The Myth Of Sysiphus Essays - Albert Camus, Sisyphus,

The Myth Of Sysiphus Albert Camus wrote the Myth of Sysiphus. The stories main character is Sysiphus. He lived in Ancient Greece and was the founder and king of a prosperous city called Corinth. Sysiphus was an extremely smart and clever man but did indeed possess a passionate desire to outwit the gods. Sysiphus also possessed a highly rebellious nature. During his time, he was a mortal man who had the audasity to match wits with the gods. Sysiphus was condemned to role a rock up to the top of a mountain, watch it role back down again, and then push it back up again. His passionate and rebellious nature combined with his desire to outwit the gods is what led to his fate of futile labor. For example, Jupiter, the god of the Sea, abducted Aegina, the daughter of Aesopus. Aesopus was naturally quite distressed by this event and went to Sysiphus to complain of this monstrosity. Sysiphus knew where Aegina had been taken. He then told Aesopus where Jupiter had taken Aegina on the Condition that that Aesopus would provide water to the city of Corinth. Sysiphus tricked death when it came and took him to the underworld he left death there in chains. Sysiphus also once wanted to test his wife's love for him. He ordered her to publicly display his body and not give him a proper burial. Once he was condemned to the underworld he complained to Pluto that he needed to return so that he could chastise his wife. After once again seeing the pleasures of this world he didnt want to return to the underworld and for many years he did not. Once again the gods had bee n outwitted by Sysiphus, a mere mortal. This angered them deeply. Mercury came to seize Sysiphus and ,at once, condemned him to the underworld to carry out his Fate. Albert Camus, the author of the Myth of the cave wrote this Myth during the tumultuous Shambles of WWII. All around him he witnessed the pain and suffering people had to indure from the outcome of war. He had a bleak but courageous outlook for what one could only imagine to be a very trying time for people. Camus believed that the essence of man was irrational and life is nonessential, but one should face life with a sort of courageous humanism. Camus rather enjoyed the more rebellious side of human nature. Camus is most interested in Sysiphus because when faced with this futile punishment he chooses a rather unusual manner to deal with it. In his writing Camus focuses most on the moment of time when Sysiphus is coming down the mountain. He describes Sysiphus as being in a conscious and lucid state. He feels tragedy, victory, and a bit of sadness for his situation. It is during this time of consciousness that Sysiphus begins to formulate drastic conclusions about his fate. During his descent, he decides that he and only he can control his own destiny. He faces the reality of his situation and makes a conscious decision to reject any god that would have him endure futile suffering. He decides that his fate will lie within his own hands and therefore he and only he will decide whether or not he will allow this condemnation to render him powerless or powerful. In this moment of adversity he finds the courage within himself to continue on and decide for himself that god will not make him suffer. Sysiphus decides that he will be happy. He will be superior to his fate. Once he rejects god he sees that because of his own nature he can create his happiness. Camus is most interested in this side of Sysiphus. He wonders how one can grasp the consciousness to be happy in the face of such adversity given this terrible punishment. Camus realizes that Sysiphus' joy is contained within. His fate belongs to him. Camus states that one cannot know what it means to be happy unless one has known what it means to experience sorrow. Sysiphus has, even to the end, managed to outsmart the gods. The gods gave him what they considered a punishment that would surely make any

Nafta and Mercosur essays

Nafta and Mercosur essays While still in office, President Bill Clinton emerged from a meeting with 33 Western Hemisphere leaders and made an ambitious pledge. By 2005, he promised, a ''Free Trade Area of the Americas would stretch from Alaska to Argentina'' and ''will be the world's largest market.'' He had the idea of combining all trading blocks and emerging as one huge western connection. The question now remains, should the new President strive to accomplish the goal of Clinton? Would the combination of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR) be a good idea, or even possible? Would it be in our best interests to link ourselves in contract with not only Canada and Mexico but Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay as well? The answer is definitely yes. As it is now, NAFTA is starting to fail in many peoples eyes. Though it has brought success to some, it has caused distress for most. The inclusion of the South American countries and the MERCOSUR ways could only make the United States more successful economically. To understand why things need to change in order to better our economy we must first know the background information. On January 1st, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect, creating the worlds largest free trade area. Among the main objectives is the liberalization of trade between Canada, Mexico and the United States, to stimulate economic growth and give the NAFTA countries equal access to each others markets. Some of the promised benefits were 200,000 new U.S. jobs from NAFTA per year, higher wages in Mexico, a growing U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, environmental clean-up and improved health along the border. The most important feature of NAFTA that would benefit the people is employment and the promise that NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of new, high paying jobs. There was also a promise that wages in Mexico would increase due t...