Albert Camus

[The Sum of Awe]

I recently read The Stranger by Albert Camus (okay, okay, it was the audiobook I listened to. I'm lazy, okay?) It was really good, it'll definitely be one of those stories that will stick to the bulletin board of my mind that I'll return to now and again. I liked the protagonist Meursault who was depicted as an emotionless, amoral man. He was a true example of a nihilist as I've always understood it. And I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I sort of admired this character. I know that I shouldn't and I know that isn't what Camus intended. I suppose the traits I admired about him were more of his pure authenticity and his stoicism, instead of how those traits were taken to the extreme with acting without empathy and complete indifference towards everything.

My interpretation was that, this man represented nihilism, or in Camus' philosophy, someone who was aware of the Absurd (life is without inherent meaning, but humans strive for meaning). I think at the end this man came to the conclusion that Camus did about "rebelling against the absurd". This is after he exploded at the chaplain who kept trying to make him believe in God and pray for his soul:

"For the first time and a long time I thought about my mom. I felt I now understand why, at the end of her life she had taken a fiance, why she played a new beginning again. Even there in that Home where lives were fading out. So close to death, my mom must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. And I felt ready to live it all again too, as if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope. For the first time, in that night alive with sights and stars, I opened myself to he gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself, so like a brother really. I felt that I had been happy, and was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I only wished that there would be large crowd of spectators the day of my execution, and they would greet me with cries of hate."
(not word for word but close)

To me it symbolizes that regardless of how you live life, it all amounts to the same thing. But it's understandable and useful to set up priorities and hopes for yourself, that is your Sisyphean boulder, and to work to achieve them. Even for Meursault, who was in a prison cell awaiting execution moreso for not meeting society's expectations rather than an actual crime, he found hope in an angry crowd at the day of his execution. Whether you get the boulder over the hill or not, whether your priorities change over time, it's all the same in the end. If anyone is more well versed in Absurdism correct my interpretation if it's wrong.


I plan on listening to The Myth of Sisyphus next. I actually did try today, I listened for 40 minutes but he uses a lot of big words and it's hard for me to follow. But I'm definitely going to keep trying until I understand it. I may take it a chapter at a time, reflect on the chapter, that might help me understand the book better.


Has anyone read either of these two books? Are you familiar with Absurdism? What are your thoughts on The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus, Absurdism itself?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I recently read The Stranger by Albert Camus (okay, okay, it was the audiobook I listened to. I'm lazy, okay?) It was really good, it'll definitely be one of those stories that will stick to the bulletin board of my mind that I'll return to now and again. I liked the protagonist Meursault who was depicted as an emotionless, amoral man. He was a true example of a nihilist as I've always understood it. And I'm a bit embarrassed to admit that I sort of admired this character. I know that I shouldn't and I know that isn't what Camus intended. I suppose the traits I admired about him were more of his pure authenticity and his stoicism, instead of how those traits were taken to the extreme with acting without empathy and complete indifference towards everything.

My interpretation was that, this man represented nihilism, or in Camus' philosophy, someone who was aware of the Absurd (life is without inherent meaning, but humans strive for meaning). I think at the end this man came to the conclusion that Camus did about "rebelling against the absurd". This is after he exploded at the chaplain who kept trying to make him believe in God and pray for his soul:

"For the first time and a long time I thought about my mom. I felt I now understand why, at the end of her life she had taken a fiance, why she played a new beginning again. Even there in that Home where lives were fading out. So close to death, my mom must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. And I felt ready to live it all again too, as if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope. For the first time, in that night alive with sights and stars, I opened myself to he gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself, so like a brother really. I felt that I had been happy, and was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I only wished that there would be large crowd of spectators the day of my execution, and they would greet me with cries of hate."
(not word for word but close)

To me it symbolizes that regardless of how you live life, it all amounts to the same thing. But it's understandable and useful to set up priorities and hopes for yourself, that is your Sisyphean boulder, and to work to achieve them. Even for Meursault, who was in a prison cell awaiting execution moreso for not meeting society's expectations rather than an actual crime, he found hope in an angry crowd at the day of his execution. Whether you get the boulder over the hill or not, whether your priorities change over time, it's all the same in the end. If anyone is more well versed in Absurdism correct my interpretation if it's wrong.


I plan on listening to The Myth of Sisyphus next. I actually did try today, I listened for 40 minutes but he uses a lot of big words and it's hard for me to follow. But I'm definitely going to keep trying until I understand it. I may take it a chapter at a time, reflect on the chapter, that might help me understand the book better.


Has anyone read either of these two books? Are you familiar with Absurdism? What are your thoughts on The Stranger, The Myth of Sisyphus, Absurdism itself?

If I were you, I'd try The Plague (La Peste) before the Myth of Sisyphus. Camus was very much an existentialist, so you got it right when you spoke of Meursault's "authenticity."

If you were to try and define Existentialism, I guess it would be: Existence precedes essence. It is a strictly material, scientific, rational (perhaps we could say "Darwinian") view of existence, of life on this planet, carries the following implications:

We exist, period, without any more meaning or purpose than any other organism, like an amoeba or a bacteria. We are born, or we have evolved as a species, or both, with a completely tabula rasa. We exist as organisms, the product of random bio-physical chance. There is no inherent, larger essential meaning to life (or at least there is no evidence of such a meaning): there is just random existence itself. All “essence” or meaning follows after this fact, the fact of our existence (thus: existence precedes essence). There is no innate "human nature"; that is to say there is no innate human "essence".

Thus, there is no innate, ultimate set of truths. Thus, there is no innate, universal morality: truths and morality are simply "ideology" or useful fictions (note influence of Marx and Nietzsche here).

Thus, life itself is totally, inherently meaningless when measured against the vastness of the universe and space and time. We live, we struggle and we die, with the same "meaning" as an ant or a single cell organism.

BUT it also seems equally clear that mankind -- as an individual or as a culture, a nation, a planet etc. -- cannot survive in a meaningless world. We, as both individuals and as communities, cannot exist as nihilists (people who believe in nothing); that is, without belief, humans and humanity cannot function.

Existentialism is, then, a philosophical and literary movement attempting to confront the nihilist implications of Modernism or "The Modern Condition", and by confronting it, rise above it.

The Absurd

Because modern man cannot locate an overarching meaning to human existence (the way religions and mythologies once did), life is therefore inherently absurd: It makes no sense. It defies Reason. In the end, regardless of our heroism, love, efforts etc. we all die. All meaning is essentially meaningless; the greatest work of art today will be utterly forgotten one thousand years from now. For example, how many people can you name from the 14th century? Good things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to good people, and so on, so life really makes no sense at all; it is absurd.

The grimmest example of the absurdity of human existence would be the Holocaust: certainly no god or God would will this type of suffering, and such immense suffering seems to serve no purpose. But try as we might, the murder of 6,000,000 Jews has no metaphysical meaning: it simply happened and it makes no sense outside of simple explanations of cause and effect: I can explain how it happened in terms of human events, but not how it was meaningful: how it was justified or how even a God could rationally justify such atrocity.

Note that the key Existential philosophers, then, arise directly after the Holocaust.

Consider Percy Shelley's Poem: "Ozymandias"

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,​

The lone and level sands stretch far away.​

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If I were you, I'd try The Plague (La Peste) before the Myth of Sisyphus. Camus was very much an existentialist, so you got it right when you spoke of Meursault's "authenticity."

If you were to try and define Existentialism, I guess it would be: Existence precedes essence. It is a strictly material, scientific, rational (perhaps we could say "Darwinian") view of existence, of life on this planet, carries the following implications:

We exist, period, without any more meaning or purpose than any other organism, like an amoeba or a bacteria. We are born, or we have evolved as a species, or both, with a completely tabula rasa. We exist as organisms, the product of random bio-physical chance. There is no inherent, larger essential meaning to life (or at least there is no evidence of such a meaning): there is just random existence itself. All “essence” or meaning follows after this fact, the fact of our existence (thus: existence precedes essence). There is no innate "human nature"; that is to say there is no innate human "essence".

Thus, there is no innate, ultimate set of truths. Thus, there is no innate, universal morality: truths and morality are simply "ideology" or useful fictions (note influence of Marx and Nietzsche here).

Thus, life itself is totally, inherently meaningless when measured against the vastness of the universe and space and time. We live, we struggle and we die, with the same "meaning" as an ant or a single cell organism.

BUT it also seems equally clear that mankind -- as an individual or as a culture, a nation, a planet etc. -- cannot survive in a meaningless world. We, as both individuals and as communities, cannot exist as nihilists (people who believe in nothing); that is, without belief, humans and humanity cannot function.

Existentialism is, then, a philosophical and literary movement attempting to confront the nihilist implications of Modernism or "The Modern Condition", and by confronting it, rise above it.

The Absurd

Because modern man cannot locate an overarching meaning to human existence (the way religions and mythologies once did), life is therefore inherently absurd: It makes no sense. It defies Reason. In the end, regardless of our heroism, love, efforts etc. we all die. All meaning is essentially meaningless; the greatest work of art today will be utterly forgotten one thousand years from now. For example, how many people can you name from the 14th century? Good things happen to bad people. Bad things happen to good people, and so on, so life really makes no sense at all; it is absurd.

The grimmest example of the absurdity of human existence would be the Holocaust: certainly no god or God would will this type of suffering, and such immense suffering seems to serve no purpose. But try as we might, the murder of 6,000,000 Jews has no metaphysical meaning: it simply happened and it makes no sense outside of simple explanations of cause and effect: I can explain how it happened in terms of human events, but not how it was meaningful: how it was justified or how even a God could rationally justify such atrocity.

Note that the key Existential philosophers, then, arise directly after the Holocaust.

Consider Percy Shelley's Poem: "Ozymandias"

I met a traveller from an antique land​

Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone​

Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,​

Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown​

And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command​

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read​

Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,​

The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.​

And on the pedestal these words appear:​

`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:​

Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'​

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay​

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,​

The lone and level sands stretch far away.​

When you say to "rise above" the absurd, that we should accept it and live while letting go of meaning, or that we should make a meaning for ourselves and cling to it and strive for it? Or does it not matter, both work?

What was your interpretation of the moral or meaning behind The Stranger?

I will look into The Plague first then. That's good, because I seem to be better at paying attention to stories rather than philosophical lecture books. MoS is still something I intend to read at some point, though. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

When you say to "rise above" the absurd, that we should accept it and live while letting go of meaning, or that we should make a meaning for ourselves and cling to it and strive for it? Or does it not matter, both work?

Well, I'm not really an Existentialist (well, maybe a little), but in my view there really is no "outside" meaning to human life, any more than any other life. And yet, being human, living without meaning really is absurd, because our brains strive relentlessly to make sense out of things. So, (and I've written about this before) we have to make meaning for our own lives. And then -- and this is where the authenticity comes in, we have to live as if that meaning is at our core.

What was your interpretation of the moral or meaning behind The Stranger?

The Stranger is pretty complex, and can be interpreted in various ways, and whether it has a central meaning or moral is a subject of much debate. I can work with most of the meanings below:

1. One interpretation often discussed is existentialism, which emphasizes the individual's freedom, responsibility, and the absence of inherent meaning in life. The protagonist, Meursault, embodies many existentialist themes through his detachment, apathy, and confrontation with the absurdity of life.
2. Some readers argue that the central moral is the importance of living authentically and accepting the consequences of one's actions, even in the face of societal expectations or norms. Meursault's refusal to conform to societal expectations of grief and remorse, even after committing a crime, can be seen as a challenge to conventional morality.
3. Others view the novel as a critique of societal norms and the justice system, highlighting the arbitrary nature of morality and punishment. Meursault's trial and eventual condemnation can be interpreted as a commentary on the absurdity and injustice inherent in human institutions.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, I'm not really an Existentialist (well, maybe a little), but in my view there really is no "outside" meaning to human life, any more than any other life. And yet, being human, living without meaning really is absurd, because our brains strive relentlessly to make sense out of things. So, (and I've written about this before) we have to make meaning for our own lives. And then -- and this is where the authenticity comes in, we have to live as if that meaning is at our core.


The Stranger is pretty complex, and can be interpreted in various ways, and whether it has a central meaning or moral is a subject of much debate. I can work with most of the meanings below:

1. One interpretation often discussed is existentialism, which emphasizes the individual's freedom, responsibility, and the absence of inherent meaning in life. The protagonist, Meursault, embodies many existentialist themes through his detachment, apathy, and confrontation with the absurdity of life.
2. Some readers argue that the central moral is the importance of living authentically and accepting the consequences of one's actions, even in the face of societal expectations or norms. Meursault's refusal to conform to societal expectations of grief and remorse, even after committing a crime, can be seen as a challenge to conventional morality.
3. Others view the novel as a critique of societal norms and the justice system, highlighting the arbitrary nature of morality and punishment. Meursault's trial and eventual condemnation can be interpreted as a commentary on the absurdity and injustice inherent in human institutions.

Thank you for your answers.