Three Stages of Existentialism
Humans in Anguish: "The man who involves himself and who realizes that he is not only the person he chooses to be, but also a law-maker who is, at the same time, choosing all mankind as well as himself, cannot help escape the feeling of his total and deep responsibility. Of course there are many people who are not anxious; but we claim they are hiding their anxiety, that they are fleeing from it....Anguish is evident, even when it conceals itself."
Humans in
Forlornness: "When we speak
of forlornness, we mean only that God does not exist and that we have to face
all the consequences of this....The existentialist thinks it very distressing
that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven
of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer an a priori Good, since
there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. Nowhere is it written that the Good exists,
that we must be honest, that we must not lie; because the fact is we are on a
plane where there are only men....Neither within him or without does man find
anything to cling to. He can't start
making excuses for himself.
We are called upon to live without appeal, as appeals are intellectually dishonest. But perhaps there are other alternatives than: 1) accepting absurdity; 2) embracing hopeful metaphysics; or 3) Camus’ defiance. Perhaps we can just say we don’t understand life at all, but we affirm it anyway. We just try to live without being sure of anything. Be open to possibilities. Then we might ground the meaning of our lives in the small part we can play in bringing about a more meaningful reality, by working to transform reality. This is no answer, but a way to live
Humans in Despair: "As for despair, the term has a very
simple meaning. It means that we shall
confine ourselves to reckoning only with what depends upon our will, or on the
ensemble of probabilities which make our action possible....No God, no scheme,
can adapt the world and its possibilities to my will."
Summary of The Myth of Sisyphus
Summary: In The Myth of Sisyphus (1955) Camus claims that the only important philosophical question is suicide—should we continue to live or not? The rest is secondary, says Camus, because no one dies for scientific or philosophical arguments, usually abandoning them when their life is at risk. Yet people do take their own lives because they judge them meaningless, or sacrifice them for meaningful causes. This suggests that questions of meaning supersede all other scientific or philosophical questions. As Camus puts it: “I therefore conclude that the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.”
What interests Camus is what leads to suicide. He argues that “beginning to think is beginning to be undermined … the worm is in man’s heart.”When we start to think we open up the possibility that all we valued previously, including our belief in life’s goodness, may be subverted. This rejection of life emanates from deep within, and this is where its source must be sought. For Camus killing yourself is admitting that all of the habits and effort needed for living are not worth the trouble. As long as we accept reasons for life’s meaning we continue, but as soon as we reject these reasons we become alienated—we become strangers from the world. This feeling of separation from the world Camus terms absurdity, a sensation that may lead to suicide. Still most of us go on because we are attached to the world; we continue to live out of habit.
But is suicide a solution to the absurdity of life? For those who believe in life’s absurdity it is a reasonable response—one’s conduct should follow from one’s beliefs. Of course conduct does not always follow from belief. Individuals argue for suicide but continue to live; others profess that there is a meaning to life and choose suicide. Yet most persons are attached to this world by instinct, by a will to live that precedes philosophical reflection. Thus, they evade questions of suicide and meaning by combining instinct with the hope that something gives life meaning. Yet the repetitiveness of life brings absurdity back to consciousness. In Camus’ words: “Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or factory, meal, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday…”Living brings the question of suicide back, forcing a person to confront and answer this essential question—should I go on?
Yet of death we know nothing. “This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction.”Furthermore I can’t know myself intimately anymore than I can know death. “This very heart which is mine will forever remain indefinable to me. Between the certainty I have of my existence and the content I try to give to that assurance, the gap will never be filled. Forever I shall be a stranger to myself …” We know that we feel, but our knowledge of ourselves ends there.
What makes life absurd is our inability to know ourselves and the world’s meaning even though we desire such knowledge. “…what is absurd is the confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human heart.” The world could have meaning: “But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it.” This tension between our desire to know meaning and the impossibility of knowing it is a most important discovery. In response, we are tempted to leap into faith, but the honest know that they do not understand, and they must learn “to live without appeal…” In this sense we are free—living without higher purposes, living without appeal. Aware of our condition we exercise our freedom and revolt against the absurd—this is the best we can do.
Nowhere is the essence of the human condition made clearer than in the The Myth of Sisyphus. Condemned by the gods to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, whereupon its own weight makes it fall back down again, Sisyphus was condemned to this perpetually futile labor. His crimes seem slight, yet his preference for the natural world instead of the underworld incurred the wrath of the gods: “His scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing.” He was condemned to everlasting torment, and the accompanying despair of knowing that his labor was futile.
Yet Camus sees something else in Sisyphus at that moment when he goes back down the mountain. Consciousness of his fate is the tragedy; yet consciousness also allows Sisyphus to scorn the gods which provides a small measure of satisfaction. Tragedy and happiness go together; this is the state of the world that we must accept. Fate decries that there is no purpose for our lives, but one can respond bravely to their situation: “This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Reflections – Camus argues that life is meaningless and absurd. Still we can revolt against the absurdity, and find some small modicum of happiness. Essentially Camus asks if there is a third alternative between acceptance of life’s absurdity or its denial by embracing dubious metaphysical propositions. Can we live without the hope that life is meaningful, but without the despair that leads to suicide? If the contrast is posed this starkly it seems an alternative appears—we can proceed defiantly forward. We can live without faith, without hope, and without appeal.
Ryan Gosling reading Camus!
Ryan Gosling in La La Land!
Camus says, "What does it all mean, Ryan Gosling?"
Camus’s part one of his novel The Stranger seems to conflict with the ideas of his meaning of life. The Stranger follows a man seemingly without any connections to keep him anchored to life. He has no opinions on the essential questions of life, no care of whether he lives or dies, but instead takes things day by day, each event dealt with as they come. Yet in his summary of The Myth of Sisyphus, he argues that what Sisyphus represents is the choice between living in ignorance, dying from the absurdity of life, or actively revolting against it. His main character, meanwhile, continues to live not ignorant to the world, but not caring for it at all.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is only part one of the novel, and is most likely only the set up for a greater change. After all, he did kill a man which is bound to bring up a flood of questions and a change in disposition. Perhaps the novel will show that ultimately, no person can try to avoid the greater pressures of life involving the questions that make up its meaning.
The current representation of Camus’s character is more representative of the Existentialist’s theory on life, where all decisions are based on solely your own choice and your life is dictated by your wants. This idea conflicts with Camus’s theory on life, where life is dictated around the “ most urgent of questions.” The two aren’t necessarily opposing, as one doesn’t necessarily negate the other, but the conflicts that do occur work to create the gaps of each individual theory and show the complexity life creates of itself.
Camus’s theory, in my opinion, is not better nor any worse than Existentialism. I found flaws with both, as well as points in which I can find agreement with. Neither is perfect, and their attempts to summarize life's meaning and the common thread of humanity is folly, I believe. Life is full of so many factors and such a wide range of possibilities that to categorize simply in words when words fail in places where explanation is impossible- is folly. There are truthful threads strunge throughout. In existentialism the idea that everyone is responsible for their own actions ultimately I think rings true. A person can be pressured to make a decision in one way or another, but ultimately whatever they do is their own decision. In Camus’s theory, the idea that suicidal people are such because they think too deeply of everything and get lost within the crossed threads and interpretations seems to ring true. A suicidal person doesn’t necessarily think of every question, but often the deeper question of their own worth that often leads them to their own actions.
Though I agree with certain parts of the theories listed above, I don’t think they have particularly added to my life as I already had similar thoughts myself. Perhaps the only addition it can make is presenting people with the reality that they alone are responsible for their own actions, though I am guilty sometimes of blaming others for what I do. But the concept can help society in that it opens people to be more considerate and thoughtful of what they do, and eliminates the loopholes that so many seem to take in order to avoid consequences. Their are flaws, again, in both theories and none should necessarily be taken as gospel. Instead, examining each theory can enrich one’s mind and give one a new perspective on life.
Albert Camus believed that the most important question is that of “the meaning of life.” In Part 1 of The Stranger we are introduced to Meursault whose actions and motivations are questionable. When finding out about his mother’s death, he is worried about missing work and feels the need to tell his boss that it is not his fault. When his girlfriend Marie asks him if she wants to marry him, he says it doesn’t “make any difference” to him and that he probably does not love her. Camus wanted to show us a character who lives without meaning in his life. Meursault goes through his life almost as if he is sleepwalking or going through the motions of his life. Meursault does not question the meaning of life or find any purpose. What was so alarming to me about Meursault’s character was the fact that he agreed to write the letter for Raymond to help him get revenge on his girlfriend even after he admitted to abusing her. Meursault did not even stop to consider whether what he was doing was right or not. He did what Raymond asked simply because he didn’t see why not. This is clearly the action of a man who does not consider meaning or what is right and wrong.
ReplyDeletePart 1 of the book ends with Meursault killing a man on the beach. Meursault was not attacked by this man. It will be interesting to see how Meursault views life after he has taken the life of another. Camus argues that the search for meaning in our lives is what makes us human. I agree with this idea. It seems like such a foreign concept to not consider such things as our meaning and purpose in life. I think that a lot of what we do is based on finding meaning in life. When we do not consider our purpose we become sleepwalkers, going through the motions. It also seems that without considering meaning and purpose it would be very difficult to have a moral code to live by, which would explain many of Meursault’s actions throughout Part 1 of The Stranger. I think that the concept of finding meaning in life is very intriguing and I am interested in seeing whether Meursault will begin to question the meaning of life in the next part of the story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“The Stranger” by Albert Camus is very different from the average novel. It subverts expectations, in an attempt to demonstrate to the reader the nature of absurdism. The clearest example of this can be seen when Meuresault shoots The Arab, in a completely unexpected turn of events. This causes the reader to ask “Why?”. People simply don't shoot other people for no reason, and therefore the reader attempts to imply their rules to the world created by Camus. The problem with this is that Camus purposely assigns no reason to Meuresault’s actions. In doing so, he demonstrates one of the key ideas of absurdism: the universe is without order and meaning, it is absurd. Through the sudden and unexplained twist, Camus catches the reader by surprise, and pushes home just how unexplainable and irrational it is, and by extension, how unexplainable and irrational life is. He also attempts to demonstrate the meaningless and absurdity of life. Meurasault says things like “It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot”. While on a surface level this seems like a very obvious thing to point out whilst holding a gun, what Meursault actually means is that either choice is the same. He perceives life to be meaningless, and whether he shoots or he does not shoot, then the outcome will be essentially the same. Similarly, earlier on when Marie asks him if he loves her he tells her that “It didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so”. In his mind this seems a perfectly reasonable answer, and he gives no thought to the emotional repercussions that has. When life is a meaningless and absurd existence, then why should it matter? This theory builds upon Sartre’s theory in that it speaks of a deep despair, and forlornness, in knowing that we are all alone. There is no God to provide meaning or excuses. The two theories do have a major difference in that Absurdism emphasizes to a far greater extent the hopelessness and lack of meaning that life contains, with humans struggling against this idea to find an existence. Existentialism on the other hand, focuses on the importance of actions in sculpting the meaning of a person - existence precedes essence. I see myself in this novel in the occasional apathy of the main character. Life can be tiring and overwhelming, and sometimes it seems easier to resort to a similar state of uncaring, and ignoring emotions that I might possibly feel otherwise. Learning to understand the nature of my existence in the world, and how to cope with such an existence, would be beneficial to me. Also, the ability to view the world from a bigger picture standpoint would be helpful. If everyone understood a little better the true nature of the world, at least the true nature according to Camus, then perhaps the world would be far more collaborative and understanding of each others plight’s.
ReplyDeleteOk, when I first started reading The Summary of the Myth of Sisyphus I felt a little frustrated. The existentialism we had talked about in class seemed positive and was embracing personal responsibility. I liked the idea that every person gets to be their own judge of society and that our actions have power. But this summary seemed to have a more cynical view of the concept. Camus states, “We continue to live out of habit. Yet of death we know nothing. We know that we feel, but our knowledge of ourselves ends there. In this sense we are free—living without higher purposes, living without appeal.” Since when did life itself become a small feat? Why does our life here hold such a small meaning? Who needs “higher purposes” when we have humanity? Is the appeal of ourselves and our peers not enough? There is so much to discover here, why must people be unsatisfied with discovering that this is all there is? Maybe this is because I was raised as an atheist and there has never been the illusion of something bigger.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading The Stranger, I wondered how Meursault could be so apathetic. His life is filled with both unforgivably bad men who beat their girlfriends and their dogs and also extreme happiness with having a seemingly great girl fall in love with him. And still he stays neutral. A line he mutters when asked if he would like to go inside encapsulates his attitude towards most things perfectly, “To stay or to go. It amounted to the same thing.” This also reminded me of a line from The Summary of the Myth Sisyphus: “He was condemned to everlasting torment, and the accompanying despair of knowing that his labor was futile.” Coming to a realization like this or one day believing this really scares me. Meursault says to his boss when asked if he would like to move to Paris for work, “I said yes but that it was really all the same to me”. I think readers have a degree of sympathy for Meursault because his train of thought aligns with this sentiment about the futility of work, which must be miserable. However, near the end of The Summary of the Myth of Sisyphus, it seems to make a more optimistic and real thesis. Camus says, “This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” I hope that Meursault goes through a similar transformation. Right now he may not admit to being depressed or sad, he may call it being neutral, but he is certainly not happy. I want him to be maybe sad for a little while so that he can find happiness eventually. Well, that may be more difficult now because he shot someone.
I liked both of these readings. They both bring up important topics that I think we should talk about more. Suicide is a big topic, and some people often question why, but the question is never really answered, and this text explains it nicely. I do agree that people let go when they feel that they can't push the boulder up the mountain one more time, cuz its easier to rest then to fight. But some people have been fighting for longer then they have to, and the pain that they feel isn't worth the small happiness and rest in the end. They feel as though they will never be satisfied with their accomplishments, or they just feel and overall dissatisfaction. I see this dissatisfaction in Meursault, like I said in my last post, he seems to just be floating through life. He is a perfect neutral. On one hand he has these horrible things happening around him, and then he has his girlfriend who loves him deeply, yet he always stays with no emotion, like he is numb to the world. Merusault is the perfect example of someone who fits the question of suicide. He shows all the signs. He feels detached, nothing gives him meaning and he is just blank. I would not be surprised if he comes a victim to suicide later in the book. It really stuck out to me when he was talking to his boss, He didn't seem excited at all about working in Paris. I know that he is French and it takes place in the French territory, so working in Paris is different to me the him, but if I was asked to work in Paris, I would be thrilled. But his response was just “I said yes but that it was really all the same to me." That is the exact answer a suicidal person would say. It doesn't matter if there here or there, they are still going to be stuck in this feeling of dissatisfaction. They will still feel helpless, numb, and alone.
ReplyDeleteI personally really enjoyed the summary of Camus' work. Suicide is one of life's very interesting elements. Despite being entirely against human nature, it is one of the most common ways of death. I personally do not always view suicide to be a sad thing. Unfortunately suicide can be the result of being exceptionally upset and distraught with life, but suicide can also be the coming to terms with yourself. If you genuinely feel that there's no point to proceeding and that it is too much work to be awake, that is an interesting thought process. Meresault is an example of someone, who like Camus described, has detached themselves from life. He seems to be emotionless in his doings, seeing no real significance to anything. His reactions seem to be based on that nothing will ever matter due to life ending. This is what we can easily categorize as an existential crisis. He seems to have lost any motivation to achieve anything in his life and is somewhat hanging on between life and death. Almost as if he would not be phased if someone said he was to die the following day. From what we can infer, I would assume that Meresault has had something happen within his life that has caused him to be depressed. Either this, or he could just be a naturally depressed person. His reactions to everything are very similar to what the reactions of someone who is either suicidal, depressed or both would be. It is truly an unfortunate way to live and there is not always much to be done to restore ones quality of life. As Camus explains, some people find that life is no longer worth the hassle. It seems to me that Meresault is nearing that point. What is even more interesting is how people view him and his decisions. Clearly having poor mental health, he is doing just what he needs to to survive. Marie is upset that he does not love her, when he is really just numb to emotions. His boss is upset that he is not ambitious, he has no reason to be ambitious, what does it matter to him. Things like this are a sign that someone is headed down the path of suicide. It is the separation of oneself from the value of their life in order to make death easier. This way if he kills himself he will feel that he is not missing out on anything life has to offer. It is unfortunate, but it is a cycle which is in motion for many people.
ReplyDeleteJackson Drake
DeleteI’m familiar with the Sisyphus story because I have taken latin. It is a different outlook on the repetitution and purpose of life. The most interesting part of the piece on the blog was where it said that Sisyphus felt a small satisfaction from scorning the gods for making him do that. In that way, as it says, “tragedy and happiness” go hand in hand. There is also a quote that comes to mind when I did these readings, I’m not sure who said it or why, but here it is: “You always kills yourself too late.” I feel like these two quotes and The Stranger are very closely related in their ideas about instinct, despair, and other things.
ReplyDeleteSuicide, when thought about as more of an idea rather than an action, brings about a lot of questions. I appreciate my earlier quote - “you always kill yourself too late” - because of it’s honesty. It is nothing like I had heard before when it came to advice around suicide. It means to me that at that point, if you are contemplating suicide, then you’ve really gone through the worst of the worst. Wouldn’t it have been (theoretically) better to kill yourself before all the bad things happened so that you only would’ve enjoyed life? By the time you’re contemplating suicide, you’ve done the heavy lifting, you’ve already gone through the worst.
I think it’s a nice thought, honestly. And it reminds me of “tragedy and happiness” going together, because they really do. You wouldn’t know joy unless you knew sadness. If all Sisyphus knew was pushing that boulder up and down the hill, then he wouldn’t have minded it too bad because there would be no other option in his mind. But it is his torture because he knows he’s been banished there and he can remember his life before. He is able to gain a bit of happiness by scorning the gods because it is something to outweigh the eternal struggle.
And in The Stranger, although Meursault seems to have little emotion, he seems to always point out the balance of the good and the bad. Like, even though this man beat up a woman, he had a nice moment with the man anyways. There is this honesty and clarity with Meursault, no messy emotions to skew a picture or story. So, he simply points out the things that leave a positive mark on him and the things that leave a negative one. It is simple, which makes it easy to understand (at least for me, I’m starting to feel that my classmates don’t feel the same way). But we all have the power to see the world throughout whatever lens we want, Meursault’s lens is just a little different.
I think the biggest take away is the idea of what is needed to be fulfilled in life, which then brings the proposition from Camus is life necessary at all. The negative overtone that Camus projects breaks down any idea of happiness and joy. In the metaphysical sense without harnessing memories of such joy, what purpose does life have to offer? As humans, I think it is a difficult idea to understand since we are in fact currently living and such hold memories and ideas that we wish to remember and also experience in the future. Looking into the end of Part 1 in ‘The Stranger’ the main characters lack of outward emotion is very much present, what we continue to see is his interactions with others, in at least his own perceptions of himself (since it the story is from his point of view) we don’t really perceive him as a very strong burly man. In the ways that he describes Raymond and Masson, their outward appearances and characteristics seem much more masculine than the main characters. As Camus’s theory is applied to literature, ‘The Stranger’ has a perspective that can be considered unusual to people. By the way that the main character interacts and evokes any action into the world follows the idea of Camus’s theory. He is very much an observer of the world and responds more with physical stimuli and is less emotionally reactive to the world. In comparison to Sartre’s theory of existentialism, I think it is a more expressive character that Sartre describes fueled with passion and exploration, while within ‘The Stranger’ and Camus’s ideas are merely an observational element. At this point in the novel I feel like I can understand the perspective of the characters, but I feel their actions and choices of reactions are a bit confusing and awkward, not seamless or realistic. In our society, these ideas could help us understand how people react differently to situations, and how not everyone thinks the same. Overall these concepts could be unifying to our society.
ReplyDeleteCamu is trying to explain his theory through the literature of The Stranger by using the readers’ emotions. While reading The Stranger it is almost uncomfortable the way Meursault goes through his day to day activities. This unsettling behavior is evident when he seems to be indifferent about his mother's death, unenthusiastic about his raise, indifference to marriage with someone who loves him, and even shooting to kill a man. The questioning within the reader starts to be evoked. The reader is forced to just accept that maybe Meursault is going about his life aimlessly without any goal or desire. This is something that is most likely very absurd to even a wide spectrum of people. Then the question of suicide arises. Camu believes that suicide occurs “admitting that all of the habits and effort needed for a living are not worth the trouble. As long as we accept reasons for life’s meaning we continue, but as soon as we reject these reasons we become alienated—we become strangers from the world.” This feeling of separation is what Camu defines as an absurdity. This absurdity is what can be represented through Meursault's actions. I guess in a sense I can see myself in the novel, especially in Meursault's place. Sometimes I feel like nothing truly matters when I think about the future. For example, I have school on Monday and then I have to study for a math test but like in the long scheme of life is one test really gonna have an impact 20 years from now. This thinking usually sets in when I’m trying to convince myself of some task I probably need to do yet dislike. I also start to think like Mersault if something really saddening happens in my life. I feel like this is an appropriate response that most people have when something doesn't go their way. People start to think why does anything even matter or what was the point of all that effort and such. But sooner or later(hopefully) the realization sets in that there is meaning in life and even if there is a setback there is probably a life lesson that could be learned from the unfortunate event.
ReplyDeleteSuicide is an interesting topic to cover from the psychological perspective because it is so hard for one to wrap their mind around it. For one, suicide is viewed differently across different cultures, hence having a different connotation for many people. Secondly, it is very hard to know the causes of suicide because there are so many. And finally, the hardest part is trying to understand what is going on in the person’s head. Someone committing suicide is likely not going to share with others what they are feeling. On top of this, the thoughts flowing through someone’s head who is contemplating suicide will be different than someone who has committed suicide. When I saw that Albert Camus was exploring the psychological aspect of suicide I was intrigued into reading the piece, as I feel this aspect is not focused on too much.
ReplyDeleteAs we connect back to “The Stranger”, it is very interesting in the way Camus set up Part 1, at least. As referenced to in my last blog post, the plot of “The Stranger” moves through the thoughts of Meursault. This aspect becomes interesting when considering a suicidal person. As Camus stated in the “The Myth of Sisyphus”, when someone is suicidal “the worm is in man’s heart” (“Summary of The Myth of Sisyphus” paragraph 2). In essence, Camus is saying that a suicidal person will have negative thoughts flowing in their head. So, ideally we the reader should be able to tell whether Mersault will commit suicide or not before he does. But unlike my classmates, I do not think Mersault will commit suicide. I believe that Camus wants to show us that there is a “third alternative [in life] between acceptance of life’s absurdity or its denial by embracing dubious metaphysical propositions” (“Summary of The Myth of Sisyphus” paragraph 8).
While reading more and more of “The Stranger” by Albert Camus, I have begun to pick up on many of the things I have liked so far but also disliked. I’ve been noticing how Meursault does not react to simply anything. Marie asked him if he loved her and he responded saying that he didn’t think so and didn’t know. When she asked him to marry her, he again responded with no emotion or anything. The only way he describes her is by saying he “wants” her, not really the reactions or emotions I was expecting when Meursault and Marie started hanging out. It didn’t prove any significance to him, nor did his mother’s death now that I am looking back on it. As someone said on the last blog, he is almost like a robot and I’m starting to see it more and more. It’s not like he doesn’t have emotions but it’s concerning that we are behind his thoughts and still aren’t receiving any of his true thoughts referring to the topics that should draw feelings from him. Reading the summary of “The Myth of Sisyphus” definitely reminded me of “The Stranger” and of Meursault in many ways. It is not the suicide parts that reminded me of him, but the absurdity described as well. Everything in his life seems to be absurd only because I think he is still developing as a person and is still figuring out who he is and how he views the world. As part of “The Myth of Sisyphus” said, “yet the repetitiveness of life brings absurdity back to consciousness”, and, “what makes life absurd is our inability to know ourselves and the world’s meaning even though we desire such knowledge”. Both of these contribute to how I view Meursault because our perception of him having no emotion or reactions to anything definitely proves to me that his life probably seems repetitive to him. Maybe repetitive of disappointment or of simply loneliness, but the repetitiveness of life is definitely something that brings absurdity to Meursault’s life. The other quote I can see as fitting in with “The Stranger” because in my eyes, Camus portrays Meursault as not knowing himself and the world yet. He didn’t seem to act as if his relationship with Marie or his mother’s death had any significance on his life, and I think he is still figuring things out. Suicide was never something I considered while reading this novel, but maybe we will see this later on sadly (I hope not). But, I really like “The Stranger” and learning more about Meursault and his character and am excited to see how him killing someone at the end of chapter 6 plays out in part two.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus expresses his theory of existentialism through his main character, Meursault. Meursault is the epitome of everything people think existentialism is, but is not. He goes through life completely detached and emotionless. When his mother dies, or his girlfriend suggests they get married, he is unnaturally stoic and unfeeling. Camus is showing that this sort of life is unfulfilling, as even though Meursault is never unhappy, he is never happy. People of the time thought existentialism was the view that nothing in life mattered, so why bother? However, through works such as The Stranger, Camus shows readers that existentialism is really about finding a balance between becoming consumed by the trivial day to day things society would have us believe are life and death, and not caring so much that you eventually die by suicide. This theory expands on Sarte’s suggestions that humans are entirely responsible for themselves and their actions- there is no God or other higher power to encourage us to live, we must do so of our own accord. Sarte simply states that there is no external reason for living, but Camus expands from that, telling how humans should respond to such a crisis. He believes that we should make our own meaning for life. He believes that meaning can be found in life, but that it is best not to get caught up in the trivial things that do not matter. If meaning is not found, the result is the robotic like responses to various life events of Meursault. I have a hard time seeing any of myself in Meursault, which I think was Camus’s intention. Meursault is not human in every sense of the word with the exception of physical. If I found out my mother died, I would certainly cry and be upset, but Meursault is entirely indifferent to the matter. It can be argued that perhaps he really was not close to his mother and hadn’t seen her in a long time, in which case it would make sense for him not to mind too much when she passed, but what about his girlfriend’s proposal? It seems entirely impossible to be so indifferent to an affair such as marriage and love, yet he is. Thus, Meursault can be taken as a warning: this is what happens if you try too hard not to feel. If everyone read this book and understood the importance of balance between the trivial matters of life, and the belief that life does not matter, then rates of depression could fall significantly.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay above, it says that “what makes life absurd is our inability to know ourselves and the world’s meaning even though we desire such knowledge”. Yet, Meursault seems to never wonder about the word’s meaning and he is very absurd. The scene that provides the most undebatable evidence of that is the ending scene in chapter six, when Meursault is walking along the beach. He is being forced along this beach merely by the scorching rays of the sun. He sees the man and thinks: “It occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it. But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back”. As the audience, we get to see all of his thoughts, so we know he does not really wonder where he is going or why he is doing what he is. He just lets what happens take its course. He wants neither to turn around nor to move forward. In this way, he is almost missing the desire to control and understand his own life and the world around him.
ReplyDeleteWhen you read the whole essay from Camus, he says things like “We know what we feel but the knowledge of ourselves ends there”. We can see his thinking both align and stray from Meursault’s. I think this is in part because the character of Meursault is so extreme that Camus is sharing some of his true views to relate with readers. Pairing his thoughts with Meursault’s lets us see the range in reality. Meursault is simply floating through life, letting the nearest wind control his decisions because he sees no purpose in attempting to control his own life. While, Camus tells us about our own inability to control our lives, but in a more palpable way. People can more or less easily accept the thought of a higher power or fate or something controlling our actions, whereas believing that things just happen because things happen can be too chaotic of an idea than most people want to believe. Camus’s essay is written in a way that is easier to digest. The Stranger is written in a way to put bare reality and extreme theory out in the open.
Comparing "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus" both by Albert Camus, we explore more about what meaning is. In "The Myth of Sisyphus" it talks about suicide and how we give meaning to life. The fact the world could have meaning “But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it.” is the very much where humans come in to give it meaning. In the myth, Sisyphus is condemned to lift a boulder up a hill only for it to roll back down again adding to his scorn of the gods. “Consciousness of his fate is the tragedy; yet consciousness also allows Sisyphus to scorn the gods which provides a small measure of satisfaction.” This act gives meaning to Sisyphus’s scorn which means Sisyphus should be happy.
ReplyDeleteHowever in “The Stranger” where the main character finds no meaning, it contrasts against human’s desire to search for meaning. Very much like the movie “Memento”, the main character looks for his wife’s murderer. However suffering from short term memory loss the only thing his life revolves around is getting revenge even if he’s looking for the wrong guy. His happiness came from the act of getting revenge and it didn’t matter if it was the wrong guy he killed because it gave him happiness from the fact that his actions may have meaning. To compare to the murder in “The Stranger”, the murder didn’t matter to Meursault because it didn’t have any meaning to him. To him it was just too bright of a day.
Camus explains his ideas through literature by creating characters that embody his biggest questions. He says in his writing, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” that the only important question is whether or not we should commit suicide. He thinks that if we commit suicide then we are admitting that there is no meanig in life. On the contrary, if we are alive, that means that we are holding on to some sort of meaning in life. In “The Stranger,” he has created characters that live without or with questionable meaning in their lives. Meursault appears to have no meaning in his life, yet he is still alive. This raises the question of whether he will kill himself or if he somehow just acknowledges that life is meaningless. Perhaps he sees life as a disposable thing, where he could kill himself at any point if he were to be unhappy with it, yet is not quite at that point yet. This is supported by his response to his girlfriend, Marie, proposing to him. His answer was that he’ll do whatever she wants and that he did not see marriage as a big deal. This is controversial because most people consider marriage a very big deal, even just financially. If someone marries the wrong person it is often a long and difficult process to actually go through a divorce. Many people remain in unhappy marriages because of this, though for Meursault, his escape plan may just be suicide. This also related to old Salamano, because he was married, and though he wasn’t happy with his wife he had simply gotten used to her. After that, he had a similar relationship with his dog where he seemed like he absolutely hated his dog, yet when he lost him he was torn apart and didn’t know what to do. When Meursault suggested that he could get a new dog he said that he was used to the dog he had. I see similar feeling in many people in our society, where they are unhappy with something in their life, yet they fear change and do not do anything about it. I have seen my friends unhappy in relationships yet they did not want to break up with the person because they were more comfortable staying in the relationship. I think that if we, as a society, were more direct and did what we wanted to then we may all be a little happier, rather than settling for something that doesn’t bring us joy. On the other hand, this would need to be in proportion and while also considering how others would feel because if everyone did what they wanted with no regard for others we wouldn’t even have a society.
ReplyDeleteFrom how I have continued to interpret Meursault, he probably has some sort of mental illness that prevents him from expressing normal emotions. I still think that his neighbors and the life he lives has probably caused him to develop some sort of Depression or APD that prevents him from having normal human emotions. But nonetheless, he still acts and thinks in a way that causes him to be pessimistic and often not look at the bigger picture. This can be seen when “Marie said it was terrible and I didn’t say anything. She asked me to go find a policeman, but I told her I didn’t like cops.” It is apparent that the situation would have caused most anyone to react in terror or shock, but Meursault feels that he can’t be of help because of a slight dislike. You would probably drink the life saving medicine even if you didn’t like the taste.
ReplyDeleteI think thatThe Myth of Sisyphus applies very interestingly to the stranger so far. As one can see, Meursault bottles up all the absurdity he observes without reacting properly to it, thus causing him to lose the ability to function as a member of society by killing another person with no remorse. One might see this as an anti-existential story that shows what can happen when we don;t have something to believe or to look up to as a cause for the chaos. Even though it could be interpreted in this way, I see it as a model of how ignoring the chaos in hopes of only experiencing the order is not a healthy way to live. Somehow, Meursault has made it so he doesn’t react to horrifying things and horrifying ways. This could be due to mental illness, an inability to comfortably express his feelings in society, or maybe faith in the theory that everything happens because it is supposed to, not because we caused it to. It is hard to take blame for what happens if you don’t accept that it is a fault of our own. Someone who believes that God causes all might crumble under the chaos that they view to be centered around their world. The truth is, we all experience chaos and what we see as wrong, whether society deems it wrong or we deem it wrong through our moral compass. By embracing the chaos, we come to accept that it is an action of nature and our own doing, and pushing that aside will cause us to lose reality of what makes life orderly and happy. If Meursault could express the way he felt, he wouldn’t be trapped in the chaos that is the world, and thus his own mental illness and negativity. Rather than only observing them, he could feel the meaning of the good parts of his life. Maybe if he were able to mourn for the death of his mother, he could express his feelings for Marie.
As the narrative develops, it becomes increasingly apparent that Meursault sees no meaning in the events taking place in his life. His nonchalant nature confuses the reader and causes the story to have an almost incoherent narrative. This occurs to an extent where significant events take place, and the reasoning behind them are brushed off or simply mentioned without any care or further explanation. Examples of that stretchs across the novel, from when Raymond is beating his mistress, to the fact that Meursault other neighbor is abusive toward his dog, escalating all the way to the murder of the “Arab” by Meursault’s hand. The latter would have clearly caused an effect in Meursault thought process, however, the character lacks the ability to attach meaning or reason to the event, leading the reader to believe that he himself is unable to experience these emotions. These peculiarities seem to bewilder even the people in Meursault’s own social circle. Salamano per example, states that the character in fact loved his mother deeply, although Meursault himself provides no evidence of such feelings towards his progenitor, thus raising the question of whether Meursault is concealing his feelings and reaction in his narrative, or if his lack of emotion becomes so disturbing to those around him that his friends attempt to comfort themselves by creating this illusion of who they want Meursault to be.
ReplyDeleteWhen connecting this theory to his previous essay “The Myth of Sisyphus,” it is possible to draw connections between the two. Camus openly references the meaning of life, claiming that one’s greatest philosophical questioning is whether or not their life is worth living, claiming that suicide is the response to a meaningless life. It can thus be concluded that Meursault’s life, since it lacks meaning, is either coming to an end, or has already ended, for his lack of meaning and emotions indicate that Meursault is already dead inside.
In relation to existentialism, Meursault seems to displays “humans in forlornness,” since he does not believe in the existence of a superior being, he is faced with the reality that there is no almighty force dictating how one shall act and behave, and thus, Meursault displays no attachment to a certain moral pattern, being unfazed by the abusive people he has surrounded himself with, and even further, being strangely nonchalant with the fact that he killed a man, for no explainable reason other than the hot weather.
Camus’s explanations are very interesting. They appear rational with explanations behind them yet they boil down the complexities of life to simplicities. I don’t see any one way to explain life whether it’s absurdism or existentialism. These theories exemplify the incessant need for humans to explain life. Personally, I think it's important to find meaning in life but I don’t see the need to maintain only one philosophy. I see the truth in Camus and Sartre’s ideas. I think Meursault really embodies the middle ground between these ideas. He lives in the present without concern for societal expectations as existentialism says. Yet, he sees no meaning or order in life. He refuses emotion whether good or bad. He remains static and without reaction to the world around him.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly struck by the ideas mentioned relating to suicide. At first, I felt defensive and refuted the idea presented that suicide has one simplistic cause. I was angered that such an important topic was boiled down because I felt like it belittled the issue in some way. But in continuing the reading and thinking more deeply, I understand Camus’s idea. No matter the path traveled, suicide often is the result of feeling hopeless and unwanted on this Earth. Despite being so negative, I think this view of suicide is actually more sympathetic than many misconceptions of it in society today. I have a very vivid memory from when I was about 6 or 7 of watching TV with my mom and Anderson Cooper mentioning something about his brother’s suicide. I asked my mom what suicide was, and reluctant to explain the concept to a first grader, my mom replied, “something very selfish people do.” She has learned a lot more about mental health and suicide since then so she definitely has a very different view of it but, unfortunately, that is how many people view it. What is forgotten in that misconception is the idea that suicide is the result of unbelievable suffering. Despite Camus’s lack of sensitivity to the issue, his explanation at least highlights that suicide is a last resort when run out of hope and strength to continue.