"Camus says, We are all Sisyphus"
What follows is a philosophical tangent that my brain went on during class today. The title of this post is the quote from my professor that spawned this tangent. For reference to Sisyphus, click here.
Camus says we are all Sisyphus. We are all pushing rocks up hills, and our rocks cannot reach the top before rolling back down. Yet if a rock ever does reach the top, the one whose rock does so becomes free. This is the problem. What then, is the solution?
The solution I propose is that we go and push someone else's rock. For two people might be able to get a rock to the top of the hill where one cannot. And if two cannot, three might, et cetera ad infinitum. Let us say it takes three people to reach the top.
Yet if we stop pushing our rock, the Furies will scourge us with their whips. My thought, however, is that they will only do so if we are not pushing a rock. The rock we push does not have to be our own rock, it merely has to be A rock. Nonetheless, my solution does involve those two who give up their own rocks being scourged in the journey to help the third, even if the Furies cease when these two begin to aid the third.
The key to this scenario, however, is that the person who becomes free ought (and note that I do not say must) in turn help those who helped him in attaining their own freedom. If he does not, I assert that his freedom is meaningless. (I say "his" for convenience.)
And in order to demonstrate that this is the best option, I must demonstrate this person's other options.
Prior to his freedom, his choices are simple. He may push his rock, be scourged by the Furies, or go aid another with that one's rock as I have described. After his freedom, his choices become more complicated. Aside from the choice of aiding others, what may he do? He may, quite simply, choose one of two options besides aiding others.
The first and simplest is indolence, inactivity, in other words, to do nothing. But if he should choose this then I assert also that his freedom is meaningless because he achieves nothing. In fact I assert that if indolence were his choice he should be better off pushing his rock as a slave, for at least then he has a purpose, a hope, and an activity. A free human has the luxury to do nothing, but to do nothing is certainly far from the moral choice and renders his freedom meaningless.
The second choice that he might make is to join the tormentors, join the Furies, and scourge those who do not work. But then I ask how is he free? I say that he is not. For the Furies are also pushing rocks. The Furies are also Sisyphus. It is merely that from the rock's point of view, Sisyphus is a Fury and the rock is the human, and from the Fury's point of view, he is the Sisyphus and the human is the rock. So choosing to become the tormentor rather than the tormentee is no freedom at all, but an abandonment of one's freedom to become Sisyphus yet again.
So aiding the others to become free is the option, even for the free man. It is my thought that this is the meaning of Christ, Buddha, Gandhi, and all the other great moral teachers. Perhaps Buddha demonstrates this best. The free man aiding the slave is the Bodhisattva.
I choose to help someone else with their rock. I hope someday someone will help me with mine.
Camus says we are all Sisyphus. We are all pushing rocks up hills, and our rocks cannot reach the top before rolling back down. Yet if a rock ever does reach the top, the one whose rock does so becomes free. This is the problem. What then, is the solution?
The solution I propose is that we go and push someone else's rock. For two people might be able to get a rock to the top of the hill where one cannot. And if two cannot, three might, et cetera ad infinitum. Let us say it takes three people to reach the top.
Yet if we stop pushing our rock, the Furies will scourge us with their whips. My thought, however, is that they will only do so if we are not pushing a rock. The rock we push does not have to be our own rock, it merely has to be A rock. Nonetheless, my solution does involve those two who give up their own rocks being scourged in the journey to help the third, even if the Furies cease when these two begin to aid the third.
The key to this scenario, however, is that the person who becomes free ought (and note that I do not say must) in turn help those who helped him in attaining their own freedom. If he does not, I assert that his freedom is meaningless. (I say "his" for convenience.)
And in order to demonstrate that this is the best option, I must demonstrate this person's other options.
Prior to his freedom, his choices are simple. He may push his rock, be scourged by the Furies, or go aid another with that one's rock as I have described. After his freedom, his choices become more complicated. Aside from the choice of aiding others, what may he do? He may, quite simply, choose one of two options besides aiding others.
The first and simplest is indolence, inactivity, in other words, to do nothing. But if he should choose this then I assert also that his freedom is meaningless because he achieves nothing. In fact I assert that if indolence were his choice he should be better off pushing his rock as a slave, for at least then he has a purpose, a hope, and an activity. A free human has the luxury to do nothing, but to do nothing is certainly far from the moral choice and renders his freedom meaningless.
The second choice that he might make is to join the tormentors, join the Furies, and scourge those who do not work. But then I ask how is he free? I say that he is not. For the Furies are also pushing rocks. The Furies are also Sisyphus. It is merely that from the rock's point of view, Sisyphus is a Fury and the rock is the human, and from the Fury's point of view, he is the Sisyphus and the human is the rock. So choosing to become the tormentor rather than the tormentee is no freedom at all, but an abandonment of one's freedom to become Sisyphus yet again.
So aiding the others to become free is the option, even for the free man. It is my thought that this is the meaning of Christ, Buddha, Gandhi, and all the other great moral teachers. Perhaps Buddha demonstrates this best. The free man aiding the slave is the Bodhisattva.
I choose to help someone else with their rock. I hope someday someone will help me with mine.