|
Poor Sisyphus (on morality & freedom)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Psy-T |
this was started in msn between Renegade and myself
basically, i wanted to start a topic 'against' the perpetuation of the human race and the efforts to sustain life at any cost, but i heard it's been done to death and i figured everyone's already sick of the topic, but it did get us into an intersting discussion, and we both thought it'd probably be best to open the discussion here
the background: Camus' views on Sisyphus, taken from the last chapter of his book "The myth of Sisyphus"
Camus asks, if we realise objectively that life is meaningless, why do we carry on?
and he answers, no matter how hard and ty life can be, even the breifest moments of pleasure make it all worth while.
i disagree, because i doubt Sisyphus can look at his life objectively, nor any other man in that position.
i believe we are genetically programmed to always find some joy in life as a protection mechanism, therefor, we will never be able to reach the relavant level of objectivity to 'measuring' our lives.
Sisyphus will never admit his unhappiness, will never give up, will never commit suicide, and will never ask to be put out of his misery, because he denies that misery.
now, let's assume the myth is a bit different: the gods have decided to test the morality of man. they have put you and only you in the position to decide whether Sisyphus will have to endure the torment they have decreed upon him.
you are now in the position to put Sisyphus out of his supposed misery.
What do you do? |
|
|
| occrider |
| I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Are you stating that objectively, all human life is meaningless regardless of every single consideration? Or are you arguing that in a state of true "objectivity" Sisyphus's life is meaningless, despite his denials, and thus the "moral" route would be to put him out of his misery? |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| no one has free will. does that answer your question?:eyespop: |
|
|
| trancaholic |
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, and I cannot really afford to get wound up in a time consuming argument (there's a couple of other threads that I really should get back to before getting involved in yet another thread), but I think that your claim is that "life is meaningless, so why don't we kill ourselves?".
If that's a correct interpretation of your point, then I would say that even though life, or human existence, in itself is meaningless (there's no one to whom it would make a difference if there had never been life), the continued life of the individual, once it has begun, is not meaningless. E.g. it would cause my friends and family great anguish if I was to die tomorrow, and since I value these people and their continued happiness, it follows that I myself am not indifferent to whether my life continues or not. And that's the rational reason for not killing yourself: Ending your life does not imply that it never took place.
Does that contribute to the discussion, in a meaningful way? |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm not quite sure I understand your argument. Are you stating that objectively, all human life is meaningless regardless of every single consideration? Or are you arguing that in a state of true "objectivity" Sisyphus's life is meaningless, despite his denials, and thus the "moral" route would be to put him out of his misery? |
you are thinking in the right direction, but what's with the focus on 'meaning'?
it's not the 'moral' route because his life is meaningless, it's the 'moral' route because it's too painful. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
no one has free will. does that answer your question?:eyespop: |
we covered free will last month, search this forum.
and no, it doesnt answer my question. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, and I cannot really afford to get wound up in a time consuming argument (there's a couple of other threads that I really should get back to before getting involved in yet another thread), but I think that your claim is that "life is meaningless, so why don't we kill ourselves?".
If that's a correct interpretation of your point, then I would say that even though life, or human existence, in itself is meaningless (there's no one to whom it would make a difference if there had never been life), the continued life of the individual, once it has begun, is not meaningless. E.g. it would cause my friends and family great anguish if I was to die tomorrow, and since I value these people and their continued happiness, it follows that I myself am not indifferent to whether my life continues or not. And that's the rational reason for not killing yourself: Ending your life does not imply that it never took place.
Does that contribute to the discussion, in a meaningful way? |
you're getting ahead of ourselves and skipping the morality question altogether, but in any case, i'm talking about the continued existence of the human kind, not that of the individual. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Eh, for you to take on that view, you first have to conclude that your life really is meaningless. But how exactly do you define a meaning or a purpose? In general I guess you could say that all is meaningless, since there's no ultimate reason for anything in this world to exist, there are only minor reasons and purposes for things which are on the overall not important by themselves. So ultimately it comes down to the question of whether you like or dislike such a meaningless existance. However, there's a catch, and that's that you can move from existance into non-existance, but it's impossible to go vice-versa. So since, ultimately, we aren't omnipotent and therefore can't say that there isn't a greater meaning for all of us, we should not cut short our only possibility of finding one. Even if there is no meaning at all, as long as there is a chance that we may start liking our meaningless existance, it is unwise to end it. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Eh, for you to take on that view, you first have to conclude that your life really is meaningless. But how exactly do you define a meaning or a purpose? In general I guess you could say that all is meaningless, since there's no ultimate reason for anything in this world to exist, there are only minor reasons and purposes for things which are on the overall not important by themselves. So ultimately it comes down to the question of whether you like or dislike such a meaningless existance. However, there's a catch, and that's that you can move from existance into non-existance, but it's impossible to go vice-versa. So since, ultimately, we aren't omnipotent and therefore can't say that there isn't a greater meaning for all of us, we should not cut short our only possibility of finding one. Even if there is no meaning at all, as long as there is a chance that we may start liking our meaningless existance, it is unwise to end it. |
i'm not the one who said life is meaningless.
enjoyment is as worthy a purpose as any as far as i'm concerned.
more specifically, enjoyment is my purpose in life.
you're all barking up the wrong tree :p |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
Camus asks, if we realise objectively that life is meaningless, why do we carry on?
and he answers, no matter how hard and ty life can be, even the breifest moments of pleasure make it all worth while. |
camus is wrong.
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
i disagree, because i doubt Sisyphus can look at his life objectively, nor any other man in that position.
i believe we are genetically programmed to always find some joy in life as a protection mechanism, therefor, we will never be able to reach the relavant level of objectivity to 'measuring' our lives. |
u are right.
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
now, let's assume the myth is a bit different: the gods have decided to test the morality of man. they have put you and only you in the position to decide whether Sisyphus will have to endure the torment they have decreed upon him.
you are now in the position to put Sisyphus out of his supposed misery.
What do you do? |
that would depend upon whether there is anything to be gained and what it would cost. if there is no costs to me to end his misery, and nothing to gain but the 'end of his misery', then i'd end his misery. i think we're hardwired to do that. does this anwer your question?
:eyespop: |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
you are thinking in the right direction, but what's with the focus on 'meaning'?
it's not the 'moral' route because his life is meaningless, it's the 'moral' route because it's too painful. |
Fine, replace the word "meaningless" with the word "painful" and then please answer my question ;). |
|
|
| Orbax |
Wouldn't be asking if someone has the "right" to "kill" the "living dead" start this with having to define:
Morality, rights, what killin is and how it differs from death, and what exactly the role of a human is? Can one be alive and still dead, and thus there is no killing involved? If we are using this in the context of the Greeks what is God, and is THE God necessarily moral with A god just a being of great power.
When the moral decision of what to do is passed off to you, is that a moral action in of itself or is the inaction on a known morality immoral by nature and thus whatever being gave it to you not THE God.
Personally, I would say, based off of Army of Darkness, an organic mechanism going through the processes of controlled entropy over time would be living dead by its INability to "enjoy" life and thus a boomstick is a moral action to let them RIP. |
|
|
|
|
