Albert Camus: The Outsider

[Stewart]

Originally Posted by ions

Camus I found horrible, just a poor understanding of the psyche.

I read The Outsider (or The Stranger, as it's sometimes called) a few year back and I think I was more so what? than the main character. I wonder if it's one of those books, like The Catcher In The Rye is supposed to be, where it's impact has got to get you at a certain impressionable age. (And for the record, I've not read The Catcher In The Rye either, so my time has gone.)

[saliotthomas]

Camus is certainly not an "early age" book,as for the bad psyche understanding,well....If you like Houellebecq it sort of make sense.

[ions]

I agree with Stewart, I think Camus is an early age book. When you're at the age where you can relate to the angst and nihilism more closely. Like Catcher. The Camus I read was also The Outside and can relate to the so what? criticism. I found nothing especially redeeming in the writing either but that could be a translation issue. Dunno. John Barth's The End of the Road is a far better telling of nihilism and misanthropy. And very well written.

Why would liking Houllebecq be related to me not liking Camus? I'm not positive but I think Houellebecq lists Camus as an influence.

[saliotthomas]

Originally Posted by ions

.Why would liking Houllebecq be related to me not liking Camus? I'm not positive but I think Houellebecq lists Camus as an influence.

For a simple raison of taste,i hate the guts of Houllebecq,whom as a fellow Frenchman i find a man of attitude,in the personne as well as in the work.On the contrary i love and respect Camus as a great author and man.I not suprise by Houllebecq claming a relation,is very good at that.

I do not consider the Outsider a work of nihilisme or misanthropy,the man does not hate or deny human race,he just does not belong.It is more science fiction or possession.If you like Mysanthropy and real writing Celine is the man and the trip at the end of the night the book.
Houllebecq is an artifice to be forggoten in the nest 20 years.

[Patroclus]

"The Stranger" by Albert Camus is novel I wish I had never read. It was one of the most boring book. But I sure hope I'll be able to read his other writings in the near future. I've heard people say "The Stranger" is one of the greatest book in the world. But it is a very boring book.

[saliotthomas]

At least your ordeal was not to long Patroclus for it's a very short book.

[Heteronym]

I agree with the bad understanding of psyche argument, but I also agree misanthropy isn't Camus' point. Camus wants to make a very solemn point about modern man's alienation, yada yada yada, but all you have to do is leave your couch and go to the street to find modern man isn't alienated at all: people go to parties, people go to beaches, friend hang out, families gather over meals. Where is the alienation?

Meursault isn't a symbol of mankind, he is, as philosopher Mary Midgley aptly put it, an 'emotional cripple', someone who got his neurons badly wired and can't have natural relationships with other humans. One symptom of psychopathology is the inability to care for other people; serial killers, for instance, can't.

Camus suffers from a recurrent problem in philosophers: he develops a theory for human nature (in this case that humans are all alone in the world, sigh) without actually observing humans. Then he expects humans to fit his theory. This backwards thinking is found in the work of people like Sartre, Rousseu (musings on Noble Savages from a guy who never left Europe), Nietzsche, in pretty much any megalomanic philosopher who claims having found a system for explaining all human behavior.

I'll give Camus credit for one thing: at least he's funny; The Outsider has great absurd moments; and The Fall is obligatory to anyone who loves black humor.

[Morten]

I am often surprised to hear the more, well, bitter reactions to Camus. As if he is famous and admired and revered for - what? - nothing? Writing light-hearted philosophy and a boring novel did not win him the Nobel Prize for literature...

Read The Plague or The Fall, two novels superior in maturity and scope to The Stranger, as well as his literary/philsophical essays The Myth of Sisyphus (brilliant) and The Rebel (brilliant-er).

There is a passion in Camus, a love of literature, that I find in myself and that I admire in him. He was a great humanist, didn't commit the political blunders that Sartre did, was his own man.

[Heteronym]

Originally Posted by Morten

There is a passion in Camus, a love of literature, that I find in myself and that I admire in him.

But surely you can find such passion for literature in thousand other writers.

Originally Posted by Morten

He was a great humanist, didn't commit the political blunders that Sartre did, was his own man.

Many self-professed humanists were unconsciously great haters of Mankind. H.G. Wells, futurist and socialist, imagined the perfect humans as emotionless intellectuals, like his Martians, huge brains on trolleys, to steal another fine sentence from Mary Midgley. This great humanist believed that a race stronger and smarter than us had every right to wipe us out. His inability to mix two such opposite ideas, love and hatred for Mankind, should give you an idea why his novel ends with such a deus ex machina.

As for another great humanist, Rousseau, that lover of freedom, I recommend you Isaiah Berlin's Freedom and Its Betrayal, for an analysis of why this Enlightened philosopher was a proto-Nazi.

Humanists, I can't think of people more dangerous than them, only a step away from the idealists who are so prone to cut off heads and limit civil rights in the name of abstractions and social changes.

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

... Camus wants to make a very solemn point about modern man's alienation, yada yada yada, but all you have to do is leave your couch and go to the street to find modern man isn't alienated at all: people go to parties, people go to beaches, friend hang out, families gather over meals. Where is the alienation?

I disagree – certainly in terms of the UK. We've had decades of increasing dislocation of people (communities destroyed, by war and then later, by government economic ideology), to the extent that a prime minister boasted, 20-odd years ago, the there was no such thing as society.

Many people feel no sense of community – in fact, they feel isolated within their own communities and often within their own homes (whether logically or not – I know people who, although nothing has ever happened to them, are too scared to go out after dark).

Families in the UK rarely dine together (it's a generalisation, but accepted as a fair one), preferring to eat ready meals in front of the telly (I know of a case where a seven-year-old child couldn't use a knife and fork because her mother always fed the her finger food – sandwiches and takeaways etc).

Many Brits socialise by getting totally drunk (this isn't new, to be fair), while the subsequent brawls in town centres at weekends can hardly be described as a surprise.

Many youngsters aren't allowed out of their homes to socialise after school (and there are few facilities for young people to meet other young people) – not least because many parents have been rendered paranoid about the fear of 'stranger danger', whereby children are abducted by strangers (actually, children's charities point out that children are more in danger from within their own families or from road traffic accidents). And those youngsters who do go out to 'hang' with their friends are demonised by the populist media, some politicians and an awful lot of adults for hanging around in the street (because they've got nowhere to go) and apparently causing all of society's ills.

But I don't think that the book is specifically about that sort of alienation, but talks of the intellectual alienation that can/could come from existentialist contemplation.

It is the alienation that comes from not having a sense of purpose in the world – or feeling that life has no point. And it is entirely relevant as a starting point for discussion in a world where increasing numbers of people don't believe in a god and where one has to work out what one's purpose is; what the point is, beyond keeping one's genes alive.

[Morten]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

But surely you can find such passion for literature in thousand other writers.



Many self-professed humanists were unconsciously great haters of Mankind. H.G. Wells, futurist and socialist, imagined the perfect humans as emotionless intellectuals, like his Martians, huge brains on trolleys, to steal another fine sentence from Mary Midgley. This great humanist believed that a race stronger and smarter than us had every right to wipe us out. His inability to mix two such opposite ideas, love and hatred for Mankind, should give you an idea why his novel ends with such a deus ex machina.

As for another great humanist, Rousseau, that lover of freedom, I recommend you Isaiah Berlin's Freedom and Its Betrayal, for an analysis of why this Enlightened philosopher was a proto-Nazi.

Humanists, I can't think of people more dangerous than them, only a step away from the idealists who are so prone to cut off heads and limit civil rights in the name of abstractions and social changes.

Er, your (rant?) seems somehow inappropriate or, better yet, exagerrated as a response to my post. What (or, all) I meant to say was that Albert Camus was a humanist in the sense that he valued human life with great regard. Evidence for this claim is best found in The Plague (an anti-L'etranger, one might even argue), his editorials in Combat, his brave stance against totalitarianism in all shapes and sizes in The Rebel and, finally, in The Myth of Sispyphus ("the point is to live").

This is not to disagree with you - I simply do not see its application fit to Camus, who by no stretch of any imagination (save, perhaps, for zealous believers) can be considered a "hater" of man kind.

[Morten]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

I agree with the bad understanding of psyche argument, but I also agree misanthropy isn't Camus' point. Camus wants to make a very solemn point about modern man's alienation, yada yada yada, but all you have to do is leave your couch and go to the street to find modern man isn't alienated at all: people go to parties, people go to beaches, friend hang out, families gather over meals. Where is the alienation?

There is some evidence in your post here that you have misunderstood all if not some of Camus. If you think that there is no alienation when friends drink or go to the beach, then you are (sadly) mistaken...

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Morten

... This is not to disagree with you - I simply do not see its application fit to Camus, who by no stretch of any imagination (save, perhaps, for zealous believers) can be considered a "hater" of man kind.

It's quite a funny idea actually, that "many" humanists hate their fellow humans and can be compared to the Taliban/Saudi regime.

I await Heteronym's evidence of humanists cutting off heads etc in the name of their humanism.

I won't be holding my breath.

[Heteronym]

Originally Posted by Sybarite

But I don't think that the book is specifically about that sort of alienation, but talks of the intellectual alienation that can/could come from existentialist contemplation.

Originally Posted by Morten

I meant to say was that Albert Camus was a humanist in the sense that he valued human life with great regard. Evidence for this claim is best found in The Plague (an anti-L'etranger, one might even argue), his editorials in Combat, his brave stance against totalitarianism in all shapes and sizes in The Rebel and, finally, in The Myth of Sispyphus ("the point is to live").

That's what separates geniuses from the masses, I guess: intellectuals think too much and get depressed by their thoughts; the masses live without thinking and live reasonable happy, save for economic want.

The intellectual has to write down his thoughts to reach an astonishing conclusion - life is worth living? Really? - that the masses know instinctively (The Myth of Sysyphus is one of the worst and most poorly-ordered philosophy books I've ever read, unsurprisingly I should add; Continental philosophers will never have that clarity of prose that makes the most mediocre British thinker a joy to read).

Well, I wouldn't know how things work there in England, but I think when I hang out with friends, enjoy a moment of peace with my family, I do it for no other conscious reason other than to enjoy myself. I also think people drink not to fill some void left since we killed God but because - and I don't share this theory since I'm a teetotaler - drinking is great, tastes good and leaves one rather uninhabited and ready for party. And it's perfectly valid for people to fear the dark; anthropologist Donald Brown has found out that in every culture people fear dark (duh!): we're visual creatures, of course we're wary of leaving home at night, when we can't see anything. Since crimes are better practised in the absence of light, it's obvious people will feel less safe at night. This seems common sense to me. I don't understand why you can't accept human behavior is far less complicated than philosophers would want you to believe, why you insist there must be an unconscious meaning behind going to the beach with friends.

Originally Posted by Morten

This is not to disagree with you - I simply do not see its application fit to Camus, who by no stretch of any imagination (save, perhaps, for zealous believers) can be considered a "hater" of man kind.

No, he's not the hater of Mankind type, like Rousseau and Hegel and Plato and Marx and Lenin and Hitler and Pol Pot (all people who considered themselves great humanists too) unconsciously were; but like Sartre and Cioran and Nietzsche, he's managed to hold an entire century in thrall with destructive ideas about existeantialism and whether or not life is meaningless and whether or not god is necessary and other intellectual lunacies. By insisting that something was wrong with the world, I do believe he managed to make the world worse, because ideas are like viruses, and the followers of these thinkers went on to have great influence in intellectual circles and propagated their ideas to the point they're dogma now. People are alienated because they were brainwashed into believing they are.

[saliotthomas]

From what i see here,your the one complicating things.From the Stranger,(a very modeste book to me,but one you give a lot of hidden meanings), you bring us the pernissive Ideas of phylospher who drague the world down with the negative thinking!The virus !!!
As for Camus and Cioran in the same basket,is'nt it a bit much of a stretch.

[Morten]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

The intellectual has to write down his thoughts to reach an astonishing conclusion - life is worth living? Really? - that the masses know instinctively (The Myth of Sysyphus is one of the worst and most poorly-ordered philosophy books I've ever read, unsurprisingly I should add; Continental philosophers will never have that clarity of prose that makes the most mediocre British thinker a joy to read).
....
No, he's not the hater of Mankind type, like Rousseau and Hegel and Plato and Marx and Lenin and Hitler and Pol Pot (all people who considered themselves great humanists too) unconsciously were; but like Sartre and Cioran and Nietzsche, he's managed to hold an entire century in thrall with destructive ideas about existeantialism and whether or not life is meaningless and whether or not god is necessary and other intellectual lunacies. By insisting that something was wrong with the world, I do believe he managed to make the world worse, because ideas are like viruses, and the followers of these thinkers went on to have great influence in intellectual circles and propagated their ideas to the point they're dogma now. People are alienated because they were brainwashed into believing they are.

This is very black and white. You divide intellectuals from masses as if its day and night, but you lose much nuance in that division.

It is natural (& innate, even) for human beings to question life and ask of why it is we are alive. It is at the heart of all religion, all philosophy. You're denouncing all of that? Then, dear sir, H.G. Wells surely would be proud of you then; just move on with your life and do not ask why. Everything is fine. Keep telling yourself that.

Edit: The disorder, philsophical inferiority hoo-ha, etc of Camus' essay is, well, a mere quibble (carping). Its importance lies in what it adresses, which, essentially, is what much 20th century thought and literature attempts to adress; how do we find meaning in a world in which none is given? You realize that people kill themselves over this, thus rendering it fair game to write about, no?

[Sybarite]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

... he's managed to hold an entire century in thrall with destructive ideas about existeantialism and whether or not life is meaningless and whether or not god is necessary and other intellectual lunacies. By insisting that something was wrong with the world, I do believe he managed to make the world worse, because ideas are like viruses, and the followers of these thinkers went on to have great influence in intellectual circles and propagated their ideas to the point they're dogma now. People are alienated because they were brainwashed into believing they are.

Oh dear. People have been "held in thrall" for centuries by the idea that there's a god in the sky and he sees and knows absolutely everything that they do and, if they even dare to think a 'bad' thought they'll go to hell and burn for all eternity.

There is not one tiny, tiny iota of a shred of evidence for a god – for any god. But organised religion has used the threat of this non-existant god to persecute and murder people. To make them feel guilt.

Getting past that rubbish is never going to be easy. But considering the nature of existence is one part of it. And science, in terms of evolutionary biology, also inevitably provokes people to consider such questions.

It is absolutely no coincidence that Marthin Luther said: "I do know this – that reason is the devil's whore, given birth by that stinking goat Aristotle".

In other words, don't think. Which appears to also be Heteronym's attitude too – dodgy intellectuals, eh, doing all that thinking? ;-)

[Heteronym]

I have no problems with thinking; only with thinkers who replace one bad idea (there is a God) with another bad idea (there is no God and now we're miserable because life is meaninggless; what are we going to do). The real thinkers who have stormed the gates of Heaven - Voltaire, Condorcet, Jefferson, d'Holbach, Hume, Russell - didn't have existential crises from denying God: for them it was freedom. For existentialists like Camus and Sartre it's a new prison. That mentality makes no sense.

[Morten]

Originally Posted by Heteronym

I have no problems with thinking; only with thinkers who replace one bad idea (there is a God) with another bad idea (there is no God and now we're miserable because life is meaninggless; what are we going to do). The real thinkers who have stormed the gates of Heaven - Voltaire, Condorcet, Jefferson, d'Holbach, Hume, Russell - didn't have existential crises from denying God: for them it was freedom. For existentialists like Camus and Sartre it's a new prison. That mentality makes no sense.

...clearly (even more so, now) you have understood little to nothing of Camus' philosophy (or Sartre's for that matter - kindly re-read Existentialism is a Humanism; somewhere he calls existentialism an optimistic philosophy). When Camus arrives @ "the point is to live" it is something of an optimistic jolt to a situation that only outwardly (i.e. from where you are standing) seems depressing. Au contraire, there is something life-affirming in Camus' ultimate conclusion, something (yes, gasp!) positive.

[Heteronym]

Of course Sartre will say existentialism is optimistic; he's trying to sell his philosophy to other people. But what he says and what appears in his work are opposite ideas. His Nausea complements The Outsider perfectly, with another character who walks through life without any emotional attachments, caught in a forced existentialist angst that only exists in philosophers' heads.

Is there an actual existentialist character in literature who's happy with his life, or is misery a prerequisite? Because that's what I get from Sartre and Camus, not optimism.