The class discussion on The
Stranger was refreshing and entertaining. We didn't explicitly cover
Meursault's desire to go free after being condemned to die, or the mindset that
preceded his rage/self-justification at the priest. But there was a
recurring sentiment: in general, questions about desire and mindset don’t apply
to Meursault because he’s just too Other.
One interesting thread was regarding
Camus’ possible thesis. It was suggested
that Meursault’s passivity pre-condemnation was bad existentialism and his
self-assurance post-condemnation was good existentialism. I guess I can appreciate why that might be so,
but I remain unconvinced that The Stranger
had a point. The main reason I’m
stuck is Meursault’s outburst. He
berated and throttled the priest—it’s not like he was a calculated man who had
distilled human experience into an elegant philosophy. He’s not an archvillain whom a good-guy can
trigger into monologuing.
Another sticking point is that it kept being said that Meursault
was emotionless, but I don’t think that’s accurate. In addition to his outburst, he said that he
felt like crying when he realized that everyone at his trial hated him, and
when he contemplated the hope of his appeal being granted. Actually, I think his tears are evidence for
the bad/good existentialism thesis, because it shows that Meursault only
realized that he cared about his own life during his judgment, thus previously he
was living “unconsciously.” And I don’t
think he would have bothered to live unconsciously/in the moment UNLESS he had
emotions. He chose his actions based on
enjoyment—happiness counts as an emotion.
It occurs to me that he not only chose
his actions based on pleasure, but also on convenience, like the time he went
to bed hungry so he wouldn’t have to go shopping for groceries. He also made decisions based on
conscientiousness, because even though he was unattached, he did actually go to
his mother’s wake/funeral; even though he was disturbingly unambitious, he did
show up to work on time everyday and felt a twinge of guilt for taking a lot of
time off. Maybe that’s why Meursault is
slightly scary, because he kind of is like anybody else, as he claims during
his hearings. He’s not a simple imbecile
or a simple psychopath. He’s not a
logician, he’s not a monster, he’s not a child.
He’s a man with a mind and a heart who can somehow live this way without
inner conflict. That’s why he’s scary,
because there isn’t something “wrong” with him that can’t ever possibly go
wrong in me. There’s nothing necessarily
excluding me from being like him.
It would seem that I agree that
bad/good existentialism was Camus’ thesis, and that I disagree that Meursault
was just too Other to be questioned for his motives. I’m still not convinced that Meursault
changed. Although he realized
self-justification and would live purposefully post-condemnation, if his appeal
had been granted he’d have gone back to his life and made the same
choices. Making the same choices seems to
be remaining unchanged. But I grant that
my reservation is partly due to my peculiar inklings of what qualifies as
change/difference.
Two more questions struck me as philosophically
delicious: what does it mean to live an absurd life? And, can you damn a soulless creature? The first arose when Meursault’s quote about “his
whole absurd life” was brought up, and the second arose when we watched the
court scene from cinematic version of The
Stranger. I would define “absurd” as
something that doesn’t follow, something that creates dissonance in a
pattern. With that definition, it would
seem that Meursault’s “whole” life could be considered absurd in the context of
the greater world he lived in. Or maybe saying
“whole” was hysterical hyperbole and he really thought that part of his life
made sense and another part was absurd.
I think that readers would subscribe to the former and the character
would subscribe to the latter. I wonder to which Camus would subscribe. Regarding damning
a soulless creature, it's a proposition that is absolutely absurd to me. That would be like damning the innocent or
damning the ignorant. You don’t damn the
innocent, you protect them. You don’t
damn the ignorant, you instruct them. I
do believe that justice was ultimately served in Meursault’s trial, but by
lucky chance. Meursault probably would
have gone on being an incorrigible menace to society if he hadn’t been condemned
to death, but I also believe that his trial was bizarre and malicious. The Prosecutor stirred up emotions and then
appealed to reason; that’s just sneaky. The entire affair is rather depressing. The more I think of it, the more it seems
like it’s impossible to people to get it right, so to speak. I hope reading additional works by Camus will
give me more insight and will aid my understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment