I have not read Camus' Sisyphus myself, but whenever I have tried to explain
my understanding of Nietzsche's eternal return to a friend, he immediately
thinks of the Sisyphus myth (Camus's version I think). I don't know anything
about Camus' politics and how his rendition of the myth stands with regard
to them. While the problem of Eternal Return does point to some difficulties
in political commitment (at least for those who see in it a teaching about
intentions for change), I don't think it is possible to stop thinking about
politics or commitment to change simply because of this. This is difficult
territory. Whenever I ask some of my fellow scholars these days about how
they envisage their political commitment and what kind of change they want
to bring about through their work I tend to receive unsatisfactory answers
or simply annoyed or blank looks. It seems to me that a lot of critical
scholarship is perhaps being undertaken in a mode in which there is no
longer a credible or clear conception of why critical work needs to take
place, other than say in terms of piecemeal strategic changes and a
determination not to be left out of a crucial debate. I sometimes detect an
unwillingness to reflect on the broader implications of what criticism is
all about, why it takes place, what its for, what can be reasonably hoped
for etc. Does anybody else share these sentiments?
cheers
sebastian
my understanding of Nietzsche's eternal return to a friend, he immediately
thinks of the Sisyphus myth (Camus's version I think). I don't know anything
about Camus' politics and how his rendition of the myth stands with regard
to them. While the problem of Eternal Return does point to some difficulties
in political commitment (at least for those who see in it a teaching about
intentions for change), I don't think it is possible to stop thinking about
politics or commitment to change simply because of this. This is difficult
territory. Whenever I ask some of my fellow scholars these days about how
they envisage their political commitment and what kind of change they want
to bring about through their work I tend to receive unsatisfactory answers
or simply annoyed or blank looks. It seems to me that a lot of critical
scholarship is perhaps being undertaken in a mode in which there is no
longer a credible or clear conception of why critical work needs to take
place, other than say in terms of piecemeal strategic changes and a
determination not to be left out of a crucial debate. I sometimes detect an
unwillingness to reflect on the broader implications of what criticism is
all about, why it takes place, what its for, what can be reasonably hoped
for etc. Does anybody else share these sentiments?
cheers
sebastian