Category: Albert Camus

Existentialism is a way of thinking about finding oneself and the significance of life through choice, decision, and moral obligation. The belief is that individuals are looking to discover who and what they really are throughout their life as they settle on decisions depending on their encounters, beliefs, and viewpoints. Individual decisions become extraordinary without the need for a target type of truth. An existentialist accepts that an individual ought to be compelled to pick and be dependable without the assistance of laws, ethnic standards, or agreement. Existentialism is comprehensively characterized in an assortment of ideas and there can be not one single answer with respect to what it is. There is a wide assortment of philosophical, religious, and political beliefs that make up existentialism so there isn’t a true comprehension of the course of action of guidelines and beliefs. Governmental issues fluctuate, yet every look for the most individual opportunity for individuals are inside the general public.

Existentialism has had a major impact on society to the point that existentialistic thoughts left a period in the public eye when there was a profound feeling of despair following the Great Depression and World War II. There was a spirit of positive thinking and hope in a society that was torn down by World War I and its mid-century disasters. The despair was voiced by existentialist philosophers back then and has proceeded right up to the present day.

An existentialist could be a religious individual, relativist, or an atheist. Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre, and Camus are all given credit for their efforts and compositions about existentialism. Sartre is given credit for pointing out existentialism worldwide in the twentieth century. Each of the individuals concurs that human life is not the slightest bit nor completely fulfilling in light of misery and misfortunes that happen when thinking about the absence of flawlessness, influence, and control one has over their lives. Even though they do concur that life isn’t ideally fulfilling, life in any case has meaning. Existentialism is simply the quest and adventure of finding oneself and the true meaning in life.

Sartre, one of the atheist philosopher who was also a playwright, novelist, screenwriter, political activist, biographer, literary critic, and exponent of Existentialism which is a philosophy acclaiming the freedom of the individual human being, implies that people need to stop trying to force themselves into these perfect human examples. That individuals should live their lives rather than being glorified by these false perfect human ideas and beliefs. This implies individuals are in charge of finding the importance of their life. This also implies individuals have a purpose throughout their everyday life, and the purpose is the individual is in charge of making their own decisions for themselves. Individuals are only characterized by what they have created through the decisions and choices they have made.

Albert Camus, another atheist philosopher who was also an author and journalist, created the thought about absurdism. Camus accepted that there is a disagreement between attempting to discover worth and importance throughout everyday life. He also talked about the inability to find purpose in today’s society because of how crazy it is. When Campus implied “Living without appeal, ‘ he offered a similar layout on which existentialism is based upon that an individual must find oneself and the significance of life through choice, decision, and moral obligation, for themselves without impact from the outside world. Camus states since there is no significance to life for some people, that is why they end it all. Some may think life is useless and “living without appeal” is living with the freedom to have the option to find importance and reasoning for your life.

In conclusion, Camus and Sartes were very close friends in the early stages of their friendship. Throughout their friendship, there was a lot of disagreement that tore these two individuals apart. Although both of their thoughts offer very close viewpoints, and both share the idea of existentialism, the differences between these two philosophers and their thoughts came down to Camus disagreeing with Sarte. Camus believed that living without appeal is the only way one can find their true purpose, and if there is no purpose found then life is pointless. Sartre, on the other hand, accepted that individuals are not destined to become the perfect human and that individuals fit in based on the decisions they make. Just like everything in today’s world, nobody knows what to believe in without there being proof. Until there is some proof, the answer to which is correct, if either, is unknown.

World War II has gone down in history as one of the deadliest, most brutal, and inhumane wars of all time. It even outshines it predecessor, which was thought to be the “war to end all wars”, yet not even twenty five years later, a new threat by humanity to humanity emerged. With the death toll well into the millions, it was highly influential on many people, including the author of The Plague, Albert Camus. The Plague was published in 1947, just after the war had ended, and its contents would delicately reopen a freshly healed wound in France’s history. In The Plague, Albert Camus uses allegory to illustrate morality, death, disease, and isolation in connection with his experiences during the war as well as using the characters to convey his morality and emotions throughout wartime and post-war France.

For context, Albert Camus was born in French Algeria in 1913. During his career as a writer, Camus returned to Algeria, more specifically, the city of Oran in 1941 to collect material for a novel he was writing about the plague. However, during his stay in Oran he had a severe case of tuberculosis, causing him to return to central France (Judt). In 1942, the Allied Forces landed in Northern Africa. A great sign of the decadence that Nazi Germany would soon enter. However, soon after, Germany retaliated by invading and occupying southern France (Judt). This was devastating for Camus, as it meant that his family in Algeria were cut off from him. His strife would not end there because soon he was swept up into the French resistance. The war made Camus into an icon, a symbol of intellectual resistance against the Nazis, who were infamous for their propaganda, book burnings, and intellectual oppression/ brain washing. This is largely in part due to his role as an editor for an important war time news paper called “Combat” (Judt). As a result, when he published the novel in 1947, it was a huge success and received little backlash for its allegorical reference.

Connections between the war and The Plague can immediately be seen with the general plot of The Plague: The city of Oran succumbs to an outbreak which is deemed to be the bubonic plague after a number of rats pour into the streets and die. The authorities are soon forced to put the entire city under quarantine because of the undeniable evidence that a serious epidemic is taking a stranglehold on the city. The citizens begin to act selfishly, but they soon realize that they are all apart of the community and they need to join together to beat the epidemic. Soon, the plague subsides and life resumes as normal, but not without taking many to the grave with it. It is not very hard to see the symbolism of the elements in The Plague. The rats, who spread the illness causing the city to be quarantined, and the plague itself are representative of the Germans and Collaborationists. The quarantine and the isolation from loved ones it causes is symbolic of Camus’ home country of Algeria being cut of from France. Oran, the quarantined city, is representative of Paris, and Dr. Rieux (along with Tarrou and Rambert) are an allegory for the French resistance fighters (Haroutunian). The extent to which the war influenced Camus can be seen when Dr. Rieux “recalled that some thirty or so great plagues known to history had accounted for nearly a hundred million deaths. But what are a hundred million deaths? When one has served in a war, one hardly knows what a dead man is, after a while. And since a dead man has no substance unless one has actually seen him dead, a hundred million corpses broadcast throughout history are no more than a puff of smoke in the imagination” (Camus 19). Here Camus talks through Dr. Rieux about how insignificant the death toll of any one event is to someone until they experience death first hand and after they have experienced it so much.

However, The Plague can be read with a deeper meaning, connecting to his own experiences with tuberculosis with the character’s experiences with the plague. Although Camus’ bout of the illness in 1941 is very significant, Camus had a very long history with it: He frequently caught it throughout his life as a result of his poor living conditions. The illness was frequently deadly, and it plagued Camus’ life, causing him much pain and isolation (Haroutunian 312). In the early 30’s it resulted in the loss of his ability to play football (soccer) and swim, both of which he was very passionate about, and it also caused him to be shunned by society in a “fearful quarantine” Haroutunian 312). Later, in 1939, Camus was denied enlistment into World War II because of the disease. Haroutunian notes that when you replace “plague” with “tuberculosis”, parallels such as the “forced isolation”, the “hush-hush attitude of the Municipality”, the separation from loved ones, and the “optimism and despair in the face of long illness” can be drawn between the plague in the novel and Camus’ experience with tuberculosis. The clinical description of tuberculosis also parallels that of the plague “especially in the pulmonary forms with hemoptysis (the coughing of blood)” (Haroutunian 313). As a result of this, one can draw the connections between the suffering of the character’s due to the plague and Camus’ personal suffering due to tuberculosis.

Camus used a lot of the characters as a method to convey his thoughts and emotions, but the main three include Rambert, Dr. Rieux, and Tarrou (Judt). Rambert was primarily used to represent his moral perspective. Rambert, a self centered man who, having been cut off from his wife in Paris, is attempting to escape the quarantine, comes to realize just before his departure that he is a part of the community despite his self-centeredness, so he decides to stay in Oran and join a health team to help combat the plague. This parallels Camus’ initial denial of enlistment into the war, but eventual uptaking after the Germans invade France.

Dr. Rieux, the narrator of the novel who remains anonymous the majority of the time, serves as a way for Camus to express his emotions which he felt throughout the writing of the novel. Facing and suffering from a crisis, Dr. Rieux faces the issue head on even becoming a leader. This parallels Camus’ wartime efforts, with him becoming an intellectual leader whom many looked to for polished world views (Judt). However, caused Camus to be both exhausted and depressed, as he often did not have a lot to share (Judt). He expressed his through Dr. Rieux: “The language he used was that of a man who was sick and tired of the world he lived in, though he had much liking for his fellow men and had resolved, for his part, to have no truck with injustice and compromises with the truth. ” (Camus 6).

With Tarrou, Camus went more in depth with his morality. Tarrou moved away from his father because of his distaste for his father’s advocacy of the death penalty. Tarrou’s feelings on the death penalty reflect those of Camus, which he vehemently opposed after the war had ended. The symbolism for Camus’ morality goes further. At one point, Tarrou talks about how he feels guilty for causing the plague because he supported the actions and principles that led to the outbreak. This can be seen as a parallel to Camus’ feeling about his role in the Algerian branch of the French Communist Party. Similar to his post-war opposition to the death penalty, he soon turned against Marxism and Communism for embracing revolution. He even went as far as to say that Marxists and Communists were guilty of ignoring the absurdity of life with their wholesale transformation of society (Aronson 4). This rejection of communism is reflected in Tarrou’s rejection of “anything which, directly or indirectly, for good reasons or for bad, brings death to anyone or justifies others’ putting him to death” (Camus 123).

Although Camus’ character’s in The Plague appear to be full of symbolism and depth, others argue that Dr. Rieux’s fight against the plague is “undramatic and stubborn” (Brée 99). Brée, also states that “Self-analysis, in fact psychological analysis of any kind, disappears from the novel since the struggle is carried outward and symbolized by the characters’ relation to the plague” (99).

The Plague by Albert Camus is widely regarded as a classic, allegorical tale of the Nazi occupation of France. Even from the surface, connections between Camus’ experience with the war can be drawn, and with context such as Camus’ medical history and life story, further connections can be drawn between his experiences and emotions. Camus’ experiences such as being cut off from family because of the Nazi occupation of France, tuberculosis, and his emotions during this time are all paralleled through his novel The Plague.

Works Cited

1. Judt, Tony. “A Hero for Our Times.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Nov. 2001, www.theguardian.com/books/2001/nov/17/albertcamus?scrlybrkr=70496b57.
2. Aronson, Ronald. “Albert Camus.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 10 Apr. 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/camus/.
3. Brée, Germaine. “Albert Camus and the Plague.” Yale French Studies, no. 8, 1951, pp. 93–100. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2929136.
4. Haroutunian, Lulu M. “Albert Camus and the White Plague.” MLN, vol. 79, no. 3, 1964, pp. 311–315. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3042843.
5. Camus, Albert. The Plague. 1948.

This paper will analyze the title ‘The Misunderstanding’* based on Camus’s existentialist ideas of Absurdism. ‘The Misunderstanding’ enfolds the whole universe of this play in it. On reading the text, one realizes how a ‘misunderstanding’ can change the course of our lives. Our actions and instincts are all governed by how we understand things. This play, re enforces, just that, our quality of ‘understanding’.

The characters in the inn are all placed with different types of discerning qualities. The Mother represents an old woman of wisdom, who now longs for peace and stability in life. The daughter, Martha is a young mind, with hasty decisions and aggressive reactions. The absurdity of a simple ‘misunderstanding’, it’s consequences and repercussions faced by the characters in this play, all attribute to a larger framework of ‘Absurdism’. The seminal text, The Myth of Sisyphus has Camus saying, “There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” This is an idea that is restored in the last act of this play. Upon the murder of her own son due to a ‘misunderstanding’, the mother says in Scene I, Act III:

“I’ve lived too long, longer than my son. I didn’t know who he was and so I killed him. The only thing left to do is join him, at the bottom of the river, where the weeds are winding round his face. . . I was his mother. And when a mother fails to know her son, her function in this life has come to an end.”

She resorts to a suicide simply because she wants to make sense of the crime that has been committed by her. The mother believes that her union with the son in death, will somehow atone for the murder she has committed. And hence, she chooses to kill herself as well. The inability to recognize her son makes her feel dejected and purpose-less in life, the lack of which leads her to suicide.

When Camus says that the ‘serious philosophical problem’ is suicide, he problematizes the existence of life, and questions the obligation of finding a purpose. He reinforces that suicide is freedom from this submission of living, hence achievement of success. He throws light upon the absurdity of the ‘illusion’ that humans create for themselves, so that they can have meaning in their life, by having the character of The Old Man in the play. A prominent display of this absurdity is visible in the last Scene IV, Act III :

“OLD MAN (in a firm, clear voice) Were you calling for me?

MARIA (turning to him) Oh, no. Perhaps. I don’t know. But help me, please. Someone must help. Have pity on me! I need your help. Please help me!

OLD MAN (in the same, clear voice) No.”

This reestablishes that Man is self responsible for all actions. The presence of God may provide a comfort, but help can only come from within. Maria, despite calling out for help in the previous Scene III, does not recognize it when it comes from outside. She calls out to God, yet does not have an image of him. Her absurdity is evident in her ‘belief’ in a superior force, which she is unable to comprehend. Camus grapples with the question of existence by ending the play on a note where the man who is supposed to help, refuses. This forces the reader to look inwards for their purpose of existence.

The ‘misunderstanding’ of this play is not only in Mother and Martha’s fate, but also Jan. He fails to give precedence to any contemptuous thoughts. The hosts’ behavior, the old man’s actions, as well as his wife’s pleading, are all meant to alarm the character to a fatal end. Yet, Jan chooses to overlook all the aspects and stays at the inn. His consistent faith in his own ‘purpose’ and its fulfillment is also show as an absurd idea in the play. His ‘leap of faith’ provides a terrific end in Camus’s text, disagreeing with Kierkegard’s theory on the presence of a belief system.

Geographical locations in the play also provide a larger ‘misunderstanding’ of the characters. In Act I, Scene I it is ironic how Martha yearns for

“a land where the sun kills questions. . . . the sea I have dreamed of for so many years!”

Here, she is so obsessed with the idea of a world where the sun and the sea are going to provide her happiness. At the same time her brother Jan, who has been living in such a place for the past twenty years comes back to this dark land, justifying to his wife in Act I, Scene II:

“Men have their obligations, too. Mine was to find my mother, and my country. To be where I belong again…”

It is ironic how, Martha’s brother yearns to fulfill the same obligations that his sister is too exhausted over. The siblings are shown to have a deep ‘misunderstanding’ of what life would be like in each other’s physical locale. The presence of the sun and sea around Jan, does not stop him from coming back, his yearning for familial relationships persists even after twenty years. In the same place, fulfilling the obligation of sustaining her family, Martha despises the place and situation of her life, disregarding the sentimental comfort of familial intimacy. In trying to interchange their places, Martha and Jan cause a disruption to the present state of their fate, without receiving any restoration. Jan is never able to fulfill his obligations, neither is Martha able to escape her misery.

The heated exchange between Martha and Maria has the two women expressing completely different emotions with respect to the loss of their beloveds. Maria, who is shown as an ‘understanding’ character in the play, blames the two women for her husband’s loss. She prays to God for peace. Yet, Martha does not blame anyone, instead thrusts the reality of the situation in Scene III, Act III:

“. . .Reality has us all firmly in its grip. It’s time you understood that this waits for all of us. None of us, in life or in death, finds any peace. There is no land where we can feel at home. . . .”

This exclamation reveals not only Camus’s preoccupation with existentialism but also the immersion of the absurdist ideology. Martha’s psychology of alienating herself from her social condition reverberates ideas of Mersault, the protagonist in Camus’s The Stranger.

In conclusion, the paper emphasizes that Camus has managed to create ‘The Misunderstanding’ of this play not only in the death of Jan, but also the reader’s inability to comprehend reality.

is thе world of North Africa, to which hе fееls his dееpеst bеing bеlongs — a world of wind and sand, opеn rangеs and anonymity. Thе timе hе was writing thе book coincidеs, morеovеr, with thе turmoil of Algеria at war. Thеrе arе thе sounds of tеrrorists’ bombs, glimpsеs of jееps bristling with guns, thе awarеnеss that torturе is a daily occurrеncе.

Thе titlе, ‘Thе First man,’ suggеsts archеtypal pattеrns. Thе sеarch for idеntity is linkеd to thе sеarch for thе vanishеd fathеr, a ‘dеad strangеr,’ as Camus puts it. Whеn hе visits his fathеr’s tomb at thе military gravеyard in Brittany, hе confronts thе fact that at thе agе of 40 hе is oldеr than his fathеr was whеn hе was fatally woundеd in thе hеad by shrapnеl. Fathеrlеss, hе rеalizеs that his fathеr, too, had no fathеrland.

Thе еvocations of his childhood arе gripping: thе apartmеnt that had no gas and only an alcohol stovе, no nеwspapеrs, no books, not еvеn a radio; thе whippings administеrеd by his grandmothеr whеnеvеr hе damagеd his shoеs playing soccеr during rеcеss in school; thе gеntlе smilе of his mothеr, who workеd long hours as a clеaning woman, whosе vocabulary was limitеd to 400 words and who livеd in mutе rеsignation. But thеrе is humour, too, and еvidеncе of a grеat capacity for affеction, friеndship and gratitudе — thе most lasting of which wеnt to his schooltеachеr, a surrogatе fathеr who еncouragеd him to pursuе his studiеs and coachеd him outsidе of class to compеtе succеssfully for a statе scholarship to thе lycее. Thе distancе bеtwееn thе illitеratе homе and thе world of books and idеas in which thе young sеlf-madе intеllеctual еxultеd only incrеasеd his sеnsе of еstrangеmеnt. But Camus would nеvеr dеny his humblе background or fееl shamе about having grown up among thе ignorant and thе poor.

Thе notion of thе sеlf-madе pеrson lеnds furthеr significancе to thе book’s titlе. Thе ‘first man,’ thе young Camus, had to bring himsеlf up alonе, without thе authority and guidancе of a fathеr, without a hеritagе handеd down. Hе had to work out his own truth and morality. But thе titlе has broadеr implications as wеll, for it rеfеrs to Algеria itsеlf, living in a vacuum, forgеtful of its past, a ‘land of oblivion whеrе еach onе is thе first man.’

Sеlf-crеation impliеs sеlf-еxamination. But doеs it mеan sеlf-knowlеdgе? Thе final chaptеr of thе book is еntitlеd ‘A Mystеry to Himsеlf.’ By way of thе boy hе rеmеmbеrs having bееn, Camus catchеs glimpsеs of his morе lasting traits. Littlе Albеrt (namеd Jacquеs in thе book) loathеs convеntional gеsturеs and bеhavior; hе is hot-bloodеd, rambunctious and capablе of foolish acts; hе adapts еasily to all kinds of pеoplе and lovеs to try out rolеs; hе has a will to bе couragеous that may bе morе prеcious than couragе itsеlf. His ravеnous appеtitе for lifе is rootеd in his еarly knowlеdgе of dеath. Thе blind stirrings and dark firе hе fеlt as a boy rеmain buriеd in him, and inform his intеnsеly poеtic pеrcеption of thе world.

Camus is gеnеrally not at his bеst whеn trying to bе an abstract thinkеr. His richеst pеrcеptions arе sеnsuous and poеtic. His еvocations of Algiеrs and Algеria arе prеcisе and suggеstivе: briеf twilights, thе changе of sеasons, thе dеparturе of thе swallows, labyrinths of vеgеtation, ravinеs full of scеnts, summеr days whеn thе sun grinds plastеr and stonе into finе dust and thе sky is grey with hеat. Thе tееming quartеrs of Algiеrs arе madе vivid, with thеir narrow arcadеd strееts, pеddlеrs’ stands, workshops, food stalls and intеrminglеd еthnic and rеligious groups. Camus notеd on thе manuscript that hе wantеd this book to bе ‘hеavy with things and flеsh.’ Hе also succееdеd in bеstowing a mythical dimеnsion on thе physical landscapе, as whеn hе comparеs thе ‘holy drеad’ fеlt whеn thе North African еvеning dеscеnds on thе sеa to thе еffеct еxpеriеncеd on thе slopеs of Dеlphi’s mountain, with its nеarby tеmplеs and sanctuariеs.

Thе dеvicе of thе third pеrson allows Camus to apply an ironic pеrspеctivе. Thеrе is at timеs a Faulknеrian quality to thе syntax and thе dеlibеratе blurring of past and prеsеnt. Mr. Hapgood’s translation dеals skillfully with thе litеrary dеvicеs at work, capturing thе tonе of Camus: dirеct, undеrstatеd, occasionally aphoristic, sustainеd by subduеd lyricism and a nostalgic attеntion to dеtail.

Lovе of sun and sеa, a nееd for friеndship and gamеs, a passion for soccеr, thеsе wеrе only normal for thе schoolboy еagеr to еscapе thе grim confinеmеnt of his homе. Morе tеlling is his еarly еnthusiasm for thе world of artisans, thеir dеdication and solidarity. Camus dеscribеs his visit to thе coopеragе whеrе his unclе workеd and whеrе hе would watch with fascination thе pounding on hoop-drivеrs and thе boistеrous dancе of hammеrs. It is this kind of rеspеct for thе dignity of work that sеparatеs Camus from thе Parisian intеllеctuals who mеrеly thеorizеd about thе prolеtariat.

Largеr thеmеs acquirе nеw mеaning in thе autobiographical pеrspеctivе. Camus’s loathing for violеncе goеs back to a childhood fistfight, whеn hе inflictеd a black еyе on a classmatе and thеn rеalizеd that ‘vanquishing a man is as bittеr as bеing vanquishеd.’ His lifеlong avеrsion to capital punishmеnt was, it would sееm, thе only concrеtе bond with thе dеad strangеr, his fathеr. Hе had bееn dееply imprеssеd by thе story of how his fathеr attеndеd thе public еxеcution of a criminal and rеturnеd homе chokеd with nausеa and horror. If Camus bеcamе, so to spеak, thе consciеncе of his timе, it is bеcausе hе rеfusеd all his lifе to sidе with thе еxеcutionеrs, еvеn whеn thе victims wеrе guilty.

Dеath is a constant prеsеncе in thе lifе of Camus, who, as an adolеscеnt, spat blood and latеr had rеcurrеnt bouts with tubеrculosis. But so is thе joy of convalеscеncе and hеalth. His lovе of thе human body and of its bеauty is nеvеr oblivious of its fragility. Camus rеmеmbеrs with intеnsе prеcision how hе and his friеnds playеd on thе grounds of thе Homе for Disablеd Vеtеrans, whеrе thе mothеr of onе of his schoolmatеs was chiеf laundrеss. Thе prеsеncе of thе cripplеs lеnt a spеcial poignancy to thеir gamеs and to thе rapturе of thе fragrant vеgеtation. Loss and rеtriеval arе at thе corе of Camus’s pеrsonal mythology, and thеy illuminе thе notion of еxilе to which hе rеturns so oftеn. For еxilе, as hе makеs clеar in ‘Thе Plaguе,’ is not so much an еxistеntial condеmnation as a potеntially rеdеmptory awarеnеss of an innеr void that nееds to bе fillеd — a longing for somеthing lost or largеly forgottеn, and at thе samе timе a forward quеst.

Camus’s voicе has nеvеr bееn morе pеrsonal than in ‘Thе First Man.’ It spеaks dirеctly to a sеnsе of dеcеncy, rеfusеs to bеcomе thе accomplicе of еvеnts, еxtols nеithеr thе hеro nor thе saint and proclaims that thеrе is no shamе in happinеss, that a lovеlеss world is a dеad world. This is not to say that Camus is еvеr indiffеrеnt to thе rеalitiеs of history. But hе knows that ‘history’ can bеcomе a tyrannical еncroachmеnt, an opprеssivе justification or еvеn a wеapon for thе idеologuеs of this world.

CAMUS’S rеsistancе to political and philosophical abstractions is bеst summеd up by two statеmеnts from еarliеr works. Thе first comеs from thе prеfacе to an еarly collеction of еssays: ‘Povеrty prеvеntеd mе from judging that all was wеll undеr thе sun and in history; thе sun taught mе that history was not all.’ Thе othеr, from onе of his ‘Notеbooks,’ еlaboratеs on a pronouncеmеnt by Dostoyеvsky: ‘Onе must lovе lifе bеforе loving its mеaning, says Dostoyеvsky . . . yеs, and whеn lovе of lifе disappеars, no mеaning can consolе us.’

Thе tragic humanism of Camus is not to bе confusеd with pеssimism. Camus knеw that war, not pеacе, is normal; that Cain will always murdеr Abеl — just as Dr. Riеux in ‘Thе Plaguе’ knows that thе dеadly bacillus will not disappеar. Hеncе thе nееd for pеrmanеnt vigilancе. Thеrе can bе no armisticе in our strugglе against suffеring. Thе lеsson Camus tеachеs is that wе must lеarn to lovе that which is impеrfеct. This lovе must еxtеnd to loving that which is inеvitablе. Camus’s allеgiancе to lifе, thе lifе hе lost so suddеnly and so еarly, was from thе start joyful and dеspеratе.

Throughout the novel, The Plague focuses on the philosophy of its characters. This shines in the existentialist views of Tarrou or in both the faith and absurdity of Father Paneloux. Through the previous examples, Albert Camus forces the reader to confront their own beliefs and how they would react in the despair each character faces.

The author, Albert Camus, is a pioneer in philosophy. Beginning his career two years before the start World War 2, His view of the world was surely influenced by the events he witnessed. Throughout his work, he strongly opposed nihilism — the view of the world as absurd. Instead, he emphasized pacifism and human rights rather than the meaninglessness of the world around him. Late in his life, he received a Nobel prize in Literature “for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times”. HIs worldview is woven throughout the plot of The Plague, allowing the reader to connect to him.

Existentialism is the philosophical idea that although the universe is absurd, men can create their own meaning in life. This means humanity has the freedom to choose and make rational decisions in a meaningless universe. It acknowledges absurdity but also seeks meaning. Existentialism is clearly emphasized throughout The Plague. The situation caused by the pestilence is ridiculous. In a quote taken from the book acknowledges the indifference of the universe “Thus each of us had to be content to live only for the day, alone under the vast indifference of the sky.” Within that world, people struggle to find meaning while surrounded by constant death. What constitutes meaning varies from person to person though. For Rieux meaning is found in continuing his work in caring for patients. For Rieux’s asthmatic patient, the Old Spaniard, meaning was found in persisting in his routine — using peas to track the passage of time instead of clocks. The question of meaning is clearest in Camus’ character Tarrou.When the

Throughout the novel, The Plague focuses on the philosophy of its characters. This shines in the existentialist views of Tarrou or in both the faith and absurdity of Father Paneloux. Through the previous examples, Albert Camus forces the reader to confront their own beliefs and how they would react in the despair each character faces.

The author, Albert Camus, is a pioneer in philosophy. Beginning his career two years before the start World War 2, His view of the world was surely influenced by the events he witnessed. Throughout his work, he strongly opposed nihilism — the view of the world as absurd. Instead, he emphasized pacifism and human rights rather than the meaninglessness of the world around him. Late in his life, he received a Nobel prize in Literature “for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times”. HIs worldview is woven throughout the plot of The Plague, allowing the reader to connect to him.

Existentialism is the philosophical idea that although the universe is absurd, men can create their own meaning in life. This means humanity has the freedom to choose and make rational decisions in a meaningless universe. It acknowledges absurdity but also seeks meaning. Existentialism is clearly emphasized throughout The Plague. The situation caused by the pestilence is ridiculous. In a quote taken from the book acknowledges the indifference of the universe “Thus each of us had to be content to live only for the day, alone under the vast indifference of the sky.” Within that world, people struggle to find meaning while surrounded by constant death. What constitutes meaning varies from person to person though. For Rieux meaning is found in continuing his work in caring for patients. For Rieux’s asthmatic patient, the Old Spaniard, meaning was found in persisting in his routine — using peas to track the passage of time instead of clocks. The question of meaning is clearest in Camus’ character Tarrou.

When the reader is are first introduced to Tarrou, he is pondering his cat-spitting neighbor. Day after day, Tarrou watches as the man seems to lure stray cats close to his balcony and then proceeds to spit on them. Later, as the cats begin to disappear due to the outbreak of the plague, Tarrou observes his neighbor seems heartbroken due to their absence. Tarrou’s strange fascination with the man seems to be later explained as he talks to Rieux on the roof of the Old Spaniard’s house. He began by dividing the world into three categories: the pestilence, the men, and the saints and healers. What is a saint in a world without a god? Tarrou inquired if it was simply the aggregation of habit — meaning the cat-spitting neighbor was a Saint. Eventually, he reached the conclusion that “We can only reach approximations of sainthood. In which case, we must make a shift with a mild, benevolent diabolism.” Tarrou’s beliefs are an example of atheistic existentialism. He searches for purpose and sainthood in a world without a god, while still acknowledging the senselessness of the universe. This worldview mirrors Albert Camus’ viewpoints and provides greater insight into his philosophical beliefs.

Theistic existentialism, which is often traced to Søren Kierkegaard’s work, acknowledges the absurd universe. In addition to the previous statement, theistic existentialism also believes that through faith and rational thinking humanity can come to know God. Father Paneloux in The Plague is representative of these beliefs. As the plague begins to affect the population, Father Paneloux delivers a sermon. At the time it seems he is strong in his faith and distant from those enduring the illness. He uses language which implies he views the pestilence as others problem and not his own. A major shift in his behavior occurs as he watches the agony and death of a small child. This marks a shift in his behavior and faith. His second sermon is a far cry from his initial sermon. The confidence in his beliefs turns to doubt. How can one accept a god in the presence of seemingly senseless suffering? Father Paneloux’s death from a mysterious disease leaves the reader without knowledge of his final beliefs. The reader questions if Father Paneloux had been able to take a leap of faith or if he left the world without hope. While initially, it appears that Father Paneloux holds a traditional Christian worldview, there seems to be a shift to a more existentialist point of view. Theistic existentialism contrasts with Albert Camus’ belief in atheistic existentialism. Both understand the chaos in the world but Albert Camus considers it without a god.

There are many differences between Camus’ own views and some of the philosophies he presents in the Plague. Although most seem to represent some form of existentialism, there are some factors that separate them. In learning about each viewpoint, the reader can not only learn more about the author but also more about themselves.

The Stranger, by Albert Camus centres around the protagonist Meursault, an emotionless and indifferent individual. As a result of his nonchalant attitude, he is often viewed as psychologically detached. This is reflected in Camus’ use of succinct sentences and simple diction employed in the novel. His writing style not only reflects Meursault’s indifferent attitude but also reveals a lack of interaction with others. In the latter half of the novel, however, Camus contrasts this objective style with a more complex writing style, which serves to emphasize a more profound level of introspective thought. There are detailed descriptions of pivotal events in Meursault’s life such as the death of the Arab, as he reflects upon them during his time in prison. With a change in the writing style, Meursault is revealed as reflective and responsive to events around him. Thus, in The Stranger, Camus employs a shift in writing style, which transitions from a clear and direct style towards the usage of expressive and descriptive sentences, in order to emphasize the change in Meursault’s perspective.

Camus introduces an objective perspective and a direct writing style in the opening paragraph of the novel, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.”(3). Though the news of his mother’s death may be heartbreaking or even overwhelming, Meursault appears to be perturbed about the untimely date of the death. The atypical behaviour that Meursault exhibits, reveals that he simply notes on his objective observations of events such as the passing of his mother. Throughout this passage, the sentences Meursault uses while he reflects on his mother’s death are succinct, short and direct creating dissonance. This reveals Meursault’s deviant state, supported by his dispassionate comments on his mother’s death. The sentences also reflect an apathetic tone, conveying Meursault’s detachment through basic and simplistic writing. Here, Meursault is a mere observer in a society lacking any reflection and this apathy can be seen as Meursault presenting the smallness and irrelevance of his mother’s death in the grand universe. However, the word “maman” is to be noted as it conveys sympathy and attachment to the mother. The word could have easily been replaced with “mother” to highlight the indifference, however, Camus utilizes “maman” to convey Meursault’s indifference to her death. There is a certain absurdity in that as it reveals Meursault as idiosyncratic, and someone who is judged as peculiar by society.

In relationships, love is expected to be based on more than appearance, as it is seen as a universal emotion necessary for building intimate connections. Throughout the first half of the novel, Meursault’s relationship with Marie is primarily one of physical attraction and, as such, he is portrayed as rather apathetic in this relationship. Meursault simply observes the physical aspects of Marie’s beauty rather than reflecting on the emotions he feels during their sexual interactions. His objective perspective is most evident in his descriptions of her, where he mentions “You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower”(34). Here, Camus’s writing style is disturbingly flat and objective, depicting Meursault as a narrator. Though the sentence itself is not as short, the diction is essential in revealing that Meursault is simply describing what is seen on the outside, a mere description of the physical beauty he sees. There is a conscientious amount of detail used to describe Marie’s breasts and her face providing a clear image of her physical appearance. With the lack of description about Marie’s psychological personality, Meursault proves to be a stranger that is reporting on his first-hand observations. In this case, Meursault’s matter-of-fact tone indicates that he views himself as an outsider in society, who exists purely to observe, rather than having any sentimental attachment or emotional value to what he observes. Furthermore, there is imagery present in the sentence that is used to objectify Marie, as he compares her to a flower. The language is rather detached as if Meursault himself was not involved in the action, further exemplifying his apathetic attitude.

Near the end of the first half of the novel, there is a clear shift in a writing style that details the progression of Meursault from being an observer in society to having an introspective perspective. For instance,

“The trigger gave; I felt the smooth underside of the butt; and there, in that noise, sharp and deafening at the same time, is where it all started. I shook off the sweat and the sun. I knew that I had shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where I had been happy.” (59)

Here, Camus utilizes a complex writing style and elaborate diction to establish Meursault as a reflective character. There is figurative language as he continues to describe the grotesque killing and compares it to entering an unhappy state of mind. The description of the gunshot sound being “sharp and deafening” depicts how Meursault reflectively interacts with pivotal events in his life. With the “shattering of the harmony and the silence of the beach”, Meursault recognizes that the shooting of the Arab had changed his life forever. This realization is primarily through Camus’ use of the metaphor of “knocking on the door of unhappiness”(59) signifying that Meursault recognizes his actions as well reflects on the consequences of his actions. The descriptive language alongside vivid imagery allows the reader to understand the scenario from Meursault’s reflective perspective rather than an objective eye. The complex sentence structure also reveals the tension and ambiguity associated with the situation. The fact that Meursault had just taken a life, what he previously viewed as being irrelevant in the grand scheme of the universe, made him unhappy. This in itself is a progression of emotion displayed through the writing style, which further accentuates the shift in his perspective.

The second half of the novel is much more retrospective in comparison to the first as it offers a reflective commentary on the pivotal events in Meursault’s life. During his time in prison, Meursault recounts various events in his life and discusses their impact on him. He is much more lenient about expressing his emotions, the large majority of which he previously regarded as arbitrary. The lines, “Maybe at one time, way back, I had searched for a face in them. But the face I was looking for was as bright as the sun and the flame of desire – and it belonged to Marie.” (119) exemplify Meursault’s reflection on the memories he had created with Marie during their intimate moments. This feeling of realization that he truly did desire Marie aside from the physical aspects makes him a part of the society as he interacts with it. Meursault also has an epiphany as he reflects on his memories and observations;“Throughout the whole absurd life I’d lived, a dark wind had been rising toward me from somewhere deep in my future, across years that were still to come, and as it passed, this wind leveled whatever was offered to me at the time, in years no more real than the ones I was living.” (121) Furthermore, he details the effect of events on his state of mind and reflects upon them as if they were the primary source of his joy.

The Stranger details two distinct writing styles, one that is clear and direct versus another which is complex and entails descriptive diction. These two contrasting styles are essential in revealing the shift in Meursault’s perspective from being an observer in a society that judges him as an outsider, to have a more reflective and introspective perspective in life. His objective perspective is most clearly evident through Meursault’s interactions with Marie as well as his dispassionate emotions regarding his mother’s death. He has a sense of apathy and indifference towards phenomena as he presents a simplistic view on existence through observation. Contrarily, his introspective perspective is revealed through the complex and detailed descriptions of his emotions as he retrospectively accentuates the significance of pivotal events in his life. In both cases, the diction and the writing style exemplify a narrator that goes through a progression in perspective, consequently allowing the reader to empathize with Meursault.

Introduction

This paper will examine how the two literary works The Stranger by Albert Camus and Hadji Murat by Leo Tolstoy challenge or reinforce misconceptions of the East or the so-called “Third World”, using Edward Said’s Orientalism and Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth as a backdrop to interpret and analyze the two literary texts. While we (readers) are prone to read The Stranger as being universal and revolving around the human condition, such universality could merely be a “superstructure” (Said, p. 214) covering the historical and political reality of Algeria at that time. This reading could be inferred even by simply taking the text at face value and without having to revise Camus political stances outside fiction or situating him in his political times (which Edward Said does in Culture and Imperialism). In doing so, Edward Said was able to be even harsher in criticizing Camus’ work. As for Hadji Murat, the sympathetic portrayal of the orient swings between understanding, idealization and downright use/exploitation as in orientalist colonial literature.

The Stranger: a universal façade

While Camus was celebrated for successfully representing the ‘Western Consciousness’ and preserving humanist values during the difficult times of the Cold War (O’Brien 1970), his consciousness in fact arises from and can be seen as an extension of an imperial French discourse on Algeria. At the onset, Algeria appears merely as an empty stage where European characters can act out their lives. It seems that identity and historical reality of the colonized natives are erased, which should make us wonder how seriously we should take the universal troubled questioning that the novel seems to promote.

More precisely, only three Arabs make appearance in the novel, of which none has a name or was made to speak. The main Arab character was shot by Mersault. It is as if Arabs are only there so that Mersault is be able to venture in his anguished reflections; the Arab must die so that the central European figure can engage in philosophical thinking. Similarly, the prosecutor condemns Meursault saying “I accuse the prisoner of behaving at his mother’s funeral in a way that showed he was already a criminal at heart” (Camus, p. 60) and for being so callous and alienated from humanity that he cannot be left free to contaminate the rest of the society. The prosecutor’s stance is to the advantage of the text’s existential and humanitarian themes. Nonetheless, why was Mersault prosecuted by French authorities not for killing the Arab per se but because he did not weep or show enough emotion at his mother’s funeral? The answer could be that the social order and justice being served here is not that of the Arabs or Algeria, but the French, which is only concerned by the inhumane psyche of Mersault. We should note that at the trial, no Arabs were seen and those in the jail did not have names. Clearly, there are two stories at play here.

In the first story, Meursault contemplates the absurd and appears a puppet played by the sun! Mere coincidence leads him to do certain things (it could be any one else and not him), and to murder someone (he could have killed any other person) and to be prosecuted and sentenced to death by a prosecutor who could have been “German or Chinese” (Camus, p.68) and the throbbing was what drove him to kill the Arab. Asked about his motives, Meursault responds “Because of the sun” (Camus, p.64).

Whereas the first story was about Meursault alienation, the second story (the hidden one) is about Algerian alienation. The dead body on the beach is no longer just the manifestation of the European absurdity and fatality but a political entity; the colonized Algerian native. Meursault is no longer the absurd tragic hero but a French colonizer whose presence rests on violence (he is the French who murders the Arab), military prevalence (Meursault’s gun wins the Arab’s knife), and an unjust legal system (concentrating on the dead French mother not the killed native). In spite of Meursault’s apparent indifference, we are right in charging his actions with colonial/imperial motifs and attitudes. Meursault might think of his actions as disconnected and swarming in a random existence. In return, we might think of him not merely as the absurd stranger but as a symbol of violent colonial machinery.

Hadji Murat: sympathetic contradictions

Leo Tolstoy poses a harder challenge for the reader since he was known for his hatred to the violent Russian state and corrupt government promoting capitalist economy. In Hadji Murat, Tolstoy Recounts Russian nuances and sins being torn between east and west and he tries to criticize orientalism representations. In Hadji Murat, we indeed see sympathetic and positive image of the orient in a complex and developed narrative where the author does not make the mistake of subjectively romanticize and identifies with the orient as in other works during the late 19th century (Heier, p. 327). Even though Tolstoy gives a negative assessment of Russian civilization in the text, he remains careful not to mystify or idealize the mountaineers (Chechen). Whether this point should be taken to his credit (not idealizing the orient) or against him (reluctant to paint the orient in a better portrait) is up to the readers’ interpretation. Whether the absence of redemption and the lack of any redeemable character is seen as a declaration by Tolstoy that the east might be just as worse as the west or seen as maturity by author away from simple moral preaching, is also up to the readers’ interpretation. Nonetheless, let us examine specific elements in the text hoping they may shed some light in this regard.

Butler, the ‘Tolstoyan’ narrator, is self-serving and naïve. He has poetic ideas about the war where he subjects “himself to danger, to the possibility of death, and thereby earning awards and the respect of his comrades here and of his friends in Russia” (Tolstoy, p.78). It is worth noting that Butler’s care for how his “friends in Russia” see him is synonymous with Russian own consciousness of its difficult position between east and west. By conquering the Chechen, Russia was trying to merge with the western, euro imperialist world (Woodward, p. 873). Still, Butler returns to his fantasies about “the special energetic poetry of the mountaineers life” (Tolstoy, p. 90) and about the “arrival of Hadji Murat”; clearly a trace of idealizing and contrasting the “other” orient.

Similarly, we could read the Tsar Nicholas I to be a reflection of Russia’s concern about its image to the point where moral judgment is hindered. Nicholas derives his grandiose from the “constant obvious flattery, contrary to all evidence, of the people around him” that “he no longer saw his contradictions, no longer conformed his actions and words to reality, logic, or even simple common sense” (Tolstoy, p. 70). The tsar embodies all the hypocrisy of the Russian state that Tolstoy hated. Yet again, resorting to an ideal orient, Tolstoy contrasts the lively-looking severed head of the eastern Hadji Murat, with its “childish, good-natured” expression to the dead head of the still-breathing Tsar Nicholas I with its “lifeless gaze” and “dead eyes” (Tolstoy, p. 73). Such contrast could be read in two ways. Tolstoy is overturning notions of ‘eastern barbarity” in Hadji Murat by implying that Russia was now in charge of beheading its enemies and that Hadji Murat’s dead head was way more worthy than Nicholas lively one (Wachtel, p. 286). Alternatively, Tolstoy could be seen as contradicting himself since “Hadji Murat is unquestionably violent and shares with Nicholas an unhealthy desire for worldly power”. Tolstoy himself writes “If he’d been born in Europe, he might have been a new Napoleon” (Tolstoy, p. 43). Despite Hadji Murat’s sins and imperfections, he is made to retain a streak of childlike innocence and to remain connected to the world of humanity and love. Adding to Tolstoy’s contradicting narrative is the fact that he did not care if Hadji Murat was not any good for the story if it wasn’t for his betrayal. The “child-like” innocent Hadji Murat deserted the Caucasus to the Russian side because he was serving his personal interest; to gain Russian support so that he can reach power positions to conquer Shamyl’s domains, “which ultimately proved stronger than his loyalty to the cause of Caucasian nationalism” (Woodward, p. 873). It is seems that Tolstoy did not mind the implications this has for Hadji Murat as a nationalist guerilla fighter. Hadji Murat was merely used to contrast Tolstoy’s disdain for modern Russian violent bureaucracy, albeit with more maturity.

Conclusion

Let us wrap up but putting the two authors in perspective. For Camus, who consistently used the word “Arab” but never Algerian, there was no such thing as an “Algerian people”. He therefore implies that Algerian demand for national independence is politically naïve and might as well be the result of nothing but the manipulation of Nasser’s/Soviet forces. Camus saw France as “the best possible future for the Arab people” (Camus & King, 1983), so it is no wonder that his fictions erase the identity, and even the presence, of colonized native people. From this colonial/imperial-lese, The Stranger is not so much promoting a universal philosophy as much as it is continuing the racist colonial sentiment of imperial France. In other words, the colonial power that alienates Algerian people from their historical realities and geographies now dominates and predates the philosophical struggle (the anti-hero’s alienation before the absurd) (Said, p. 210)

For Tolstoy, his moral condemnation of power is apparent is many of his works. Yet, Tolstoy put characters in position of power other than Tsar Nicholas but intentionally made them admirable. While Shamil forces Murat’s son to send a letter to his father telling him wither he surrenders or Shamil puts put his son’s eyes, the readers are not driven to see Shamil as more evil than Nicholas. In fact, it seems that Tolstoy prepares us to like Shamil (Dworsky, p. 143), dressing him beautifully and attributing many of the stereotypical ‘noble savage’ characteristics to him. But if Shamil is made to be admired while exhibiting the same demeanor as Nicholas, then what is this is so much to making Shamil look as merely acting with an acceptable cultural context of his; meaning that savagery is acceptable for the orient and eastern Shamil but not from the Christian Nicholas … So much for typifying and normalizing orient behavior and making his violent behavior a “performance for his ritual duties as a Muslim” (qtd in Tolstoy, p. xiii).

Do humans have free will? Or are they just objects the greater force plays with? The subject is addressed in Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare, and “The Guest” by Albert Camus. These stories portray how humans are being control by greater forces creating no free will. In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, people are controlled by destined fates created by an outside force. For example, the oracles. In The Tragedy of Macbeth, Macbeth is shown being controlled a greater force, the witches prophecies. In “The Guest” by Albert Camus, people are shown to be unable to control their own actions because of society’s views. The works of these three stories shows how humans do not have free will.

In Oedipus Rex, Sophocles portrays how people are controlled by having fate already determined. Oedipus is an individual who believes he had run away from his prophecy. He did not know that his fate had already happened. He later discovers the hidden truth of his own prophecy when he persuades people around to find out. Oedipus thinks he has free will because he is making his own decisions to finding the truth. Every action he makes reveal his prophecy has turn into reality. When he found out, he was troubled and cries,” It was true! All the prophecies! -Now, O Light, many I look on you for the last time! I, Oedipus, Oedipus, damned in his birth, in his marriage, damned, Damned in the blood he shed with his own hand!”(Sophocles 354). This quote is when he realizes that the prophecies had came true and is now a reality. He feels the need to punish himself so he stabbed himself in the eye.

In The Tragedy of Macbeth, Shakespeare portrays how Macbeth’s actions are influenced by the witches prophecy. The witches claimed that Macbeth would be king. His action of regicide is based on the witches prophecy. This shows how Macbeth acts on his prophecy because of his ambition to become king. By committing regicide, he gave his loyalty away which concludes that he is following the path to become king. Macbeth thinks he is in full control of his decisions, but he does not realized his actions are being controlled by the prophecy. His actions to be king is influenced by the prophecy that the witches told. Macbeth then gives up trying to make his own decisions and surrenders to greater forces. Macbeth states,“If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me Without my stir” (I, IV, ll. 157-159). This quote shows Macbeth giving up the free will he thinks he has. He allows fate to control his life, meaning every decision he makes will be towards his prophecy. The play The Tragedy of Macbeth, shows how Macbeth’s decisions are influenced by greater forces. Macbeth’s doesn’t have free will because his actions are based on his prophecies.

In the short story “The Guest”, Camus portrays how individuals are influenced by views of society. Daru, a schoolteacher is ordered to escort a prisoner to prison. He is ordered by Balducci, a French soldier who has to agree with society or he will be ultimately punished. Daru dislikes the idea of escorting the prisoner. He argued,” The orders? I’m not…” Daru hesitated, not wanting to hurt the old Corsican. “ I mean, that’s not my job.” (Camus 1249). This quote shows how Daru tries to express that he doesn’t want to do it and is willing to go against orders. Balducci respond with,” O.K. But the orders exist and they concern you, too. Things are brewing, it appears. There is talk of a forthcoming revolt.”(Camus 1249). Balducci explains to Daru that if he don’t carry this order to make society happy, there will be war. This shows hold Balducci is influenced by society and he does not have free will. When Daru agrees and when it was time for the prisoner to be sent to prison, Daru gave him two choices. The prisoner can either live freely or go to prison. When the prisoner chose the path to prison, it shows how much society pressures his choices. The fact that he tries to go against society for giving the Prisoner choice to freedom caused him to be punish because the prisoner chose the path to prison because of how society view him. This causes for Daru to be ultimately punished by second class citizens for “allowing” the prisoner to go to prison. This shows Daru paying the price for going against a force he cannot control, society.

The three works of Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare, and “The Guest” by Albert Camus portray how humans are objects being controlled by greater forces. In Oedipus Rex, Oedipus did not realize his actions are making his prophecies come true. In the play The Tragedy of Macbeth, Macbeth believes every decision he makes are for his ambition. He does not know that he was an individual who has fate determined for him. In “The Guest,” the individual has an order influenced by higher class society but goes against the conformity of first class citizens by disobeying orders but end up being ultimately punished for trying to go against the influence of society. These three works shows how free will is not available to humans. But, will there be free will if humans lives in a modern society where people are not judged or being obsessed with fulfilling one’s desire?

Albert Camus (1913–1960) was a French-Algerian philosopher, journalist and novelist. Perhaps not as much of a philosopher (as he denied himself to be) as a novelist with a strong philosophical bent, he is most famous for his work on the Myth of Sisyphus and his novels of ideas, such as The Stranger and The Plague. Camus used both his fictional novels alongside with the Myth of Sisyphus in contest with philosophy itself to present his central concern of what Camus calls the feeling of the Absurd. He claims that the Absurd is the fundamental conflict between humans’ eternal search for what we ask/want from the universe (meaning, order, or reasons) and what in turn we find in it: shapeless silent chaos. Camus states that we will never in fact find any sort of meaning that we want from life itself. People will either reach the conclusion that one may hide behind a meaning given through a transcendence by faith (leap of faith), placing hope in a God or the irrational beyond this world (which in turn would ultimately lead to philosophical suicide), or people will embrace that life is inherently meaningless.

I find that some of his explanation of the method for modern man to effectively deal with the Absurd world to be realistic, as we may never find any sort of absolute meaning. However, I discord in relation to his assumptions of meaning being in essence universal, static, “unobtainable”, and eternally searched for; which in turn leads me to think of his approach of the Absurd Man on responding to Absurdism as contradicting. Camus’ conclusion and idea of the Absurd only works successfully on the true assumption of two premises: that our being is bound in nature to the search of meaning, and that the ultimate meaning does not exist. Even if these premises are to be considered true, although there is no proof, I believe that it does not entail that we are not capable of giving a subjective meaning to our lives ourselves instead of revolting against not receiving an answer from the irrational. Apart from the fact that living to revolt against the absurd is just as similar as providing oneself meaning to escape the reality of life’s lack of one . Therefore, in order to further elaborate on my thesis, I believe that it is foremost important to provide context and understanding about Camus’ interpretation of the feeling of the Absurd and the assumptions he proclaims in reference to the Myth of Sisyphus.

Albert Camus graduated specializing in philosophy, while also obtaining certificates in sociology and psychology at the University of Algiers. There he was brought to contact with two of the major branches of twentieth century philosophy: existentialism and phenomenology. Although he self-proclaimed not to be a philosopher or an existentialist at the very least, he opposed systematic philosophies and rationalism. Nevertheless, his line of thought explicitly rejects religion as one of its foundations, centering his work on choosing to live without God. The latter is clearly evident in the manner that Camus comments on religious existentialists, such as Kierkegaard (although it is not necessarily fair and correct to label him as such), and his critic of other existentialists approach to the discovery of the absurd.

Camus wrote both his first novel, The Stranger, and his first philosophical essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, around the same time at the beginning of World War II. when he was working for the French Resistance. Even though it isn’t fair to reduce an author’s idea to their autobiographical background, the special circumstance in which both papers were written can help express the tone of their content. Perhaps Camus’ metaphor of individualistic exile that he uses to describe part of humans’ predicament of meaningless and futile struggle had a personal influence. From his own experience as a man alone and far away from his home eternally struggling against this seemingly relentless unconquerable power (ie. Germany, and other countries). Furthermore, Camus idea of acceptance of his fate could be influenced by the cruel reality that one soldier probably must have to accept the fate that independent of their efforts and struggles, their influence toward either fate of defeat or victory in the war could prove meaningless on the grand scheme of things. Therefore, in the place of this eternal of this contradiction, would anything but suicide prove to be the only escape from this conflict?

Camus opens the essay on The Myth of Sisyphus exactly by asking the same question. “There is only one really serious philosophical problem,” Camus says, “and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that” (MS, 3). Perhaps a proper manner to display this question would be of under what circumstances is suicide justified? Does this latter conclusion that life is meaningless and that is pointless to struggle for an answer necessarily lead one to commit suicide? If life has no meaning, does this imply it is therefore not worth living? Given the content of The Myth of Sisyphus, however, it seems that essential philosophical question assimilates more to simply whether or not one should kill themselves. For him, it seems clear that his concern about such is less theoretical than actually practical over this life-and-death issue of whether and how to live and not the justification of death.

I believe that it is of importance that Camus’s argument for suicide is explained as a logical contradiction. He expresses that by suicide, one only amounts to confessing that life is not worth the trouble. As seen in Camus’s political continuation of Absurdism,“The Rebel”, he states:

‘Every solitary suicide, when it is not an act of resentment is, in some way, either generous or contemptuous. But one feels contemptuous in the name of something. If the world is a matter of indifference to the man who commits suicide, it is because he has an idea of something that is not or could not be indifferent to him. He believes that he is destroying everything or taking everything with him; but from this act of self-destruction itself a value arises which, perhaps, might have made it worth while to live. Absolute negation is therefore not consummated by suicide.’ – The Rebel, 7.

Someone who commits suicide recognizes ‘the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering’ (MS, 6). Suicide, is acceptance taken to the extreme, instead of a denial of the Absurd. One accepts their fate and leaps toward it, in which “Suicide settles the absurd” (BW, 480). In other words, to stay alive means refusing to resign oneself to the absurd, to be aware of the inevitability of death and also to reject it. Suicide does not follow revolt, one must die unreconciled and not of one’s own free will (BW, 480).in order to achieve the logical result of revolt

It seems that Camus perceives the question of suicide as a natural response of people’s encounter and discovery of feeling of the Absurd. One perhaps might say it is absurd to continually keep attempting to reach an understanding of meaning in life when there is none, and that it is also absurd to hope for some form of answer to existence, or a continuation of such existence, after death given that such results in the extinction of our being. However, Camus also thinks it absurd to try to know, understand, or explain the world; any attempt to rationalize or gain rational knowledge of life is seen as useless. Therefore putting himself against science and philosophy, he dismisses any form of claims from rational analysis: “That universal reason, practical or ethical, that determinism, those categories that explain everything are enough to make a decent man laugh” (MS, 21).

If we are to consider all previous premises to be true, wouldn’t our other main options is but to take a leap of faith in order to escape? However, Camus describes the Absurd to be seen as the ultimate contradiction that cannot be reconciled, hence any attempt to reconcile it is simply an attempt to escape from it. Therefore he clearly depicts that any choice of those two options is inherently futile and that leap of faith, just as suicide, is a form of acceptance of the Absurd. In his eyes, existentialist philosophers such as Kierkegaard, Chestov, and Jaspers, and phenomenologists such as Husserl, are all able to understand the contradiction of the absurd but then try to escape from it; they find no meaning or order in existence and then attempt to find transcendence or meaning in this very meaninglessness. “They deify what crushed them and find reason to hope in what impoverishes them. That forced hope is religious in all of them” (BW, 463). Camus believes that these existentialist philosophers are incoherent between their initial premise and conclusions: “starting from a philosophy of the world’s lack of meaning, it ends up by finding a meaning and depth in it” (MS, 42). However, Camus evidently agrees that although we may attempt to avoid such escapist efforts and irrational appeals through one’s life, he’s conscious of the human desire of submitting to such. He would say that we are unable to free ourselves from “this desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion” (MS, 51). Nevertheless, when he states “The absurd is lucid reason noting its limits” (MS, 49), he emphasizes that it is urgent for one to recognize and not succumb to the temptation to leave rational thought in order to attempt on reconciling the irrational with logic. Therefore Camus is only interested in pursuing a last possibility; instead of attempting to flee from the conflict, we can revolt against it and live in a world empty of meaning. However, what exactly are we ought to revolt against exactly?

Camus introduces his concept of the Absurd within the following: “In a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life , the actor and his setting,is properly the feeling of absurdity (MS 6)”. Camus believes that the recognition of the Absurd happens when we become aware of our meaningless existence in the world and of the overall unimportance of our daily actions. It is interesting to think that by his definition, Absurdity comes to us in our ordinary life as a feeling before an idea. Consider that most if not everything in our lives is mechanical and methodical. People just go through work, transports, eating, meeting friends without questioning the world around us until the very day one looks back to themselves and asks “why?”. This “flash of reality” comes randomly from some kind of weariness at times when one has become tired of the mental and physical routines. At this point, one no longer recognizes the beauty in nature, but only its incoherency.

When we are faced with the Absurd, we begin to re-evaluate all that is known to be true: beliefs, morals, and perhaps even our own existence. However, the consequence as one once has come to terms with this truth is that it becomes part of one’s self. This means that once one has become aware of the absurd, they are tied to its reality. Although consequential, Camus depicts this moment as not so bad in his way of thinking, because this moment of weariness is when conscience is clarified and invites one to reinhabit oneself and review the previously given truths of the world; distinguishing between what is true and false in the world. In result, Camus asserts that all one will find is an immensity of contradictions, but this remounts to no reason on stopping of one’s search.

Camus often also refers the feeling of absurdity with the feeling of exile. As rational beings, we instinctively associate life with meaning or purpose. Hence when we act under this assumption, we feel at ease and familiar. However, as said before, once we have acknowledged the validity of the perspective of a world without values or meaning, there is no turning back. As a result, those who have acknowledged the Absurd may feel like strangers in a world lacking of reason. Even if we choose to live as if life has a meaning, escaping through a leap of faith, the absurd will linger. The feeling of absurdity exiles us from the familiar comforts of a meaningful existence.

Although one may think the opposite, Camus did not intend to apply a negative connotation to the Absurd. He simply observed and interpreted an absence of a universal meaning. By dismissing the idea of an universal absolute purpose, he turned to creating one’s own definition of the world. He believes that as one accepts to living with the Absurd, it is only a matter of facing this fundamental contradiction and maintaining awareness of it. Facing the absurd does not lead to suicide, but allows one to feel free from the existential conflict of searching for meaning and to live life to its fullest. This result is in fact displayed through Sisyphus depiction as Camus’ Absurd Man by the conclusion of the essay, where Sisyphus is seen as ‘stronger than his rock’ after he has accepted his fate and the futility of attempting to obtain a different one.

Camus elaborates on the three consequences that result from one living in acceptance and against the Absurd and characterize the Absurd Man: ‘my revolt, my freedom, and my passion.’ The first (revolt) refers to one not ceasing in both search for reason and of being aware that such is only futile; one eternally revolts hopeless of an answer. The concept of “freedom” refers to one’s act of concentrating not on one’s liberty from the irrational (such as God or physical laws), but rather on freedom on an individual level. Meaning that one isn’t committed on living to a particular goal, but for every new moment. Although Camus is not worried by the restraints done by the irrational anymore, he still acknowledges the problem of freedom of an individual in relation to the state, as well as that of the prisoner to social norms. Lastly, Camus refers to ‘passion’ as the final consequence of living the absurd, in which one lives beyond the concern of future and of the past and enjoys the present moment to its fullest.

In accordance to the consequences of living as an Absurd Man, Camus provides four different fictional characterizations of what an Absurd Man ought to be. First he depicts the seducer, Don Juan. He who moves from woman to woman, seducing each one in turn with the same tactics previously used. Although counter intuitive, Camus dismisses the accusation that Don Juan hopes to achieve any transcendence beyond his daily journeys; he pursues the passions of the moment. Second is the Absurd Man as the actor, who is not content on simply observing life and therefore imagines living many different from his own; The actor gathers and accumulates the diverse intensity many lives into the span of his only one career. Third is the Absurd man depicted as the conqueror, or rebel, who is drawn to rebellion and conquest in order to overcome their individual’s full potential. One may may induce Camus own personal view as the conqueror as he partook on the Second World War. Fourth is the Absurd Man depicted as the artist, who doesn’t attempt to reason, explain, and picture the world as it would be universally, but creates entire particular worlds.

In conclusion, after providing understanding of the origin of the feeling of the Absurd and of solution as the Absurd Man and his different examples, I believe it is clear to see some of the contradictions of his point of view. I believe that when Camus advocates on embracing the absurd he is not necessarily asking for one to find their our own meaning independently of social conditions but that he ultimately promotes that one makes their struggle against the Absurd their meaning. Although it doesn’t constitute to finding their own meaning, as in Nietzsche’s Egotism, but another form of philosophical suicide. Similar to that of the other existentialists, Camus seems to embrace this answer, which in turn would actually be the lack of one, given from the irrational and formulating a way of life based on it. He attempts to prescribe a way of living, which is a denial of the absurd premise of his own argument, rendering his solution incoherent. However, I believe that it is not the same leap of faith at the very least, though perhaps Camus might seem to rely on a faith of a negative kind, in the opposite direction to what Kierkegaard adopts.

Even though Camus uses the premise that there’s is no answer to any of the irrational, he seems to be more clearly determined throughout the essay to display his belief that there is no God and that life is meaningless more than he is determined to argue for that meaninglessness. It’s true that it’s not his goal, as he states, to present a philosophical system, but to display a personal diagnosis and opinion of a certain way of looking at the world, yet he still attempts in providing a formula of how to approach meaninglessness just like the other philosophers he criticized. I believe that , not only inherently contradicting, Camus’ solution is also impossible. Following Camus’ arguments, I imagine that he might concede life can be experienced in meaningful ways, such as the seducer’s passion (love) or the conqueror’s revolt (pain). Both of these examples might involuntary entail responses such as hope and despair (respectively given the character), which even on a non-universal level are clear to exist beyond the experiential qualities but are bound by the experiences themselves. Therefore creating the conflict between an individual’s moments of meaning through one’s experience and the premise that life is inherently meaningless.

The Outsider by Albert Camus challenges the reader’s opinions through a philosophical perspective on the meaning of life, and absurdist outlooks within a diverse range of settings throughout the novel. Meursault, the protagonist of the story, is represented as an emotionally repressive, misunderstood and unaffected individual who holds the value of indifference and triviality towards the many people surrounding him. Through this idea, the use of a variety of settings in The Outsider assists the reader to identify Meursault’s personality and altered character traits. Camus’ further enhancement of setting is explained through the change in consciousness Meursault experiences as well as his different emotions and moods. This is most effectively represented in his apartment, the beach, the visiting room and the prison cell. Given that the novella is written in the 1940’s during World War II, the conflict atmosphere assists develop the central themes of doom and suffering which are explored repeatedly within Meursault.

The appearance of Meursault’s apartment is a key setting in the beginning sections of the novel. The apartment in The Outsider is the base where Meursault is able to reflect and consider his life and be free of his thoughts by relaxing over smoking cigarettes or viewing the streets from the balcony. Camus also uses the apartment to deepen the physical relationship between Meursault and Marie, even though Meursault expresses indifference towards a marriage proposal, ‘that evening Marie came by and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to’ (Camus, 1983 p. 29). The Absurdity in this situation enhances the lack of emotional contribution specified by Meursault and ultimately disregards the request being questioned by Marie. Since Meursault dominantly focuses on physical representation, it harnesses him down to the present moment in life and prevents him from thinking about anything besides what is directly in front of him. The association between Meursault and the apartment is portrayed through a simple routine, he sleeps, cooks and wanders about. Meursault declares that it was ‘just right when mother was here’ (Camus, 1983, p. 25) and the flat had become too spacious, thus emphasising the impression of existential philosophy.

The setting of the beach is first presented to the readers in the early parts of chapter four when Meursault and Marie travel a few miles outside of Algiers. By Meursault attending this particular beach, Camus demonstrates the protagonists’ characteristics as always concentrating on sensual physical pleasures and the vitality of the environment and nature through the main symbols of the sun and sea. This is shown through the quote ‘the four o’clock sun wasn’t too hot, but the water was warm and rippled with long, lazy waves’ (Camus, 1983, p. 37). In addition to this, one of the central conflicts in The Outsider is developed in the setting of the beach, where Meursault murders the Arab. During this vital scene, Camus uses the technique of imagery through the nature of heat to intensify the emotional tension amongst Meursault’s conscience of pulling the trigger. Meursault’s conscience also traces back to the memory of his mother’s funeral at the beginning of the novel. Meursault quotes on how sun had the same effect on him, ‘It was the same sun as on the day of mother’s funeral and again it was my forehead that was hurting me most and all the veins were throbbing at once beneath the skin’ (Camus, 1983, p. 59). The parallel between the sun and mother’s funeral depicts that Meursault had used the sun as an explanation for his lack of emotional actions of murdering the Arab and shooting an extra four more times. Camus lures the readers into determining the intention for Meursault’s murder, when the answer is there was no exact reason for the actions, hence reinforcing the central themes of absurdity and meaningless of life.

Following Meursault’s murder of the Arab, the setting of the visiting room in prison shadowed by the prison cell was introduced. The visiting room is a location where Camus purposefully makes Meursault focus on immediate sensory details such as sound rather than intangible feelings, precisely when Marie visits. Meursault spends most of his time describing his urgent surroundings ‘the noise made me feel rather dizzy’ (Camus, 1983, p. 73). Meursault appears to be extremely bothered by little constructs as it signifies change in his life; he is used to quiet, dark and peaceful settings resembling his apartment. In relation to when Meursault was placed into a prison cell, the effects that Camus initiates through the change of setting demonstrates how it changed Meursault’s lifestyle completely. The prison has no longer given the freedom Meursault had always enjoyed ‘the days ended up flowing into one another’ (Camus, 1983, p. 78), he feels trapped and can only rely on his memory of the past pleasures he once had. Awaiting Meursault’s execution in prison, he begins to come into terms by understanding the direction of where life is headed and the meaningless of life. Passing time in prison by undertaking pointless tasks was something Meursault was always thinking about, ‘I’d remember every piece of furniture, every object, every detail, every mark, crack or chip, and the colour or the grain of the wood’ (Camus, 1983, p. 97). By Meursault focusing on the specific details in his prison cell, it reinforces how intrigued he is by the outside world as well as how much he values self-determination. Camus places Meursault in this position since he is looking for something to ultimately give him a sense of happiness and fulfilment in life before the day of his execution.

Camus’ The Outsider portrays the importance of settings through Meursault’s apartment, the beaches, the visiting room and prison cell. It was demonstrated that there was a significant change from the beginning to the end of the novel both in Meursault’s emotional state and personality which had all been due to the diverse range of settings explored. From a philosophical perspective, Meursault expresses the views of an absurdist as he believes the universe is profoundly without absolutes. Camus’ message in The Outsider is that the only certain guarantee in life is the inevitability of death, and since all individuals encounter death, all lives are equally meaningless.