Are the flowers visible?
yes (great)
so 3,2,1...
And so
on 30 September
1939
the new government was formed
of the Republic of Poland in Paris
in the best, most well known in the world
newspaper, Paris Match
an entire report was even published under the title
"A Government in a Student Hostel"
indeed
the ministers of our government took up residence
in the Danube hostel on Jacob street
on the left bank of the Seine river
today
very close to Jacob street
one finds the principle headquarters of
the existentialists who, back then,
in 1939
did not exist
it's a pity
that the French reporters
whose origins were most likely
white Russian immigration
or Spanish reds
have such small knowledge of the history of Paris
and French literature
otherwise they would have known that
of this hostel on Jacob street
Alphons Daudet wrote
in his world famous tale, Sapho
of how the protagonist
took the winding, disgusting stairs
which were very steep
carrying his floozy
he took the first turn with youthful vigor
and rising desire
the second however with a rising sense
of weight, and the third turn
with shortness of breath and pressed lungs
and the awareness that the devils were the cause
of all of this
that was a quote from Cat Mackiewicz
although
Albert Camus himself
at one time
stated that he is not a proponent of
existentialist thought
still
he is commonly associated with
the philosophy of existentialism
you're not going to say goodday to everyone?
ah, yes. Good day everyone.
I haven't quite yet come up with
my Daemon of course has reminded me that one ought
to be polite good day to all
welcome to all
we invite you to the next episode of
the Emigre Humanist and indeed
we shall not be discussing existentialist philosophy
but rather a philosopher commonly
associated with existentialism
namely
Albert Camus
today we shall discuss him
more specifically we shall discuss his
essays on Sysyphus
but why did we start with
that quote from Cat Mackiewicz?
because I think that in this quote
indeed
it comes from this book: Green Eyes
it contains
the essence
of Camus' thought and we shall see
whether at the end of the episode
our readers agree?
or not ?
regarding Alphons Daudet
one should add only that
our extraordinary
best writer
of the anglo-saxon world, Joseph Conrad
wrote of Alphons Daudet that
he was interestingly
insignificant
and
not significant
interesting but without significant
and
in Polish this sounds
rather impolite, but in English
interestingly insignificant
there is some
Camus in this phrase
before
we enter Camus' thought
one final
brief thing
as part of the introduction
one ought, throughout this entire
episode, and generally
whoever approaches Camus, be it through
his literature or
his philosophical works
ought to, in my view, keep in mind
that Camus wrote his Masters
in Philosophy
on the subject of St. Augustine
I mention this only because
it is very easy to judge that Camus
in a sense treats with lightness
that which he would call
a certain tradition
of Western thought
but this is not at all true
he is simply a man who
has obviously thought long about this
part of
the Western tradition
and
sees no reason to repeat
that which others have written, only
moves on to further
not repeating does not mean he takes it lightly
that said, the term to take lightly is perhaps
suggestive of ignorance; I understand he is not
that he knows the matter and considers it closed
he will occupy himself with something else? (yes)
but I wished to note this because if
we enter into Camus himself
it is a bit like with Nietzsche
in fact Camus is
yet another student of Nietzsche
in this sense that it is very easy to
deform him because we assume that
following his
path we do not have to go through
the thought process he went through
but we are able to begin from his conclusions
a short cut? (yes, and you can't do that)
please never take shortcuts
in the liberal arts
the basic question for Camus
in philosophy and life in general
is the question of
whether we should kill ourselves?
to put it another way: is life worth living?
and
this is
for Camus the most important question
of them all; he gives us
several examples of questions that we think are
important but really aren't, for example
he writes about Galileo, who
according to Camus, quite rightly denounced
his scientific discoveries
in order to save his life because it was completely not
worth dying
over whether the sun orbits
the Earth or the Earth around the sun; this is generally
banal; that is all of these scientific discovieries or truths
are meaningless in the deeper sense
and indeed
as for dying for ones' beliefs in what is right
Camus claims that
all possible
reasons speaking in favor of
the idea that life has meaning
the more
these reasons are
filled with pathos, the greater
the tendency of human beings to die
for these reasons
ergo, de facto
the highest reasons speaking in favor of
why we ought to live are
the same reasons we ought to die for
which paradoxically in the end
one leads to
the same thing as the other, that is to
self-destruction because we are of course speaking of
dying in a war
and what is war but
a very
complex suicide?
for Camus
life is really just absurd
and the absurdity of life
is defined by him as a constant chasm
between man
and his life
in the sense that
all paths of thinking
in philosophy which lead us to
some truth about life or meaning
of life
are paths which are completely cut off
from reality
and in fact the more
deeply we embark upon these paths
the more
an honest man
experiences this vast dissonance
and
here Camus
to some extent takes up
in short
some philosophical paths, but of course
he does not have
the intention to go through a demonstration for
his thesis, because it has already been done
for instance by Kierkegard
So wait, shortcuts are good or bad?
they are bad, but what I mean is that if someone
Camus for instance gives the example of Kierkegard
So you see Camus
does not feel that now he must go through
the entire path of Kierkegard's works and thesis
he doesn't need to spell it out again
looking at the whole of philosophy
Camus comes to the conclusion that
the absurdity of life is the one
honest truth we can demonstrate
and where does this absurdity lead to?
it leads of course
to two different
comportments relative to death
which is the end of life
one of these comportments we mentioned
in the beginning: suicide
Hamlet's classic question: to be or not to be?
yes?
and the second
possible comportment according to Camus is
something he calls hope
and of course hope can be
religious
hope for salvation and eternal life
but hope can also be
any kind of principle
or rational which goes beyond
my individual being
that
could be some philosophy of history
some progress or grand
idea worth living for
something which gives hope that even if
not in the earthly life of the individual, then
in sum, life as such has some deeper meaning
and all of this Camus
defines as hope
ergo there is a choice relative to the absurd
between suicide and hope
to some extent
Camus takes up
other philosophers
we mentioned Kierkegard moments ago
who indeed, Kierkegard
we wil one day consider his work on our
yes because we haven't don anything
well, I remind the Daemon that we
in terms of Kierkegard
in our conspiracy
yes, but nothing on the channel
well yes, so now
Kierkegard indeed
speaking in shorthand
ventures down the path of proving that
reason leads to absurdity
indeed, Arabaham, this
example of his that Abraham stands before
an absurd choice
and
makes a leap into the abyss
which is
the insanity of faith
and of course this is one possibility
of how to respond to absurdity; to leap
into the abyss of hope
Camus has a very negative view
of Kierkegard and his leap
but we shall speak of this in a moment
Camus take up
Heidegger of course
Care
and indeed
here Camus complains
that this is very mechanical, that is Heidegger
Camus calls him
Professor Heidegger, who
in this way which
one could say even
in this uniquely German way simply
lays out by by point for us
he's right about that!
well, yes
he lays out for us that everything is
seneless and that all we have left
is this rather dry care
but for Camus this
is
this
does not fulfill the requirements
of the absurdity which, in a sense
pushes us up against a wall and forces us
to choose: to be or not to be?
Care is yet another escape
away from this decision
Camus also takes up Husserel
who was Hediegger's teacher and generally
the founder of
the phenomenological school and Camus has a very
I really like the way in which he
Camus sums up Husserel and phenomenology
if someon is interested in knowing what phenomenology
is then we of course have an episode on our channel
about Hediegger, but we also have an episode
about Levinas
and I recomend
watching both of them
particularly about Levinas, because Levinas
I think is someone who develops the thesis
of Husserel's phenomenology more
and Camus sums it all up
as in sum, a kind of inverted Platonism
just as for Plato
reality
was
in the forms
of ideas
beyond the physical world in which
the physical world participated
so for phenomenology
reality
ideal reality is to be found in
the uncovering
particles of this world, in a glance
from the face of the Other, in gestures
in poetry
in various (yes, it's all very beautiful)
(but we don't know if it's true)
we don't know if it's true (but it's beautiful)
but yes, it's beautiful, my Daemon is right here
and has perfectly caped off the subject and
there is one final path
which Camues
explores and this is the only alternative which
the only philosophical alternative towards which
Camus has a great deal of respect
and this is the path of Russian mysticism
of Orthodoxy
as presented by Shestov and Dostoyevsky
and we will one day talk about Dostoyevsky
in the future - and Shestov - some day
in the far future (in the far future)
but here
I am sure that out viewers who
are extremely intelligent people
will ask, but why
does Camus have great respect for Shestov
or Dostoyevsky
and all of this Russian
Orthodox mysticism
but not for Kierkegard?
since Kierkegard is also a mystic?
Kierkegard also says that although
reason leads to the absurd
but nevertheless he leaps into the abyss
and the answer is
and this is an important distinction between the thought
of Kierkegard and the thought of
protestantism on the one hand
and the thought of
Slavophilism
Russian orthodox on the other
you see
Camus complains that Kierkegard finds
joy
in suffering on the cross
that he is enthralled by this suffering
on the cross because
for Kierkegard this is the path to salvation and generally
for Camus this is so full of pathos
no sane person
no normal person is going to
find joy in suffering, even if
it is the path to salvation - that's just absurd
why would anybody
why should anybody have to horribly suffer
even Christ (that's indeed what this is about)
if it is possible (of course)
take this cup from Me (yes, and this is why)
Camus has greater respect for
Russians because Shestov
writes that
even if God
is absurd
even if God is
hateful, incomprehensible
contrary to all
instincts to the good, then in fact
each contradiction of God
against that which we consider to be good only proves
His power
and for Shestov
and to some extent if someone enters the world
of the thought of
the Slavophiles - which is of course not
identical to Orthodoy theology
one must underscore here that
Russian philosophy of the XIX century, although
soaked in Orthodoxy is not identical to Orthodoxy
but if someone enters this
no one pretends that
suffering is something good
that we can take joy in suffering
wait a minute, but just because someone does not find
joy in suffering does not mean that those who do
are only pretending to find joy in it
Camus does not accuse Kierkegard
that he pretends, only that
what he does is dishonest and absurd
and insane
because this is
it is as if the Mother of God
danced under the Cross rather than crying
because Kierkegard proposes that in view of
this entire suffering we should
dance, rather than cry
so Camus does not have any
respect for this because he considers it
in a way Camus notices here
that perhaps a conclusion like this could only come
from someone who wrote in Denmark and not someone
who wrote in Russia (that's true!) yes?
where, in Russia, suffering
is a far more tangible thing than
it is not so abstract, we know where it leads
Camus however
claims that though he respects
this path, then still
even this path is ultimately
dishonest because if
we conclude that
it is necessary to leap into faith
just because the alternative is despair
caused by the collapse
of reason
then
this is an escape from truth
we can't claim that faith is
the true path because the alternative is
despair
but if despair is the truth about life? then what?
an honest person seeks out the truth, and Camus
and here with great strength
he gives us a powerful image
Camus claims that one ought to
imagine or understand the absurdity of the world
in the following way:
it is a world full of sin
it is a Fallen world, but there is no God
ergo Camus, here, you see there is no
he is not one of these thinkers who claims that
there is no God, so
let's be happy and have a party and do what we want
Camus teaches that Evil exists
Evil is the absurdity of life
and there is no Good
Good does not exist; but Evil - absolutely does
this is the honesty of Camus
in contradistinction to many other thinkers who
discount religion or discount
the existence of God or discount
philosophical wisdom in favor of
some sort of freedom, regarding freedom
we will talk about that later, because Camus
claims there is no freedom
the world is absurd
sin exists, evil exists
there is no salvation, there is no God
thus
in truth
three alternatives can be seen
here
and indeed
Camus even, at one point
asks that we imagine that
we are in the theatre and on the stage
there are three characters
one of them is irrationality
we can see it as
both religious and secular hope
idealistic
the second is nostalgia
this is very interesting, because all rational views
and here
just as we considered as being within irrationality
philosophical idealistic mysticism
we counted
protestant
Christian faith
and Russian orthodox mysticism
so too in
nostalgia, which is thought
Camus claims that nostalgia is
the definition of rational thought
and here of course there is
Catholicism or the philosophy of
rationalism, all rationbal philosophy
and idealistic; why does Camus call it nostalgia?
everyone who has read
Plato and Rousseau
knows very well that both of them
both thinkers
especially Plato thought
that
man is born
as a being which has forgotten
the ideal world from which it has come
and slowly, his memory is returning
and indeed the entire process of education
is one of recalling
that which the soul already knew
before
it became
embodied
nostalgia is indeed this return
and Camus
in my view this indicates just how much
how excellent is his grasp of
rational philosophy
identifies
rationalist thought with nostalgia
what he does here is in fact
via or let us say
inspired by Nietzsche
he seeks the underpinnings
in psychology which explain the
philosophical facade
and in a sense this
he finds this psychological underpinning
in this facade
because indeed that is where we find it
Socrates did indeed teach this
that the immortal soul, even
there was this myth; we will discuss it because it is
in Plato's Republic
when the soul drinks from the river of forgetfulness
before entering the body and it forgets
all that is good
and within his body, man attempts
to recall it and somewhere it
can be heard pinging in his memory and
results in nostalgia; which is that which
brings forth
the motivation to create
rational meaning
and the third actor on the stage is the Absurd
and Camus claims that
of these three characters, only
absurdity
connects us to the world
in an authentic way
only absurdity, that is only
the one truth
is what we experience in our daily lives
that is to say the complete dissonance
between reality
our ideas about this reality
so where has
all of this lead us? to
what Camus calls
humans from every side collide with
the walls of absurdity
this collision with the walls of absurdity
this is the suicide of philosophy
we collide with the wall of absurdity
in rationalistic thought
we collide with the wall of absurdity of
irrationalist thought
and we collide with the wall of absurdity of suicide
which turns out to be the only choice
because
life seems pointless
and
in view of the meaninglessness
of life
Camus claims that
we are under the pressure or force of
temptations
of meaning
we are tempted by meaning
it calls to us
History! It calls to us
God! It calls to us
duty to your fellow man
to children
it calls to us
religion
we are tempted
to
discover meaning? (yes and)
we are told that our demand
it is demanded of us? (no, our demand)
the tempter tels us
according to Camus the tempter tells us:
the fact that you demand to understand
the meaning of life is a sign of pride!
you must believe! And here again this is not
simply about believing in God
you can believe in the progress of History
you can believe in the evolution of
a better type of human being in the future who will
yes, the evolution of societies (yes)
any and all meaning
and our very honest
desire to simply
know the anser to the question: what's the meaning of
life? and suddenly our honesty
according to the tempters
with their ideologies
this honesty of ours is a sign of our pride?
we're like those naughty children who won't
listen
and of course some people
follow this temptation because in a way it is easier
that is it is easier to live with a sense of meaning in life?
or it is easier
that is
the alternatives
it's easier to hold on to life and not
commit suicide if you believe in something (yes)
or it is easier to accept
the illusion of meaning
rather than killing ones self
yes, yes
however an honest person
who desires above all to live
reconciled to himself
wil lnot accept something like this
so he is left with suicide
in view of this entire absurdity
and at this moment
in this key moment when indeed
Camus really reduces everything to us being able only
to kill ourselves
arises a sense of rebellion
inded, logically
there's no reason to live
but I don't want to kill myself
that is, just simply
since everything is
absurd, then it would be absurd
to claim that in light of absurdity there exists
some moral imperative to kill ourselves
just as in light of all
of ideas about the meaning of life
there exist many moral codes which
flow from a given meaning of life, so too
if the logical consequence of absurdity in life
is that we should dispose of our lives
why should we obey it?
and of course Camus
doesn't claim that there is some good
reason not to kill ourselves
it's just that we rebel against this
he calls it a revolution
that is permanent, aimless and endless
we simply are rebels and
here the theme of freedom appears
because Camus
does not extrapolate from this the thesis that
we have free will and despite
the necessity of absurdity leading to
the imperative of suicide, then our freedom
refuses it
Camus claims that we have the same freedom as
a death row inmate
because we are all on death row
so we have no freedom
freedom is another illusion of meaning
this idea that I am a free person; I am not free
every person, all human life
is on a path towards death
so if we claim for instance
that we won't commit suicide because death is evil
and I want to live
because life is good
but
life itself aims for death
and there is no freedom
here Camus
it's worthwhile, I won't even
consolidate this because it is very
a very complex argument
Camus makes as to why there is no freedom
metaphysical or otherwise
it's just another illusion
I will only summarize it in this picture
o a death row inmate
every human being is a prisoner
sitting in prison, waiting for their execution
and of course some of us can hang ourselves in our cell
while the rest can wait until execution day
so what remains to us in view of all of this?
all that remains is Sysyphus
the myth of Sysyphus as interpretted by
Camus is
it is not hope, but
it is a way to
get by
in our prison cell, to speak
in short
for those who do not know the myth of Sysyphus
he was condemned by the gods
to eternity in Hell
where he must work
doing something senseless, namely
pushing a heavy boulder
to the top of a hill
after which the boulder rolls back down
he follows it down and must push it up again
and so into eternity
this is what we call Sysyphian Work (in Polish)
why did this happen?
in short because Sysyphus
so loved life
he rebelled against the gods
he rebelled to the extent
that at one point he even escaped from Hell
for a while
and returned to Earth
and
he didn't have any greater purpose other than
just wanting to experience a bit more of life
and various gods would come to him
warning him that, alright Sysyphus it's time to go back
because you are really pushing it here
this will end not just badly, but worse for you!
but he didn't want to, he really
this entire absurdity to put it
in Camus' language
the interpretation of Sysyphus
according to Camus is that Sysyphus was
a person who realized the absurdity
of life that we discussed
and he had, he rebelled against it
simply
knowing the danger
Sysyphian Labor in Hell
with no illusions or hope
he rebelled anyways
and Camus
at one point calls Sysyphus
the proletarian of the gods
so this is another - you know - other than being
on death row
waiting in our prison for execution day
here's another metaphor
by Camus
for our lives
humans are the proletariate of God
except - here there is no
point at which
this proletariate
breaks out of
bondage and gains its freedom
and power and
begins to govern itself and
gains enlightenment - no
the only thing
this proletariate of the gods has
is the awareness that
in life - the point is not to live
better
because there is no such thing as better
as a better or a good life
a noble or moral life
a happy life - all of that is an illusion
the only thing we can do as Camus puts it
is to live
more (więcej - in Polish this means more quantitively)
more? stronger? (bardziej - in Polish greater) deeper
yes, a deep and full life (does it differ from Carpe Diem?)
that is an excellent question and
here Camus refers to
this problem of Carpe Diem
by way of
the best, or well, rather
one of the best criticisms
of Carpe Diem, which is
Dostoyevsky's - and here we return to
Camus' great respect for Russian philosophy
Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov
we have it too
also
you lost the cover...
well it fell off
but
oh, excuse me, you see here it is
this one is in Polish, but it is
only one part of it
but in any case we have Dostoyevsky and
we'll definitely go through Dostoyevsky
however
in the Brothers Karamazov there is a chapter where
Ivan, one of the protagonists
speaks with the Devil in his dream
and the Devil generally presents to him
this philosophy of liberation, this Carpe Diem
we can summarize it as Carpe Diem
and they come to a common conclusion
that all is permitted, we can do whatever we want
and of course
in Dostoyevsky's view
Ivan, as this intellectual
well, when he is permitted to do anything
then he will develop
spread his wings
he will create
new works of art
of beauty, he will use his freedom
in this heroic and fantastic way
but Dostoyevsky shows us that if
a simple
Russian peasant
takes to heart that all things are permmitted then
he'll take an axe and kill someone
and this is the problem of Carpe Diem, yes?
in short
Camus claims the problem
of Ivan, this problem
arising from the idea that all things are permmitted
can in fact be reduced to
the problem of vulgarity
and this is very interesting
because Camus really disposses of this problem
in the sense that he claims that
someone who on that basis of
the claim that one ought to
live more and in a deeper way
will go and commit some crime is
just a vulgar person
a commoner
a commoner and even
Camus recounts these examples; that it is like
if we read Rousseau where
Rousseau has this concept of
the noble savage
and he develops this concept of the primal, noble
pre-civilizational human and Camus
writes that it is as if
we read Rousseau
and on the basis of these books we conclude that
we should walk on all fours
that is - well - no!th
that is not the proper conclusion from Rousseau's book
it's like
if we read Nietzsche and conclude that
therefore we ought to hate our mother - well, no!
Camus is very clearly
irritated
by this problem which Dostoyevsky
paints for us
in his novel. He is not a vulgar man
and he does not come to vulgar conclusions
vulgar thesis or actions
from a philosophy which discards
the illusion of meaning which is meaningles
so Camus
of course we can disagree with Camus
it might be politically naive to think like him
Dostoyevsky is in this respect
he has this
political awareness, yes?
Dostoyevsky demonstrates the dangers that lurk
if all people thought this way
whereas Camus has a completely
Camus is
indifferent perhaps about what others will think
if someone thinks in a vulgar way then
then he's vulgar and that's that!
it's the same as, well, reducing
the thing to a really simple absurdity: if we serve
diner, and for diner we put
forks and knives on the table
and someone sees the fork and knife and
takes them and starts to
stab someone in the eye with them
are we to conclude that we ought not have cutlery?
because look what could happen!?
well no - that's not what we'll conclude
in the same way Camus claims that
we cannot
an honest person cannot say that
since
the world is absurd
then instead of living better
we should live more
and deeper but if
we start to do so and talk about it then
there will appear
a type of Smerdikov in Dostoyevsky's sense
who wil
conclude from this that he should take
an axe and kill someone
this is surrendering to some kind of vulgar
pathos
this is an open question of course, for our viewers
do you agree with Camus or not?
I think that
here what comes to the fore a bit
is Camus' anarchism
we should remember that
here some biography might help us
first of all - when he wrote
when did he write this work? if I recall
correctly
around 1940-41
so it was not hard to recognize
the absurdity
of the surrounding world
in those times
especially given that he was a pacifist
his short
time as a member of the
communist party ended with him being expelled
because - well
he belonged to the communist party because
being of Algerian origin
he was an opponent of colonialism
and
whether someone likes it or not
the historical truth is that only
the communists desired
the definitive end to colonialism
but when it turned out
that Camus for instance never really read Marx
and doesn't know correctly
well then
as in every political ideology
we find a dissonance
betwen the idea and the reality
so he was thrown out of the party
he was active in some sort of Algerian popular front
anarchist
and in the end
certainly Camus is
a thinker who
would say that politics is likewise absurd
but this does not mean that he did not participate
in it
he just participated
to the extent it deserved
one could say
it is very difficult to say
what would come of
Camus's philosophy
because with other philosophers
or thinkers
then
at the end of their philosophy is
either a system or
some meaning or some poetry
even if the end
of a given philosophy is for instance
Heaven
then we find very beautiful
despite Heaven being beyond our
rational apprehension
various philosophers and thinkers
for instance St. Augustine
gave beautiful descriptions
of Heaven
but Camus
if there is some image
which he presents at the end: it's Sysyphus in hell
my personal interpretation
is the following:
Camus in shorthand:
the world is absurd
should we commit suicide? no
so what should we do? Go to the gym
because
quite seriously
what is Sysyphian labor?
a man lifts weights, it is very tiring
and then a short break
to regain some strength
and you lift again
and every bodybuilder knows
that
you need 48 hours of recovery time
after
training at the gym so that
the destroyed
muscle tissue could be renewed
if our technique is correct
our muscles will grow even bigger because our brain
will become accustomed to
progresively greater weight (I'm sure that's what Camus)
had in mind...
it would surprise you, because
he for instance had a very positive view
of football - he said that football
was really this kind of
ideal example of where
a human community with love and friendship
really exists
in football
in team sports - I'm talking about
bodybuilding, he saw it in football
that is
of course there is
this danger that
following Camus could mean
falling into some farce
no, no - he wasn't
depressing or laughable
he wasn't grotesque
I think above all he possesed this kind of honesty
awareness
an awareness of the fact that we are condemned
to die
which does not mean that we should
accelerate death or
go mad in trying to distance death from us either
it's more like: live
a life of as much meaning as you can get out of
your life, yes?
perhaps - that is
this is a very
we'll return to Camus because even
whether in his literature or in his
he takes up
the disillusionment of man just as
Evelyn Waugh did
in a sense, but with the great difference that
Waugh did it
to get us
to force us to acknowledge
that
God exists, while Camus
does it because he thinks that
this is the truth!
that this is honest - and even - this is
a paradox because he starts by saying that an honest
persona wants to be reconciled
with the world
and Camus writes that
this honesty
this quest for reconciliation with the world
leads us to accept
that we live
eternally irreconilable lives
in this sense Camus lets go
this is why he says - don't live better
because there is no
but isn't working out living better? what is better?
well no
to live better - Camus
in this phrase he rejects
all philosophical teachings
which is why in a sense
he even writes about it that
in a sense he is commiting the suicide of philosophy
because
in the philosophical tradition we look
at conventional
ways of human life
we see that they are diverse
some live one way, others another way
some believe in this, others in that
is there something we could call
the natural good?
which is universal for all?
in view of which
towards which all men should strive?
and here we begin our philosophical quest
by way of comparisson
let's compare - this person
lives in this way, that person lives in that way
who lives in a better way?
and what does it mean to live better?
and in a sense this is the beginning of philosophy
well yes, but that's...
but Camus says the question should not be
who lives better and how to live better
but how to live more?
I interpret this to mean
a full life
but again
the consequences beyond this image
of Sysyphus
how it should look
it's difficult
I don't want to
can you find the fragment I liked the most?
at the beginning?
sure
about the mechanicalism...?
that was nice too
but more about that brain
it was prior to the mechanicalism?
can you give me a hand because I have trouble
the sleeping mind... it was...
ah yes
 
the question of the immeasurable feeling...
which tears the mind from a slumber...
that is neccessary so that it may live?
yes, read it out loud
so here we go
What then
is this immeasurable feeling which tears
the mind from a slumber otherwise necessary for its
survival
the world - which can be explained
even with poor rationality is a world closer to us
it is the opposite in a world deprived
suddenly of illusions and light
a man feels himself to be alien
this exile is without end
since it lacks memory
of a lost
fatherland or hope for a promised land
this dissonance between man
and his life
between the actor and the decorations on stage
this is the sense of absurdity
well, in my opinion
it would be absurd if
all the episodes
up to now
given that they concerned philosophers
or writers who had some point
some meaning - all such episodes ended
with an attempt
to clearly show this meaning
the only meaning Camus has to show us
is the meaning of Sysyphus
but
but on the other hand if
we can see meaning in Sysyphus
then it means we are capable of finding it everywhere
that is a very curious statement
because Sysyphian labor
is synonymous with meaninglessness (yes, indeed)
find the meaning in Sysyphus and
everything is wide open!
yes, so a man who goes to the gym
has a generally better approach
to life in general
so
I advise you all to go to the gym!
in general
I hope one day there is a new playlist
The Philosopher in Sweatpants
and maybe the playlist will be dedicated
to Sysphusian labor
in physical culture
but
in sum
what else do we need?
ok - so thank you all very much, I encourage you
to read not only
the books, the works....
of Camus...that is...his literary work?
books
and literature, works, books
(problem with Polish words of similar meaning)
I encourage you all to read Camus' literature and
his essays
which is definitely translated into Polish because
here it is in Polish
and we only took up
only
a small fragment
it's a beggining because
for sure we will return
we'll definitely return to Camus
hold up the book
we'll definitely return to Camus
see you in the next episode!
