哲理小说 》 西西弗的神話 The Myth of Sisyphus 》
目錄-1
阿爾貝·加繆 Albert Camus
諸神處罰西西弗不停地把一塊巨石推上山頂，而石頭由於自身的重量又滾下山去，諸神認為再也沒有比進行這種無效無望的勞動更為嚴厲的懲罰了。
荷馬說，西西弗是最終要死的人中最聰明最謹慎的人。但另有傳說說他屈從於強盜生涯。我看不出其中有什麽矛盾。各種說法的分歧在於是否要賦予這地獄中的無效勞動者的行為動機以價值。人們首先是以某種輕率的態度把他與諸神放在一起進行譴責，並歷數他們的隱私。阿索玻斯的女兒埃癸娜被朱庇特劫走。父親對女兒的失蹤大為震驚並且怪罪於西西弗，深知內情的西西弗對阿索玻斯說，他可以告訴他女兒的消息，但必須以給柯蘭特城堡供水為條件，他寧願得到水的聖浴，而不是天火雷電。他因此被罰下地獄，荷馬告訴我們西西弗曾經扼往過死神的喉嚨。普洛托忍受不了地獄王國的荒涼寂寞，他催促戰神把死神從其戰勝者手中解放出來。
還有人說，西西弗在臨死前冒失地要檢驗他妻子對他的愛情。他命令她把他的屍體扔在廣場中央。不舉行任何儀式。於是西西弗重墮地獄。他在地獄裏對那恣意踐踏人類之愛的行徑十分憤慨。她獲得普洛托的允諾重返人間以懲罰他的妻子。但當他又一次看到這大地的面貌，重新領略流水、陽光的撫愛，重新觸摸那火熱的石頭、寬闊的大海的時候，他就再也不願回到陰森的地獄中去了。冥王的詔令、氣憤和警告都無濟於事。他又在地球上生活了多年，面對起伏的山巒，奔騰的大海和大地的微笑他又生活了多年。諸神於是進行干涉。墨丘利跑來揪住這冒犯者的領子，把他從歡樂的生活中拉了出來，強行把他重新投入地獄，在那裏，為懲罰他而設的巨石已準備就緒。
我們已經明白：西西弗是個荒謬的英雄。他之所以是荒謬的英雄，還因為他的和他所經受的磨難。他藐視神明，仇恨死亡，對生活充滿，這必然使他受到難以用言語盡述的非人折磨：他以自己的整個身心致力於一種沒有效果的事業。而這是為了對大地的無限熱愛必須付出的代價。人們並沒有談到西西弗在地獄裏的情況。創造這些神話是為了讓人的想象使西西弗的形象栩栩如生。在西西弗身上，我們衹能看到這樣一幅圖畫：一個緊張的身體千百次地重複一個動作：搬動巨石，滾動它並把它推至山頂；我們看到的是一張痛苦扭麯的臉，看到的是緊貼在巨石上的面頰，那落滿泥士、抖動的肩膀，沾滿泥士的雙腳，完全僵直的胳膊，以及那堅實的滿是泥士的人的雙手。經過被渺渺空間和永恆的時間着的努力之後，目的就達到了。西西弗於是看到巨石在幾秒鐘內又嚮着下面的世界滾下，而他則必須把這巨石重新推嚮山頂。他於是又嚮山下走去。
正是因為這種回覆、停歇，我對西西弗産生了興趣。這一張飽經磨難近似石頭般堅硬的面孔已經自己化成了石頭！我看到這個人以沉重而均勻的腳步走嚮那無盡的苦難。這個時刻就像一次呼吸那樣短促，它的到來與西西弗的不幸一樣是確定無疑的，這個時刻就是意識的時刻。在每一個這樣的時刻中，他離開山頂並且逐漸地深入到諸神的巢穴中去，他超出了他自己的命運。他比他搬動的巨石還要堅硬。
如果說，這個神話是悲劇的，那是因為它的主人公是有意識的。若他行的每一步都依靠成功的希望所支持，那他的痛苦實際上又在那裏呢？今天的工人終生都在勞動，終日完成的是同樣的工作，這樣的命運並非不比西西弗的命運荒謬。但是，這種命運衹有在工人變得有意識的偶然時刻纔是悲劇性的。西西弗，這諸神中的無産者，這進行無效勞役而又進行反叛的無産者，他完全清楚自己所處的悲慘境地：在他下山時，他想到的正是這悲慘的境地。造成西西弗痛苦的清醒意識同時也就造就了他的勝利。不存在不通過蔑視而自我超越的命運。
如果西西弗下山推石在某些天裏是痛苦地進行着的，那麽這個工作也可以在歡樂中進行。這並不是言過其實。我還想象西西弗又回頭走嚮他的巨石，痛苦又重新開始。當對大地的想象過於着重於回憶，當對幸福的憧憬過於急切，那痛苦就在人的心靈深處升起：這就是巨石的勝利，這就是巨石本身。巨大的悲痛是難以承擔的重負。這就是我們的客西馬尼之夜。但是，雄辯的真理一旦被認識就會衰竭。因此，俄狄浦斯不知不覺首先屈從命運。而一旦他明白了一切，他的悲劇就開始了。與此同時，兩眼失明而又喪失希望的俄狄浦斯認識到，他與世界之間的唯一聯繫就是一個年輕姑娘鮮潤的手。他於是毫無顧忌地發出這樣震撼人心的聲音：“儘管我歷盡艱難困苦，但我年逾不惑，我的靈魂深邃偉大，因而我認為我是幸福的。”索福剋勒斯的俄狄浦斯與陀思妥耶夫斯基的基裏洛夫都提出了荒謬勝利的法則。先賢的智慧與現代英雄主義匯合了。
人們要發現荒謬，就不能不想到要寫某種有關幸福的教材。“哎，什麽！就憑這些如此狹窄的道路……？”但是，世界衹有一個。幸福與荒謬是同一大地的兩個産兒。若說幸福一定是從荒謬的發現中産生的，那可能是錯誤的。因為荒謬的感情還很可能産生於幸福。“我認為我是幸福的”，俄狄浦斯說，而這種說法是神聖的。它回響在人的瘋狂而又有限的世界之中。它告誡人們一切都還沒有也從沒有被窮盡過。它把一個上帝從世界中驅逐出去，這個上帝是懷着不滿足的心理以及對無效痛苦的偏好而進入人間的。它還把命運改造成為一件應該在人們之中得到安排的人的事情。
西西弗無聲的全部快樂就在於此。他的命運是屬於他的。他的岩石是他的事情。同樣，當荒謬的人深思他的痛苦時，他就使一切偶像啞然失聲。在這突然重又沉默的世界中，大地升起千萬個美妙細小的聲音。無意識的、秘密的召喚，一切面貌提出的要求，這些都是勝利必不可少的對立面和應付的代價。不存在無陰影的太陽，而且必須認識黑夜。荒謬的人說“是”，但他的努力永不停息。如果有一種個人的命運，就不會有更高的命運，或至少可以說，衹有一種被人看作是宿命的和應受到蔑視的命運。此外，荒謬的人知道，他是自己生活的主人。在這微妙的時刻，人回歸到自己的生活之中，西西弗回身走嚮巨石，他靜觀這一係列沒有關聯而又變成他自己命運的行動，他的命運是他自己創造的，是在他的記憶的註視下聚合而又馬上會被他的死亡固定的命運。因此，盲人從一開始就堅信一切人的東西都源於人道主義，就像盲人渴望看見而又知道黑夜是無窮盡的一樣，西西弗永遠行進。而巨石仍在滾動着。
我把西西弗留在山腳下！我們總是看到他身上的重負。而西西弗告訴我們，最高的虔誠是否認諸神並且搬掉石頭。他也認為自己是幸福的。這個從此沒有主宰的世界對他來講既不是荒漠，也不是沃士。這塊巨石上的每一顆粒，這黑黝黝的高山上的每一顆礦砂唯有對西西弗纔形成一個世界。他爬上山頂所要進行的鬥爭本身就足以使一個人心裏感到充實。應該認為，西西弗是幸福的。
目錄-1
最受年輕一代歡迎的導師
見證生活勇氣的傳世作品
01 荒謬與自殺
02 荒謬的墻
03 哲學性的自殺
04 荒謬的自由
05 荒謬的人
06 唐璜主義
07 戲劇
08 徵服
09 哲學和小說
10 基裏洛夫
11 不思未來的創造
12 西西弗神話
13 反叛者
14 普羅米修斯時代
15 世界是我們最初和最後的愛
含着微笑的悲歌
加謬年表
The Myth of Sisyphus is a philosophical essay by Albert Camus. It comprises about 120 pages and was published originally in 1942 in French as Le Mythe de Sisyphe; the English translation by Justin O'Brien followed in 1955.
In the essay, Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd: man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values. Does the realization of the absurd require suicide? Camus answers: "No. It requires revolt." He then outlines several approaches to the absurd life. The final chapter compares the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. The essay concludes, "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
The work can be seen in relation to other works by Camus: the novel The Stranger (1942), the play Caligula (1945), and especially the essay The Rebel (1951).
Summary
The essay is dedicated to Pascal Pia and is organized in three chapters and one appendix.
Chapter 1: An Absurd Reasoning
Camus undertakes to answer what he considers to be the only question of philosophy that matters: Does the realization of the meaninglessness and absurdity of life necessarily require suicide?
He begins by describing the absurd condition: much of our life is built on the hope for tomorrow yet tomorrow brings us closer to death and is the ultimate enemy; people live as if they didn't know about the certainty of death; once stripped of its common romanticisms, the world is a foreign, strange and inhuman place; true knowledge is impossible and rationality and science cannot explain the world: their stories ultimately end in meaningless abstractions, in metaphors. "From the moment absurdity is recognized, it becomes a passion, the most harrowing of all."
It is not the world that is absurd, nor human thought: the absurd arises when the human need to understand meets the unreasonableness of the world, when "my appetite for the absolute and for unity" meets "the impossibility of reducing this world to a rational and reasonable principle."
He then characterizes a number of philosophies that describe and attempt to deal with this feeling of the absurd, by Heidegger, Jaspers, Shestov, Kierkegaard and Husserl. All of these, he claims, commit "philosophical suicide" by reaching conclusions that contradict the original absurd position, either by abandoning reason and turning to God, as in the case of Kierkegaard and Shestov, or by elevating reason and ultimately arriving at ubiquitous Platonic forms and an abstract god, as in the case of Husserl.
For Camus, who sets out to take the absurd seriously and follow it to its final conclusions, these "leaps" cannot convince. Taking the absurd seriously means acknowledging the contradiction between the desire of human reason and the unreasonable world. Suicide, then, also must be rejected: without man, the absurd cannot exist. The contradiction must be lived; reason and its limits must be acknowledged, without false hope. However, the absurd can never be accepted: it requires constant confrontation, constant revolt.
While the question of human freedom in the metaphysical sense loses interest to the absurd man, he gains freedom in a very concrete sense: no longer bound by hope for a better future or eternity, without a need to pursue life's purpose or to create meaning, "he enjoys a freedom with regard to common rules".
To embrace the absurd implies embracing all that the unreasonable world has to offer. Without a meaning in life, there is no scale of values. "What counts is not the best living but the most living."
Thus, Camus arrives at three consequences from the full acknowledging of the absurd: revolt, freedom and passion.
Chapter 2: The Absurd Man
How should the absurd man live? Clearly, no ethical rules apply, as they are all based on higher powers or on justification. "Integrity has no need of rules." 'Everything is permitted' "is not an outburst of relief or of joy, but rather a bitter acknowledgment of a fact."
Camus then goes on to present examples of the absurd life. He begins with Don Juan, the serial seducer who lives the passionate life to the fullest. "There is no noble love but that which recognizes itself to be both short-lived and exceptional."
The next example is the actor, who depicts ephemeral lives for ephemeral fame. "He demonstrates to what degree appearing creates being." "In those three hours he travels the whole course of the dead-end path that the man in the audience takes a lifetime to cover."
Camus' third example of the absurd man is the conqueror, the warrior who forgoes all promises of eternity to affect and engage fully in human history. He chooses action over contemplation, aware of the fact that nothing can last and no victory is final.
Chapter 3: The Myth of Sisyphus
In the last chapter, Camus outlines the legend of Sisyphus who defied the gods and put Death in chains so that no human needed to die. When Death was eventually liberated and it came time for Sisyphus himself to die, he concocted a deceit which let him escape from the underworld. Finally captured, the gods decided on his punishment: for all eternity, he would have to push a rock up a mountain; on the top, the rock rolls down again and Sisyphus has to start over. Camus sees Sisyphus as the absurd hero who lives life to the fullest, hates death and is condemned to a meaningless task.
Camus presents Sisyphus's ceaseless and pointless toil as a metaphor for modern lives spent working at futile jobs in factories and offices. "The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious."
Camus is interested in Sisyphus' thoughts when marching down the mountain, to start anew. This is the truly tragic moment, when the hero becomes conscious of his wretched condition. He does not have hope, but "[t]here is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn." Acknowledging the truth will conquer it; Sisyphus, just like the absurd man, keeps pushing. Camus claims that when Sisyphus acknowledges the futility of his task and the certainty of his fate, he is freed to realize the absurdity of his situation and to reach a state of contented acceptance. With a nod to the similarly cursed Greek hero Oedipus, Camus concludes that "all is well," indeed, that "One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
Appendix
The essay contains an appendix titled "Hope and the Absurd in the work of Franz Kafka". While Camus acknowledges that Kafka's work represents an exquisite description of the absurd condition, he maintains that Kafka fails as an absurd writer because his work retains a glimmer of hope.
杜小真 編譯
请欣赏:
请给我换一个看看！ 拜托，快把噪音停掉！我读累了，想听点音乐或者请来支歌曲！
|
|
|