Not gonna lie, my first impression of the book led me to believe that Camus was basically insane. However, when I remembered that this was the same Camus from my philosophy books, it shed a whole new light on the book for the second reading. I thoroughly enjoy the book as I begin to understand his thought process and piece together Camus' intent. I love his ability to use the book as a philosophical allegory to tie together all 6 elements of Existentialism. In the course of a fictional work, he is able to soundly reject Angst, Existential inauthenticity, while simultaneously embracing the Look, the Existential Other, and Absurdity. I have seen books that have valued philosophies against each other, but this is the first I've seen to truly internalize the philosophy and critically analyze it. Camus was able to make every piece relevant to every other piece in the book (which sucks for I.B. Juniors trying to analyze it, but makes it a great piece of literature). Just as important is his incorporation of moral philosophy which is usually excluded in works focused on personal philosophies. His use of Deontology to support this semi-Existentialist outlook was quite beautiful. I regret that as a class we were unable to truly analyze the philosophies inside the book. For example, I feel like most of us actually believe that Camus is an Existentialist or and "Absurdist" (lol). In terms of minor characters, I enjoyed his use of people like Raymond or even smaller characters like the Robot lady to personify these intellectual ideas, although I think he started to stretch his point about Ontological reasoning when he got to Salamono. It just seemed like such a large area that either he didn't receive enough attention or Camus should have made that the focus of a completely separate work. I am beginning to understand why this effectively revolutionized the philosophical world of the time. While I personally don't agree with it, his defense is both admirable and solid. One final complaint I have about Camus' method was that he never gave Meursault an independent rationale for existence post recognition of the Absurd (which serves to open up a whole for all traditional Existentialists and philosophers). Other than that, I think that he did a great job.
Thesis: In Albert Camus' "The Stranger", the motifs of light, sleep and water exposes the futility of attempting to moralize life, where light represents the illumination of the world's amorality, sleep reflects Meursault's desire to ignore the ugly truth about life that the light exposes, and water symbolizes Meursault's recognition and embrace of life's meaninglessness. Ultimately, the only way to appreciate life is to recognize and embrace or ignore life's lack of inherent meaning.
Backup Thesis: Albert Camus uses the judiciary and discrimination to expose the futility of attempting to moralize life. Ultimately, relativity of morals makes it impossible to apply external justice.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Stranger Journal #7
Topic: Analysis of how the motifs of the sun/night, sleep, and water interact. The sun signifies the illumination of meaning or life purpose (duh) which shows a few things. #1. That trying to find meaning causes Meursault pain (except for when with Marie where he 'feels' like everything is ok. Alone, he realizes the truth). #2. This is followed by sleep as he tries to escape these realizations by drifting out of consciousness. #3. Night (or even shade) represents a blissful uncaringness to the lack of meaning (is light is the illumination of meaning, dark much be the opposite). #4. The water is the conscious recognition and acceptance of the lack of inherent meaning (it cools the pain of the heat). The combination of sun and water (like at the beach) shows his freedom to accept this seemingly contradicting theory. (If room, explore how food brings back physical elements and distractions to the apparent lack of meaning)
My backup plan will focus on suffering exposed through loss or simply lack of inherent meaning to life (if not too generic/cliche)
Attempted fail at a thesis:
In Albert Camus' The Stranger, the motifs of light, sleep, and water exposes the futility of attempting to moralize life. The only ways to appreciate life are to embrace or ignore life's lack of inherent meaning and still find pleasure. (is that add-on too vague and unclear? Perhaps not putting it in may be best)
(Sun and sleep based evidence for Part 1. This does not include all water or night evidence)
#1. "[...] and the glare of the sky and the road, that I dozed off." (4)
#2. "The room was filled with beautiful late-afternoon sun. [...] I could feel myself getting sleepy" (7)
#3. Night had fallen suddenly. Darkness had gathered, quickly, above the sky light. The caretaker turned the switch and I was blinded by the sudden flash of light." (8)
#4. "The glare on the white walls was making me drowsy" (9)
#5. "Then I dozed off again. I woke up because my back was hurting more and more. Dawn was creeping up over the skylight." (11)
#6. "as if that night during which we hadn't exchanged as much as a single word had somehow brought us closer together" (12)
#7. "I could feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman. [...] I breathed the smell of fresh earth and I wasn't sleepy anymore." (12)
#8. "The sun was now a little higher in the sky: it was starting to warm my feet." (12)
#9. "Evenings in that part of the country must have been a kind of sad relief. But today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive." (15)
#10. "I was surprised at how fast the sun was climbing in the sky." (16)
#11. "All around me there was still the same glowing countryside flooded with sunlight. The glare from the sky was unbearable." (16)
#12. "When the sun got too hot, she dove off and I followed." (20)
#13. "Soon after that, the sky grew dark and I thought we were in for a summer storm." (22)
#14. "Then the street lamps came on all of a sudden and made the first stars appearing in the night sky grow dim. I felt my eyes getting tired from watching the street filled with so many people and lights." (24)
#15. "I felt sleepy [...] he'd hear about Maman's death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later." (33)
#16. "The four o'clock sun wasn't too hot, but the water was warm, with slow, gently lapping waves." (34)
#17. I'd left my window open, and the summer night air flowing over our brown bodies felt good." (35)
#18. "He was getting on my nerves a little, but I didn't have anything to do and I didn't feel sleepy." (44)
#19. "I was so tired and also because we hadn't opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. Marie was jumping with joy and kept on saying what a beautiful day it was. I felt a little better [...]" (47)
#20. "I was absorbed by the feeling that the sun was doing me a lot of good." (50)
#21. "She lay down right next to me and the combined warmth from her body and from the sun made me doze off." (51)
#22. "We saw Masson making his way back to the beach to stretch out in the sun." (51)
#23. "'My wife always takes a nap after lunch. Me, I don't like naps. I need to walk." (52)
#24. "The sun was shining almost directly overhead onto the sand, and the glare on the water was unbearable." (52)
#25. "I wasn't thinking about anything, because I was half asleep from the sun beating down on my bare head." (53)
#26. "When they thought they were far enough away, they took off running as fast as they could while we stood there motionless in the sun." (54)
#27. "By now the sun was overpowering. It shattered into little pieces on the sand and water." (55)
#28. "The whole time there was nothing but the sun and the silence, with the low gurgling from the spring and the three notes." (55)
#29. "The sun glinted off Raymond's gun as he handed it to me. [...] We stared at each other without blinking, and everything came to a stop there between the sea, the sand, and the sun, and the double silence of the flute and the water." (56)
#30. "The sound of the waves was even lazier, more drawn out than at noon. It was the same sun, the same light still shining on the same sand as before." (58)
#31. "I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn't get the sun off me by stepping forward." (59)
#32. "The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows." (58)
My backup plan will focus on suffering exposed through loss or simply lack of inherent meaning to life (if not too generic/cliche)
Attempted fail at a thesis:
In Albert Camus' The Stranger, the motifs of light, sleep, and water exposes the futility of attempting to moralize life. The only ways to appreciate life are to embrace or ignore life's lack of inherent meaning and still find pleasure. (is that add-on too vague and unclear? Perhaps not putting it in may be best)
(Sun and sleep based evidence for Part 1. This does not include all water or night evidence)
#1. "[...] and the glare of the sky and the road, that I dozed off." (4)
#2. "The room was filled with beautiful late-afternoon sun. [...] I could feel myself getting sleepy" (7)
#3. Night had fallen suddenly. Darkness had gathered, quickly, above the sky light. The caretaker turned the switch and I was blinded by the sudden flash of light." (8)
#4. "The glare on the white walls was making me drowsy" (9)
#5. "Then I dozed off again. I woke up because my back was hurting more and more. Dawn was creeping up over the skylight." (11)
#6. "as if that night during which we hadn't exchanged as much as a single word had somehow brought us closer together" (12)
#7. "I could feel how much I'd enjoy going for a walk if it hadn't been for Maman. [...] I breathed the smell of fresh earth and I wasn't sleepy anymore." (12)
#8. "The sun was now a little higher in the sky: it was starting to warm my feet." (12)
#9. "Evenings in that part of the country must have been a kind of sad relief. But today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive." (15)
#10. "I was surprised at how fast the sun was climbing in the sky." (16)
#11. "All around me there was still the same glowing countryside flooded with sunlight. The glare from the sky was unbearable." (16)
#12. "When the sun got too hot, she dove off and I followed." (20)
#13. "Soon after that, the sky grew dark and I thought we were in for a summer storm." (22)
#14. "Then the street lamps came on all of a sudden and made the first stars appearing in the night sky grow dim. I felt my eyes getting tired from watching the street filled with so many people and lights." (24)
#15. "I felt sleepy [...] he'd hear about Maman's death but that it was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later." (33)
#16. "The four o'clock sun wasn't too hot, but the water was warm, with slow, gently lapping waves." (34)
#17. I'd left my window open, and the summer night air flowing over our brown bodies felt good." (35)
#18. "He was getting on my nerves a little, but I didn't have anything to do and I didn't feel sleepy." (44)
#19. "I was so tired and also because we hadn't opened the blinds, the day, already bright with sun, hit me like a slap in the face. Marie was jumping with joy and kept on saying what a beautiful day it was. I felt a little better [...]" (47)
#20. "I was absorbed by the feeling that the sun was doing me a lot of good." (50)
#21. "She lay down right next to me and the combined warmth from her body and from the sun made me doze off." (51)
#22. "We saw Masson making his way back to the beach to stretch out in the sun." (51)
#23. "'My wife always takes a nap after lunch. Me, I don't like naps. I need to walk." (52)
#24. "The sun was shining almost directly overhead onto the sand, and the glare on the water was unbearable." (52)
#25. "I wasn't thinking about anything, because I was half asleep from the sun beating down on my bare head." (53)
#26. "When they thought they were far enough away, they took off running as fast as they could while we stood there motionless in the sun." (54)
#27. "By now the sun was overpowering. It shattered into little pieces on the sand and water." (55)
#28. "The whole time there was nothing but the sun and the silence, with the low gurgling from the spring and the three notes." (55)
#29. "The sun glinted off Raymond's gun as he handed it to me. [...] We stared at each other without blinking, and everything came to a stop there between the sea, the sand, and the sun, and the double silence of the flute and the water." (56)
#30. "The sound of the waves was even lazier, more drawn out than at noon. It was the same sun, the same light still shining on the same sand as before." (58)
#31. "I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn't get the sun off me by stepping forward." (59)
#32. "The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows." (58)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Stranger Journal #6
1) Does the sun have a symbolic value? If so, what? (Possibility for illumination of meaning?)
2) To what extent does Meursault "value" (or appreciate) things (all things, not just physical) while he is in jail?
3) Why does Meursault sometimes comply with what other people want (esp. to hear) and sometimes feel the need to make his point clear? Is there a particular pattern or formula to these differences?
4) What do you think Camus' view on women is? Is that portrayed in the book in any way?
5) In the book, Camus (mostly through Meursault) goes through an analysis of all the elements of Existentialism except Angst. Why do you think this is the case OR is there a place that this is reviewed that I can't identify? If so, where?
6) How does Camus reconcile the contradiction he makes on the meaning of life? Very much like a Deontologist, he seems to portray a situation where life can have no inherent meaning before turning around and providing his own interpretation of a meaning to life (I.e. physical relief)
Other Posts:
Anthony N.
1) The conclusion that I am begining to come to is that the real focus is on the light that the sun provides and how it illuminates the things he either does or does not want to be seen (esp in regard to meaning). Note that it does not bother him when he thinks he is enjoying something and that at other times it makes him tired (the pressure shown through heat)
2) To some extent I agree with Mrs. Wecker in that Meursault is not simply an irrational human being, although I do not go so far as to say that he is by any means 'normal'. In fact, I think he does a very good job in mirroring Camus in the sense of a similarly rational person who simply has a different perspective than everyone else. To us that appear irrational, from a literary standpoint, it's genius.
3) I think the answer lies in the middle. Even Camus pointed out that he was neither and Absurdist nor an Existentialist. He creates a netherworld where he critically analyzes all the different aspects of Existential theory and concludes in an Absurdist leaning viewpoint with key limitations that include still finding meaning.
Anthony Q.
1) It seems to me to be 1 part racist, 1 part literary. It extends throughout the book the portrayal of flat characters with nameless faces using ethnic classification (the reason it doesn't just happen to 'Arabs'. Kinda like a caricature? Whatever that Lit term was)
2) Raymond plays all sorts of parts. He is the catalyst for plot development and is a mirror of how Meursault acts with other people. Therefore all of the things that Camus demonstrates through Meursault are emphasized when there is a split between his thinking and his actions with Raymond.
3) I think that is the main part she plays, but the lady also defines purpose, hence the reason she intrigues Meursault. She is so directed that he can't keep up with her (symbolically, being left recognizing the Absurd). This shows that the world isn't inherently Absurdist, but rather that Absurdity is only necessary when one recognizes that somethings PURPOSE is meaningless (like Sartre's classic hammer analogy)
4) In this case, I think Camus simply uses Meursault to mirror himself.
6) "Don't play games" is a parallel to don't pretend something that is not. The idea is that when you do (in reference to finding a life purpose) that you only give the possibility to hurt yourself. The mother and sister come to represent that even in such a system, self-responsibility and INTERNAL punishment can still function.
Isabel H.
3) While I agree with Kellsie, I have another theory as to why Camus gave it so much focus. I think that discrimination continues to emphasize Camus' point on the absurdity of external justice. (Esp. the scene where Raymond gets off with little more than a warning and Meursault's statement isn't even read)
Matt M.
1) I think the sun transcends something so fickle as mood and instead focuses on Meursault's perception of what is being valued.
5) I don't think that the lack of emotion is an attempt to characterize Meursault personally, just to highlight the focus on physical value in contrast to emotional value.
Kylee R.
2) My current theory on that is that the sun (and the contrasting night) are a symbolic representation of how illumination is affecting Meursault. When things are illuminated (with the sun) he sees the lack of meaning and is upset by it. When he thinks he sees a meaning like when he is with Marie, the sun is a positive force. The dark allows him the ignorance to recognize the futility of the searching but also the danger that poses (like the "night in prison"). Eventually his epiphany centers around the darkness.
3) I think this is done to further show that meaning only lasts in so far that we live. Past that, meaning doesn't matter.
2) To what extent does Meursault "value" (or appreciate) things (all things, not just physical) while he is in jail?
3) Why does Meursault sometimes comply with what other people want (esp. to hear) and sometimes feel the need to make his point clear? Is there a particular pattern or formula to these differences?
4) What do you think Camus' view on women is? Is that portrayed in the book in any way?
5) In the book, Camus (mostly through Meursault) goes through an analysis of all the elements of Existentialism except Angst. Why do you think this is the case OR is there a place that this is reviewed that I can't identify? If so, where?
6) How does Camus reconcile the contradiction he makes on the meaning of life? Very much like a Deontologist, he seems to portray a situation where life can have no inherent meaning before turning around and providing his own interpretation of a meaning to life (I.e. physical relief)
Other Posts:
Anthony N.
1) The conclusion that I am begining to come to is that the real focus is on the light that the sun provides and how it illuminates the things he either does or does not want to be seen (esp in regard to meaning). Note that it does not bother him when he thinks he is enjoying something and that at other times it makes him tired (the pressure shown through heat)
2) To some extent I agree with Mrs. Wecker in that Meursault is not simply an irrational human being, although I do not go so far as to say that he is by any means 'normal'. In fact, I think he does a very good job in mirroring Camus in the sense of a similarly rational person who simply has a different perspective than everyone else. To us that appear irrational, from a literary standpoint, it's genius.
3) I think the answer lies in the middle. Even Camus pointed out that he was neither and Absurdist nor an Existentialist. He creates a netherworld where he critically analyzes all the different aspects of Existential theory and concludes in an Absurdist leaning viewpoint with key limitations that include still finding meaning.
Anthony Q.
1) It seems to me to be 1 part racist, 1 part literary. It extends throughout the book the portrayal of flat characters with nameless faces using ethnic classification (the reason it doesn't just happen to 'Arabs'. Kinda like a caricature? Whatever that Lit term was)
2) Raymond plays all sorts of parts. He is the catalyst for plot development and is a mirror of how Meursault acts with other people. Therefore all of the things that Camus demonstrates through Meursault are emphasized when there is a split between his thinking and his actions with Raymond.
3) I think that is the main part she plays, but the lady also defines purpose, hence the reason she intrigues Meursault. She is so directed that he can't keep up with her (symbolically, being left recognizing the Absurd). This shows that the world isn't inherently Absurdist, but rather that Absurdity is only necessary when one recognizes that somethings PURPOSE is meaningless (like Sartre's classic hammer analogy)
4) In this case, I think Camus simply uses Meursault to mirror himself.
6) "Don't play games" is a parallel to don't pretend something that is not. The idea is that when you do (in reference to finding a life purpose) that you only give the possibility to hurt yourself. The mother and sister come to represent that even in such a system, self-responsibility and INTERNAL punishment can still function.
Isabel H.
3) While I agree with Kellsie, I have another theory as to why Camus gave it so much focus. I think that discrimination continues to emphasize Camus' point on the absurdity of external justice. (Esp. the scene where Raymond gets off with little more than a warning and Meursault's statement isn't even read)
Matt M.
1) I think the sun transcends something so fickle as mood and instead focuses on Meursault's perception of what is being valued.
5) I don't think that the lack of emotion is an attempt to characterize Meursault personally, just to highlight the focus on physical value in contrast to emotional value.
Kylee R.
2) My current theory on that is that the sun (and the contrasting night) are a symbolic representation of how illumination is affecting Meursault. When things are illuminated (with the sun) he sees the lack of meaning and is upset by it. When he thinks he sees a meaning like when he is with Marie, the sun is a positive force. The dark allows him the ignorance to recognize the futility of the searching but also the danger that poses (like the "night in prison"). Eventually his epiphany centers around the darkness.
3) I think this is done to further show that meaning only lasts in so far that we live. Past that, meaning doesn't matter.
Stranger Journal #5
I think there are a couple possible reasons why Camus splits the book into two parts. Firstly, it seems consistent with his constant use of 2s or multiples thereof (Significance still remains to be seen). In terms of changing literary style a few things seem to occur. First, while Part 1 largely focused on the description of other characters from Meursault's mind, Part 2 is much more heavily focused on Meursault's internal thought processes. One potential reason for this is to demonstrate his transition from defining his life based on the Other's perception of him and begins more of a self-judgment phase. Secondly, Camus may do it simply to help emphasize the effect of the trial. While most of the 'plot' actually occurs in Part 1, separating the court scenes into a Part 2 emphasizes that it takes up a whole half of the book. This brings the reader's attention to the symbolic significance of this portion of the book. Additionally, being trapped in jail gives Camus the perfect pretext to begin analyzing different aspects of Existentialism and more generically, philosophical thinking. These include:
Freedom: "Well, yes - freedom [...] Otherwise, what would be the punishment" ( 78)
Purpose of Punishment: "why they had taken them away when they didn't harm anybody. Later on I realized that that too was part of the punishment" (78)
Contradicting views on Justice: "human justice was nothing and divine justice was everything. I pointed out that it was the former that had condemned me." (118)
Acknowledgment of others' fulfillment: "'Every man I have known in your position turned to Him.' I acknowledged that that was their right." (117)
Capital Punishment: "How had I not seen that there was nothing more important than an execution, and that when you come right down to it, it was the only thing a man could truly be interested in." (110)
Another separation between the parts is Camus' use of imagery. While in part one he very heavily relies on descriptions of details like bright color (for example, at the beach (49)) but in part two, those colors become more muted and details are focused more on people and shapes (like Meursault's observation of the jail cell). This could help show that such a change really is meaningless as Meursault even concludes that seeing too many things can detract focus from what already exists. "once I learned to remember things, I wasn't bored at all. [...] I realized then that a man who had lived only one day could easily live for a hundred years in prison. [...] In a way, it was an advantage" (79) This could help demonstrate the point that if we can let go of the things we feel we need to fulfill, the less we suffer (also shown with the cigarettes and his need for women).
Freedom: "Well, yes - freedom [...] Otherwise, what would be the punishment" ( 78)
Purpose of Punishment: "why they had taken them away when they didn't harm anybody. Later on I realized that that too was part of the punishment" (78)
Contradicting views on Justice: "human justice was nothing and divine justice was everything. I pointed out that it was the former that had condemned me." (118)
Acknowledgment of others' fulfillment: "'Every man I have known in your position turned to Him.' I acknowledged that that was their right." (117)
Capital Punishment: "How had I not seen that there was nothing more important than an execution, and that when you come right down to it, it was the only thing a man could truly be interested in." (110)
Another separation between the parts is Camus' use of imagery. While in part one he very heavily relies on descriptions of details like bright color (for example, at the beach (49)) but in part two, those colors become more muted and details are focused more on people and shapes (like Meursault's observation of the jail cell). This could help show that such a change really is meaningless as Meursault even concludes that seeing too many things can detract focus from what already exists. "once I learned to remember things, I wasn't bored at all. [...] I realized then that a man who had lived only one day could easily live for a hundred years in prison. [...] In a way, it was an advantage" (79) This could help demonstrate the point that if we can let go of the things we feel we need to fulfill, the less we suffer (also shown with the cigarettes and his need for women).
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Stranger Journal #4
Q1: Does it seem like Meursault actually do his best to avoid conflict with the Arabs? If so, why?
Q2: What about these dichotomies that Meursault creates (esp. shoot vs. not shoot) makes the second option the same as the first (like, what is the motivation?)
Q3: Why does the sun have so much affect on Meursault? Is the sun literally affecting him, or does it have a more symbolic meaning. If it's literal, why doesn't he just leave the beach. If symbolic, what does it stand for?
Q4: After he says "As far as I was concerned, the whole thing was over" (58), why does he proceed to watch the Arab for two hours and then get worked up about it.?
Q5: Meursault steps forward knowing 'the sun wouldn't get off of him' (59) so why does he do it?
Q2: What about these dichotomies that Meursault creates (esp. shoot vs. not shoot) makes the second option the same as the first (like, what is the motivation?)
Q3: Why does the sun have so much affect on Meursault? Is the sun literally affecting him, or does it have a more symbolic meaning. If it's literal, why doesn't he just leave the beach. If symbolic, what does it stand for?
Q4: After he says "As far as I was concerned, the whole thing was over" (58), why does he proceed to watch the Arab for two hours and then get worked up about it.?
Q5: Meursault steps forward knowing 'the sun wouldn't get off of him' (59) so why does he do it?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Stranger Journal #3
World View: (I will also demonstrate on what grounds I reject any competing idea. To unilaterally establish a name firstly will not accurately assess the combination of ideas and make the framework less universal [which I believe it very well could be] Additionally, the thought of creating 'independent' philosophies is flawed as there is very little chance that we could possibly create a NEW philosophy that thousands of years of philosophers has not already created. As a result, I will demonstrate which of those created philosophies I combine and subscribe to.)
Personal Philosophies:
I embrace a primary classic combination of Naturalism and Existentialism. I embrace Naturalism on the ground that matter is the only thing that can empirically proven to exist. However, I do not accept (as per my view on most philosophies) the exclusionary view of the theory. Thus, from Naturalism, I gain my perspective that external matter is the only provable existence (However, not to make internal emotions meaningless. See Materialism below) and a view of relatively (in the scientific analysis of time) linear history with no determined purpose. This in enhanced by my acceptance of (primary) Existentialism. Effectively, existence precedes meaning. Hence, there is no inherent meaning to existence. I justify this though the analysis of all other biological life in the universe. To not accept such a view would be to accept a special narcissism unprecedented in biological history. Meaning based philosophies inherently discriminate against all things non-human through both personal and moral philosophy when their existence is deemed meaningless. As an extension of an INHERENTLY meaningless existence, any creature (under analysis, humans) create their own inherent value. As a result of our individual decision, to value others in comparison to a set value is impossible. Such a view would justify genocide and the commodity of people creating a dehumanizing framework. However, as a result of the inherent creating of meaning, most sub-links of Existentialism are rejected. Take the view of Absurdity for example: Such a perspective demands a inherent meaninglessness to all existence. Operating in such a framework, the only personally beneficial outcome is effectively suicide (Nietzsche is WRONG!). Following the result of NOT seeing mass suicides globally, indicates that such a philosophy is inherently flawed. These acceptances form the foundation of all following beliefs that I (and seemingly, most humans) hold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkV-of_eN2w
As an extension of Existentialism, I accept the initial layers of Nihilism. (i.e. the lack of meaning resulting from social structures to our personal being). However, empiric prove demonstrates that predictability can allow humans (and any creature) to affect change. The simple use of science and repeatable demonstrations prove that this is true. Whether the result is from some perceived conscious or purely biological is irrelevant. Thus, credibility is what we collectively determine it to be. For example: if everything around us was simply an imagined and fictitious place, meaning would still exist because whether it is objectively 'real' or not is not significant: our perception is.
My view of demonstration of predictability and empirical proof comes from my reliance on external Pragmatism. This is not traditional pragmatism as the belief does not stem from the idea that the existence of something MUST be proven, but rather that something that exists CAN be proven. For example, simply because at one point in time, people had not been able to prove the world is round does not mean that at the time the world was flat. Also, the necessity of a or negative effect is overly totalizing. As per Cuomo's analysis of binaries, a sense of moderation is applicable, especially following the existentialist view above around 'meaning'. To view a result solely in context as positive of negative in respect to humans or even to the individual reverts back to narcissism. However, it is true that all ideas surrounding social structures (including truth, knowledge, morality, politics) can and should be tested, but not the the extent that a lack of tests indicates a lack of existence.
Consistent with the basic acceptance of Naturalism, I accept Materialism. Following Naturalism and Pragmatism, everything is ultimately explicable from matter including conscious thought (esp. following our discovery of neurons, the effect of biology on our previously assumed 'conscious thought' creates a far more rational explanation of existence and morality). However, an exclusive view of materials as the sole and primary value is not consistent with the pretext of Existentialism. Thus, it becomes simply one mechanism in which individuals can find meaning (the same analysis applies to Hedonism below).
It reasons to follow that Determinism is demonstrable. From any objective perspective, chance does not exist. While to any particular individual, luck may seem possible, it is not rational. For example, if a baseball hits you on the head, it is less a result of your 'bad luck' but rather that someone playing baseball hit the ball at the particular angle and velocity that caused gravity to pull it into that exact position. You were in that position because you were heading towards a particular goal because your conscious thought told you to. The two in combination very rationally resulted in you being hit with the ball. While there can be multiple variables in a situation, that does not include any element of uncertainty. It may appear less evident in an interaction between two human beings, but following the acceptance that conscious thought is a result of biology, any effect could be rationally explained though the psychology of the situation.
Hedonism presents a similar contrast to materialism. Here exists a view that people can choose to, or not to accept as true depending on whether they feel it adds value to their existence (following the Existentialist framework. I personally believe in a combination of both). However, only rational Hedonism can be accepted. Egoistic Hedonism continues to ignore the effects on any other creatures. Per the establishment of meaning through personal value, it is impossible to value your own success over the consideration of others (see Utilitarianism under moral philosophies). However, one may choose to be either Rational or Egoistic in their view of pleasure based on their individual value. (I believe rationally as I view pleasure as a accumulative commodity. It seems that most humans appear to accept this view considering that we will work to get money to survive in the future).
(The following are my personal conclusions following the logically established framework above)
While through the view of personal values in Existentialism, Pessimism cannot be inherently dismissed, I personally reject it as I do not find value through such an outlook. To me, such a view would revert to a contradiction with a view of any extraneous desire to exist. The same is true for both Theism and Deism. The deduced framework of Pragmatism indicates that lack of ability to prove or disprove the existent of a higher being makes it impossible to objectively accept the true existence of a God. However, following the same framework, those who believe in a God(s) for the sake of comfort cannot be considered wrong following the same view in existentialism as that belief gives those humans a value to their life. In summary, a God(s) does not exist, but we cannot morally stop people from believing in them (so long as the beliefs subscribe to the moral standards below).
Moral Philosophies:
As an intrinsic individual value to existence has been established from Existentialism, it is impossible to value the existence of one person over another (inherently). Therefore, value of one life is equal to any other. So from an individual perspective, we must take care to value to most amount of others when also considering what is best for us. More objectively, this provides one possibility to value life over others. This is a scenario in which someone (or people) have to die where their death will protect someone (or people) whose life will protect the lives of more than those who die. A similar approach must be taken to view quality of life. As it is impossible to value everything for every person, the most moral action is to try to improve the lives of the majority (from a controlling, government-type perspective). Therefore, a Consequentialist branch of morality must be primarily adopted (in particular, utilitarianism).
It would take far to long to analyze why this was chosen (other than the consistence with an established philosophical framework) over competing moral philosophies so I will only contrast it to the most polar opposite, Deontology. The means based view of Kant's philosophy must be accepted too the point that the majority believes that it dehumanizes or removes value from their views on valuing human existence. However, this practice becomes immoral the moment it justifies more death to uphold the morality it describes (per the rationale above). This describes the classic case of Deontological contradiction that a moral means-based philosophy exists to solely uphold the philosophical world it describes (i.e. an effect).
Personal Philosophies:
I embrace a primary classic combination of Naturalism and Existentialism. I embrace Naturalism on the ground that matter is the only thing that can empirically proven to exist. However, I do not accept (as per my view on most philosophies) the exclusionary view of the theory. Thus, from Naturalism, I gain my perspective that external matter is the only provable existence (However, not to make internal emotions meaningless. See Materialism below) and a view of relatively (in the scientific analysis of time) linear history with no determined purpose. This in enhanced by my acceptance of (primary) Existentialism. Effectively, existence precedes meaning. Hence, there is no inherent meaning to existence. I justify this though the analysis of all other biological life in the universe. To not accept such a view would be to accept a special narcissism unprecedented in biological history. Meaning based philosophies inherently discriminate against all things non-human through both personal and moral philosophy when their existence is deemed meaningless. As an extension of an INHERENTLY meaningless existence, any creature (under analysis, humans) create their own inherent value. As a result of our individual decision, to value others in comparison to a set value is impossible. Such a view would justify genocide and the commodity of people creating a dehumanizing framework. However, as a result of the inherent creating of meaning, most sub-links of Existentialism are rejected. Take the view of Absurdity for example: Such a perspective demands a inherent meaninglessness to all existence. Operating in such a framework, the only personally beneficial outcome is effectively suicide (Nietzsche is WRONG!). Following the result of NOT seeing mass suicides globally, indicates that such a philosophy is inherently flawed. These acceptances form the foundation of all following beliefs that I (and seemingly, most humans) hold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkV-of_eN2w
As an extension of Existentialism, I accept the initial layers of Nihilism. (i.e. the lack of meaning resulting from social structures to our personal being). However, empiric prove demonstrates that predictability can allow humans (and any creature) to affect change. The simple use of science and repeatable demonstrations prove that this is true. Whether the result is from some perceived conscious or purely biological is irrelevant. Thus, credibility is what we collectively determine it to be. For example: if everything around us was simply an imagined and fictitious place, meaning would still exist because whether it is objectively 'real' or not is not significant: our perception is.
My view of demonstration of predictability and empirical proof comes from my reliance on external Pragmatism. This is not traditional pragmatism as the belief does not stem from the idea that the existence of something MUST be proven, but rather that something that exists CAN be proven. For example, simply because at one point in time, people had not been able to prove the world is round does not mean that at the time the world was flat. Also, the necessity of a or negative effect is overly totalizing. As per Cuomo's analysis of binaries, a sense of moderation is applicable, especially following the existentialist view above around 'meaning'. To view a result solely in context as positive of negative in respect to humans or even to the individual reverts back to narcissism. However, it is true that all ideas surrounding social structures (including truth, knowledge, morality, politics) can and should be tested, but not the the extent that a lack of tests indicates a lack of existence.
Consistent with the basic acceptance of Naturalism, I accept Materialism. Following Naturalism and Pragmatism, everything is ultimately explicable from matter including conscious thought (esp. following our discovery of neurons, the effect of biology on our previously assumed 'conscious thought' creates a far more rational explanation of existence and morality). However, an exclusive view of materials as the sole and primary value is not consistent with the pretext of Existentialism. Thus, it becomes simply one mechanism in which individuals can find meaning (the same analysis applies to Hedonism below).
It reasons to follow that Determinism is demonstrable. From any objective perspective, chance does not exist. While to any particular individual, luck may seem possible, it is not rational. For example, if a baseball hits you on the head, it is less a result of your 'bad luck' but rather that someone playing baseball hit the ball at the particular angle and velocity that caused gravity to pull it into that exact position. You were in that position because you were heading towards a particular goal because your conscious thought told you to. The two in combination very rationally resulted in you being hit with the ball. While there can be multiple variables in a situation, that does not include any element of uncertainty. It may appear less evident in an interaction between two human beings, but following the acceptance that conscious thought is a result of biology, any effect could be rationally explained though the psychology of the situation.
Hedonism presents a similar contrast to materialism. Here exists a view that people can choose to, or not to accept as true depending on whether they feel it adds value to their existence (following the Existentialist framework. I personally believe in a combination of both). However, only rational Hedonism can be accepted. Egoistic Hedonism continues to ignore the effects on any other creatures. Per the establishment of meaning through personal value, it is impossible to value your own success over the consideration of others (see Utilitarianism under moral philosophies). However, one may choose to be either Rational or Egoistic in their view of pleasure based on their individual value. (I believe rationally as I view pleasure as a accumulative commodity. It seems that most humans appear to accept this view considering that we will work to get money to survive in the future).
(The following are my personal conclusions following the logically established framework above)
While through the view of personal values in Existentialism, Pessimism cannot be inherently dismissed, I personally reject it as I do not find value through such an outlook. To me, such a view would revert to a contradiction with a view of any extraneous desire to exist. The same is true for both Theism and Deism. The deduced framework of Pragmatism indicates that lack of ability to prove or disprove the existent of a higher being makes it impossible to objectively accept the true existence of a God. However, following the same framework, those who believe in a God(s) for the sake of comfort cannot be considered wrong following the same view in existentialism as that belief gives those humans a value to their life. In summary, a God(s) does not exist, but we cannot morally stop people from believing in them (so long as the beliefs subscribe to the moral standards below).
Moral Philosophies:
As an intrinsic individual value to existence has been established from Existentialism, it is impossible to value the existence of one person over another (inherently). Therefore, value of one life is equal to any other. So from an individual perspective, we must take care to value to most amount of others when also considering what is best for us. More objectively, this provides one possibility to value life over others. This is a scenario in which someone (or people) have to die where their death will protect someone (or people) whose life will protect the lives of more than those who die. A similar approach must be taken to view quality of life. As it is impossible to value everything for every person, the most moral action is to try to improve the lives of the majority (from a controlling, government-type perspective). Therefore, a Consequentialist branch of morality must be primarily adopted (in particular, utilitarianism).
It would take far to long to analyze why this was chosen (other than the consistence with an established philosophical framework) over competing moral philosophies so I will only contrast it to the most polar opposite, Deontology. The means based view of Kant's philosophy must be accepted too the point that the majority believes that it dehumanizes or removes value from their views on valuing human existence. However, this practice becomes immoral the moment it justifies more death to uphold the morality it describes (per the rationale above). This describes the classic case of Deontological contradiction that a moral means-based philosophy exists to solely uphold the philosophical world it describes (i.e. an effect).
Friday, March 4, 2011
Stranger Journal #2
1 - I believe that Ward's interpretation has the most literary value in the sense that he best represents Camus' original intent. Comparing both of the Translator's notes, it is clear that Gilbert is focused more on how he interprets the text whereas Ward literally interprets the words believing that Camus distinctly intended a consequence of that text. Additionally (albeit, as Ward pointed out), Gilbert creates is distinct sense of adulthood and a more British interpretation of the text. Ward uses actual written statements of intent from Camus to adopt a distinctly American version of the text, specifically more abrupt syntax (with the use of COMMAS) and a larger focus on the implication of words assuming that the physical meaning would eventually flow enough for the reader to understand.
2 - I believe that The Outsider is the best interpretation of the title. Group together extraneous, unknown, and irrelevant. There seems little indication by any standard that Meursault is an irrelevant part of the text. If that had truly been the case, Camus would have made a greater distinction about removing Meursault from the text (For example, using a third person objective narration). There would be considerably less focus of the events from Meursault's point of view. Stranger and alien seem more applicable, but ultimately seem incorrect. By the end of the book, the reader is able to better relate to Meursault's situation, especially following the courtroom scene. Therefore, from a reader's perspective, Meursault become the point of focus and the rest of the society begins to morph into the alienated party (for which, stranger singular, would not be applicable). That leaves foreign and outsider. While foreign(er) can be made applicable to a society, I feel that the book focuses more on Meursault as an individual. Despite definite imperialist undertones appearing in the text, the book does not seem to focus on MEURSAULT's race as a contributing factor to his exclusion. Thus, Outsider, which can incorporate both the cultural undertones and focus on Meursault as an individual seems most appropriate.
2 - I believe that The Outsider is the best interpretation of the title. Group together extraneous, unknown, and irrelevant. There seems little indication by any standard that Meursault is an irrelevant part of the text. If that had truly been the case, Camus would have made a greater distinction about removing Meursault from the text (For example, using a third person objective narration). There would be considerably less focus of the events from Meursault's point of view. Stranger and alien seem more applicable, but ultimately seem incorrect. By the end of the book, the reader is able to better relate to Meursault's situation, especially following the courtroom scene. Therefore, from a reader's perspective, Meursault become the point of focus and the rest of the society begins to morph into the alienated party (for which, stranger singular, would not be applicable). That leaves foreign and outsider. While foreign(er) can be made applicable to a society, I feel that the book focuses more on Meursault as an individual. Despite definite imperialist undertones appearing in the text, the book does not seem to focus on MEURSAULT's race as a contributing factor to his exclusion. Thus, Outsider, which can incorporate both the cultural undertones and focus on Meursault as an individual seems most appropriate.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Stranger Tabbing Plan
Yellow - symbols/motifs
Pointers (tab type) - for possible key abstract passages
Varied colors (set as they appear) for recurring ideas.
Pink - characterization/description
Orange - Clearly loaded language
Focus for the following motifs/repetition:
Distance
Time
Focus on Arabs
Names (or lack thereof)
sun (duh)
sleep
Syntax: Tab notation of internal dialogue.
Lengthy, descriptive sentences (not focus on detail, but adjectives/adverbs that may cause connotative perception)
Description of Characters other than Mersault
Focus on Mersaults perception of social expectations or standard
Pointers (tab type) - for possible key abstract passages
Varied colors (set as they appear) for recurring ideas.
Pink - characterization/description
Orange - Clearly loaded language
Focus for the following motifs/repetition:
Distance
Time
Focus on Arabs
Names (or lack thereof)
sun (duh)
sleep
Syntax: Tab notation of internal dialogue.
Lengthy, descriptive sentences (not focus on detail, but adjectives/adverbs that may cause connotative perception)
Description of Characters other than Mersault
Focus on Mersaults perception of social expectations or standard
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)