Analyzing the book of ‘Abiton’ by Albert Camus
The absurd abroad, by Albert Camus, is a much discussed topic, especially since Camus has managed to address a humanity issue that is not usually discussed. The absurd, in philosophy, is the conflict to find a meaning to something that does not have it, and links its lines with existential nihilism.
The argument in question is that life is meaningless and has no intrinsic value. Albert Camus has made this statement as an existentialist philosopher, but the question that arises here is ‘What is absurdism?’And several literary critics have tried to analyze Camus’s definition and use it to examine the psychological aspects of the foreigner. Looking this from an existential point of view, Albert Camus’s point of view is very true, and the foreigner is a work of art in his ways of questioning the absurd, the psychological, and the philosophical aspects of ‘abroad’ – Meursult- And the world around him. Albert Camus defines the absurd as ‘an experience to live, a starting point, the equivalent, in the existence, of the methodical doubt of Descartes’. The methodical doubt, also known as Cartesian doubt, means systematically looking for an answer to something but doubting everything.
In any case, what Camus tried to express when writing abroad was that life itself is absurd, since the functioning of life is meaningless;But it is even more absurd than human beings try to find something significant from something meaningless. Ironically, although Camus states that there is no sense inherent in life, he says that we must live it anyway. In ‘Confronting the Absurd: An Educational Reading of Camus’ The Stranger ‘, Aidan Curzon-Hobson mentions the absurd as the great educator and’ abroad ‘as our means to cross this adventure to discover the meanings of the absurdity:’ When reading theabsurd as the ‘condition’ to which we have to face, which I think suggests something educational, Camus is offering us abroad as the vehicle for this type of transformative thought and action ”. There is an inner conflict in some moments with Mersault when he becomes aware of his absurdity, which in turn generates doubts. His lack of solidarity with the society that surrounds him makes it question if he is correct or incorrect, but crucial moments will arrive in which the character realizes his indifferences about the world around him.
The absurd, in that sense, would mean having a disjunction between oneself and the world around him, creating a sense of strangeness between them. Curzon-Hobson emphasizes Camus’s characters in these situations, since they usually find the absurd in normal situations, creating a sense of strangeness in them. For example, the public’s reaction to Meursault’s absurdexpectations of those around him ‘. Thus, this sense of strangeness will finally lead you to your outburs. Camus’s absurd definition is clear in this realization, and with everything, it becomes calm and happy. Abroad, the main character, Meursault, shows the absurd in almost all the statements he makes. In the infamous phrase from the beginning of the first part of the book: “My mother has died today. Or maybe yesterday, I can’t be sure ".
We see something strange about him right away: Meursault seems not to show any feeling towards the death of his mother. In fact, it seems quite indifferent to everything in general. Meursault lacks many of the characteristics that someone ‘human’ supposedly makes, such as the ability to lie, cheat, play and really empathize with another person. It is what makes it ‘absurd’, so to speak, and in essence, it is who is and is punished in a quite drastic way for it. As much as Meursault is a strange character, to put it in some way, the reaction of the public to his absurd is what makes him doubt his own nature.
But the incredible thing about Meursault’s judgment ends that his absurdits against. He realizes this, but he also realizes that it makes no sense. He does not feel any remorse for having killed the Arab man, and also affirms that his death was as useless as his own will be. ‘What difference could they have for me, the deaths of others, or the love of a mother, or her God;Or the way in which a man decides to live, the destiny to choosebrothers?’. And while he shouts at the chaplain that prefers to burn for prayers to be wasted in him, Meursault has no doubt. At that time he realizes that he is right;that he has always been right.
Meursault is faced with death and knows that any work he has done, any relationship he has had and any religion in which he could believe no longer matter. All bad action will no longer bother you. All good actions will no longer hang on him. Moreira, and the universe remains unchanged. And he is happy. In the end, we must admit that his lack of hope gave him more hope ironically, because now, he felt free and ready to start his life again. One thing we have to constantly remember on the foreigner is its psychological aspects, and this is different from being able to analyze the absurd in the face of normality.
Albert Camus was clearly inspired by the existentialist philosophers of his time, as well as the psychoanalytic advances performed by various psychologists. One of them, mentioned in the psychological interpretation of the novel The foreigner of Camus, is Sigmund Freud, a psychoanalyst who focused his studies on the conscious and the unconscious. R. Gnanasekaran says that the psychological aspects of Meursault coincide with those of Camus, but manages to make the abroad a story that does not totally treat him. Camus uses his own life to make Meursault: ‘He compensated for his relative lack of inventive or imaginative powers by choosing aspects of his own personal experience that fit the mood and ideas he intended to communicate’. But this does not mean that Camus was not creative. According to Freud, the unconscious and creative processes are linked, and this is likely to.
Many of the activities we usually do are the product of the unconscious, or the ID. The basic and primary desires and experiences of the ID are repressed by the ego and superego, but this is subsequently reflected in our dreams. What this means for Meursault as a character is that it has several layers of characteristics;the characteristics given by Camus consciously and the characters given by Camus unconsciously. R. Gnanasekaran also talks about neurosis in Meursault, and says that it is possible that ‘the Meursault character also suffers to some extent from this phobic neurosis’, which in essence means the avoidance of objects or situations that symbolize something for them, causing fear andanxiety in the individual.
This would make sense, but it would be necessary to emphasize ‘a certain extent’. Gnanasekararan continues to explain that avoiding the situation of facing human discussion and concrete aspects of his humanity: ‘For example, after his mother’s funeral he says the next day” I slept until ten o’clock. Then I stayed in bed until noon, smoking cigarettes. I decided not to have lunch at Céleste’s restaurant, as I used to do;Surely they would harass me with questions, and I don’t like to question me. So I fry some eggs and ate them in the pan ’. Thus avoids the situation ’(Gnanasekaran, 80). It is debatable that this is what makes him more human, his ability to fear, but he is very honest about his emotions, and that in himself is shocking. It is as if Albert Camus talk about natural fears and how to face them, and this becomes much more frequent as we advance. This would be the way Meursault would face until he had nothing after hiding, and his strange nature came to light. Meursault’s social behaviors are as interesting as the psychological aspect in its creation. It is important to observe what Meursault thinks, how the world sees and how he faces intense situations. Through his narration, it is easy to confuse Meursault with someone superficial.
For example, whenever he talked about Marie, his love interest, he thought more about his physical appearance than in the things he said or in the way he behaved with him: ‘He wore a very beautiful dress, with red and white stripes, andleather sandals, and couldn’t stop looking at it. You could see the contour of his little and firm breasts, and his tanned face was like a velvety brown flower ’. Observing theirs more deeply, we see that at that time it seems happy. When you look at people, it’s happy. It is clear that Meursault is not a social character, and r. Gnanasekararan summarizes his lack of social interest: ‘Meursault is perceptual of what happens around him;Look at the details of the appearance and movement of people, objects and the natural world. However, it rarely establishes logical connections between events. He never suggests what other people may be thinking or feeling, only what they do;Never judges others ’(Gnanasekaran, 84). It is evident that Meursault is a physical observer, and does not see this as bad. He does not feel the need to cover several aspects of a person to function as such, and this is mainly due to the fact that he sees irrationality and hypocrisy in his words rather than in his actions.
The connection between words and actions is illogical, so he never judges the small details he observes in the world. To understand the foreigner as a philosophical art work, we must understand the myth of Sisyphus. The myth of Sisyphus is a philosophical essay by Albert Camus that explains the eternal punishment of the Sisyphus King after ridiculous the gods. He was condemned to perform a simple task: he just had to push a rock towards the mountain.
However, for his loss, just when he reached the top, the Peñasco fell again with his own weight, making Sisypho repeat the task of pushing and dropping again and again, during an eternity. Camus points out that Sisypho’s fate resembles the useless struggle of man to find the meaning of life, but this struggle only becomes tragic when man becomes aware of his tasks. Today’s worker works every day of his life in the same tasks, and this destiny is no less absurd.
But it is only tragic in the rare moments in which it becomes conscious ’. (Camus, 23). With this, it answers the question that is considered the most important of philosophy: ‘Does the verification of the nonsense and the absurdity of life necessarily demand suicide?’. It will answer that question, in which he says he does not require suicide, but the revolt. It is through the revolt or rebellion against the nonsense that we can live the best possible life.
Leave feedback