At first, I didn't like Mersault. I thought that his Hemingway-esque style reflected a reluctance to acknowledge his emotions or some macho need to hide them from his readers. However, as the story's progressed, I've realized that he really is just as empty as he's letting on. Strangely, this has increased my estimations of him a lot. He's an unusual guy (which I appreciate on its own) and I would argue that he's unusual in a pretty productive way. He's not bogged down by ambition (I could go on for a long time about the evils of ambition, particularly in our culture) or unnecessary empathy. Most people are disturbed by his lack of empathy, but the only thing I think it would serve to accomplish is hinder his peace of mind. Given that he would never have killed his mother, it's a good thing that he's not bothered by her death. I mean, what would be the point? He'd just be adding unhappiness to the world with no chance whatsoever of bringing her back. And if he is a psychopath, he's not a dangerous one-- except for the fact that he killed someone (still not sure how to fit this into my understanding of his character). He doesn't lie, he never wishes anyone harm, he seems to work hard enough (his boss is willing to promote him). And he's happy. Even in jail (to some extent).
Actually, his happiness in part one has been contested some in class. I think the idea is that he doesn't seem to feel much at all, so he can't really be happy. But I'd argue that no one is ever elated 24/7. You're happy if you're not thinking about how happy you are (and if you're miserable, you'll probably be dwelling on it). So though he's not describing explicitly a bunch of positive emotions, he's got a childlike, worry-free, simple contentedness which I think qualifies as happiness. He's having fun; enjoying the sun and Marie and swimming and running after trucks. That's a pretty admirable thing.
HOWEVER, I do not agree with his philosophy. Existentialism has never made any sense to me.
I must admit, I've always found nihilism kind of compelling, and I definitely related to his "will it really make any difference?" thoughts. (Somehow my brain really wants to believe that everyone has a certain capacity for happiness and eventually the situation you're in wont really affect your net positive/negative feeling. Not sure if this is what he had in mind with "nothing matters", but I was able to plug those thoughts into his words and relate.) But existentialism seems to me to have a serious contradiction pretty near its core (I asked about this today in class): if nothing matters, then why does it matter that you make up something to matter? In other words, you can't justify the need to make your own meaning in life if the outside universe enforces no need to do or think anything in particular. Unless the one meaningful part of the universe is that people make their own meaning, but this seems like a stretch to me. Why would this be the case? It would make some sense for him to say "I'm going to make my own meaning and enjoy life, not that it really maters. And you can too if you want to... or not. Whatever." But I feel like he's being more absolute about the goodness of his own personal meaning that. He seems to be operating on the assumption that the calm he reaches at the end and his eventual appreciation for the apathy of the universe is a good thing. Maybe I'm wrong about this.
If anyone can answer these questions for me, please do.
I agree with so much of this post, especially in the initial dislike of Meursault because his style seemed too similar to Hemingway, but also the gradually growing to appreciate the relaxed nature of his character. I think Meursault is a good role model for not judging people and for taking time to enjoy simple pleasures in life. But I also don't appreciate his philosophy. You and I were discussing what defines something as "meaningful" or what makes something "matter" and you know I never have any answers to your philosophical questions, but I do think both imply an emotional attachment which Meursault does not seem to have with anything. He still enjoys things that other people may term meaningful, but he doesn't attach weight to these moments. They don't change anything for him in the long run. I think you are right though to point out that he does seem pretty content with his life.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that, with this "core" question (why make up something that matters if it doesn't matter that you make that up?), existentialism (at least via Camus) does sort of shrug and say, "You just do." Camus is his most metaphysical at these points: we aren't dealing with a rational decision (wherein you act a certain way in order to achieve a certain end) but a more poetic one. The human heart thrusts itself forward in defiance of an indifferent universe--that kind of stuff.
ReplyDeleteNihilism rarely exists in any practical form, for reasons close to the core contradiction you point out here with existentialism. A true nihilist wouldn't bother explaining her position, or even making an effort to justify it. You really would just collapse under the weight of your own skepticism.