The Absurdity of life

[mafalda]

Olá

I'm new here so i'm kind of figuring out how things work still.
I've recently read The Outsider by Albert Camus and i must confess that it confused me a lot. I concluded that Camus was trying to tell us we should accept that death is inevitable and though life may seem meaningless because of this, all we can do is learn to live within the absurd. And this was where Meursault failed? Or where he succeeded?

I'm probably approaching the whole thing in the wrong way. What do you think of the book? i'd really like to know your opinion. Thanks for the attention!

[ergill_sanchez]

Apparently the version I have is called the Stranger, but I remembering reading that it was also called the Outsider. I read it not that long ago, but some things are a little hazy. It seems, from popular opinion, that your interpretation is right. As everyone else struggles to find meaning in the murder, Muersalt learns to accept the world for what it is. I haven't read it, but Camus wrote an essay on his philosophy called the Myth of Sisyphus which interprets this Greek myth as an example of absurdity; Sisyphus is doomed to push a boulder up a hill only for it to fall back down before he reaches the top, forever.

[mafalda]

Apparently the version I have is called the Stranger, but I remembering reading that it was also called the Outsider.

That’s curious. The Portuguese version I read was also called The Stranger, its translation. But the online English version was called The Outsider. Did you like the book?

As everyone else struggles to find meaning in the murder, Muersalt learns to accept the world for what it is.

yes, i think i interpreted like that too when i read it, Meursault just stayed true to his actions and faced the consequences. But didn’t you find it difficult to accept Mersault's behaviour? i dont want to judge him like the jury at the trial did, but i don’t know, even if Meursault was the one who understood that life is meaningless, i think it becomes even more meaningless if we remain passive like he did.

I haven't read it, but Camus wrote an essay on his philosophy called the Myth of Sisyphus which interprets this Greek myth as an example of absurdity; Sisyphus is doomed to push a boulder up a hill only for it to fall back down before he reaches the top, forever.

I guess that also applies to life. we work hard for so long only to know we'll eventually die. But i don’t think i want to be this pessimistic. Maybe Meursault wasn’t so passive after all and in admitting his actions and accepting its consequences he found a meaning in life. Well, im probably seeing it in a too simplistic way. That wasn’t what Albert Camus intended.
Thank you for giving your opinion ergill. May i ask what made you read the book? Was it a recommendation or you knew what it was about and were curious or something else?

[ergill_sanchez]

That’s curious. The Portuguese version I read was also called The Stranger, its translation. But the online English version was called The Outsider. Did you like the book?

I certainly did enjoy it. I have some of his other books and a small collection of plays, but I haven't read many of them.

yes, i think i interpreted like that too when i read it, Meursault just stayed true to his actions and faced the consequences. But didn’t you find it difficult to accept Mersault's behaviour? i dont want to judge him like the jury at the trial did, but i don’t know, even if Meursault was the one who understood that life is meaningless, i think it becomes even more meaningless if we remain passive like he did.

I don't think he killed the Arab at the time because he understood meaninglessness of life. There is really no way to find a conclusion to his actions, and this is basically the point. The only clue is massively ambiguous, which is the suns overwhelming control of Muersalt. It's great size and power distorts his perception and makes him very much uncomfortable. This doesn't mean that he has no control, or probably not anything definative for that matter, but it does at least suggest that something beyond our comprehension does exist. It is a difficult thing to judge Muersalt. On one hand he does have honorable characteristics, if you can call them that. The most obvious is his amazing sense of acceptance of most anything and everything. This basically means that he doesn't care which is both good and bad. If he does not care then nothing can worry him, but at the same time if he doesn't care then there is nothing that he wants to do about anything. He merely reacts to outer stimuli, instead of attempting to make positive change. Certainly a society must judge someone for their actions in order to work for the better of everyone, but this may only be relative to society. Maybe murder isn't a bad thing, at least not relative to society. Maybe it's even positive, but as a people we work to make an envornment that is more suitable to each individual who lives within it, and if someone attempts to violate other's environment then they must be judged. I suppose it doesn't have to be one solid judgement. It may even be better to judge the actions of this individual, but the individual as a whole. There were certain things that made this person what they were, and we can't fully blame them for this, but we can't let them freely hurt others. This probably isn't the philosophy of the book, but more my own. We are given more insight into the mind of Muersalt than to that of the masses who judge him. I suppose this means that Camus sympathized with Muersalt more than others in the story, but it's difficult to say. One of the times that Muersalt does try and do something is when he attempts to explain his actions, and he finds it nearly impossible. Everyone laughs at him because he does not make sense, and for once he is nervous. The truth is unexplainable and ultimately an absurd quest for us. I suppose it would have been a nobler choice of the masses to not judge Muersalt as a person, but rather to protect the world from him, in my opinion. People get very emotional when it comes to trials and judgements, but forget that the person involved is a complex human being. He may be a threat, but that does not make him a lesser human being. That would probably be more of my own philosophy towards the story than the stories own philosophy. I'd call the Stanger/Outsider an introduction to the absurd, but his others investigate the possibilities of facing the absurd without passivity; I haven't read it yet, but this seems to be the meaning of the Plague.

I guess that also applies to life. we work hard for so long only to know we'll eventually die. But i don’t think i want to be this pessimistic. Maybe Meursault wasn’t so passive after all and in admitting his actions and accepting its consequences he found a meaning in life. Well, im probably seeing it in a too simplistic way. That wasn’t what Albert Camus intended.

Simplistic may be the only way sometimes. It's difficult to say. Some people think they are smart because they are pessimistic and that they have faced "harsh realities", but I doubt that's true. I enjoy the idea of "ignorent of delusion" in which we trick ourselves into being happy in an environment that is not entirely suitable for us. It's not a bad thing, but basically something that just is. We all do it anyway. We actually believe that we know more than we really do. We like to believe that we are superior to others that we are correct. Stuff like that. It's not neccessarily a "trick", but just a matter of individual perception that is not exactly true in the objective world.

Thank you for giving your opinion ergill. May i ask what made you read the book? Was it a recommendation or you knew what it was about and were curious or something else?

I think my teacher recomended it, or maybe I found it while searching for books of a similar kind, and asked him about it. Probably the latter. Thanks, yourself.

[mafalda]

I don't think he killed the Arab at the time because he understood meaninglessness of life. There is really no way to find a conclusion to his actions, and this is basically the point. The only clue is massively ambiguous, which is the suns overwhelming control of Muersalt. It's great size and power distorts his perception and makes him very much uncomfortable. This doesn't mean that he has no control, or probably not anything definative for that matter, but it does at least suggest that something beyond our comprehension does exist.

Yes, it seemed that Camus wasn’t trying to explain something with Meursault’s existence, he only described it. Because maybe not even himself could find a rational explanation for it, which proves how intellectually limited we are. Just as I couldn’t understand Muersault behaviour, there are things that are just beyond our reach to understand? Could he be trying to say that too?

He merely reacts to outer stimuli, instead of attempting to make positive change. Certainly a society must judge someone for their actions in order to work for the better of everyone, but this may only be relative to society. Maybe murder isn't a bad thing, at least not relative to society. Maybe it's even positive, but as a people we work to make an envornment that is more suitable to each individual who lives within it, and if someone attempts to violate other's environment then they must be judged. I suppose it doesn't have to be one solid judgement. It may even be better to judge the actions of this individual, but the individual as a whole. There were certain things that made this person what they were, and we can't fully blame them for this, but we can't let them freely hurt others. This probably isn't the philosophy of the book, but more my own.

I think I understand. Though its not fair for a human being to judge another, since it involves many things and some of which we aren’t even able to understand, because we all live together, sometimes it becomes necessary to judge someone’s actions.

The truth is unexplainable and ultimately an absurd quest for us. I suppose it would have been a nobler choice of the masses to not judge Muersalt as a person, but rather to protect the world from him, in my opinion. People get very emotional when it comes to trials and judgements, but forget that the person involved is a complex human being. He may be a threat, but that does not make him a lesser human being. That would probably be more of my own philosophy towards the story than the stories own philosophy.

I agree. If the truth is unattainable, the people at the court could never judge Meaursault in a completely fair way since they can’t assume they know how to explain everything. But for our society to work we need to establish some sort of rules so we can all live together. So the jury shouldn’t have judged Mersault as a person, individually, but as someone who would harm society. Sorry, is that more or less what you said?

I enjoy the idea of "ignorent of delusion" in which we trick ourselves into being happy in an environment that is not entirely suitable for us. It's not a bad thing, but basically something that just is. We all do it anyway. We actually believe that we know more than we really do. We like to believe that we are superior to others that we are correct. Stuff like that. It's not neccessarily a "trick", but just a matter of individual perception that is not exactly true in the objective world.

Yes, we believe ourselves to know more about things than everyone else and that makes us inevitably able to judge other people. I do that so many times actually. Have to be more careful. It must be some sort of innate thing to humans. That’s something you and the book made me see more clearly, I definitely need to start judging less.
Thank you again for sharing your view ergill. I enjoyed listening to it and it helped me understand things better.

[ergill_sanchez]

Yes, it seemed that Camus wasn’t trying to explain something with Meursault’s existence, he only described it. Because maybe not even himself could find a rational explanation for it, which proves how intellectually limited we are. Just as I couldn’t understand Muersault behaviour, there are things that are just beyond our reach to understand? Could he be trying to say that too?

I think I understand. Though its not fair for a human being to judge another, since it involves many things and some of which we aren’t even able to understand, because we all live together, sometimes it becomes necessary to judge someone’s actions.

I agree. If the truth is unattainable, the people at the court could never judge Meaursault in a completely fair way since they can’t assume they know how to explain everything. But for our society to work we need to establish some sort of rules so we can all live together. So the jury shouldn’t have judged Mersault as a person, individually, but as someone who would harm society. Sorry, is that more or less what you said?

Yes, we believe ourselves to know more about things than everyone else and that makes us inevitably able to judge other people. I do that so many times actually. Have to be more careful. It must be some sort of innate thing to humans. That’s something you and the book made me see more clearly, I definitely need to start judging less.
Thank you again for sharing your view ergill. I enjoyed listening to it and it helped me understand things better.

You summed them up quite well, even better than myself. I pretty much agree with you when it comes to judgement and human nature. It isn't as if we can empathize with every person we meet, but the attempt to do so is honorable enough, and basically productive. Even people who are cruel or judgemental aren't simply that, they may not be good people as we see it, but that doesn't imediately damn them as symbols of immorality. People are more complex than that, everything is more complex than that, most everything at least. I'm reading Molloy right now and the second character that is introduced, and who serves as a narrator for the second half of the story, is bothered by the most absurd things, one of them being his son. Then you realize that as strange as his obsessions are, they are not much different than our own. Good fun. Now, I can't wait to move on to Camus' other books.

[beckett]

can really understand european art....
sorry

[beckett]

i am sorry did i saay "can" ????

ok : here you go : you americans really DO NOT understand european art....or should i say ART...???

[beckett]

ergill_sanchez i think you are the only one limited

[Shuai]

I don't get you beckett. You call them "Americans", and yet you live in L.A.? How does that work out? And dude, your grammar sucks. You ever heard of punctuation?

[ergill_sanchez]

ergill_sanchez i think you are the only one limited

Could you explain your thoughts? I think it's a generalization to say all European Art when we're only talking about one particular writer. Still, you are right . . . I am American.

[ergill_sanchez]

i am sorry did i saay "can" ????

ok : here you go : you americans really DO NOT understand european art....or should i say ART...???

Seeing as your name is Beckett and your posts are written without regard to the rules of grammar, I can only give you the benefit of a doubt in believing that you are attempting to convey some sort of message via deliberate errors. I hope this is true, and that you're arguement is not just a simple statement.

And the person who started this thread says they're from Portugal . . . indeed.

[mafalda]

I'm reading Molloy right now and the second character that is introduced, and who serves as a narrator for the second half of the story, is bothered by the most absurd things, one of them being his son. Then you realize that as strange as his obsessions are, they are not much different than our own.

I haven't read anything by Beckett yet. But i think i'll read Molloy now. Thanks for mentioning it ergill.

i am sorry did i saay "can" ????

ok : here you go : you americans really DO NOT understand european art....or should i say ART...???

Well, ok. I might not understand European art. But i think i have the right to try to understand it without you criticizing my attempt. If you know about European art already, i think you should be more tolerant to those who don't. Why should you say ART instead of art?

And the person who started this thread says they're from Portugal . . . indeed.

yes, i'm from portugal, in Europe.

[ergill_sanchez]

I haven't read anything by Beckett yet. But i think i'll read Molloy now. Thanks for mentioning it ergill.

I don't know if you'd want to start with one of his earlier novels or not. I haven't gotten around to reading them yet but I really want to; Murphy, Watt, Mercier and Camier(said to be a novel along the lines of Godot), and More Pricks than Kicks. Just look them up online. Go here for some interesting stuff on Beckett . . .

http://www.themodernword.com/beckett/

Well, ok. I might not understand European art. But i think i have the right to try to understand it without you criticizing my attempt. If you know about European art already, i think you should be more tolerant to those who don't. Why should you say ART instead of art?

It doesn't seem that beckett is going to respond any further, and he didn't seem to be serious to begin with. Hopefully he's just being silly rather than pretentious.