Читаем Абсурд и вокруг: сборник статей полностью

Such conditions, to a great extent, go hand in hand with the arguments about the absurdity of life. There are different arguments which might vary from individual to individual, but the most common argument is that whatever we do as individuals throughout our life does not make any sense after a 100 years or so. Behind this argument of the absurdity of our existence is the fear of death. Inconsistency of human life makes us wonder what the ultimate goal is. Man works to earn money to pay living expenses, to create a family and take care of it, to build a career, but where does this all lead to when at the end we face death, not only individual, but also death of the whole human civilization?

Some people try to avoid absurdity by looking for wider foundations for their desires that could not be digressed from. In a way, the idea is to give life some meaning by imagining a certain role or function within something bigger than themselves. Often such meaning of life is being searched for by having a particular function or role in the society, the state, a revolution, development of mankind, scientific development or in religion. We must admit that when people take part in something big they feel that that is part of them. This makes them feel less worried about what is typical of them because they identify themselves with the big challenge that fulfills them. In this way, their life has meaning. However, we must not forget that even such a big goal can be doubtful in the same way that we doubt the goals of individual life. Since we can step aside the goals of individual life and doubt their meaning, we can do the same with any higher goal that we have set ourselves — our participation in scientific development, society, or our devotion to God. The reason for this lies in what we believe makes sense, justification and meaning of things, and that is the fact that after a certain point we do not need additional reasons. Eventually, the reason for having doubts on the limited goals of individual life initiates the existence of the same doubt in terms of any higher goal that gives support and meaning to our life. Once this fundamental doubt exists, it can not be avoided.

However, we must admit that observing ourselves from a much wider perspective than the one we have as individuals, we become observers of our own life. Being aware that we cannot do much as observers of our own life, we continue to live our life, and as Thomas Nagel says, «we dedicate ourselves to something that is nothing more but something extraordinary, similar to a ritual of an unknown religion» [281]. In this case, our unimportance as individuals and the fact that the whole mankind will disappear in the end with no trace are just metaphors that we use when we make the step forward to observe ourselves from outside and to discover that the unique form of our lives is interesting and at the same time unusual. This means that we as human beings are aware that the transcendental step is a natural thing for us humans. The absurdity of our existence faces us with a problem that requires appropriate solution. This, of course, is the way Camus approaches this question He finds support in the fact that we are anxious to avoid absurd situations. He rejects suicide as a way out from absurdity of our lives and suggests resistance and despise instead. Camus believes that we as human beings can save our own dignity by opposing the reality that does not listen to our desires, and by continuing to live despite the situation. Of course, this will not void our lives of being absurd, but it will give them a noble trait. Yet, there will be a certain amount of doubt. I would not say that our absurd guarantees so many opposing accidents to happen. Although I risk being labeled not original at the end of this essay, I would like to finish with the words of Thomas Nagel:

The absurd is one of the most human things for us; it is a manifestation of our most advanced and most interesting features. As skepticism in epistemology, the absurd is interesting because we possess a form of analyzing things — an ability to transcend ourselves in our thoughts [282].

Works cited

Anders 1980 — G. Anders. Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. München: VerlagC. H. Beck, 1980.

Camus 1991 — A. Camus. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays / Transl. byjustin O'Brien. Vintage International, 1991.

Ellul 1990 — J. Ellul The Technological Bluff / Transl. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.

Marcuse 1972 — H. Marcuse. Negations: Essays on Critical Theory. Harm-dsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1972.

Nagel 1990 — Th. NageL Mortal Questions. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1979.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Бить или не бить?
Бить или не бить?

«Бить или не бить?» — последняя книга выдающегося российского ученого-обществоведа Игоря Семеновича Кона, написанная им незадолго до смерти весной 2011 года. В этой книге, опираясь на многочисленные мировые и отечественные антропологические, социологические, исторические, психолого-педагогические, сексологические и иные научные исследования, автор попытался представить общую картину телесных наказаний детей как социокультурного явления. Каков их социальный и педагогический смысл, насколько они эффективны и почему вдруг эти почтенные тысячелетние практики вышли из моды? Или только кажется, что вышли? Задача этой книги, как сформулировал ее сам И. С. Кон, — помочь читателям, прежде всего педагогам и родителям, осмысленно, а не догматически сформировать собственную жизненную позицию по этим непростым вопросам.

Игорь Семёнович Кон

Культурология