r/Camus

I’ve read about half of his works so far and I absolutely love Camus! I would really love to get a tattoo based on his writing, but I haven’t been able to come up with anything. I’ve seen a few Sisyphus tattoos and I really like them, but I was wondering if anyone had any other ideas? If it helps, my favorite books of his so far is The Fall.

So, someone recommended The Stranger to me, and during certain chapters, I would read analyses and stuff by SparkNotes or CliffNotes to see if my interpretation was somewhere "on the right track." Lo and behold, it seems I got a very different reading of certain things and so I wanted to talk to people about some thoughts and questions I still had. These thoughts are kind of all over the place, but I'll try to use a subheading to attempt to organize them. What I'm looking for is discussions, interpretations, themes, and whether you agree or disagree with the thoughts I mention I guess. I just wanted to talk about this with some people because I'm just curious why I don't see these things being mentioned or talked about in other analyses I've read.

1. I don't think it's fair to say Meursault didn't care for his mother or Marie (and I'm not entirely sure why almost every analysis I've read says otherwise).

Several analyses I've read say that Meursault simply did not care for his mother because he left her in a home/didn't cry/didn't remember details about her and/or that his relationship with Marie is "hollow." But I don't understand this. Everyone deals with someone's death differently. His mother *just died.* There are people who dissociate and can't cry or can't feel a thing because they have numbed themselves (or they might even cry without "feeling" like they are sad and are even surprised at themselves that they are crying). Yes, Meursault goes to the beach and stuff the next day, but why isn't that just seen as how he is dealing with his mother's death? We know he is not emotionless, as he had his outburst with the chaplain (which really did make me think he might just have been pushing everything down and making himself numb to it all ever since hearing about his mother's death). Was this a comment on how society expects certain performative actions instead of letting a person deal with death in their own way or something?

But onto some reasons why I think he did "care" about his mom and Marie. Something that immediately stood out to me is Meursault's seemingly weird relationship with women- he never calls any woman by their name except Marie or his mom. "Maman"/Mom isn't really a name but it is a relational title, so I am including that. We get so many male names in this story Raymond, Celeste, even Salamano (who is simply his neighbor he doesn't seem to interact that all much with, but watches). We do get some males who are referred to as just as their titles (eg, director, chaplain), but they are mostly for very brief interactions with the exception of maybe his lawyer. However, every other woman- even those who he thinks are peculiar/interesting like the woman at the table- we never really get their name (nor does he ever ask their name). It's only Marie and his mom, and I feel that was intentional. Names seem to signify some sort of closeness in this story.

Additionally, when Meursault talks to the chaplain he says that he did look for a face in the wall and there was only one he ever tried to look for- Marie's. Yes, he found nothing, but when he was trapped in prison he did try to look for her. He also thought back to his mother's words and teachings while in prison. Most importantly for me, when Meursault goes through his supposed change (which I also am struggling with, but more on that later), he very respectfully talks about his mother and the way she lived her life while in the senior home. He seemingly admires her way of living and implied that it would have been disrespectful to grieve her. This does not seem like he lacked care for her, but that he respected her immensely. It also felt like a moment of introspection and how he could finally communicate to himself why he did not grieve, and would now more than ever refuse to grieve for his mother.

For Marie, I read some analyses that seemingly try to downplay the relationship between him and Marie because it was much more physical than emotional. But Meursault is an extremely sensory character and is easily influenced by his physical environment. His emotions and actions are directly influenced by his environment. And he himself seemingly attaches things like gratitude and fondness to physical touch. I say this because of his words towards Celeste when he saw Celeste attempt to defend him: "I said nothing; I made no gesture of any kind, but it was the first time in my life I ever wanted to kiss a man." The person he is the most physical with in this story is Marie. Yes, he said he probably didn't love her (which I just kinda coded him as aromantic and moved on with the story); yes, he thought about other women while in jail; and yes, because he could no longer receive her letters and was going to die he thought it didn't matter if she was dead or with someone else. I understand these points, but I still don't think it is fair to say he never cared about her or that his relationship with her was "hollow." But I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this.

2. I don't understand Meursalt's change at the end

Throughout the story Meursault is extremely passive and kind of just let's things happen to him. He implies he used to be ambitious, but realized "nothing mattered anyway" once he had to drop out from school (which I also wonder if he had either some depression going on or learned this passiveness along the way instead of always having it). We see that he kind of just pushes everything (e.g., his anger and frustration) down potentially as a coping mechanism, and we only get to see his anger really come out in his talk with the chaplain at the end as he is running out of time and wants to spend his last minutes at the end as he wishes. If this was the main change in him I guess I would get it, but there's implications on the analyses I read that it was about the line about him accepting the gentle indifference of the universe. But I don't really understand how that was a significant change from how he has been in the rest of the story unfortunately. Is it like passive acceptance (e.g., something like "nothing matters anyway, so sure I'll go along with this") vs active acceptance (e.g., something like "I accept I'm going to die, so I want the crowd to react a certain way" (which I still don't get but ok I guess..?))? But if it is, I have trouble really understanding that because I don't see how this is supposedly a big change in Meursalt? It's like I haven't really internalized what the supposed big change is.

3. Why is saying "it was because of the sun" absurd and not just an issue with communication?

When I read the scene where Meursault kills the guy, it seems like the guy was going to take his knife out and Meursault did the first shot potentially out of defense. The sun and the heat glaring in Meusault's eyes and bothering him seemed to be another factor in this. As for the other three shots, I was thinking that this guy's mom just died, and all the potentially suppressed, grief, anger, and frustration about all the events that occurred within the past few days are just rearing there head here and making him go on autopilot. It's like all these things + his "nothing matters anyway" passivity coping mechanism allowed him to just keep shooting. I'm not saying that makes this "morally right" per say (I am also aware Meursault is an amoral character who does not feel remorse for the shooting), but this could have been part of his defense in court. But I think like most people with all these emotions surging and everything happening so quickly, he did not have the right words for it and couldn't properly communicate it and so he simply said what physically and tangibly impacted him the most: "it was because of the sun." Based on what I have seen in this character, he has trouble communicating his actions, feelings, and intentions to others *and* himself (which is why we get the "he didn't care about his mom" from people observing him to "my mom lived her life in an amazing way in her last moments; no one has the right to grieve her" from him once he's actually gotten the time to process his thoughts). But then, why is his comment about it being the sun "absurd" instead of just a very common thing people go through (i.e., having trouble explaining their thoughts and actions)?

One analysis I read said that we will never know exactly why Meursault shot the gun, and that any interpretation we have would be the reader projecting onto Meursault. And I mean, I guess..? But given the context of the story (i.e., losing his mom, being involved in several altercations, etc) and how common of a problem conveying ones intention is for people, I still don't see why this isn't just an issue with communication. Is the absurdity that he still said this in court even though he has trouble communicating his actions?

Personally, I thought the "absurdity" in this story was simply how societal norms and people's expectations of others can so easily be used against people who act differently/"step out of line" (e.g., not grieving for mother, putting her in a home, not knowing your mother's age). It feels like this expectation to keep up an image for people to think you are a "decent human being" is what is absurd, as Meursalt was ultimate sent for execution because he didn't act in a proper manner after his mother's death (i.e., he had become a "stranger" to society by not following it's expected norms, which is the supposed "true" crime) instead of killing someone. It felt like this story was saying "is justice really justice when it's like this?" or "society's expectations for others to act a certain way is absurd." But I'm not sure why Meursalt's words are also considered in this absurdity (I mean, I guess I can, but I'm not sure I'd say it's at the level of society's expectations as interpreted in this story). Wanted to hear other's thoughts on this.

4. What was Salameno and his dog supposed to represent?

At first I was wondering if their relationship was meant to show how things aren't what they appear to be at first- since at first you might think a guy who walks his dog at the same time twice a day for years with his dog would be a loving one. But then we quickly learn he abuses/neglects his dog. But then we learn again that he actually does care for his dog. We also see Salameno trying to defend Meursault, as Meursault was one of the only people who gave him a listening ear and helped him out.

Which also makes me think - Meursault may be amoral and interacts with people who do terrible things, but he's also probably the only who still gives them any time of day. Is there a parallel with the chaplain here or something? Someone who meets with prisoners and stuff? Might just be a stretch though.

I think I had a few other questions/thoughts, but those are the main ones for now. Would be really interested to hear people's thoughts on these points. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to reply!

Note: I haven't read the Myth of Sisphyus yet, but plan to.

I started reading Camus and my first book was the Stranger. I loved it, it was probably the best book I ever read and I finished it within a day, I couldn’t stop reading.

Today I began reading the myth of sisyphus. To summarise; I just spend the last 30 minutes or so trying to re read and understand the first 7 pages. I stopped reading at “Absurd Walls” because I couldn’t take it anymore. I just simply barely understand what he is saying. It actually irritates me because to me it seems like he uses unnecessary amounts of words and makes up long phrases that could’ve been much clearer and more understandable to the general reader. I’m so lost in these first pages that I don’t even know whether I want to finish the book.

So my question is if this might just be the first bit of the book that’s hard to understand and that it gets better and more comprehensible or that it’s like this throughout the whole book? And if it’s the former, then can someone please explain what he’s saying in those first few pages?

I’m not a genius but I have read quite a bit and also some hard and old stuff, mostly non fiction. I have had to search up certain meanings of words since English is not my main language (though I read everything in English), but I can almost always make out of the current, following or preceding sentence what is being said and meant. But now it feels like I’m lost in a maze.

So I just finished reading The Plague after dipping into it on and off for over a year. In all honesty I found it a bit of a slog to get through, but I feel this is likely because a lot of the main themes of the book went over my head. Perhaps I should have started with The Myth of Sisyphus to have a better grounding in some of his main ideas?

I would like to check out some follow up material, preferably podcasts or short essays that can help me understand some of the concepts better. I have listened to the Philosophize This podcast episodes 224-225 and will be listening to 226, all of which revolve around Camus and his ideas. Any other recommendations of material would be welcomed, as well as your own interpretations of this book.

I just finished The Stranger(new to these) and I felt nothing. It was neither good nor bad. It just was.

Hi, I just finished The Plague, and I must say I did enjoy it, I liked the ending too, but I do have a few questions, so here it goes:

1. What was the point of Grand? A guy who keeps writing and rewriting one sentence throughout the whole book, I think he was the character I understood the least, I was a bit confused about what that has to do with the plague and the town, what was his significance to the story? What did he represent?

2. OK, am I the only one who is bothered by this, or is the presence of female characters weird for anyone else? It was something that I just kept thinking about, how in a book called the Plague, there weren't any nurses in the story, and it wasn't just that, Rieux spends day and night at Tarrou's bedside, grieves him for pages, is in denial at first, you can just feel the emotions pouring out of the pages and that part was masterfully written, however, when his wife dies whom he had known and lived with and loved for several years, he's like, yeah, I knew it was coming, no biggie, it was literally less than a paragraph, which is kinda funny

Can someone explain to me how Camus' Stranger is supposed to be this masterwork of absurdism?

the protagonist doesn't give a shit about anything at all, and, like, doesn't live a happy life?
I thought absurdism was recognizing the meaningless of everything, but then overcoming it and finding your own meaning.

But he just, like, rejects meaning the whole time. And he's just an awful fucking person. Like, maybe I'm distracted because I hate the character so much. But, I mean, it sort of ends with him finding a little bit of peace once he's accepted that he's gonna die and there's going to be nothing, which sounds like nihilism. And then he fights the chaplain, and he, like, wishes that his indifference can piss off people that hate him. And that's ultimately what I got from the ending of the book. I've always, like, heard it championed as a masterwork of absurdism; and what I learned from idk, fucking meme perspectives I guess , I love the idea of absurdism, but I absolutely do not understand this source material.

Es la primera vez que léo algo de camus y de este tipo de libros en general.

El libro transmite incomodidad, la narración desde un protagonista que vive con la mayor de las indiferencias, no es lo que se está acostumbrado a ver, se hace extraño.

Sentí en el libro un sentimiento similar al que se lee en una noticia, una narración objetiva sin sentimiento, aunque no lo es.

Es un libro muy bueno, aunque el protagonista no tiene pasión por nada, te agarra, te hace reflexionar.

La parte que realmente tiene más sentimiento es el final, cuando esperando la muerte su vida no tiene sentido, ¿Realmente tenía algún sentido? Morir mañana a morir en 20 años, al final final del libro el protagonista se siente bien feliz en un mundo que es tan indiferente como el.

No creo haber entendido muy bien el libro, pero tengo muchas ganas de volver a leerlo (aunque lo acabo de terminar) voy a ver reflexiones de otras personas, haber si abro un poco más mi propia reflexión)

P.S.

La idea de un mundo indiferente y sin sentido en parte tranquiliza, es normal?

I've begun reading myth of Sisyphus, which starts with the assertion that "Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy", and upon further reading my skepticism as for Camus' possible answer was alarmed by the phrase "One kills oneself because life is not worth living. That is certainly a truth, yet an unfruitful one, because it is a truism."

I don't agree that one kills oneself because life is not worth living. One kills oneself because life is worth not living. The distinction is important. Please indulge me as I try to find a nice way to share my thoughts.

To start: most people are convinced that there is some authority on which they can ground statements about purpose, meaning, or worth. That's to say, "meaning" has a source somewhere, and it can be evaluated. In other words, it "exists", almost as if there is some layer of reality that embeds or grounds statements of purpose or meaning. This seems like it cannot be denied, in essence because of an experiential view: "Some things just FEEL meaningful to me!".

But the mere fact that I think or feel a thing doesn't have any bearing on the things truth-value! For example, one person may say "I just really FEEL that God is out there", and another may say "I really FEEL that there is no God". This cannot both be fully true. My point is, the FEELING that I call a feeling of God is real and undeniable, but it doesn't tell me anything about the realness of God itself, otherwise, conversely, the existence of an atheist would disprove the existence of God. Feeling a thing =/= having direct contact with that thing.

So when people talk about "something being worth it" they mistake their feeling of meaningfulness as direct access to its real actual "meaning" that "exists". And in that view, when someone says "Life is not worth living" they mean that things generally have worth and meaning, and when evaluating life on that same metric, its 'meaning value' computes to be zero, so any alternative with a higher 'meaning value' would be preferrable.

But in my understanding, the proper reframing would be that if I say "Life is not worth living" I actually mean that there is no foundation or authority on which I can ground any evaluation of value.

So my conclusion: It's not that things are meaningless because they could have had meaning but they don't, they're meaningless because 'meaning' never existed in the first place. Zero =/= NULL.

So if someone would want to argue for suicide, they would not have to prove that "Life is not worth living", but rather that "It is worth it not to live life". And then, wham, all of a sudden you have to prove that there is any authority on which to base an evaluation of meaning!

And by the way, any of you who fall in the camp of believing 1) meaning doesn't exist, and 2) therefore we get to create our own meaning, I refer you back to proposition 1: meaning doesn't exist! We may think we're creating meaning, but it doesn't exist!

I'd love to hear if the book expands on this, though I'll keep reading regardless. I'd also appreciate anybody poking holes in this, as long as you'll appreciate me poking back. Cheers!

i understand the text, a hope for a better future or an afterlife is a resignation, but what happens if one is actively working for that better future? is then that hope also resignation? because being myself able to project to the future based on my current work studying is resignation or is defiance? because I am living my life to the fullest, studying to what I love but I also have I would not call hope but projection to when I succeed in my goals, also in my no resignation I also do political work and I hope that my degree in medicine will make better humanity and change it, not a hope of a perfect change, but a hope of a plausible change that could trigger a systemic or systematic change, what do you guys thinks? its projection or is it hope based on my current work thats defying the absurd living everyday to be happy and do what I love in my case medicine