I'll share my strange story with The Stranger. 10 years ago I suffered from anxiety, lack of sleep and high blood pressure.
I'd been given small pink pills. Took them as prescribed. My condition didn't really change.
Then I turned to reading. After a couple of other books, I found this list [1]. I read The Stranger. I've felt sudden ease of my anxiety, I was at peace.
Two weeks after The Stranger, I read Siddhartha. Soon, my sleep turned back to normal.
I'm not praising these books, neither I'm suggesting avoiding medical advice. I'm just still excited how reading can affect someone's well-being.
Incidentally, if you’re looking to start reading in French, there is hardly a better book in terms of (impact on literature) times (simple, accessible writing) [2]. It’s also a short book.
Regarding the literary merit of Camus, Nabokov had this to say [1]:
”I happen to find second-rate and ephemeral the works of a number of puffed-up writers—such as Camus, Lorca, Kazantzakis, D. H. Lawrence, Thomas Mann, Thomas Wolfe, and literally hundreds of other “great” second-raters.”
“Brecht, Faulkner, Camus, many others, mean absolutely nothing to me, and I must fight a suspicion of conspiracy against my brain when I see blandly accepted as “great literature” by critics and fellow authors Lady Chatterley’s copulations or the pretentious nonsense of Mr. Pound, that total fake.”
“Incidentally, I frequently hear the distant whining of people who complain in print that I dislike the writers whom they venerate such as Faulkner, Mann, Camus, Dreiser, and of course Dostoevski.”
“It is a shame that he [Franz Hellens] is read less than that awful Monsieur Camus and even more awful Monsieur Sartre.”
[1] Strong Opinions
[2] Although Le Petit Prince beats it in all three (impact, even simpler language, shorter).
Nice list, I was reading it in anxiety to the very and, yes, rank number 100 "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie. A great, underappreciated book that deserves Nobel Prize.
The Algerian writer Kateb Yacine had interesting things to say about Camus [1]. As he says, it is true that in his novels, Algerians are almost non-existent, although the novels happen in colonial Algeria and he himself lived amongst them. Another brilliant Algerian writer, Mouloud Mammeri, had similar things to say about Camus [2]... These then colonized writers had different perspectives on Camus' outlook.
> As he says, it is true that in his novels, Algerians are almost non-existent, although the novels happen in colonial Algeria and he himself lived amongst them
The term "Algerian" itself would need to be defined. Camus was born in Algeria, he would have called himself Algerian, just like someone born in Corsica would call themselves Corsican.
What is certainly true is that the society (like many colonial administrations) was racist and highly stratified. the pieds-noirs (descendants of immigrants from western europe) were "below" the french expats/public servants and their families (but could get a leg up from the former, as did Camus), but "above" the arab community (who themselves would look down on the kabyle, who themselves were above the other berberes etc..)
And yet Camus was expelled from the french communist party because he didn't agree with the white-washing of french colonialism of Algeria by the Popular Front.
Last year, Stephen West had an episode of his podcast, Philosophize This!, on Camus' The Fall (https://www.philosophizethis.org/podcast/episode-170-the-fal...). He is notably more sympathetic to Clamence, making no mention of him as "evil" or "a monster".
That was an excellent episode, and actually what lead me to read The Fall and begin listening to Stephen regularly. That and he has a great name.
What I find so striking about The Fall is that while Clamence is overtly terrible, a lot of the threads weaving the fabric of who he is are clearly a part of my own (and I imagine of most readers as well). I may not be evil, but the way Camus illustrates such a hyperbolically disgusting person makes it unsettlingly easy to see features of yourself in the resulting image, no matter how small. I loved it.
West does seem to take a more reserved stance on characters, real or figurative. Perhaps he doesn’t want to put off listeners with too strong of an opinion.
I just finished my second read of The Stranger. I have to say, reading The Myth of Sisyphus first made it much more enjoyable - I could appreciate the absurdity of it all more. Things clicked after Meursault said he had lost the habit of analyzing his own thoughts, and instead resorted to feelings and emotion.
Thanks! This clears up for me why Meursault is often said to be based on Camus himself(0). (Although, does it not convey a sense that Meursault is childlike, more than emotionally warm?)
Funny this is popping up today. I was just listening to his Nobel Prize acceptance speech [1] this morning. Beautiful text on the role and responsibilities of artists in our societies.
The Plague is a decent candidate for Camus' most important work. It should be required reading for anyone interested in how people (and states) respond to the outbreak of an epidemic (which today, includes everyone).
> "No longer were there individual destinies; only a collective destiny, made of plague and the emotions shared by all. Strongest of these emotions was the sense of exile and deprivation, with all the crosscurrents of revolt and fear set up by these."
> It should be required reading for anyone interested in how people (and states) respond to the outbreak of an epidemic (which today, includes everyone).
It should not. I think a more modern writer would do a much better job of capturing the essence of Covid and probably future epidemics. Exile and deprivation were much less of a concern in a world with the internet.
I read The Stranger after many many years and my overriding impression was that Mersault was autistic and wondered whether Camus had found the absurdism through someone who was neurodivergent
> For the Camus of The Myth of Sisyphus, however, “Should I kill myself?” is the essential philosophical question. For him, it seems clear that the primary result of philosophy is action, not comprehension. His concern about “the most urgent of questions” is less a theoretical one than it is the life-and-death problem of whether and how to live.
I’ve read Camus before (and thoroughly enjoyed it), but I hadn’t come across this before.
I’m not suicidal and I don’t want to come across as someone to be concerned about, but I find this question similarly engrossing. I should read this.
I came to love philosophy a lot in my early 30s, but an eerie result I suppose is that it has caused me to feel a deep sense of… Perhaps I should say irrelevance. I find it difficult not to think in terms of much larger than practical timelines, or about people other than myself. I don’t feel as much like an individual as I did, but more like a part of humanity as a whole. From this lens, my presence here is wholly unnecessary.
I often wonder if my problem could be that I grew up in an intensely individualist society and I lack the tools to answer Camus’ question from this less familiar lens. How can I function in an individualist society with desires to be pro social towards others now and in the future, to a degree that is meaningful such that life would be “worth” living? Such that I’d feel I impacted the world in a way sufficiently aligned with my values?
Of course I’m positing here that my values are what makes life worthwhile. This question is somewhat hypothetical and I know everyone will ask this question with different parameters and weighting. That’s fine.
Again, not about to go jump under a cement truck. I enjoy selfishly loving my kids, pursuing hobbies, and simple things like sitting in the sun and smelling the warm resin of a nearby tree’s needles in the air while gnats flutter together in a beam of light. Or a simple bowl of warm rice with sesame seeds and sea salt with some greens from the garden. My youngest son climbing on me to cuddle and enjoying that while reflecting on his older brothers doing the same years ago (though not anymore). Life, in the most banal and trivial ways, is incomprehensibly beautiful for those of us fortunate enough to get to enjoy it. But what am I doing here if others are suffering and my joy amounts to nothing at best, yet likely a net negative for others?
Camus actually played a major role in me recognizing some of my most egotistic behaviours. His ideas aren’t particularly unique I suppose, but what cut through me is how he expressed them.
For example, a stoic from 2000 years ago might discuss the urgent importance of living by virtuous values with integrity, and while many (especially Epictetus) did a good job of undergirding the urgency, it winds up seeming somewhat academic. Camus on the other hand seemed to illustrate it in quite visceral ways, some of which made me felt like he could be writing about me. He spoke a very human-centric language at times, skipping the abstractions and jargon and cutting straight to what it is to live life poorly. I treasure this kind of honesty and clarity from people smarter than I am.
Not saying stoics were wrong or never managed to cut to the chase either. They actually did quite often, but Camus had a real flair for it in my opinion.
I spent a time reading camus and existentialism in general which heavily impacted my view as well. I really liked the paradigm of sisyphus because it very clearly illustrated the concept of the absurd.
I like to think that it doesn't really matter. Do i move rocks, do I write software, or fall in love in the end we will die.
Maybe our existence amounts to nothing since the outcome is the same, but then, everything matters as much as we care for it to matter. The rebellion against the absurd is to live a full life as we enjoy it. For me it may be helping others, or smelling trees and tending to my children, for someone else it may be organizing a world dictatorship, or rebeling against one. There is no inherent better way to live because the result is the same. As Tolkien also said after living through the horrors of war "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us"
For me this kind of life stance also helped me get off the hamster wheel of always chasing more and aspiring to things that society/capitalism tells us are important and virtuous, but instead focusing on what makes me happy , releasing this feeling of longing for the greener grass
I was in a pseudo-intellectual club during my undergrad, where the club engaged in public debates at local bars. One of our more engaging and hilariously absurd projects was a satirical rewrite of The Myth of Sisyphus, where it was not one Sisyphus but every software engineer on the planet and who ever lived and who ever will live waking in an afterlife of endless software deadlines and absurd management design changes.
Anymore, I think the purpose is to create meaning, and to recognize that everyone needs support, love, understanding and help. Beyond that, be crazy, but not too deep or you'll never enjoy. Saw a great quote over the weekend: I think therefore I am, you overthink and therefore are never really there.
It was over 30 years ago an this is from memory but in one of his notebooks he has this description more or less.
Life is really hard and probably not worth the suffering but once one puts a gun in their mouth and does not pull the trigger you are committed to no longer complaining about life.
I guess it's the internal dialog of topics and ideas that are rarely spoken out loud that allured me to his writing. He definitely openly discussed ideas that scare some people.
I like how you discuss the mystery of Camus's voice. I actually preferred his notebooks over his completed stories. I went through an 18 month Camus phase after College and while starting my first job. I really enjoyed the notebooks because it was his writing but not burden with all the aspects of story.
Sometimes I think we should allow ourselves to be very critical when reading older authors writing about concepts like “meaning” of life or what constitutes a “worthy” life.
Some of these big words are just concepts that doesn’t really mean anything without a clearly defined context.
Back when Humanists like Camus where active the context was like:
“Ok, god probably doesn’t exist, so now we have to find new answers to all of these questions”
But today we know even more and should start asking if the concept of “meaning” is even applicable to a single human life but rather humanity as a group (or a processes).
I had an English professor who turned me into Camus and it changed my life. It put a word (Absurdism; at the time, Existentialism) to my own worldview. Before that, I was just an atheist. I knew God wasn't real (imho).
But I didn't know where that left me. Camus shined a bright light on that terror and shrugged and it resonated with me and it still does, and I am eternally grateful to that Professor and to Camus himself.
I am sure there are better philosophies -- more Humanistic -- but Absurdism has always struck me as the most "true." It still resonates with me today.
Everyone has a facade. Control over your facade means you can be one thing and show another.
Autism is a social disorder, and in some respects refers to being unable to conceal a lack of knowledge that certain ways of being are expected or normal in society. Each one who feels uneasy about their place in society and has the capacity to do something about it learns to navigate by explicitly studying how to be "normal" and attempting to be indistinguishable from normal for others. Typically this is justified as "reducing friction" and "not being treated differently", but regardless helps to smooth out social interactions.
It could very well be that Camus had the 'tism in 'im, but was a cool enough cat that he didn't let it show. It could be that he was so uneasy about expressing his "true" thoughts that the only way he could do that was by writing them in the forms of books.
This kind of covertness is a key feature of what might be labeled as "high-functioning" or "sub-clinical" autism.
> These philosophers, he insists, refuse to accept the conclusions that follow from their own premises. Kierkegaard, for example, strongly senses the absurd. But rather than respecting it as the inevitable human ailment, he seeks to be cured of it by making it an attribute of a God who he then embraces.
This is accurate but just in-case someone reads this and decides not to read Kierkegaard because they are secular and don't think they would get anything out of someone attempting to sell them on religion: this is not totally fair to what Kierkegaard really argues -- it may be what Camus criticized Kierkegaard for, but it's not the most charitable reading of Kierkegaard.
The common theme between Sickness Unto Death and Fear and Trembling is that, while it's possible to imagine the theoretical Knight of Faith (with Abraham as a textual example) or the theoretical person-who-escapes-despair, Kierkegaard is really just making the point that it is internally consistent within the framework of Christian faith for these things to be possible, and establishes that within that framework, it is an ideal worth striving for. Fear and Trembling is about a "teleological suspension of the ethical" by a demigod named Abraham whose telos (read: purpose) is based in God -- the reason he is a demigod is because he's able to have such a degree of faith that he can casually make that movement -- to the point that he is willing to sacrifice his own son without second-thought. And Sickness Unto Death is about a teleological suspension of the absurd (to Kierkegaard, "despair") through the same mechanism.
Kierkegaard repeatedly makes the case that actually making these "movements" is out-of-reach. It's not some cheap self-help book that tells you to do X, Y, and Z to make that movement, it's about exposing you to the idea that the movement exists, and torturing you for the rest of your life in your inability to make it. Camus arrives at basically the same conclusion, except with a twist of fatalism where he denies the possibility of making such a movement -- you need to come to terms with absurdism because it's inescapable. Whereas Kierkegaard would you can't make the movement because you're a shitty Christian and/or Original Sin.
But I feel that the very thing that Camus criticized Kierkegaard for, Kierkegaard would have criticized Camus for:
+ Camus would say, "Kierkegaard is afraid of facing that absurdism is inherent to existence and holds onto false hope that there is some way out".
+ Kierkegaard would says, "Camus is afraid of facing the fact that he is not capable of escaping rationalism and fully basing his meaning in God, and prefers the cheap comfort of learned helplessness."
They're fundamentally arguing the same thing.
Whole point here is that there's something to be gained from reading Kierkegaard regardless of how inclined you are towards secularism, purely from a philosophical perspective. He's not trying to sell you on Christianity and it's not evangelical in nature. I've heard him called "the atheist maker" because he reframes faith with such a high threshold that it's impossible to meet, and it demands that people who were previously comfortable with a cheap sense of faith to come to terms with it.
I was forced to read The Stranger in high school. Hated it. It seemed pointless and bleak. Complaining about the sun and the heat after unintentionally killing someone? Psychopathic. If that is what Camus intended, mission accomplished. I never saw it as art or even as particularly notable.
[+] [-] a_petrov|2 years ago|reply
I'd been given small pink pills. Took them as prescribed. My condition didn't really change.
Then I turned to reading. After a couple of other books, I found this list [1]. I read The Stranger. I've felt sudden ease of my anxiety, I was at peace.
Two weeks after The Stranger, I read Siddhartha. Soon, my sleep turned back to normal.
I'm not praising these books, neither I'm suggesting avoiding medical advice. I'm just still excited how reading can affect someone's well-being.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Monde%27s_100_Books_of_the_...
[+] [-] joaorico|2 years ago|reply
Regarding the literary merit of Camus, Nabokov had this to say [1]:
”I happen to find second-rate and ephemeral the works of a number of puffed-up writers—such as Camus, Lorca, Kazantzakis, D. H. Lawrence, Thomas Mann, Thomas Wolfe, and literally hundreds of other “great” second-raters.”
“Brecht, Faulkner, Camus, many others, mean absolutely nothing to me, and I must fight a suspicion of conspiracy against my brain when I see blandly accepted as “great literature” by critics and fellow authors Lady Chatterley’s copulations or the pretentious nonsense of Mr. Pound, that total fake.”
“Incidentally, I frequently hear the distant whining of people who complain in print that I dislike the writers whom they venerate such as Faulkner, Mann, Camus, Dreiser, and of course Dostoevski.”
“It is a shame that he [Franz Hellens] is read less than that awful Monsieur Camus and even more awful Monsieur Sartre.”
[1] Strong Opinions
[2] Although Le Petit Prince beats it in all three (impact, even simpler language, shorter).
[+] [-] piokoch|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zvmaz|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WBHq-m5WHQ
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P1eA8NeUKU
[+] [-] namdnay|2 years ago|reply
The term "Algerian" itself would need to be defined. Camus was born in Algeria, he would have called himself Algerian, just like someone born in Corsica would call themselves Corsican.
What is certainly true is that the society (like many colonial administrations) was racist and highly stratified. the pieds-noirs (descendants of immigrants from western europe) were "below" the french expats/public servants and their families (but could get a leg up from the former, as did Camus), but "above" the arab community (who themselves would look down on the kabyle, who themselves were above the other berberes etc..)
[+] [-] pyuser583|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] begueradj|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matthewaveryusa|2 years ago|reply
What's the point in bringing up Camus stating he would save his mother over Algeria as something telling about his work?
When I read l'etranger I found the emptiness of the world lead me into feeling the absurdity as an emotion versus a thought experiment.
[+] [-] alexfoo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pie420|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] whearyou|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mcguire|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve_adams_86|2 years ago|reply
What I find so striking about The Fall is that while Clamence is overtly terrible, a lot of the threads weaving the fabric of who he is are clearly a part of my own (and I imagine of most readers as well). I may not be evil, but the way Camus illustrates such a hyperbolically disgusting person makes it unsettlingly easy to see features of yourself in the resulting image, no matter how small. I loved it.
West does seem to take a more reserved stance on characters, real or figurative. Perhaps he doesn’t want to put off listeners with too strong of an opinion.
[+] [-] potatoman22|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FollowingTheDao|2 years ago|reply
So we can assume if Camus posted on HN he would be downvoted into oblivion.
[+] [-] smurda|2 years ago|reply
“Aujourd’hui, maman est morte.” Mother died today should actually be Mommy, Mom or a more warm and endearing term.
With Mother, we immediately see Meursault as cold and detached from the first line.
https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/lost-in-translat...
[+] [-] vinnyvichy|2 years ago|reply
(0)As mentioned, for example, in https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/55062/the-first-m...
[+] [-] afkqs|2 years ago|reply
[1] https://www.openculture.com/2013/11/on-his-100th-birthday-he...
[+] [-] photochemsyn|2 years ago|reply
> "No longer were there individual destinies; only a collective destiny, made of plague and the emotions shared by all. Strongest of these emotions was the sense of exile and deprivation, with all the crosscurrents of revolt and fear set up by these."
[+] [-] preommr|2 years ago|reply
It should not. I think a more modern writer would do a much better job of capturing the essence of Covid and probably future epidemics. Exile and deprivation were much less of a concern in a world with the internet.
[+] [-] sateesh|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] billfruit|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Popeyes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stewbrew|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steve_adams_86|2 years ago|reply
I’ve read Camus before (and thoroughly enjoyed it), but I hadn’t come across this before.
I’m not suicidal and I don’t want to come across as someone to be concerned about, but I find this question similarly engrossing. I should read this.
I came to love philosophy a lot in my early 30s, but an eerie result I suppose is that it has caused me to feel a deep sense of… Perhaps I should say irrelevance. I find it difficult not to think in terms of much larger than practical timelines, or about people other than myself. I don’t feel as much like an individual as I did, but more like a part of humanity as a whole. From this lens, my presence here is wholly unnecessary.
I often wonder if my problem could be that I grew up in an intensely individualist society and I lack the tools to answer Camus’ question from this less familiar lens. How can I function in an individualist society with desires to be pro social towards others now and in the future, to a degree that is meaningful such that life would be “worth” living? Such that I’d feel I impacted the world in a way sufficiently aligned with my values?
Of course I’m positing here that my values are what makes life worthwhile. This question is somewhat hypothetical and I know everyone will ask this question with different parameters and weighting. That’s fine.
Again, not about to go jump under a cement truck. I enjoy selfishly loving my kids, pursuing hobbies, and simple things like sitting in the sun and smelling the warm resin of a nearby tree’s needles in the air while gnats flutter together in a beam of light. Or a simple bowl of warm rice with sesame seeds and sea salt with some greens from the garden. My youngest son climbing on me to cuddle and enjoying that while reflecting on his older brothers doing the same years ago (though not anymore). Life, in the most banal and trivial ways, is incomprehensibly beautiful for those of us fortunate enough to get to enjoy it. But what am I doing here if others are suffering and my joy amounts to nothing at best, yet likely a net negative for others?
Camus actually played a major role in me recognizing some of my most egotistic behaviours. His ideas aren’t particularly unique I suppose, but what cut through me is how he expressed them.
For example, a stoic from 2000 years ago might discuss the urgent importance of living by virtuous values with integrity, and while many (especially Epictetus) did a good job of undergirding the urgency, it winds up seeming somewhat academic. Camus on the other hand seemed to illustrate it in quite visceral ways, some of which made me felt like he could be writing about me. He spoke a very human-centric language at times, skipping the abstractions and jargon and cutting straight to what it is to live life poorly. I treasure this kind of honesty and clarity from people smarter than I am.
Not saying stoics were wrong or never managed to cut to the chase either. They actually did quite often, but Camus had a real flair for it in my opinion.
[+] [-] v4dok|2 years ago|reply
I like to think that it doesn't really matter. Do i move rocks, do I write software, or fall in love in the end we will die.
Maybe our existence amounts to nothing since the outcome is the same, but then, everything matters as much as we care for it to matter. The rebellion against the absurd is to live a full life as we enjoy it. For me it may be helping others, or smelling trees and tending to my children, for someone else it may be organizing a world dictatorship, or rebeling against one. There is no inherent better way to live because the result is the same. As Tolkien also said after living through the horrors of war "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us"
For me this kind of life stance also helped me get off the hamster wheel of always chasing more and aspiring to things that society/capitalism tells us are important and virtuous, but instead focusing on what makes me happy , releasing this feeling of longing for the greener grass
[+] [-] bsenftner|2 years ago|reply
Anymore, I think the purpose is to create meaning, and to recognize that everyone needs support, love, understanding and help. Beyond that, be crazy, but not too deep or you'll never enjoy. Saw a great quote over the weekend: I think therefore I am, you overthink and therefore are never really there.
[+] [-] detourdog|2 years ago|reply
Life is really hard and probably not worth the suffering but once one puts a gun in their mouth and does not pull the trigger you are committed to no longer complaining about life.
I guess it's the internal dialog of topics and ideas that are rarely spoken out loud that allured me to his writing. He definitely openly discussed ideas that scare some people.
[+] [-] detourdog|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] molly0|2 years ago|reply
Some of these big words are just concepts that doesn’t really mean anything without a clearly defined context.
Back when Humanists like Camus where active the context was like:
“Ok, god probably doesn’t exist, so now we have to find new answers to all of these questions”
But today we know even more and should start asking if the concept of “meaning” is even applicable to a single human life but rather humanity as a group (or a processes).
* I’m slightly drunk
[+] [-] DiscourseFan|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] serverholic|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] irishloop|2 years ago|reply
But I didn't know where that left me. Camus shined a bright light on that terror and shrugged and it resonated with me and it still does, and I am eternally grateful to that Professor and to Camus himself.
I am sure there are better philosophies -- more Humanistic -- but Absurdism has always struck me as the most "true." It still resonates with me today.
[+] [-] detourdog|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|2 years ago|reply
Camus's New York Diary (1946) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35561948 - April 2023 (39 comments)
The philosopher who resisted despair - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34703027 - Feb 2023 (1 comment)
What Would Albert Camus Think About Software Development? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28444597 - Sept 2021 (3 comments)
Albert Camus - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26698358 - April 2021 (2 comments)
Lost and Found: A Missing Camus Biography and a Christmas Miracle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25561816 - Dec 2020 (2 comments)
Reading Camus in Time of Plague and Polarization - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25413453 - Dec 2020 (32 comments)
For Camus, It Was Always Personal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24576865 - Sept 2020 (23 comments)
What we can learn from Camus’s “The Plague” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22657862 - March 2020 (87 comments)
“The Plague” – Albert Camus (1948) [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22626713 - March 2020 (2 comments)
The Logic of the Rebel: On Simone Weil and Albert Camus - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22564898 - March 2020 (3 comments)
Wartime Albert Camus letter lays bare his Vichy-era anguish - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21962670 - Jan 2020 (1 comment)
Albert Camus: Humanism and Tragedy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20481171 - July 2019 (33 comments)
Albert Camus: A reconstructed conversation - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14662261 - June 2017 (12 comments)
How Camus and Sartre split up over the question of how to be free - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13519782 - Jan 2017 (67 comments)
Paris from Camus’s Notebooks - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13299051 - Jan 2017 (11 comments)
Albert Camus: The Life of the Artist – A Mimodrama in Two Parts (1953) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6229555 - Aug 2013 (26 comments)
Camus for Founders - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5713709 - May 2013 (2 comments)
[+] [-] vinnyvichy|2 years ago|reply
It doesn't make sense to me given that Mersault has kind of an autistic affect and Camus is perceived to be a extraverted and easygoing guy.
Any experts care to comment?
(0) https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/culture/55062/the-first-m...
[+] [-] uoaei|2 years ago|reply
Autism is a social disorder, and in some respects refers to being unable to conceal a lack of knowledge that certain ways of being are expected or normal in society. Each one who feels uneasy about their place in society and has the capacity to do something about it learns to navigate by explicitly studying how to be "normal" and attempting to be indistinguishable from normal for others. Typically this is justified as "reducing friction" and "not being treated differently", but regardless helps to smooth out social interactions.
It could very well be that Camus had the 'tism in 'im, but was a cool enough cat that he didn't let it show. It could be that he was so uneasy about expressing his "true" thoughts that the only way he could do that was by writing them in the forms of books.
This kind of covertness is a key feature of what might be labeled as "high-functioning" or "sub-clinical" autism.
[+] [-] charlescearl|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devinjon|2 years ago|reply
“There is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide,” is hardly a statement indicative of a sound disposition.
[+] [-] hnfong|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw4847285|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caporaltito|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antirez|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickysielicki|2 years ago|reply
This is accurate but just in-case someone reads this and decides not to read Kierkegaard because they are secular and don't think they would get anything out of someone attempting to sell them on religion: this is not totally fair to what Kierkegaard really argues -- it may be what Camus criticized Kierkegaard for, but it's not the most charitable reading of Kierkegaard.
The common theme between Sickness Unto Death and Fear and Trembling is that, while it's possible to imagine the theoretical Knight of Faith (with Abraham as a textual example) or the theoretical person-who-escapes-despair, Kierkegaard is really just making the point that it is internally consistent within the framework of Christian faith for these things to be possible, and establishes that within that framework, it is an ideal worth striving for. Fear and Trembling is about a "teleological suspension of the ethical" by a demigod named Abraham whose telos (read: purpose) is based in God -- the reason he is a demigod is because he's able to have such a degree of faith that he can casually make that movement -- to the point that he is willing to sacrifice his own son without second-thought. And Sickness Unto Death is about a teleological suspension of the absurd (to Kierkegaard, "despair") through the same mechanism.
Kierkegaard repeatedly makes the case that actually making these "movements" is out-of-reach. It's not some cheap self-help book that tells you to do X, Y, and Z to make that movement, it's about exposing you to the idea that the movement exists, and torturing you for the rest of your life in your inability to make it. Camus arrives at basically the same conclusion, except with a twist of fatalism where he denies the possibility of making such a movement -- you need to come to terms with absurdism because it's inescapable. Whereas Kierkegaard would you can't make the movement because you're a shitty Christian and/or Original Sin.
But I feel that the very thing that Camus criticized Kierkegaard for, Kierkegaard would have criticized Camus for:
+ Camus would say, "Kierkegaard is afraid of facing that absurdism is inherent to existence and holds onto false hope that there is some way out".
+ Kierkegaard would says, "Camus is afraid of facing the fact that he is not capable of escaping rationalism and fully basing his meaning in God, and prefers the cheap comfort of learned helplessness."
They're fundamentally arguing the same thing.
Whole point here is that there's something to be gained from reading Kierkegaard regardless of how inclined you are towards secularism, purely from a philosophical perspective. He's not trying to sell you on Christianity and it's not evangelical in nature. I've heard him called "the atheist maker" because he reframes faith with such a high threshold that it's impossible to meet, and it demands that people who were previously comfortable with a cheap sense of faith to come to terms with it.
[+] [-] efitz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reso|2 years ago|reply