Reflection for September 23, Camus and Kierkegaard

            The reflection for this week has a primary emphasis on the last pages of The Fall by Albert Camus and the first few ideas by Soren Kierkegaard found within the textbook. Following up from my consideration of last week’s post on The Fall, I wanted to continue off of the already asserted theme of dominance that is identifiable within the character of Jean-Baptiste. More importantly, what follows from this theme is the concept of judgment. Yet still more importantly, who has the ability to judge? This is critically relevant in the theme of The Fall and something that appears to be answered by Jean-Baptiste himself. Jean-Baptiste appears to function from the position that judgment is a sort of hypocritical position. This idea of hypocritical judgment can be explained through the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity.

            From here, I want to take a brief pause to examine a remark made by an individual during class discussion. Within the discussion itself, this individual made a remark that essentially alleged that no statement can escape the grasp of subjectivity. Or, in other words, that subjectivity is apparent in any statement, including facts. Yet, as Thad and many other students were quick to point out, that statement is completely false. There are most certainly objective statements (i.e. indisputable facts). Therefore, the idea of obtaining a high level objectivity, according to Jean-Baptiste, is essential to the relevance of judgment. More narrowly-tailored, Jean-Baptiste believes that the recognition of one’s own guilt will subsequently create the ability to maintain objectivity in judgment. The idea of subjective judgment becomes apparent following the event of hearing laughter on the bridge. This laughter is representative of society’s acknowledgment that his judgment is subjective, and therefore, irrelevant. Thus, Jean-Baptiste is searching for this objective judgment. He understands that he cannot pass judgment on others without first passing judgment upon himself. This is crucial to the idea that Jean-Baptiste is a “Judge-penitent.” He reserves the right to judge others, but only because he first acknowledges his own problems and imperfections and judges them accordingly.

Aside from the notion of judgment, slavery is also a reappearing theme that has an intense function within The Fall. This idea of slavery was a theme brought up within class discussion, and I believe useful for understanding the final passage of The Fall as well as being a good transition into the works of Kierkegaard. The idea of slavery is very much similar to the idea of relief. Slavery is relief from obligation. While the final few lines of the story state “but let’s not worry! It’s too late now. It will always be too late. Fortunately!” (Camus, 45), we can see that Jean-Baptiste is most likely aware of the fact that if presented with the situation over again, that there is a very good possibility that he would once again not take action. However, there is no need to worry because there is no chance of this. So, this knowledge of a past you are unable to change is consistent with the idea of slavery as well as portraying the fact that Jean-Baptiste is not a perfect human being.

Similar to my reflection essay for last week, this week’s readings only incorporated a little bit of Kierkegaard’s works, and therefore I will only briefly discuss some of the main themes of these first works, while reserving next week’s reflection for the rest. To begin, Kierkegaard asserts that there are essentially three distinguishable forms of life: The aesthetic, ethical, and religious. He goes on to point out that the third phase, the religious life, is admirable and ultimately a form of life that can only be acquired by passing through the other forms. These distinctions of forms of life may be relevant to the idea that Kierkegaard wanted to point out the differences between being a Christian and becoming a Christian. In other words, he wanted to point out that many individuals were born into the life of Christianity and their identity as a Christian was more likely to be shaped and sculpted as a social identity.

While the aesthetic and ethical lives are very interesting, Kierkegaard wants to point out what it means to become a Christian. This religious phase of life is emphasized in relation to the themes of reason and existence. In the words of Kierkegaard himself, “can one demonstrate that to be a rational actuality which is at odds with reason? Of course not, unless one would contradict oneself. One can only prove that it is at odds with reason” (Kierkegaard in Solomon, 28). Following from this, and something that I find extremely interesting, is the idea that one does not prove their faith or existence through reason, but “one proves his presence by the attitude of submission, which may have many different forms according to the customs of the country” (Kierkegaard in Solomon, 28). This is what is most important to Kierkegaard in this section.

Reflection for September 16

The readings for this week included The Myth of Sisyphus and The Fall by Albert Camus. While The Fall was much lengthier, and provided more content for analysis, I sincerely believe that I connected with The Myth of Sisyphus on a personal level. For that reason, I believe that the majority of the analysis here will have an emphasis on this particular reading.

            To begin with this analysis of The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus functions from the position that the most important question to be answered is that of the meaning of life. Yet, as he points out, it is not simply the meaning of life that is relevant here, but rather how the meaning of life has a crucial relation with that of the act of suicide. To make this relevance known, Camus introduces the reader with the concept of absurdity. When speaking of the habitual life that so many people can identify with, a life of simple predictability and continual rhythm, there comes a time when “the ‘why’ arises and everything begins in that weariness tinged with amazement” (Camus in Solomon, 191). This questioning of the meaning in one’s life and actions begins what can be considered the chain of events that distances an individual from what the actor originally thought of as a well-known world. He begins to feel an outsider in his environment, indeed, similar to how Meursault in The Stranger is identified as an outsider in terms of how he refuses to conform to societal norms and customs.

            From here, Camus proposes the solution, that “at the end of awakening comes, in time, the consequence: suicide or recovery” (Camus in Solomon, 191). Here, I wanted to take the opportunity to explain something that I did not get a chance to say during class discussion. At a certain point an individual in the class seemed to insinuate that Camus proposes that there is no meaning in life and that he “wants you to kill yourself.” Certainly I think Camus proposes the first part of that conditional, however I seriously think that this individual that made this point does not understand what Camus believes to be the logical consequence of consciousness. He very clearly point out that “it may be thought that suicide follows revolt- but wrongly. For it does not represent the logical outcome of revolt. It is just the contrary by the consent it presupposes. Suicide, like the leap, is acceptance at its extreme” (Camus in Solomon, 193). Thus, while Camus may propose that life will be better lived once we acknowledge the fact that there is no meaning to life at all, he does NOT believe that suicide is a logical response.

            Camus is simply pointing to the fact and the acknowledgement that such a meaningless life is a precursor of sorts to an act of suicide for some people. They realize that life is devoid of any reason to live, and in turn, make the conscious decision to take their lives based upon the feeling that life is not worth the trouble. Yet, what would a life look like without any meaning? Can an individual come to grips with this reality and still be happy? I would certainly say yes to the latter question, as I believe Camus would, and to the former question, I believe we can point to Meursault’s absurd worldview in The Stranger to illustrate such a life. Towards the end of the novel, and in the face of the chaplain, Meursault brings the realization of the meaningless in life to light, by pointing out the fact that he had chosen to live his life a certain way. He certainly could have made different choices, done different things, but he didn’t. And with this, he states that he would do it all over again. In other words, the experiences in life are what matter, and this is what can bring happiness. Just as we must believe that Sisyphus is happy with his meaningless work, we must believe that the meaningless actions that we take in life which produce no real significance can also bring us joy. The path we make in life is irrelevant; it is simply the experience that matters.

            As for The Fall, the real significance that I got out of this reading was the idea that Jean-Baptiste, while making many choices to benefit or help others, can still be considered a hypocrite. A question posed by group 4 was whether at the beginning of the novel we would describe Jean-Batiste as a selfish or selfless man. The significance of this question arises out of the fact that many of these supposedly “selfless” acts were done out of a selfish desire to feel above others in a way. That is, by helping others Jean-Baptiste is fulfilling a deeply-needed desire to assert his dominance. To be sure, the point was made by someone in the classroom that you most definitely cannot label someone as selfless when they describe themselves as selfless. While I have a lot more to say about The Fall, and subsequently the realization of how every individual is implicated within seemingly unconnected spheres of events, I am going to reserve these ideas for next week’s blog. However, to end this blog, I wanted to point out that I seriously believe that almost every individual in the world can identify with the early Jean-Baptiste portrayed in The Fall. Can anyone really ever really say that they have performed a selfless act with absolute certainty? 

Reflection for September 9 - The Stranger

This particular piece written by Albert Camus certainly presents what can constitute a “difficult” character. Beginning with the identity of Meursault, the reader is presented with a main character that is somewhat unique in terms of how he interacts with his environment. Part one of The Stranger familiarizes us with some of these things that make Meursault such an unfamiliar human being. When he comes upon his mother’s casket during her vigil, he declines the offer made to open it up in order to view her body. He smokes and drinks coffee during the vigil, remains void of any expression of grief during her funeral, begins a relationship with a woman the very next day, etc. The portrayal would indeed seem to be that of a sociopath. The reader begins to question why this particular agent in life is making these choices. This leads us to infer that Meursault does not neatly fit into the perceptions of what constitutes a normal life, which is dictated by societal norms.

            Focusing on the idea of why Meursault acts the way he does, we can use the casket during the vigil as a good starting point. A point was brought up by Robbie in my group discussion up that the reason that Meursault chose to leave the casket closed hinges on his idea of life and what happens after you die. Meursault is certainly what you would classify as an atheist. That is, when someone dies he believes that is the end. Therefore, what would be the point in opening the casket? While for most people the opening of the casket and the visualization of the deceased body can bring about a much needed feeling of closure, to Meursault, viewing the body is simply not necessary. It makes no difference. This idea of indifference is later reinforced in the short story during his trial for shooting the Arab multiple times, and killing him. Everyone is perplexed and simply stuck on the issue as to why Meursault had shot the Arab four more times after he had more than likely already killed him with the first shot, but Meursault is actually mystified as to why it makes any difference at all. This confusion creates a surprising amount of tension with people as they try to assign a reason to an action devoid of any reason at all.

            Yet, why does Meursault think this way? A point in our class discussion turned to an individual in the class stating that Meursault can be described almost as a robot, or someone incapable of feeling or thinking critically. While I would more than likely agree with the first part of the description of Meursault, I would very much disagree with the latter. Meursault is an individual that is very much capable of thinking critically, interacting with his environment, and arriving at difficult conclusions. This is evident from the very beginning of the short story after he apologizes to his employer for asking for a couple of days of leave, Meursault says that “afterwards it struck me I needn’t have said that. I had no reason to excuse myself; it was up to him to express his sympathy and so forth” (Camus, 4). Thus, we can see that Meursault is certainly an intelligent individual, simply incapable of understanding emotions. In a way, it almost appears as if he is above emotional response (a subjective view), and is actually capable in staying objective when interacting with particular events in his life.

            This is why I was not necessarily thrilled when the class discussion turned to whether or not we should view Meursault as evolutionarily superior or inferior. This matter is a matter of opinion and is subject to the context in which it is involved. Certainly we wish to stay objective in many situations in life, separating ourselves from emotions which may blind us from arriving at a more defensible decision. On the other hand, the meaning of life seems to dwindle when we approach the idea of a life without emotional interactions. In other words, the idea of Meursault being evolutionarily inferior or superior is not something that can be measured since all of the variables cannot be assigned real values.

A question that I did find particularly intriguing concerning Meursault was posed during Group 2’s discussion which stated: “Throughout the course of the novel, Meursault approaches the deep moments in his life (death of his mother, marriage, murder, ect.) with severe indifference. In your opinion, what is it about the chaplain's visit which evokes such a "blind rage" within him?” To me, this blind rage stems from the issue of identifying exactly who the stranger is in this short story. This particular piece of evidence, to me, points to the idea that the stranger is most definitely Meursault himself. He struggles with his own identity throughout the story and seemingly positions himself in that of an observer. That is, he puts himself in a situation where he views his environment and surroundings and is definitely intrigued by it, but has difficulty understanding “why”. Whereas most people find their identity to be reinforced by the perceptions of the society around them, Meursault cannot. He lacks the emotional factor which influences this. To me, this is why he enters a state of blind rage in the face of the chaplain. The chaplain wants Meursault to assign meaning to his actions and come to face his identity of a person. I think that the very fact that Meursault is incapable of doing this is what incites this anger.