• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Reminisce about Camus' Stranger

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
Is Mersault amoral, or just true to his nature: There is no God, and I don't make the leap of faith in order to escape from meaninglessness, I do not live according to the Divine Plane. This world is absurd, and I am guided by the invisible hand of randomness.

What do you think? Do absurd philosophy is a recipe for life, or just escapism defeated rationalism of the 20th century?

Mersault kills the man with no regrets, was charged, with no remorse, his mother dies, he is indifferent. "The mother is just a woman who gave me birth", says one of the absurd heroes.

There is an interesting parallel with Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov kills the old woman and suffer from the consequences of Christian morality. He was tortured by extraordinary guilt. Mersault, in contrast, is indifferent - the world is absurd. No need to look for morale when everything is meaningless. The world can not be rationally explained.

What do you think?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Is Mersault amoral, or just true to his nature: There is no God, and I don't make the leap of faith in order to escape from meaninglessness, I do not live according to the Divine Plane. This world is absurd, and I am guided by the invisible hand of randomness.

What do you think? Do absurd philosophy is a recipe for life, or just escapism defeated rationalism of the 20th century?

Mersault kills the man with no regrets, was charged, with no remorse, his mother dies, he is indifferent. "The mother is just a woman who gave me birth", says one of the absurd heroes.

There is an interesting parallel with Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov kills the old woman and suffer from the consequences of Christian morality. He was tortured by extraordinary guilt. Mersault, in contrast, is indifferent - the world is absurd. No need to look for morale when everything is meaningless. The world can not be rationally explained.

What do you think?

I think we are meaning creating animals. And we prefer any meaning to no meaning.

Camus was exploring the aftermath of WW II in Europe when old meanings were dying and new meanings were coming into existence. So perhaps Camus was exploring the hiatus between meanings. And interestingly Camus was a man of integrity.
 

Little_Sticks

New member
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
1,358
I remember the most striking part of the book being the trial. The way the people misunderstood him and tried to paint him as this picture of an evil man. Meursault wanted to speak up for himself, but he didn't know how, and he was advised not to. I remembered that because it's a very uncomfortable feeling to be mislabeled by those that don't care to know you, even worse to be seen so negatively, even worse to be told to sit there and let it happen. He was convicted based on the picture the prosecution painted of him and yet he felt no indignation.

Meursault had this ambivalence towards a world that seemed morally contradictory. His ambivalence seemed to make him uncertain in how to feel about different things, so rather than feel he numbed himself. Even in prison he tried hard to numb himself to a nihilist view that everything was absurd and meaningless. It didn't always work and he struggled toward the end with the Chaplain that provoked his anger/frustration about everything. But the striking thing about him was that while all this numbing was going on we got to experience the conflicting thoughts within himself that led to the numbing. It was as if it was in his nature to be morally principled, as if the conflict represented a need for it and the resulting detachment and meaningless of life (as seen by him) being a reflection of his inability to be himself. He welcomed his death at the end as form of rebirth, perhaps so that he could live again and be himself.

Of course, this could all be a projection of myself. I don't think I could know that, if it is.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Is Mersault amoral, or just true to his nature: There is no God, and I don't make the leap of faith in order to escape from meaninglessness, I do not live according to the Divine Plane. This world is absurd, and I am guided by the invisible hand of randomness.

What do you think? Do absurd philosophy is a recipe for life, or just escapism defeated rationalism of the 20th century?

Mersault kills the man with no regrets, was charged, with no remorse, his mother dies, he is indifferent. "The mother is just a woman who gave me birth", says one of the absurd heroes.

There is an interesting parallel with Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov kills the old woman and suffer from the consequences of Christian morality. He was tortured by extraordinary guilt. Mersault, in contrast, is indifferent - the world is absurd. No need to look for morale when everything is meaningless. The world can not be rationally explained.

What do you think?

The attitude of the main character always reminded me of schizoid personality disorder. See the following link: Dual Diagnosis and the Schizoid Personality Disorder

I think we are meaning creating animals. And we prefer any meaning to no meaning.

Camus was exploring the aftermath of WW II in Europe when old meanings were dying and new meanings were coming into existence. So perhaps Camus was exploring the hiatus between meanings. And interestingly Camus was a man of integrity.

Actually, "The Stranger" was published in 1942, so it wasn't post-WW2. But that's a mere quibble. For the most part, you're right. He was reacting to the aftermath of WW1, the Depression, the Ethiopian War, the Spanish Civil War, and then Munich and Hitler's invasions in Europe.

In January 1955, Camus said, "I summarized The Stranger a long time ago, with a remark I admit was highly paradoxical: 'In our society any man who does not weep at his mother's funeral runs the risk of being sentenced to death.' I only meant that the hero of my book is condemned because he does not play the game."

Thus, taking what you said and phrasing it a little differently:

In the 1920s, the author Marcel Proust looked backward and tried to capture the last gasp of royalty, aristocracy, and nobility before the turn of the century in his book "Remembrance of Things Past." In the 1940s, Albert Camus looked forward to the modern world and tried to capture the birth of populist rule of the masses: "Fitting in" versus "not playing the game."
 

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
I think we are meaning creating animals. And we prefer any meaning to no meaning.

Interesting note. But, I think Mersault is a defeatist representative of the absence of any meaning.

Camus was exploring the aftermath of WW II in Europe when old meanings were dying and new meanings were coming into existence. So perhaps Camus was exploring the hiatus between meanings. And interestingly Camus was a man of integrity.

Camus has certainly been in schism, as well as its relative Raskolnikov.
It is a schism, of course. The rift within the soul. To find a new way out of this gap. It can be interpreted as a crucial existential crisis.

I remember the most striking part of the book being the trial. The way the people misunderstood him and tried to paint him as this picture of an evil man. Meursault wanted to speak up for himself, but he didn't know how, and he was advised not to.

Mersault is, certainly, a mirror all of us in many aspects.

Meursault had this ambivalence towards a world that seemed morally contradictory. His ambivalence seemed to make him uncertain in how to feel about different things, so rather than feel he numbed himself. Even in prison he tried hard to numb himself to a nihilist view that everything was absurd and meaningless.


I think Mersault has a position. He has no doubts. The Stranger is a kind of religion, if we can call it that. A-Religious religion.

Of course, this could all be a projection of myself. I don't think I could know that, if it is.

I think everything ( to a greater or lesser degree) is a projection of ourselves. So, and Camus' Mersault.

The attitude of the main character always reminded me of schizoid personality disorder. See the following link: Dual Diagnosis and the Schizoid Personality Disorder

Shizoid traits, maybe, but not SPD. Mersault suffers from philosophical concerns.

In the 1920s, the author Marcel Proust looked backward and tried to capture the last gasp of royalty, aristocracy, and nobility before the turn of the century in his book "Remembrance of Things Past." In the 1940s, Albert Camus looked forward to the modern world and tried to capture the birth of populist rule of the masses: "Fitting in" versus "not playing the game."

Very interesting reading. But I think it is the eternal theme of the schisms within the human soul, and finding a way out of it.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Very interesting reading. But I think it is the eternal theme of the schisms within the human soul, and finding a way out of it.

Absurdists didn't give a damn about the soul.

I think "The Stranger" was just another dystopian novel. Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four" was written about the same time as "The Stranger," and the protagonist in that novel comes to pretty much the same fate as Meursault in "The Stranger": He is jailed, he awaits death. Or look at Kafka's "Metamorphosis": The protagonist gets turned into a bug, he dies, he gets swept out with the trash. There's no uplifting message in the end, no moral to the story, nothing about the soul. Just a realization and acceptance that you don't really matter and life will go on without you. I read "The Stranger" in pretty much the same vein.

Those books are very different from Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment," which is about traditional Christian redemption. (Raskolnikov undergoes a religious conversion after he is jailed and exiled for the murder.)
 

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
Absurdists didn't give a damn about the soul.

I think "The Stranger" was just another dystopian novel. Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty Four" was written about the same time as "The Stranger," and the protagonist in that novel comes to pretty much the same fate as Mersault in "The Stranger": He is jailed, he awaits death. Or look at Kafka's "Metamorphosis": The protagonist gets turned into a bug, he dies, he gets swept out with the trash. There's no uplifting message in the end, no moral to the story, nothing about the soul. Just a realization and acceptance that you don't really matter and life will go on without you. I read "The Stranger" in pretty much the same vein.

Those books are very different from Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment," which is about traditional Christian redemption. (Raskolnikov undergoes a religious conversion after he is jailed and exiled for the murder.)

You did not quite understand the parallel between Raskolnikov and Mersault, nor between Dostoevsky and Camus.

I know that you might be at a tender age hence the identification with the absurd hero Mersault.


What I'm trying to observe are the commonalities between different heroes and different epochs.
But when you think about it, there were always Raskolnikov and Mersault. Everything is a circle. Repeats.

They are here now, among us.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
You did not quite understand the parallel between Raskolnikov and Mersault, nor between Dostoevsky and Camus.

I know that you might be at a tender age hence the identification with the absurd hero Mersault.


What I'm trying to observe are the commonalities between different heroes and different epochs.
But when you think about it, there were always Raskolnikov and Mersault. Everything is a circle. Repeats.

They are here now, among us.

I don't identify at all with Meursault. I never liked the character or the book. "The Stranger" was an early work of Camus's, and it was slushy and vague. I prefer Camus's later book, "The Plague": Camus's philosophy and cosmology are much clearer there.

I'm just surprised that you find commonality between fictional characters of Dostoyevsky and Camus. Dostoyevsky was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and hard-core religious believer. Most of his novels try to reconcile the Bible with modern life. Myshkin in "The Idiot" and Alyosha in "The Brothers Karamazov" were intended to be templates for a modern-day Jesus. Raskolnikov was meant to be a broken sinner who repents and finds salvation.

In contrast, Camus's characters were absurdist characters. Camus was a hard-core atheist. (His atheism comes out very clearly in "The Plague"). He believed that people could be heroes in the short-term, but in the long-term it didn't really matter because the universe is random, cold, and harsh. Innocent and evil alike suffer horrible torments. At random.

Frankly, I can't imagine more dissimilar authors and literary characters.

Oh well, enough said on the subject. I'll let it go. If you think Meursault and Raskolnikov are some sort of spiritual twins, that's fine with me. It does me no harm.
 

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
I don't identify at all with Mersault. Never liked the character or the book. "The Stranger" was an early work of Camus's, and it was slushy and vague. I prefer Camus's later book, "The Plague": Camus's philosophy and cosmology are much clearer there.

I'm just surprised that you find commonality between fictional characters of Dostoyevsky and Camus. Dostoyevsky was a died-in-the-wool conservative and hard-core religious believer. Most of his novels try to reconcile the Bible with modern life. Myshkin in "The Idiot" and Alyosha in "The Brothers Karamazov" were intended to be templates for a modern-day Jesus. Raskolnikov was meant to be a broken sinner who repents and finds salvation.

In contrast, Camus's characters were absurdist characters. Camus was a hard-core atheist. (His atheism comes out in spades in "The Plague"). He believed that people could be heroes in the short-term, but in the long-term it didn't really matter because the universe is random, cold, and harsh. Innocent and evil alike suffer horrible torments. At random.

Frankly, I can't imagine more dissimilar authors and literary characters.

Oh well, enough said on the subject. I'll let it go. If you think Mersault and Raskolnikov are some sort of spiritual twins, it's no skin off my nose.

Be honest and say, have you ever been Raskolnikov and Mersault. At any stage of life.

Only dishonest man can reject those parts of the human psyche.

If you're honest, you'll recognize Raskolnikov and Mersault in yourself, you'll get a clear parallel between Caumus and Dostoevsky.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Be honest and say, have you ever been Raskolnikov and Mersault. At any stage of life.

Only dishonest man can reject those parts of the human psyche.

If you're honest, you'll recognize Raskolnikov and Mersault in yourself, you'll get a clear parallel between Caumus and Dostoevsky.

Now you're saying that I'm "dishonest" for disagreeing with you? :tongue10::wacko:
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP

I thought about it some more.

I think what you're registering about the two characters is the fact that they're both early versions of the modern "anti-hero": They're both alienated from society, lone wolves, drifters, martyrs for not fitting in, etc.. But that also describes pretty much every male anti-hero in modern books, films, gaming, etc. You might as well compare Meursault to Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye" or to Harry Haller in "Steppenwolf" or to pretty much every character played by Clint Eastwood in his movies, and so on, and so on. It's just a trope: The lone wolf/drifter/martyr. Writers have been repeating that same trope for male anti-heros in one form or another for 150 years.

Meantime, there's a lot that separates Meursault and Raskolnikov.

Meursault is schizoid and genuinely disconnected from the world around him. The demands of the modern world are a burden on him, and he just wants it all to go away. If he gets sucked into a murder, it's because he's bored and doesn't see why he *shouldn't* kill people in a modern world that's full of suffering and death.

By comparison, Raskolnikov *wants to be* disconnected from the world, but in fact he's a histrionic, oversensitive little diva who gets pulled into every petty drama happening around him in the world. Raskolnikov wants to prove that he's a superman by pulling off a splashy murder, but his conscience and guilt get to him and he turns himself in. Hence the sin-and-redemption theme.

Raskolnikov murders for glory and to prove that he's above the laws of the world. And then when the detective Porfiry gets on his trail, Raskolnikov prances around in front of Porfiry and taunts him and plays head games with him and dares Porfiry to make a case against him. IOW, Raskolnikov is a diva and a drama queen.

Anyway, I can't imagine two characters who are more different than Meursault and Raskolnikov: The schizoid vs the neurotic. The true nihilist vs. the diva/drama queen.

You like them both because they're anti-heros and alienated from the world around them. But to me, they are very different characters. I always kind of liked Raskolnikov because he's a colorful character. He fails in the end, but he fails in a splashy, drama-queen way that I find entertaining. Meantime, I never liked Meursault. He's just too flat and one-dimensional. That schizoid thing robs him of life and makes him a bore, in my eyes. To me, he's just a convenient vehicle so that Camus can present a philosophy: Life sucks, people suck, and in the end you die. I agree with Camus, but that doesn't make for an interesting book or an interesting character.

Oh well, *now* I'm done with the subject.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
I thought about it some more.

I think what you're registering about the two characters is the fact that they're both early versions of the modern "anti-hero": They're both alienated from society, lone wolves, drifters, martyrs for not fitting in, etc.. But that also describes pretty much every male anti-hero in modern books, films, gaming, etc. You might as well compare Meursault to Holden Caulfield in "Catcher in the Rye" or to Harry Haller in "Steppenwolf" or to pretty much every character played by Clint Eastwood in his movies, and so on, and so on. It's just a trope: The lone wolf/drifter/martyr. Writers have been repeating that same trope for male anti-heros in one form or another for 150 years.

Meantime, there's a lot that separates Meursault and Raskolnikov.

Meursault is schizoid and genuinely disconnected from the world around him. The demands of the modern world are a burden on him, and he just wants it all to go away. If he gets sucked into a murder, it's because he's bored and doesn't see why he *shouldn't* kill people in a modern world that's full of suffering and death.

By comparison, Raskolnikov *wants to be* disconnected from the world, but in fact he's a histrionic, oversensitive little diva who gets pulled into every petty drama happening around him in the world. Raskolnikov wants to prove that he's a superman by pulling off a splashy murder, but his conscience and guilt get to him and he turns himself in. Hence the sin-and-redemption theme.

Raskolnikov murders for glory and to prove that he's above the laws of the world. And then when the detective Porfiry gets on his trail, Raskolnikov prances around in front of Porfiry and taunts him and plays head games with him and dares Porfiry to make a case against him. IOW, Raskolnikov is a diva and a drama queen.

Anyway, I can't imagine two characters who are more different than Meursault and Raskolnikov: The schizoid vs the neurotic. The true nihilist vs. the diva/drama queen.

You like them both because they're anti-heros and alienated from the world around them. But to me, they are very different characters. I always kind of liked Raskolnikov because he's a colorful character. He fails in the end, but he fails in a splashy, drama-queen way that I find entertaining. Meantime, I never liked Meursault. He's just too flat and one-dimensional. That schizoid thing robs him of life and makes him a bore, in my eyes. To me, he's just a convenient vehicle so that Camus can present a philosophy: Life sucks, people suck, and in the end you die. I agree with Camus, but that doesn't make for an interesting book or an interesting character.

Oh well, *now* I'm done with the subject.

Yes, last night I saw a Russian movie called The Fool.

As you say, the protagonist was a classic anti-hero fighting corruption at City Hall and betrayed by the very people he was trying to help. The Russians do this very well as they have a seriousness, as well as a dark view of life. The movie was so good I could see myself in the Fool.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
Yes, last night I saw a Russian movie called The Fool.

As you say, the protagonist was a classic anti-hero fighting corruption at City Hall and betrayed by the very people he was trying to help. The Russians do this very well as they have a seriousness, as well as a dark view of life. The movie was so good I could see myself in the Fool.

It becomes easier to relax and just go with the flow when you realize that no matter what you do in life, the epitaph on your tombstone is going to be the same: "It was all for nothing." :)
 

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
think what you're registering about the two characters is the fact that they're both early versions of the modern "anti-hero": They're both alienated from society, lone wolves, drifters, martyrs for not fitting in, etc..

No. I see them as a 'dialectical' approach to the world around us. They are literary ideas. Very reflective though.


You like them both because they're anti-heros and alienated from the world around them.

I didn't say I like anyone. Why importing sentiments. If someone like characters, it doesn't interfere with my interpretation.
 

Tennessee Jed

Active member
Joined
Jul 24, 2014
Messages
584
MBTI Type
INFP
No. I see them as a 'dialectical' approach to the world around us. They are literary ideas. Very reflective though.

I didn't say I like anyone. Why importing sentiments. If someone like characters, it doesn't interfere with my interpretation.

Whatever. It's your thread.

Just to explain why I'm making such a fuss: Judging by the OP, I thought the thread was going to be primarily about Camus and Absurdism. I have a lively interest in the subject, having read a lot of Camus and Sartre. My own philosophical position is pretty close to Absurdism. But I figure that Absurdism is a deep enough topic by itself that I don't really see the need to bring into the discussion random and unrelated literary works from previous centuries. So when you started making everything about Raskolnikov, I'm thinking to myself, "...the eternal scheme of schisms within the human soul? WTF is he talking about?"

But if you want to write literary essays comparing Camus's characters to Raskolnikov or King Arthur or Beowulf or "Little Women" or Dirty Harry or Flash Gordon or whatever, then that's fine with me. I'm done here. It's your thread.
 

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
Just to explain why I'm making such a fuss: Judging by the OP, I thought the thread was going to be primarily about Camus and Absurdism. I have a lively interest in the subject, having read a lot of Camus and Sartre. My own philosophical position is pretty close to Absurdism. But I figure that Absurdism is a deep enough topic by itself that I don't really see the need to bring into the discussion random and unrelated literary works from previous centuries. ,

Wow, you re so special.
Did you specifically subscribed to absurdism, so that the rest of us do not make a mess.


Sorry, I did not recognize you.

 

cm81

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
303
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
714
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Is Mersault amoral, or just true to his nature: There is no God, and I don't make the leap of faith in order to escape from meaninglessness, I do not live according to the Divine Plane. This world is absurd, and I am guided by the invisible hand of randomness.

What do you think? Do absurd philosophy is a recipe for life, or just escapism defeated rationalism of the 20th century?

Mersault kills the man with no regrets, was charged, with no remorse, his mother dies, he is indifferent. "The mother is just a woman who gave me birth", says one of the absurd heroes.

There is an interesting parallel with Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov kills the old woman and suffer from the consequences of Christian morality. He was tortured by extraordinary guilt. Mersault, in contrast, is indifferent - the world is absurd. No need to look for morale when everything is meaningless. The world can not be rationally explained.

What do you think?

Solomon asked these questions. And wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, since you mentioned Christian morality. It's actually one of my favourite books, there's a ton of wisdom in it.
 

hacbad macbar

Permabanned
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
302
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7
Solomon asked these questions. And wrote the book of Ecclesiastes, since you mentioned Christian morality. It's actually one of my favourite books, there's a ton of wisdom in it.

Nice mention. Never tought about that. I always liked Solomon. I need a little flick through the book of Ecclesiastes.

I remember one story of Solomon. I read it when I was younger. There he found a solution, I think it was about a child. About fraudulent mother and real mother, both claiming that the child is theirs.

Or it's not about Solomon. : thinking:
 

cm81

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2014
Messages
303
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
714
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Nice mention. Never tought about that. I always liked Solomon. I need a little flick through the book of Ecclesiastes.

I remember one story of Solomon. I read it when I was younger. There he found a solution, I think it was about a child. About fraudulent mother and real mother, both claiming that the child is theirs.

Or it's not about Solomon. : thinking:

It was Solomon. And yeah, the thief had responded in guilt. I think her desire was to at least share the child, not to actually kill him. But Love > death. And Solomon saw that.
 
Top