Help w/Camus' the Stranger

[edinatlanta]

Just finished it. I don't get it. Is that the point?

BTW: Should I read the Plague or the Trial next?

 

[Fuuma]

He killed an Arab because the sun was in his eyes.

 

[edinatlanta]

Originally Posted by Fuuma

He killed an Arab because the sun was in his eyes.

I get that.

I mean, is the whole point that life is pointless? It was a great read.

 

[Deluks917]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

I get that. I mean, is the whole point that life is pointless? It was a great read.
But the good kind of pointless. I never really Agreed with Camus that pointless could be good but then again he's smarter then I am. Read the plague.

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

I get that. I mean, is the whole point that life is pointless? It was a great read.
It's about the absurdity of life, yes. Not pointless, meaningless. It also stands as an interesting character study

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

Just finished it. I don't get it. Is that the point?

BTW: Should I read the Plague or the Trial next?
Camus never wrote a book called The Trial. You may be thinking of Kafka. The Plague is excellent, though I'd equally recommend the short story collection Exile and the Kingdom.

What exactly don't you get? I can't just explain the book for you, but if you have any questions in particular I'd be happy to discuss them. I'm a bit of a Camus fanatic.

 

[edinatlanta]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Camus never wrote a book called The Trial. You may be thinking of Kafka. The Plague is excellent, though I'd equally recommend the short story collection Exile and the Kingdom.

What exactly don't you get? I can't just explain the book for you, but if you have any questions in particular I'd be happy to discuss them. I'm a bit of a Camus fanatic.

I was speaking about Kafka's the trial (not sure what's up with my existentialist bent lately. But I mean, does it matter? I mean, nothing will change...).

I don't know, I found the character study great, I just have a hard time agreeing with the notion we lead an absurd life (even though I find such arguments very compelling). Maybe I don't want to believe those arguments.

Let me sleep and hopefully form a cogent thought on the book and I'll be back...

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Camus never wrote a book called The Trial. You may be thinking of Kafka. The Plague is excellent, though I'd equally recommend the short story collection Exile and the Kingdom.

What exactly don't you get? I can't just explain the book for you, but if you have any questions in particular I'd be happy to discuss them. I'm a bit of a Camus fanatic.

He can just read "le mythe de Sisyphe" if he wants some background info. The key is to see the main character as positive.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by edinatlanta

I was speaking about Kafka's the trial (not sure what's up with my existentialist bent lately. But I mean, does it matter? I mean, nothing will change...). I don't know, I found the character study great, I just have a hard time agreeing with the notion we lead an absurd life (even though I find such arguments very compelling). Maybe I don't want to believe those arguments. Let me sleep and hopefully form a cogent thought on the book and I'll be back...
It helps to simplify matters by defining terms. What does Camus mean when he says the life is absurd? It's not that life is necessarily bizarre or full of illogical occurrances. It's that it lacks intrinsic meaning. Why is this so? First, Camus believes in an absent God. It could either be that God does not exist, or merely that God does not interfere in the affairs of men. Thus, there is no pre-ordained plan, no transcendent source of moral law, no higher authority. Second, man suffers and what's more, he is mortal. In fact, man suffers because God is absent, since there is no afterlife. As a result, one's endeavours are ultimately meaningless. What to do? There is, of course, the nihilistic, defeatist response: kill yourself. Camus rejected this, which is why the fundamental question of his essay on the myth of Sisyphus is whether suicide is justified or not. He eventually decides that it isn't, partly because he's rebellious by nature, but also because he believes that people can create meaning in their lives through their choices, even if they cannot discover any external sources of meaning in the world around them. So where does Meursault fit in? First of all, it's interesting that the book is written entirely in the first person; one never escapes the subjectivity of the character's lived experience. He drifts through life, finding nothing in it that either pleases or disturbs him to any great extent: not the death of his mother, not his manipulation by a pimp, not his fiancÃ

e's love. He hasn't invested any of these events with personal meaning. While it's not clear why he shoots the Arab, once in prison he starts to come alive. Interestingly, during his time in a concentration camp, Sartre wrote that one is freest under the most extreme duress, and when every choice carries immense consequences. In any case, he begins to defend himself by claiming that he's being tried, not for murder, but for indifference to the world. Suddenly, these non-events take on enormous significance for Meursault, culminating in his rejection of God during the priest's visitation and his monologue at the very end of the book. An interesting question is whether Meursault is a kind of Dostoevskiian 'Last Man', or a Lermontov-esque 'Hero of our Time'. Is he to be vilified, or is he any different from any one of us? I think Camus provides an answer in the character of Bernard Rieux from The Plague, but it's still open to interpretation.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

He can just read "le mythe de Sisyphe" if he wants some background info. The key is to see the main character as positive.
As an initiate to Camus, I found the myth of Sisyphus to be more confusing than helpful. I now understand that much of my incomprehension was due to a lack of background knowledge in philosophy at the time. I don't think it's the best study guide to his thought for a beginner, tbh.

 

[dfagdfsh]

action through inaction dawg

 

[cheessus]

I remember reading this in 10th grade and thought that it was a pretty cool story. I remember a few things about this book. First, was that this book was defined as existentialist, but that Camus didn't like that label. Second, it was about the absurdity of life and how we cannot find a deeper meaning in it. And third, I remember talking about this strange connection- the murder was very similar to an account of Archimedes' death, except the roles are switched. It was some crazy ****; I can't remember why this connection was important because I can't remember Archimedes' philosophy and what my English teacher rambled on about.

 

[kwilkinson]

Originally Posted by holymadness

As an initiate to Camus, I found the myth of Sisyphus to be more confusing than helpful. I now understand that much of my incomprehension was due to a lack of background knowledge in philosophy at the time.
+1.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by holymadness

Camus never wrote a book called The Trial. You may be thinking of Kafka. The Plague is excellent, though I'd equally recommend the short story collection Exile and the Kingdom. What exactly don't you get? I can't just explain the book for you, but if you have any questions in particular I'd be happy to discuss them. I'm a bit of a Camus fanatic.

Originally Posted by holymadness

It helps to simplify matters by defining terms. What does Camus mean when he says the life is absurd? It's not that life is necessarily bizarre or full of illogical occurrances. It's that it lacks intrinsic meaning. Why is this so? First, Camus believes in an absent God. It could either be that God does not exist, or merely that God does not interfere in the affairs of men. Thus, there is no pre-ordained plan, no transcendent source of moral law, no higher authority. Second, man suffers and what's more, he is mortal. In fact, man suffers because God is absent, since there is no afterlife. As a result, one's endeavours are ultimately meaningless. What to do? There is, of course, the nihilistic, defeatist response: kill yourself. Camus rejected this, which is why the fundamental question of his essay on the myth of Sisyphus is whether suicide is justified or not. He eventually decides that it isn't, partly because he's rebellious by nature, but also because he believes that people can create meaning in their lives through their choices, even if they cannot discover any external sources of meaning in the world around them. So where does Meursault fit in? First of all, it's interesting that the book is written entirely in the first person; one never escapes the subjectivity of the character's lived experience. He drifts through life, finding nothing in it that either pleases or disturbs him to any great extent: not the death of his mother, not his manipulation by a pimp, not his fiancÃ

e's love. He hasn't invested any of these events with personal meaning. While it's not clear why he shoots the Arab, once in prison he starts to come alive. Interestingly, during his time in a concentration camp, Sartre wrote that one is freest under the most extreme duress, and when every choice carries immense consequences. In any case, he begins to defend himself by claiming that he's being tried, not for murder, but for indifference to the world. Suddenly, these non-events take on enormous significance for Meursault, culminating in his rejection of God during the priest's visitation and his monologue at the very end of the book. An interesting question is whether Meursault is a kind of Dostoevskiian 'Last Man', or a Lermontov-esque 'Hero of our Time'. Is he to be vilified, or is he any different from any one of us? I think Camus provides an answer in the character of Bernard Rieux from The Plague, but it's still open to interpretation. As an initiate to Camus, I found the myth of Sisyphus to be more confusing than helpful. I now understand that much of my incomprehension was due to a lack of background knowledge in philosophy at the time. I don't think it's the best study guide to his thought for a beginner, tbh.
Yeah, what he said!

J/k... anyway, I'm so glad you are here.

I'll leave this in your more than capable hands.

 

[holymadness]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Yeah, what he said!

J/k... anyway, I'm so glad you are here.

I'll leave this in your more than capable hands.

Behold the depths of my obsession:

 

[edinatlanta]

I realized it is that I don't want to accept his premise.

Don't get me wrong, it was a fantastic book, and he does lay out an interesting belief. I just don't want to believe it.

Decided to re-start and finish The Cloud of Unknowing, to regain my Papist footing.