Till Sisyphus has a face
My retelling of the legend of Sisyphus in the last post said a few things about how the world works. These are the ones that stood out to me, but there might be more that I overlooked.
1. Justice comes out in the end
In my version of the story, Sisyphus’s punishment from the gods matched his crimes against people. The goddess’s judgment highlights the match-up: “In life you stole by trickery. So shall your life in death be an empty trick.” The repetition of “trick” and the comparison-word, “so,” show that the judgment matches the crimes.
2. There is an ultimate authority
When he died, Sisyphus was subject to the judgment of the gods. In the story, that’s just how it is. There’s no suggestion of him resisting the gods--they are the ultimate authority in this story.
3. We need our work to be meaningful
Sisyphus was condemned to eternal, meaningless labor. That’s a worse punishment than eternal but meaningful labor.
How well do you think these assertions match up to reality? Does my version of the legend of Sisyphus depict life as it actually is?
C. S. Lewis used some of the ideas in Sisyphus in his book, Till We Have Faces. It's not the primary myth—that would be the story of Cupid and Psyche. I don’t know if he had Sisyphus in mind as he was writing, but some of the elements in Sisyphus seem to show up.
One character, Psyche, is tricked into breaking a promise. For breaking her promise, the gods punish her with almost-eternal meaningless labor.
Another character, Psyche’s sister, ends up helping with Psyche’s labor without realizing she’s helping. For the sister, the labor feels meaningless, but is actually meaningful: she is making Psyche’s labor lighter.
Lewis’s twist on the legend of Sisyphus says something about how life works: Some of our suffering feels meaningless, but is actually helping someone else in ways we don’t see.
How well do you think that statement matches up to reality?
My answer: it depends.
If I got in a car wreck and was paralyzed, I probably wouldn’t say, “I’m just glad it wasn’t someone else who got paralyzed!” That kind of statement assumes that, well, somebody had to get paralyzed, so at least it wasn’t someone else. As far as I know, there isn’t a paralysis quota that has to be met every week. That suffering didn’t have to happen. It just happened.
On the other hand, between my wife and I, one of us will probably die before the other. One of us is likely to suffer that loss, and if I do, I will be glad that she didn’t have to.
From other things Lewis wrote, it seems clear that he didn’t believe suffering was transferable—I’ll take yours, you take mine—but he did believe others could suffer to bring about good for us that we could not bring about for ourselves.
Upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace
1. Justice comes out in the end
In my version of the story, Sisyphus’s punishment from the gods matched his crimes against people. The goddess’s judgment highlights the match-up: “In life you stole by trickery. So shall your life in death be an empty trick.” The repetition of “trick” and the comparison-word, “so,” show that the judgment matches the crimes.
2. There is an ultimate authority
When he died, Sisyphus was subject to the judgment of the gods. In the story, that’s just how it is. There’s no suggestion of him resisting the gods--they are the ultimate authority in this story.
3. We need our work to be meaningful
Sisyphus was condemned to eternal, meaningless labor. That’s a worse punishment than eternal but meaningful labor.
How well do you think these assertions match up to reality? Does my version of the legend of Sisyphus depict life as it actually is?
One character, Psyche, is tricked into breaking a promise. For breaking her promise, the gods punish her with almost-eternal meaningless labor.
Another character, Psyche’s sister, ends up helping with Psyche’s labor without realizing she’s helping. For the sister, the labor feels meaningless, but is actually meaningful: she is making Psyche’s labor lighter.
Lewis’s twist on the legend of Sisyphus says something about how life works: Some of our suffering feels meaningless, but is actually helping someone else in ways we don’t see.
How well do you think that statement matches up to reality?
My answer: it depends.
If I got in a car wreck and was paralyzed, I probably wouldn’t say, “I’m just glad it wasn’t someone else who got paralyzed!” That kind of statement assumes that, well, somebody had to get paralyzed, so at least it wasn’t someone else. As far as I know, there isn’t a paralysis quota that has to be met every week. That suffering didn’t have to happen. It just happened.
On the other hand, between my wife and I, one of us will probably die before the other. One of us is likely to suffer that loss, and if I do, I will be glad that she didn’t have to.
From other things Lewis wrote, it seems clear that he didn’t believe suffering was transferable—I’ll take yours, you take mine—but he did believe others could suffer to bring about good for us that we could not bring about for ourselves.
Upon Him was the chastisement that brought us peace
and with His wounds we are healed.
Comments
Post a Comment