The Paradox Of Camus' Sisyphus In Plato's Cave
The parable of Plato's cave is well-known. Plato compares the human situation to that being chained inside a cave with a fire lit behind us and the only connection between the objects in the world and us being the shadows cast on the wall in front of us as the objects are moved between us and the fire. Plato, to my reckoning, views this situation as undesirable, an illness of sorts that needs immediate treatment so to speak. Plato then goes on to say that, with the right conditions, mainly involving the rational mind, it's possible to free ourselves from the chain and behold the objects as they truly are. He even recommends venturing outside the cave into the sun-lit surroundings to, in essence, get acquainted with true reality.
The takeaway is this: there's an illusory aspect of nature (the shadows in the cave) and a true reality (the objects that cast the shadows) alongside it. In essence, a very popular paradigm has taken shape, the paradigm that reality can be split into illusory and real and that the latter is preferable. The reason why Plato prefers the real is that it's the truth, the real McCoy if you will.
That's that.
Albert Camus too thinks along the same line and sees reality as consisting of real and illusory. Camus claims that the meanings that we see in our lives is an illusory one, lacking, in a sense, that substance that comes with being real. He then goes on to say that, unfortunately for us, even the real lacks any meaning at all. This state of utter meaninglessness takes the shape of Sisyphus and the eternal task in Camus' mind.
Here's the problem.
In Plato's mind, the true reality, whatever it maybe, has an intrinsic value that makes it worthwhile. Plato makes no mention of the impact of true reality i.e. it's safe to say that true reality, in and of itself, is, arguably, priceless no matter what that truth is, or what it entails. In other words, living a life that's true, experiencing true reality, is meaningful.
Camus, in his philosophical investigations, arrived at a truth, managed to grasp true reality, the true reality of our meaningless existence.
In short, Plato's take is that life in true reality is meaningful. A truth as per Camus is that life in true reality is meaningless. Paradox! :chin:
The takeaway is this: there's an illusory aspect of nature (the shadows in the cave) and a true reality (the objects that cast the shadows) alongside it. In essence, a very popular paradigm has taken shape, the paradigm that reality can be split into illusory and real and that the latter is preferable. The reason why Plato prefers the real is that it's the truth, the real McCoy if you will.
That's that.
Albert Camus too thinks along the same line and sees reality as consisting of real and illusory. Camus claims that the meanings that we see in our lives is an illusory one, lacking, in a sense, that substance that comes with being real. He then goes on to say that, unfortunately for us, even the real lacks any meaning at all. This state of utter meaninglessness takes the shape of Sisyphus and the eternal task in Camus' mind.
Here's the problem.
In Plato's mind, the true reality, whatever it maybe, has an intrinsic value that makes it worthwhile. Plato makes no mention of the impact of true reality i.e. it's safe to say that true reality, in and of itself, is, arguably, priceless no matter what that truth is, or what it entails. In other words, living a life that's true, experiencing true reality, is meaningful.
Camus, in his philosophical investigations, arrived at a truth, managed to grasp true reality, the true reality of our meaningless existence.
In short, Plato's take is that life in true reality is meaningful. A truth as per Camus is that life in true reality is meaningless. Paradox! :chin:
Comments (22)
Quoting TheMadFool
I can see the problem here and where it arises, but it sure is perplexing to think about. If there is meaning in a life that is lived with congruency to the 'true reality' Plato is referring to, how would we know? Since our minds lend themselves to illusory understandings of things in life, even if we are freed from the 'chains of the cave,' how long would we go on without slipping into existential despair? I think this is what Camus is driving at in response to some of these earlier insights from Greek philosophy on the meaning of life. I think Nietzsche's insights from Beyond Good and Evil in the Prejudices of Philosophers part can be of use here. What insight comes to mind is when Nietzsche discusses the ever-lasting desire/impulse for the human to seek clarity/explanation (Camus also touches upon this in Sisyphus). So, if there is meaning in living a life in 'true reality' what makes this true? How are we to judge whether it is true or not when we do not have enough knowledge of whether it is truly 'true' or not? There still seems to be illusory makeups of meaning in life here, even if we think we are congruently living in 'true reality.' Also, 'true reality' has paradoxes to this human desire/impulse for clarity and explanation. And 'true reality' seems to have these contradictions and paradoxes. But, we still do not know if this is just an illusory view from the human as a consequence of the absurd relationship between the human desire/impulse for clarity, control, and explanation with a universe that is sometimes pitted against them naturally. Thoughts?
I think Camus's 'true reality' would be to acknowledge that there are paradoxes in nature as well as from our relationship between our desire/impulse for clarity and the universe, therefore, meaningless. How do we know if there is meaning or not? That is such a bold claim for any philosopher or any thinker, and it is merely a view on either side. I lean on the camp that states it is meaningless unless you make your own meaning - as everyone human does due to the desire/impulse for there to be meaning. Yet no one is God, and no one is all-knowing. Therefore, there is faith in any view of meaning in life from the lack of evidence or a system that everyone would subscribe to that gives a written natural law of the meaning of life. This topic is surely complex and a Mindbender. Thank you very much for posting this!
Quoting TheMadFool
I pose a question to you: how does anyone know if there is meaning or not? Is the sole fact that we can make up our own meaning even if it is illusory from the 'true' meaning of life? What are your thoughts on this topic?
I can see that you have made an interesting comparison between Plato and Camus, pointing to the paradox of the meaningful or meaningless life.
Perhaps we can live that paradox creatively by constructing our own meaning. We can spend all our time searching for reality or feel that we have grasped it and give in to despair, or perhaps juggle this balance delicately. We could spend our entire lives hoping for ultimate answers or lie in bed all day, feeling so disheartened by the answers we have found. We have both options but in the meantime perhaps it is worth reflecting on some of the worst truths we have discovered, acknowledging where we have arrived, with an openness to finding the pathways to the sun, or to quote Daft Punk's song Get Lucky, '...to reach for the stars.'
Perhaps it is a bit like being in a maze with dead ends and possible exits. Of course I am living the life of the searcher in quest of truth. It is about emotional and psychological searching too, about not giving in to the depression of meaningless or groundless flight
into the elation of grasping for wondrous truths.
True reality - the real McCoy - is, in and of itself, meaningful - that's what, I infer, is the message in the parable of Plato's cave. As for the matter of "how would we know?" that's a topic of its own in epistemology; insofar as it matters to this discussion I think it impacts both Plato and Camus with mixed results - for Plato the difficulty/impossibility of knowledge of the real/true reality deals a severe blow to his search for the same and for Camus this epistemological roadblock is a blessing in disguise because there's a chance, no matter how slim, that he could be mistaken about life being meaningless.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
I don't know whether we can describe the philosophical quest for truth that occupies the lives of all philosophers as prejudiced. First, the desire for truth seems to be, quite literally, universal in both prevalence and appeal. Second, the notion of prejudice itself hangs on truth - when one is prejudiced, one fails to see the truth - and so, to call Plato, who values the truth, prejudiced would be like calling a through and through patriot a traitor.
Camus, on the other hand, despite the fact that he too valued the truth, could've been prejudiced because he went a step further and announced the discovery of a truth, the truth that life is meaningless. In doing that he first has to have the answer to "how would we know?" and that, we all know, remains a controversial topic in philosophy and second, Camus has to prove that none of his personal biases interfered in his investigations, and that, everyone knows, is another nigh impossible task. By the way, do you have any opinions on what kinds of prejudices might've affected Camus?
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
There are two perspectives here:
1. Plato's contention that truth, true reality, has a value of its own irrespective of what that truth or true reality is. Isn't that why he wants us to leave the cave? To find out the truth and come face to face with true reality? In short, true reality is, whatever it is, meaningful.
2. Camus' conclusion that life is meaningless. This is a truth, true reality, insofar as Camus is concerned.
Combining their views, Camus' truth, his assessment of true reality, is that life is meaningless but this, if it is a truth, if it is true reality, according to Plato has a value despite what it says and is in that sense meaningful. To get to the point, the Camusian truth that life is meaningless is Platonically what a meaningful life is. :chin:
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
You'll have to help me out on that score.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
My take on this is that no one can, more accurately, no one has, answered the questions, "why do I exist?", "why am I here?" That there are no answers to this question is the basis for Camus' claim that life is meaningless.
Quoting tim wood
:up: I've tried to find a common denominator between Plato and Camus in the best way I can.
Quoting Jack Cummins
This is what I suppose Camus would've liked us to do; after all, what could be worse than life being meaningless to a creature that seems almost purpose-built to seek meaning? He probably didn't recommend a descent into despair, despondency, and depression because, if memory serves, he said, "We must imagine Sisyphus happy" and now that I think of it, one possible reason for Sisyphus being happy is that Sisyphus knows the truth! Sisyphus has escaped Plato's cave.
I will treat your post and the matter in the spirit of the clarification I provided here.
I deny there is a paradox. Plato thinks the real world is a world of perfect, everlasting, ideals; Camus thinks the reality is impossible to fathom. Camus does not deny the existence of ideals, as he makes no claim about reality (other than that it's impossible to learn).
Plato makes no suggestion that anyone has ever gone to and came back from the real world to our shadow world; he offers no transportational methods how to explore the world of ideals. He beleives we can discover and explore that world, but it's a theoretical beleif, without any physical supporting evidence.
If something has no supportive evidence to its credit that makes it available to belief that it exists, then that thing is a dogma/heuristic/superstion and has nothing to do with whether it exists or not. Therefore making claims abou that world's specfics is an insane hoax.
This connects the world of the wall pics to the world of the inscrutable. Neither has been discovered; neither has a clear path of discovery penned.
Camus' meaninglessness is Platonic meaningfulness. If you don't see a paradox there, that in itself maybe another paradox.
Quoting god must be atheist
My bad. Plato, herein, stands for the ubiquitous philosophical ideal that truth trumps everything else and that truth per se, by extension true reality, in and of itself, is valuable, ergo meaningful.
Quoting god must be atheist
Why then all this fuss about absurdity? Is it mere opinion?
If it is then what are the answers to the questions, "why do I exist?", "why am I here?" and so on.
Quoting god must be atheist
Plato's failure to come up with all the goods must be weighed against the difficulty level of the task. However, it seems irrelevant to my point which is that the parable of Plato's cave evinces a deep desire in philosophers to value truth whatever form or shape it might take and that to me smacks of the conviction among philosophers that truth itself is meaningful.
Quoting god must be atheist
Why do you think truth has value and knowing it and living by it has value, constitutes a meaningful life?
There is no paradox, but different philosophies.
Plato's myth of the cavern is a myth-poetic metaphor. It should not be interpreted literally. (tale or legend) Plato wants to explain his concept of reality with this myth. He believes that the world we see through the senses is not real but a bad copy of reality (like shadows). True reality is a world of forms or ideas that exists on a different plane. Man can only reach it if he gets rid of the world that we see through the senses and thinks only through reason. That is why true reality is not made of colours, sounds, passions, material pleasures or pain, but is that which can be expressed in like-mathematical terms. That is the one that makes sense, the other one does not.
Camus does not believe in Plato's ideal reality. He thinks it is illusory. The only reality the world in which we live with our sensations, passions and pains. He agrees with Plato only on one thing: that this material reality either has no meaning.
Therefore, Plato believed that the meaning of life was found in the ideal world. Camus says that there is no meaning, neither in the ideal nor in the empirical worlds.
Quoting David Mo
As I said, I'm taking Plato's help only to show that, in philosophy, truth is valuable and living by it is meaningful. Camus claims, and as it turns out rightly so, that one such truth is life is meaningless but, as I already mentioned above, living by that truth, Camus', is meaningful in Platonic terms. This is the paradox.
You may simply disregard my post here, as it says nothing else, that I would consider responding to your post way too tiresome than to have a positive payoff for me to engage in it.
I am sorry, but your arguments are a bit contrived, I believe, in this response to my opinion. I don't see the validity in your counter-points.
However, and unfortunately, it would be a task too tedious and to me too boring, to point all these out to you. Therefore I shan't attmept to do so. This is unfortunate, because this way I can't do more than merely state "I disagree".
I refuse to examine and respond to your counter points, because I come here, basically, and truthfully, to have fun by exercising my mind. It is a good mental work-out, and responding to your counter points would represent something that is not a healthy, refreshing, mind-building workout.
You may simply disregard my post here, as it says nothing else, that I would consider responding to your post way too tiresome than to have a positive payoff for me to engage in it.
To a large extent, I do agree with the analysis of the paradox you wrote in response to the various responses written to your thread yesterday.
I noted that the point of mine which you quoted was about finding the hardest truths. I can see why you chose this part as the important one rather than other aspects. I suppose that really my own experience of philosophy and life so far has been about uncovering painful truths, psychologically and emotionally.
The only difficulty that I had with your conclusion is that it is not so easy to get to the happy side of it all that you believe that Camus reached. It is too easy to slide into despair once we are outside of Plato's cave. The glare of the truth can be too much to bare at times.
When we live with the grim reality of existence it can be painful and we can be tempted to flee from the pain. For example, living with the idea that there is no life after death can be harsh, especially at times of crisis. I would confess that some of my questing is a manic defence against misery in its many forms. I am like Camus climbing out of the cave and seeing the shadows but often climbing back into the cave.
I do not expect you to be able to provide a solution for this. Perhaps the reason why the existentialist wrote so much fiction was a means of coping with the grim picture they saw. Certainly,
The Outsider by Camus was certainly anything but cheerful, showing a psychological picture of the character in the face of death. Nevertheless, it is a portrayal of how a person may end up acting after a death when he is not tied up with the pomp and glamour of religious rituals surrounding death.
The world of fiction, reading or writing it, can itself be a form of escape or analysis. But in a way, perhaps it can be liberating, free from the tyranny of logic. I will admit that I find some of what I regard as rhetorical word games in philosophy as hollow. The sophisticated logic can become the new caves, but of course I am biased in favour of the arts, as you already know but just think that it allows for the most honest freedom from despair.
I am sure that your post is related to your own other ideas, including thinking about Buddhism as a religion, arguments about faith, as well as questions about miracles. I see your paradox, but I think that we need to live with the harsh realities that just think that we need to work hard to find meaningful ways of surviving outside of the cave without collapsing into despair.
I'm unaware of the reasoning that led up to Camus' statement, "One must imagine Sisyphus happy". Camus didn't claim that Sisyphus is happy but that we must imagine that he is. As one poster had the kindness to inform me, Camus treated instances of meaningful lives as wishful thinking or thereabouts. Perhaps, Camus' investigations came full circle, he had a dim view of wishful thinking, left it in search of the truth, found Sisyphus at it with the rock on the hill, realized the truth of it, and returned to where he began - to wishfully, thoughtfully imagine Sisyphus happy even if Sisyphus wasn't, couldn't be, happy. This perhaps is the punchline of the joke, the height of the absurdity of it all - to return to that which one once spurned with scorn. Reminds me of a love story.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I don't know if logic is tyrannical or anything like that. If it is then it would be a point of view that's against the grain. Perhaps it is, in some sense, like an autocratic system, demanding absolute loyalty and complete submission to it on pain of injury or death. Reminds me of the word "Islam" which means submission but I fear this amounts to a misunderstanding of what logic really is - a system, if it were a conscious entity, that's alive to its own limitations and demands that no more be said than can be said, no more be thought than can be thought, no more be written than can be written and no more be done than can be done and all of the above applies to itself. This must amount to something in my humble opinion. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? What better guards than those that guard themselves?
Quoting TheMadFool
Fool, don't just read the essays preceding the eponymous "Myth of Sisyphus", study them.
One defies fate (or "the gods") with the only thing one has, which cannot be taken (only given) away: integrity; thus, "we must imagine" - as Camus says, "To create is to live twice" - "Sisyphus" our avatar "happy" as he affirms what annihilates him by defying it without succumbing to "nostalgia" (i.e. fear or hope).
Quoting TheMadFool
No paradox. Different philosophies, as pointed out, but the same philosophical exercise of making (a) truth meaningful by living (or striving to live by) that truth.
Camus did not say that life has no meaning. He said that the world has no meaning in itself. In fact, The Myth of Sisyphus concludes with the hope of happiness in the absurd. Camus' second philosophical work, The Rebel, is an attempt to overcome the absurd in a different way.
In reality, Plato and Camus agree on one point: the world has no meaning. They differ in the second proposition: there is an objective sense in another world (Plato). For Camus, this ideal world is an illusion.
It is not very clear. It seems that, according to him, happiness can be in lucidity, the awareness of not expecting anything that one does not give to oneself.
Don't give too much importance to the word 'imagine'. Keep in mind that we are talking about a myth. Camus wanted to say that it is possible (imagine, like John Lennon) to find happiness in the absurd.
It is not a paradox. I agree. But Camus' reproach to Plato and rationalism is that it substitutes life for abstract thinking. It is a vitalist point of view, although it is not an irrationalist absolute like other classical vitalists.
I think it is quite unfair. At least, reading some of Plato's dialogues
But, it has meaning insofar as living by the truth has meaning, something that Plato seems very keen to impress upon us. Plato asks us to leave the cave of of shadows and behold truth and he doesn't qualify that with any conditions that need to be satisfied in order for truth to have value. The bottom line is, for Plato and all philosophers to my knowledge, truth, in itself, has value. Truth for truth's sake and with that comes meaning, meaning given to lives lived for/by/of truth.
Camus, for certain, has arrived at a truth. I know this for the simple reason that the questions, "why am I here?", "why do I exist?" remain unanswered despite probably millennia of dedicated effort by the very best thinkers the world could muster. Life is meaningless as per current-best knowledge. This is a truth and if it is then, as I said above, living by it constitutes a meaningful life.
That life is meaningless is a truth and living by truth makes for a meaningful life, it follows, doesn't it?, that to live a meaningless life is meaningful? This is the paradox.
Quoting 180 Proof
I will. Thank you very much for your valuable advice.
Quoting 180 Proof
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Lifts my spirits! Although, I feel Camus had overlooked an important fact of philosophy: truth for truth's sake and everything else that comes close to or is congruent to the meaning of that phrase. Had he factored that in, the paradox I've brought to your attention would've jumped out at him.
:up:
Hey, thanks for the post and engaging in my replies, I truly appreciate it and all the insights you have given here.
Quoting TheMadFool
I do not proclaim to know of any prejudices Camus may have had with certainty. So, I wish not to speak with fervor on the issues as I do not know too much of Camus's personal life yet. I do know that he analyzed and pondered on the atrocities that were rampant in the early to mid-20th century European conflicts, such as Stalin's use of violence in the name of bolstering his state, as well as Hitler's nihilism and the atrocities he committed to bolstering the strength of his state as well. I think World War II definitely had some sort of influence on Camus and Sartre in particular. I heard once that Sartre and Camus also disagreed on their support or non-existent support for Communism with means of violence. I know Sartre was more lax with the notions of the ends justify the means for statesmen carrying out violence to bolster their state or regime. Camus, on the other hand, did not support this and was against it. Do you know of any prejudices that you'd like to share?
For both, however, I can see how knowing of concentration camps, gulags, violence against political opposition, and witnessing some of these atrocities could strengthen their views that life is meaningless and how the world or state in which someone may live would be hostile directly to its human subjects (Man's Search for Meaning?). So, I would like to know more about Camus and Sartre's prejudices, opinions on certain matters outside of their philosophical works that may have contributed directly or indirectly to their overall philosophical views on things.
Quoting TheMadFool
You bring up a great point here. If Camus' truth, is that life is meaningless, if this is true, then it would constitute it as 'true reality.' Then, I guess according to Plato, this would then be meaningful to leave the cave and arrive at the conclusion/knowledge that life is indeed meaningless. From thinking on this, I guess it would be meaningful to 'know' that life is indeed meaningless. About my comments earlier, to know that life is meaningless is somewhat meaningful since you would then 'know' that it is meaningful and you may be ahead of the curve then, thereby preparing yourself or bolstering your understanding of 'human life.' Plato leaving the cave? Learning that life is meaningless, is still learning something 'true' of life if it is in fact 'true,' but I still stand by my earlier dilemma that there is no way to know for certain if life being meaningless is 'true reality' or not. There is still some sort of faith here, even if someone learns this after leaving the cave, I guess? Help me out here. My mind is definitely perplexed by your insight here, and I love it, but it sure is hard to wrap my head around.
Quoting TheMadFool
I agree. However, there is still some jump that life is meaningless - although I agree with Camus since there is no way to truly know this about life, I guess?
Anyhow, thanks for replying to my post and leaving some great insights. I enjoyed it very much and would love to discuss more, mate. Cheers!
For starters, Camus seems to be working on a problem that's been around for a long time, the problem of meaning as pertains of life. I feel a little uncomfortable using the word "prejudice" - it has a negative connotation that I feel doesn't apply to the existential questions that Camus was bothering with viz. "why do I exist?", "why am I here?", "what is the purpose of my life?" and so on.
Perhaps "context" is a better word. The questions I mentioned above exists within a certain setting consisting of relevant knowledge, attitude, affect, etc. and the answers to them will have to respect the boundaries so demarcated. As far as I can tell, the meaning of life sought seems to be of, quite literally, cosmic proportions - "answers" like "the purpose of my life is to be baker, a doctor, a soldier, a president, a monk, so and so forth" fail to satisfy the thirst, the hunger for meaning - they're too parochial, too provincial, too ordinary and mundane.
In a sense then the meaningless Camus talks of could be thought of as an inevitability of setting the bar too high, so high in fact that no one can meet the standards thus set. It's a poignant truth then that what we wish we were, we're not and what we are, we wish not. Isn't this just the old Camusian absurdity from a different vantage point?
I feel this is an accurate analysis of Camus' understanding of the meaning of life for if it weren't then we and he should've been wholly content with the meanings for life that are readily available to us - being parents, children, soldiers, doctors, priests, etc., all being assignable to us without even the slightest difficulty.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
In my humble opinion, suffering per se doesn't necessarily mean that life's meaningless. A forum member, not long ago, said something to the effect that if suffering had a purpose [by which fae wishes to convey that if it (suffering) had a "higher purpose" then it would be ok and fae would willingly bear it] then it's, in some sense, alright to suffer. Here again the issue of meaning of cosmic proportions makes an appearance. That said, it's true that once no grand meaning, that which is sought, can be found, suffering makes it worse and it's all downhill from there. However, in line with your thoughts, suffering can, all by itself, reduce/negate the meaning of life for there are times when the price, paid in tears and excruciating anguish, is just too high for even a meaning that has cosmic significance.
Quoting The Questioning Bookworm
This, to me, is Camus' absurdity appearing to us in a different guise - what we think we got right - the meaninglessness of life - is depressing enough and now we have to contend with the possibility that we could be wrong. Of course if it were the case that Camus was wrong, it would imply that there's meaning ( :smile: ) but that too is beyond our most earnest efforts ( :sad: ), perhaps for the same reason that you employed in raising doubts about the veracity/certainty of Camus' original claim that life is meaningless. Thus we must resign ourselves to a fate that, at this point, is an absurdity of ridiculous proportions. Not to make light of such a serious matter but if our lives are that absurd, our purpose, the meaning of our lives, is as clear as crystal - we are Cosmic Clowns whose sole purpose is to embody absurdity.