope, consuming, power, sex, reputation - become the norm that is socially enforced. Eliminating evasions is what Camus is trying to do.There is rarely a page in Sisyphus without a phrase to savour and as memorable as anything in Montaigne. Just for openers:p2: "I have never seen anyone die for the ontological argument."p3: "Beginning to think is beginning to be undermined."p4: "A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world."So even if the logic gets you down, you have some rather sustaining prose to exchange with the spouse or functional equivalent over breakfast.

  • Rowland Pasaribu
    2018-11-01 02:21

    Albert Camus (1913–1960) is not a philosopher so much as a novelist with a strong philosophical bent. He is most famous for his novels of ideas, such as The Stranger and The Plague, both of which are set in the arid landscape of his native Algeria.Camus studied philosophy at the University of Algiers, which brought him into contact with two of the major branches of twentieth century philosophy: existentialism and phenomenology. Existentialism arises from an awareness that there is no pre-ordained meaning or order in the universe and that we must take responsibility for determining the meaning and order we are to give to our lives. Camus is particularly interested in religious existentialists, such as Kierkegaard (though such a label is not entirely fair to Kierkegard), who conclude that there is no meaning to be found in human experience, and that this necessitates a "leap of faith" that places an irrational and blind faith in God.Phenomenology, as advocated by Edmund Husserl, confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections. Like existentialism, phenomenology influenced Camus by its effort to construct a worldview that does not assume that there is some sort of rational structure to the universe that the human mind can apprehend.This idea—that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend—characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of twentieth century European philosophy has been a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend.Camus wrote The Myth of Sisyphus around the same time he wrote his first novel, The Stranger, at the beginning of World War II. Camus was working for the French Resistance in Paris at this time, far from his native Algeria. While it is never wise to reduce ideas to their autobiographical background, the circumstances in which this essay was written can help us understand its tone. The metaphor of exile that Camus uses to describe the human predicament and the sense that life is a meaningless and futile struggle both make a great deal of sense coming from a man, far from his home, who was struggling against a seemingly omnipotent and senselessly brutal regime.The central concern of The Myth of Sisyphus is what Camus calls "the absurd." Camus claims that there is a fundamental conflict between what we want from the universe (whether it be meaning, order, or reasons) and what we find in the universe (formless chaos). We will never find in life itself the meaning that we want to find. Either we will discover that meaning through a leap of faith, by placing our hopes in a God beyond this world, or we will conclude that life is meaningless. Camus opens the essay by asking if this latter conclusion that life is meaningless necessarily leads one to commit suicide. If life has no meaning, does that mean life is not worth living? If that were the case, we would have no option but to make a leap of faith or to commit suicide, says Camus. Camus is interested in pursuing a third possibility: that we can accept and live in a world devoid of meaning or purpose.As his starting point, Camus takes up the question of whether, on the one hand, we are free agents with souls and values, or if, on the other hand, we are just matter that moves about with mindless regularity. Reconciling these two equally undeniable perspectives is one of the great projects of religion and philosophy.One of the most obvious—and on reflection, one of the most puzzling—facts about human existence is that we have values. Having values is more than simply having desires: if I desire something, I quite simply want it and will try to get it. My values go beyond my desires in that by valuing something, I do not simply desire it, but I also somehow judge that that something ought to be desired. In saying that something ought to be desired, I am assuming that the world ought to be a certain way. Further, I only feel the world ought to be a certain way if it is not entirely that way already: if there was no such thing as murder it would not make sense for me to say that people should not commit murder. Thus, having values implies that we feel the world ought to be different from the way it is.Our capacity to see the world both as it is and as it ought to be allows us to look at ourselves in two very different lights. Most frequently, we see others and ourselves as willing, free agents, people who can deliberate and make choices, who can decide what's best and pursue certain ends. Because we have values it only makes sense that we should also see ourselves as capable of embodying those values. There would be no point in valuing certain qualities if we were incapable of acting to realize those qualities.While we generally take this outlook, there is also the outlook of the scientist, of trying to see the world quite simply as it is. Scientifically speaking, this is a world divested of values, made up simply of matter and energy, where mindless particles interact in predetermined ways. There is no reason to think that humans are any exception to the laws of science. Just as we observe the behavior of ants milling about, mindlessly following some sort of mechanical routine, we can imagine alien scientists might also observe us milling about, and conclude that our behavior is equally predictable and routine-oriented.The feeling of absurdity is effectively the feeling we get when we come to see ourselves in the second of these two alternative perspectives. This is a strictly objective worldview that looks at things quite simply as they are. Values are irrelevant to this worldview, and without values there seems to be no meaning and no purpose to anything we do. Without values, life has no meaning and there is nothing to motivate us to do one thing rather than another.Though we may never have tried to rationalize this feeling philosophically, the feeling of absurdity is one that we have all experienced at some point in our life. In moments of depression or uncertainty, we might shrug and ask, "what's the point of doing anything?" This question is essentially a recognition of absurdity, a recognition that, from at least one perspective, there is no point in doing anything.Camus often refers metaphorically to the feeling of absurdity as a place of exile. Once we have acknowledged the validity of the perspective of a world without values, of a life without meaning, there is no turning back. We cannot simply forget or ignore this perspective. The absurd is a shadow cast over everything we do. And even if we choose to live as if life has a meaning, as if there are reasons for doing things, the absurd will linger in the back of our minds as a nagging doubt that perhaps there is no point.It is generally supposed that this place of exile—the absurd—is uninhabitable. If there is no reason for doing anything, how can we ever do anything? The two main ways of escaping the feeling of absurdity are suicide and hope. Suicide concludes that if life is meaningless then it is not worth living. Hope denies that life is meaningless by means of blind faith.Camus is interested in finding a third alternative. Can we acknowledge that life is meaningless without committing suicide? Do we have to at least hope that life has a meaning in order to live? Can we have values if we acknowledge that values are meaningless? Essentially, Camus is asking if the second of the two worldviews sketched above is livable.Camus is not a philosopher and he is not interested in engaging the aforementioned thinkers in an intellectual debate. As in the previous chapter, where he rejected rationalism, Camus is not trying to refute these thinkers. He does not give us arguments as to why their thinking is askew, but simply gives us reasons as to why he finds their thinking unsatisfying.Camus reduces the problem that interests him to two basic facts: first, that man expects and hopes to find some sort of meaning in the world, and second, that whatever meaning the world may have is concealed from man. It is important to note that Camus does not deny that God exists or that there is some inherent meaning or purpose behind everything. He simply claims that he has no way of knowing whether or not there is a God or meaning or purpose. His aim in The Myth of Sisyphus is to determine whether or not it is possible to live simply with what he knows. That is, can he live with those two basic facts, or does he need either to hope for something more (a God or meaning or purpose) or to commit suicide?The absurd is the relationship that links these two basic facts. It is absurd that I should expect the universe to have a meaning when the universe itself is so resolutely silent. Because the absurd is the relationship that links the only two basic facts we can know for certain, Camus asserts that the absurd is our fundamental relationship with the world. The absurd is a fundamental truth and Camus takes it as his duty to follow out its logic.The absurd is also essentially a conflict. We demand meaning but the universe gives us none. The dissatisfaction we feel with our lot in life is fundamental to the absurd, and any attempt to resolve this dissatisfaction is an attempt to escape from absurdity.Camus's complaint against the four thinkers discussed in this chapter is that, each in his own way attempts to escape from absurdity. To do this, each thinker must reject one of the two basic facts that Camus has taken as his starting point. Jaspers, Chestov, and Kierkegaard reject the need for reason and purpose in the world. They embrace the idea that the world is irrational, and find God in this idea. Husserl rejects the idea that we cannot find meaning in the world, claiming to find essences behind its mute phenomena.Camus is not a philosopher, and he is not accusing these thinkers of reasoning wrongly. He is simply accusing them of not finding content in what they can know. All four go beyond the basic, undeniable facts of experience to assert that there is something more, something transcendent, something that resolves the dissatisfaction caused by their confrontation with the absurd. They are not mistaken in doing so, but they are avoiding the question that seems to Camus to be fundamental: do weneed to assert that there is something more in order to live? Camus's problem is a hypothetical one: if there is nothing more than rational humans in an irrational universe, can we live with the absurdity of that situation?The route Camus takes here is committed to shunning philosophy. He purports to be interested only in whether a certain proposition is livable, not whether it is true. If he were to try to assert his own metaphysical position, if he were to try to claim that such-and-such is the case, he would then be burdened with the responsibility of proving the superiority of his metaphysical position over those of other philosophers.All this is relevant because Camus comes dangerously close to metaphysics when he asserts that the absurd is our fundamental relationship with the world and that our need for reasons and the silence of the universe are the two basic facts of human existence. Camus might defend himself by saying that these assertions do not come from any positive knowledge about the nature of the world, but are rather all that is left over when he denies himself any positive knowledge. The absurd is our fundamental relationship with the world because it does not rely on claims to know anything about the world beyond what is given to us. Is it… :D

  • M.rmt
    2018-11-10 22:31

    برای خوندن این کتاب نیاز به پیش زمینه های بیشتری داشتم،جوری که احساس می کنم هنوز وقتش نشده.البته اگه ترجمه سخت و غلط های املایی زیادشو نادیده بگیریم.از نظر کامو نه انسان پوچه و نه دنیا بلکه رابطه ی بین ماست که پوچی رو میسازه.کامو معتقده پی بردن به پوچی مساوی با آغاز بلوغه و در این لحظست که باید عصیانگر شد و با دنیا مقابله کرد.ما آدما هم باید مثل سیزیف هر روز سنگمونو از قله بالا ببریم و بدون توجه به نفرینی که گریبان مارو گرفته به این کار ادامه بدیم.باید_دوباره_بخونم

  • Emad Attili
    2018-10-22 22:14

    ‎‫‏‬‬‬‬‬‬‬“It happens that the stage sets collapse. Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm – this path is easily followed most of the time. But one day the “why” arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement.”I love Camus! I just LOVE him!He has that weird ability to draw my full attention, and to make me lose the track of time whenever I read the books he wrote.Years ago, I first met Camus when I read his magnificent novel The Stranger. Since then, I knew that I won’t stop reading for him until I finish all of his books – more than once for sure! Yes, the writer who forces me to read his books many times without feeling bored, is not just a writer – but a true immortal inspiration.Side Note: It is unfortunate, though, to have only MALE favorite writers! I struggle to find a FEMALE favorite writer! This is a real trouble! And I’m afraid if it continued it will turn my gay hormones on over time! Okay. What is this book about? It talks about many things, most importantly Absurdity, Suicide, and the meaning of life. These are BIG topics, and the fact that Camus is the one who tackled them makes them much BIG-GER! You need to really FOCUS while reading these philosophical essays, and you need to be familiar with some existential and absurd writers, such as: Dostoyevsky and Kafka. Camus talks in length about them and discusses their novels and ideas in a very deep way. So, if you’re not familiar with those AMAZING writers, then I suggest you read some of their works before reading this book (I suggest Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, and Kafka’s Metamorphosis – at least!).I’m truly happy right now because I had the chance to read this book (thanks to my dear friend Samra) and I’m really sad! Because this book literally BLEW my mind and BROKE my heart!I recommend it. IT IS A MUST READ!

  • Andrei Tamaş
    2018-11-13 00:15

    "Nu există decât o problemă filosofică într-adevăr importantă: sinuciderea. A hotărî dacă viată merită sau nu trăită înseamnă a răspunde la problema fundamentală a filosofiei!" Aşa priveşte Camus, iar raţionamentul lui este destul de simplu: dat fiind că problema crucială a filosofiei este aceea de a hotărî dacă viată merită sau nu trăită, nu are rost -e absurd!- să mergi cu gândirea mai departe. De ce? Pentru că, dacă răspunsul dat ar fi "nu", toate raţionamentele ulterioare ar fi nule. Asta în planul absurdului cotidian, însă Camus dedică un capitol şi "sinuciderii filosofice": "Cel care trăieşte sub acest cer de plumb nu are de ales decât între a fugi şi a rămâne. Vreau să ştiu cum se fuge de aici sau de ce se rămâne". Această sinucidere filosofică este văzută deci nu că o moarte fizică în sine, ci ca o debarasare de propria conştiinţă care este bazată pe regrete. Existenţialistul -deci omul absurd- nu ar trebui să aibă niciodată regrete. Dacă în trecut a greşit (sau aşa consideră), pe viitor nu face altceva decât să proiecteze situaţia cu aferentă corecţie.."A te omorî înseamnă, într-un sens, ca şi în melodramă, a mărturisi. A mărturisi că eşti depăşit de viaţă sau că nu o înţelegi". În acest sens se face o trimitere la Kirilov, "eroul" romanului Demonii, de Dostoievski, un roman pe care Camus îl "diseaca" şi redă în paginile scrierii de faţă măcar un dram din esenţă. Idea romanului dostoievskian este dată de condiţia sinucigaşului: Simte că Dumnezeu e necesar şi că El trebuie să existe. Dar, totodată, ştie că Dumnezeu nu există şi că El nu poate exista. "Cum de nu înţelegi, exclamă el, că acest motiv e suficient pentru a te omorî?" Raţionamentul e de o claritate clasică. Dacă Dumnezeu nu există, Kirilov este Dumnezeu. Dacă Dumnezeu nu există, Kirilov trebuie să se omoare , Kirilov trebuie deci să se omoare pentru a fi dumnezeu. Şi -în fapt- rezumatul istoriei universale de până acum nu ar fi altul decât acesta: "Omul l-a născocit pe Dumnezeu că să nu se omoare!"Aşadar, "Mitul lui Sisif" nu reprezintă altceva decât baza filosofiei şi a curentului existenţialist. Oricât ar ciopârti Sartre terminologia sa filosofică, nu poate reda ideile atât de fluent precum o face Camus. Dacă Sartre se pierde în detalii abstracte (ceea ce contravine, într-o oarecare măsură, absurdului), Camus precizează degajat principiile existenţialiste în detrimentul curentelor de gândire anterioare. Şi, la urma urmei, consider că existenţialistul nu a fost nicicând mai bine definit: "Toate moralele sunt întemeiate pe ideea că un act are consecinţe care-l legitimează sau îl anulează. Un spirit pătruns de ideea absurdului socoteşte numai că aceste urmări trebuie privite cu seninătate. El este gata să plătească. Altfel spus, dacă pentru el poate să existe responsabilitate, în schimb nu există vinovăţie. Cel mult, va consimţi să se folosească de experienţă să trecută, spre a-şi întemeia pe ea actele sale viitoare." Se face astfel distincţia dintre moralul general (sau universal) şi cel individual. În existenţialism, moralul individual este deasupra celui universal tocmai pentru că acesta din urmă nu există.Andrei Tamaş,21 octombrie 2015

  • Yakup
    2018-11-01 23:20

    Birçok sayfada kendimi buldum. Sorgulayan ve farkındanlık ile yoğrulmuş bir bilincin mutlaka içinde kendine bir pay bulabileceği bir baş yapıt...

  • Mahdi Lotfi
    2018-10-30 00:32

    آلبر کامو در ۷ نوامبر ۱۹۱۳ در دهکده‌ای کوچک در الجزایر به دنیا آمد. پدرش «لوسین کامو» یک سال بعد از به دنیا آمدن او در نبرد مارن در جنگ جهانی اول کشته شد و از آن به بعد او همراه با مادرش (که اصالتاً اسپانیایی بود) به خانهٔ مادر مادری‌اش در الجزیره می‌رود. خانوادهٔ کامو جزو آن دسته از مهاجرانی بودند که از فرانسه برای گرفتن زمین و کشاورزی به الجزایر آمده بودند.کودکی کامو در یک زندگی فقیرانه‌ٔ طبقه‌ٔ کارگری سپری شد. فقر، احترام به رنج و همدردی با بی چارگان را به او یاد داد. پسندخاطر غریزی کامو قناعت و بی پیرایگی بود. در جزیرهٔ فقر، خود را در خانهٔ خویش احساس می‌کرد.خود او گفته‌است که آفتاب الجزیره و فقر محله بلکور چه مفهومی برایش داشت: «فقر مانع این شد که فکر کنم زیر آفتاب و در تاریخ، همه چیز خوب است. آفتاب به من آموخت که تاریخ، همه چیز نیست.» او به موجب پافشاری «لوئی ژرمن» معلم مدرسه ابتدایی‌اش بود که توانست تحصیلات متوسطه را ادامه دهد.در سال ۱۹۳۴ به حزب کمونیست پیوست که در آن وظیفه‌ٔ عضوگیری از میان پرولتاریای عرب را بر عهده داشت. بعدها این حزب (به دستور شوروی استالینی)، کامو را به عنوان یک تروتسکیست محکوم و از حزب اخراج کرد (۱۹۳۶).یسانس فلسفه را در سال ۱۹۳۵ گرفت در ماه مه سال ۱۹۳۶ پایان‌نامه خود را دربارهٔ فلوطین ارائه داد.در سال ۱۹۳۹، مجموعه مقالاتی به عنوان «فقر قبیله» منتشر کرد.در ۱۹۳۴ با «سیمون‌های» ازدواج کرد که معتاد به مورفین بود. ازدواج آنها یک سال بعد در اثر خیانت سیمون خاتمه یافت. در ۱۹۴۰ با «فرانسین فور» ازدواج کرد.با نزدیک‌تر شدن جنگ جهانی دوم، کامو به عنوان سرباز داوطلب شد، اما به دلیل بیماری سل او را نپذیرفتند. او در این زمان سردبیر روزنامهٔ عصر جمهوری شده بود که در ژانویهٔ سال ۱۹۴۰ دستگاه سانسور الجزایر آن را تعطیل کرد. در مارس همان سال فرماندار الجزیره، آلبر کامو را به عنوان تهدیدی برای امنیت ملی معرفی کرد و به او پیشنهاد کرد که شهر را ترک کند. در این هنگام کامو به پاریس رفت.او کار خود را در روزنامهٔ عصر پاریس شروع کرد بعدها برای دوری از ارتش نازی به همراه دیگر کارمندان روزنامه، ابتدا به شهر کلرمون فران و سپس به شهر غربی بوردو نقل مکان کرد.در ۱۹42 کامو، رُمان بیگانه و مجموعه مقالات فلسفی خود تحت عنوان افسانه سیزیف را منتشر کرد.نمایشنامهٔ کالیگولا را در سال ۱۹۴۳ به چاپ رسانید. او این نمایش‌نامه را تا اواخر دههٔ پنجاه بارها بازنویسی و ویرایش کرد. در سال ۱۹۴۳ کامو کتابی را به نام نامه‌هایی به یک دوست آلمانی نیز به صورت مخفیانه به چاپ رسانید.کامو تا پایان عمر خود مخالف استقلال الجزایر و اخراج الجزایریهای فرانسوی‌تبار بود ولی در عین حال هیچ‌گاه از گفتگو در مورد فقدان حقوق مسلمانان دست برنداشت.کامو در آخرین مقاله‌ای که در مورد الجزایر نوشت تلاش کرد از گونه‌ای فدراسیون متشکل از فرهنگ‌های مختلف بر مبنای مدل سوئیس برای الجزایر دفاع کند که این نیز با مخالفت شدید طرفین دعوا روبرو شد.از آن به بعد کامو به خلق آثار ادبی پرداخت و داستان‌هایی کوتاه که مربوط به الجزایر بودند را منتشر ساخت. او در عین حال به تئاتر پرداخت. دو نمایش‌نامه اقتباسی در سوگ راهبه اثر ویلیام فاکنر و جن‌زدگان اثر فیودور داستایوسکی از کارهای کامو در تئاتر بود که با استقبال زیادی روبرو شدند.سقوط در سال ۱۹۵۶ به رشتهٔ تحریر درآمد.بعد از ظهر چهارم ژانویه ۱۹۶۰ در ۲۴ کیلومتری شهر سانس در بزرگراه RN۵ حاشیهٔ دهکدهٔ پتی‌ویل نزدیک مونته‌رو یک خودرو فاسل-وگا از جاده منحرف می‌شود و به درختی می‌کوبد و تکه تکه می‌شود. آلبر کامو در صندلی عقب خودرو نشسته بود. اودر این سفر همراه خانوادهٔ دوست ناشرش میشل گالیمار بود.موضوع بیشتر آثار او «پوچ گرایی » (بی معنی بودن هستی انسان در زمین) بود و در کشف راه حل های مثبت برای مسائلی که پوچ گرایی ارائه می داشت پیوسته تلاش می کرد. به عنوان مثال کامو در اسطوره سیزیف چهره انسانی را نشان می دهد که ناگریز است وظیفه ای پوچ را به انجام برساند ، انسانی که در عین حال انجام چنین وظیفه ای شاق از رسیدن به خوشبختی غافل نیست . انسان کامو پوچی را می پذیرد اما به یاری همه سلاح هایی که در اختیار دارد با آن به نبرد برمی خیزد .معنای زندگى از مسائلی است که امروزه به صورت جدی برای متفکران و اندیشمندان فلسفی مغرب زمین مطرح است. با مروری اجمالی در مسائل حوزه‌های فلسفه، روانشناسى، اخلاق، فلسفه دین و کلام جدید به این نتیجه می‌رسیم که معنای زندگى پر رنگ تر از دیگر مسائل در شاخه‌های یاد شده از دانش، مطرح است. در جهان معاصر پدیده‌های گوناگونی چون اضطراب، افسردگى، یأس و نومیدى، پوچی و... در ارتباط مستقیم با مسئله معنای زندگى است. رواج روزافزون اموری مانند خودکشى، سست شدن پیوندهای خانوادگى، طلاق، افزایش اعتیاد به مواد مخدر و توهم زا همگی ناشی از نحوه نگرش خاص انسانها به مسئله معنای زندگى است. آلبرکامو معنای زندگى را فوری و فوتی ترین مسئله می‌داند.نهایتا در سال ۱۹۵۷ جایزهٔ نوبل ادبیات را برای نوشتن مقاله «اندیشه هایی درباره گیوتین» علیه مجازات اعدام، دریافت کرد. او از نظر جوانی دومین نویسنده‌ای بود که تا آن روز جایزه نوبل را گرفته‌اند.بخشی از کتاب: خدایان سیزیف را محکوم کرده بودند که دائما سنگی را به بالای کوه بغلتاند ، تا جاییکه سنگ به خاطر وزنش به پایین می افتاد. انها به دلایلی فکر میکردند که تنبیه وحشتناک تری از کار عبث و بی امید وجود ندارد...

  • Junta
    2018-11-16 22:11

    Hallelujah, I've finished. I think this was the slowest pace at which I read a book since joining Goodreads. For now (and possibly for eternity), three points:1. if I were Sisyphus, a good punishment the gods could deal out to me would be to ceaselessly make me re-read this for eternity;2. as much as I struggled with this book, I don't regret picking it up - as Calvino says, Every new book I read comes to be a part of that overall and unitary book that is the sum of my readings... things won't be so easy for you next time, philosophy; and3. I want to read The Castle in the near future. The last 15 pages of this book (the Appendix) were on Hope and The Absurd in the Work of Franz Kafka.Mid-reading blabbering (February 24, 2016): (view spoiler)[I was going to save writing a (non-?) review on this book until I've finished it, but it's been taking me longer than I expected, and perhaps more importantly, I seem to be an insomniac tonight, so I have decided to blabber into the cool, dark night that is the world around me at present. This is the first philosophical essay I've picked up - I've had a rather confused relationship with philosophy in general, as if I'm trying to add things up in my head without having ever learnt the notion of the plus-sign, or I just didn't comprehend what people see as attractive in a film. I feel I'm missing something on a fundamental level that most people have no trouble with.During my undergraduate, I took a number of philosophy courses - it seemed like something I should try, as someone who lives inside their head most of the time. In my first philosophy course I took in my final year, mostly comprised of first-year students, we would look at the history of philosophy over the semester - introductory stuff, skimming over different philosophers, thoughts and movements in history each week.Now, so I don't paint an overly bleak picture of my life, I am going to note in advance that in the courses I found interesting through university, I was an active contributor to discussions. I was quite embarrassed about this at the time, but now I can wryly list it as a proud achievement - over the whole semester with this course, I did not open my mouth once during the tutorials (weekly, discussion-based classes complementing the lectures, with 15-20 students) to contribute to discussions. Materially, I suffered a little as 10% of our course grade was made up of this facet.My problem with discussions on philosophers and philosophical schools was, and has been this: how can we have personal opinions on big, unanswerable questions (presupposing an attitude of rational observation), especially ones which we are not very well acquainted with, worth sharing? Of course, the overarching factor here would be that I have always detested sharing my thoughts to people I don't know well if I don't find it necessary (verbally - here I am writing to the world wide web). I naturally lean towards keeping my thoughts to myself.What I seem to struggle with in philosophy, and perhaps non-fiction overall, is that it posits interpretations, as opposed to fiction in which interpretation is completely open (or perhaps 'unnecessary'), and it is impressions which the pages bring to our souls instead. To have impressions or interpretations concerning impressions is fine, but to have them about interpretations - I think this may be what I struggle with. Reading about philosophy through my courses, I could never get past a detached interest, of 'well, sure, it's interesting, but...' But what? I'm still thinking about this question (read: I have some ideas but I'll save that for another time). This book has been no exception - I don't mind it, and I will finish it - but I struggle to find what I really think about it. I'll be groping around in the dark.Wise Goodreads friends, these lines have been all over the place, and I don't know for what purpose I've written this, other than to simply pen my thoughts - apologies if it's all been nonsensical. If you have any words that might help me please do not hesitate to write them. (hide spoiler)]March 18, 2016

  • Czarny Pies
    2018-11-12 23:30

    I read this book shortly after Albert Camus' death when he was at the height of his popularity. As I was in high school, it may have been the first philosophical work that that I ever read. By the time I arrived at university three years later, the academics were hooting at it. The pedants asserted that the work demonstrated only the extent to which Camus the novelist was out of his depth as a philosopher.I do not think that many of the profs from my era foresaw that Camus' works would have a bigger following in this century than those of his rival and foe Jean Paul Sartre. I think that this work has the great virtue of clarity. I recommend this work to any teenager who has read "L'étranger." It provides an excellent introduction for the young reader to philosophical writing.

  • Vaso
    2018-11-16 22:16

    Με τη φιλοσοφία γενικότερα δεν τα πάω και πολύ καλα.. Έμ, καλα να πάθω θα μου πείτε αφού επέλεξα να διαβασω το συγκεκριμμένο δοκίμιο.Κάπου συμφωνούσα και μπορούσα να καταλάβω τον συλλογισμό του και κάπου το έχανα..Δεν ξερω τι να πω... Ίσως παραμεγάλωσα για φιλοσοφικού περιεχομένου αναγνώσματα....😉😉😉😉

  • Raha
    2018-10-29 00:10

    نصف کتاب رو خوندم، حوصله م سر رفت ولش کردم.اولین کتابی که در طول عمرم نصفه رهاش کردم ، افتخارش هم نصیب آقای کامو شد.متاسفانه هرگز فلسفه ی نوشته های این نویسنده رو درک نکردم :(

  • ΣωτήρηςΑδαμαρέτσος
    2018-10-29 23:24

    Απ τα βιβλία που πρέπει να διαβαστούν πολλές φορές. Είναι η δεύτερη του ανάγνωση και φυσικά θα επανέλθω σε 2-3 χρόνια, πάλι... Γραμμένο μέσα στον πόλεμο, το 1942, μιλά για το παράλογο απέναντι στο βέβαιο μέλλον του ανθρώπου και το αστηρικτο της αυτοκτονίας. Καθαρά φιλοσοφικό δοκίμιο· ο Καμυ με το έργο αυτό λαμβάνει θέση στη κλίμακα των μεγάλων στοχαστών και θέτει το ερώτημα του παραλόγου απέναντι στην ζωή και την σθεναρή στάση του ανθρώπου απέναντι στο αναπόφευκτο, τον θάνατο! Αποτέλεσε το έργο σφραγίδα στην σκέψη του· το 1958 ακολούθησε το "ο εξεγερμένος άνθρωπος "Προσωπικά λατρεύω το κομμάτι για τον δοζουανισμο του παραλόγου ανθρώπου (ο Καμυ ήταν γυναικάς, με πολλές παράλληλες σχέσεις) και την θεατρική φιλοσοφία του παραλόγου που ζει πολλές ζωές σε μία. Πιο σκεπτικός παρέμεινα στο τελευταίο κομμάτι του δημιουργού ανθρώπου όπου στοιχειωθετει την δημιουργία του παραλόγου έργου και μίλα για την παρουσία αυτού στο μυθιστόρημα με κύρια αναφορά στους Ντοστογοεφσκι και Κάφκα! Εντούτοις δεν μπορώ να μην παρατηρήσω ότι η δημιουργία αφεαυτη, κάθε έργο δλδ, ζουν συνήθως περισσότερο (η ποσότητα) απ τον δημιουργό! Ίσως το ίδιο το έργο της τέχνης να είναι η απάντηση στην προβληματική του απέναντι στο παράλογο. Και αυτό μοιάζει να μην θέλει να το αχηματοποιησει... Το τέλος του έργου, με το μύθο του Σίσυφου είναι το crème de la crème όλου του έργου του Καμυ! Όποιος το "κατέχει" προχωρά αλλιώς στην ζωή· μπορεί να φανταστεί τον εαυτό του, ευτυχισμένο...

  • Shaghayegh.l3
    2018-11-15 22:33

    يه جاهاييشو هرچقد ميخوندم نميفهميدم و الان كه تمومش كردم مثه پازلى ميمونه كه چندتيكه ش گم شده و هرچند شكل كلى پازل پيداس اما دلم ميخواس تكميل تكميل ميشد . يه جاهايى جمله ها تو ذهنم نمينشستن ، نميدونم بازم مترجمو مقصر بدونم يا مشكل ذهن خودم بوده .. به هرحال خيلى هم با پوچى سروكار ندارم تو زندگيم جز يه مورد؛ اونم وقتيه كه كسى بپرسه هدفت تو زندگى چيه ؟ و ميشنوه : "هيچى ، هدفى ندارم ."

  • Jonathan Terrington
    2018-11-17 01:29

    Mythology is a passion of mine and has been ever since I was a younger child - an age when I had much greater clarity of mind than I do now and was hampered less by outward influences. Therefore, to see Albert Camus write a sequence of differing essays which explore existentialism (whether he was truly an 'existentialist' is a matter of debate and conjecture but he was interested in existentialist concepts) in a manner that connects back to mythology was fascinating.For those who are unaware, the myth of Sisyphus does (as with any Greek or Roman myths) differ from source to source. Some say he escaped from Hades (or Pluto) on the pretext of gaining revenge upon his wife, but fell in love with being alive again. Naturally this was an affront to Hades (having a dead man alive in the world) and so Sisyphus was dragged back down into the Greek or Roman versions of hell. As I said there are other versions (some of which say that Sisyphus was punished for hubris and believing he was greater than Zeus) - but the key facet of the myth that Camus addresses is the punishment of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was set the eternal punishment of rolling an incredibly heavy stone, some kind of boulder, up a hill for the hellish equivalent of one day. Every day he rolled the boulder up the hill and every day the boulder returned to the bottom before he reached the top. It is an eternal punishment cycle that defeated Sisyphus in the regularity of its routine.What Camus writes about, therefore, in relation to the myth of Sisyphus, is the existential idea about the reality of the world. In his other books, such as The Stranger or The Fall, Camus explores the idea that life is abstract, further that it is absurd. It is this conceit that he details in this short collection of essays - the notion that life is absurd and full of mechanical repetition.We all, to Camus, are like Sisyphus, and the great humorous tragedy of life is to believe that, absurdly, we can set out into the face of overwhelming defeat and triumph. Personally, I must admit that existentialism itself, with the particularly negative bent it always seems to through up, is in itself meaningless to me, yet the ideas Camus is discussing here are fascinating and still applicable. Though I believe life has purpose, there are times where we all are Sisyphus. The point at which we reach the top of the hill and look back on where we came from, only to see the boulder crash back down and realise that we are stuck in the repetitive cycle of continuing to continue on.

  • Fernando
    2018-10-20 00:11

    Una maravilla de libro que me permite seguir descubriendo a este genio de la literatura mundial. Camus desarrolla un ensayo de alto vuelo filosófico sobre el Absurdo a partir de una galería de personajes literarios, pensadores y escritores, entre ellos Sísifo, Kafka, Nietzche, Kierkegaard, Kirilov de Los Demonios, y Don Juan entre otros; uniendo literatura con filosofía, ahondando en la temática del suicidio y mostrándonos su particular visión existencialista sobre estos temas que son parte inherente del ser humano.

  • Atefeh
    2018-10-26 02:13

    سیزیف و کاری که انجام میده که همون غلتاندن تخته سنگی تا قله ی کوه و سرانجام دوباره افتادن سنگ نماد پوچیه. اما چیزی که سرنوشت سیزیف رو غمگین میکنه آگاهی هستش که به این پوچ داره با این دید خیلی از کارای ما در آینده در نظرمون پوچه همینطور که الان این حس رو نسبت به گذشته داریم اما به نظر میرسه جواب سوالی که اول کتاب کامو میپرسه زندگی به زحمت زیستنش می ارزد یا باید خودکشی کرد، توی همین جمله نیچه باشه که میگه چیزهایی در زندگی هست مثل موسیقی، هنر،فضیلت و عقل و روح و دیگر چیزهای ملکوتی که در نهایت باید با سعه صدر زحمت زندگی رو پذیرفت.

  • Maria
    2018-11-03 22:20

    Cu siguranță asta nu este cea mai bună alegere pentru zilele în care absurditatea cotidiană îți macină sufletul încet, încet și primul gând al dimineții este "pentru ce?".

  • Leila
    2018-10-30 20:13

    مقاله های فلسفی به این شکل باید ترجمه عالی داشته باشه تا متن کامل قابل فهم بشه که فکر کنم این کتاب حداقل اینجوری نبود که من میخواستم.یک مجموعه ای از مقاله های کامو در مورد پوچی و سایر چیزهایی که با اون در ارتباط هست نوشته شده.چیزی که برام جالب بود وقتی میخوندمش خیلی از رمان های کامو برام تداعی میشد و اینکه میفمهی پشت اون ایده رمان چه فکری و مفهومی بوده خیلی خوبه.مخصوصا تو قسمت "فلسفه و رمان".مثلا تو جایی در مورد فلسفه می گفت:رمان فلسفی نه آغاز داره نه پایان ،مفهوم تو عمق داستان به خواننده میرسه.یا حرفی که بارها تکرار میکرد انسان پوچ گرا به دنبال توصیف و یا پایان نباید باشه بلکه به دنبال درک و مفهوم عمیق هر چیزی باشه مثل حسی که از دیدن یک اثر هنری بهت دست میده، (من هیچوقت آدم خوب توضیح دادن تو چندتا کلمه کوتاه نیستم) و تنها راه فرار از پوچی رو هنر یا همون خلق کردن میدونه.بعضی جاها دوتا فیلسوف با عقیده مخالف رو کنار هم میزاره و هدف و کارهاشون رو با هم مقایسه میکنه و به نقد میکشه.در کل خوب بود در کنار ترجمه ای که فکر کنم زیاد خوب نبود.