Albert Camus' The Stranger
What if the past has no meaning and the only point in time of our life that really matters is that point which is happening at present. To make matters worse, when life is over, the existence is also over; the hope of some sort of salvation from a God is pointless. Albert Camus illustrates this exact view in The Stranger. Camus feels that one exists only in the world physically and therefore the presence or absence of meaning in one's life is alone revealed through that event which he or she is experiencing at a particular moment. These thoughts are presented through Meursault, a man devoid of concern for social conventions found in the world in which he lives, and who finds his life deprived of physical pleasure--which he deems quite important--when unexpectedly put in prison.
The opening line of the novel sets the tone for Meursault's dispassion towards most things. The novel is introduced with the words: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know" (3). Although the uncertainty originates with an ambiguous telegram, it seems that the tone alone could justify changing the meaning of the words 'I don't know' to 'I don't care.' In a sense, in the days following, he only goes through the motions of the vigil and then the funeral; the only emotion he expresses is joy when his bus takes him home and he is able to sleep. At one point, he looks back at the events of the past few days, realizes that he has to go to work, and notes: "that, really, nothing had changed" (24). Despite these reactions, there is evidence that Meursault did indeed love his mother, observed both in his defensive argument at the 'old people's' home as to why she was put there in the first place and in his recollections...
... middle of paper ...
...has no comprehension of the objects in its existence--as he is unconcerned with the objects in his own life and finds meaning only within himself.
Meursault does not care for objects in his world. He does not see the importance of certain words whose definitions attempt to explain human relationships either amongst themselves or their emotions in general. He does not follow 'conventional' social beliefs nor does he believe in God, nor salvation. Meursault however loves his life. It is a pure love derived from enjoying his existence on a day-to-day basis, rarely looking back and never looking forward. His love is not dependent on doing what society or some religion has deemed correct, but on what he feels he wants to do despite what most would consider common.
Work Cited
Camus, Albert. The Stranger. Trans. Matthew Ward. New York: Vintage International, 1989.
Meursault resists being typecast into an archetypal moral category in many of his deeds and actions. Many of his actions in Part One of the novel help contribute to the fuzzy picture of the character. For example, at his mother's funeral, Meursault does not cry or weep in the typical mourning fashion, but rather sleeps during the vigil and entices one of the other mourners present to smoke a cigarette with him. This would be typically considered "evil" behavior, in the context of the story. He could easily been seen as disrespectful and seditious toward his mother and the established procedures of mourning, which seem to be fairly definite at that era in France. However, this "evil" mold can easily be shaken if one considers that Meursault may be more shaken than anyone else present at the funeral. Considering the other events in the novel, it seems as though he does not have a large capacity for emotion. Based on this, it is not unreasonable to assume that the events leading up to and including his mother's death may have overtaxed his limited scope of emotion, and he was therefore nearly incapable of mourning in the "normal" or expected way for his mother, but rather had to resort to his own, more c...
Robert Nozick uses the example of Wilt Chamberlain to develop his theories on entitlement and distribution by establishing his libertarian view of justice in chapter 7 of his book "Anarchy, Stat, And Utopia" . Wilt Chamberlain, the basketball star, charges fans twenty-five cents to watch him play. Nozick creates a world in which we are to assume that the actions leading to this point, for all people, are just. Chamberlain simply offers his services to those who wish to attend the event. Assuming that he continues his show for some time, and people continue to pay the twenty-five cent fee, Chamberlain could generate a great deal of revenue. The people who paid their twenty-five cents did so freely, and although they are left with less money, Wilt Chamberlain has become a very wealthy man. Furthermore, Nozick encourages this example to be used within one’s desired philosophical and political utopia, and it would be fair to say that Will acquired his earnings in a way that has not violated the rights of another individual. Because Chamberlain's earning arose from a just, distributive starting point, the voluntary support of his fans should also be considered just. However, to fully understand how Nozick draws his conclusions about the validity of Chamberlain’s financial gain, is to understand the framework for the historical and non-patterned lenses through which he views the minimal state.
The Stranger by Albert Camus is a story of a sequence of events in one man's life that cause him to question the nature of the universe and his position in it. The book is written in two parts and each part seems to reflect in large degree the actions occurring in the other. There are curious parallels throughout the two parts that seem to indicate the emotional state of Meursault, the protagonist, and his view of the world.
In The Stranger, Albert Camus describes the life of the protagonist, Meursault, through life changing events. The passage chosen illustrates Meursault’s view during his time in prison for killing the Arab. In prison, one can see the shifts in Meursault’s character and the acceptance of this new lifestyle. Camus manipulates diction to indicate the changes in Meursault caused by time thinking of memories in prison and realization of his pointless life. Because Camus published this book at the beginning of World War II, people at this time period also questions life and death similar to how Meursault does.
...ough Maman’s funeral and the impact of Maman’s death on Meursault. In the first chapter, Meursault is disconnected from the world around him; only responding to the social customs set in place and showing awareness in why they should be followed, but he does not understand why that is the case. In the last chapter, the inevitable arrival of Meursault’s own death makes him aware that the life he lived meant nothing because things would be the same at the end despite what choies he made. This acceptance is reached because Meursault was guided through death. Thus, Maman’s funeral links Meursault and Maman together as two individuals who accept their despair-filled truth but demonstrate the willingness to live again because they carry that acceptance with them.
Robert Nozick in the excerpt from his book Anarchy, State and Utopia presents his ideas on why a government in power should not spread the wealth of the state among all of the residents. Nozick writes mainly in response to John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice in which Rawls focuses on the idea of the state working towards improving financially the lives of those that are in the worst conditions. To explain his point of view Nozick expounds on various concepts that provide a better understanding of the procedure that lead to him arriving at the conclusion that he did. This includes the entitlement theory of Nozick. In this paper I will explain how Nozick reaches the conclusion that redistributive justice should not take place along with a detailed look at the various major concepts of his theory. In addition, I will also provide my view on what John Rawls’s argument against Nozick’s theory might be. Finally, I will explain why I agree with John Rawl’s theory and present detailed reasoning.
Meursault in the book tries to overcome his emotional indifference within himself. One example shows Meursault emotional indifference against Marie. In this quote, “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so.” The quote explains how Meursault doesn’t really think about the consequences of other people’s emotions. When he said in the quote it didn’t mean anything to him, it shows he believes human life and emotions are meaningless. He also says I didn’t think so, showing he struggles to comprehend and make his own interpretations on human emotions from Marie and other people. Another example shown is Meursault against his mother’s funeral. In this quote ‘Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.’ This quote also shows Meursault idea of human life is meaningless. This shows that Meursault believes it doesn’t really matter if his mother died, he’s probably implying that his mother was dying soon...
Distributive justice requires the philosophical powers of reflection of the greatest theorists. In order to solve certain social issues, the most pragmatic solution must be concocted carefully to solve the biggest loopholes. Michael Walzer is no stranger to the complexity of social inequality. In his book A Defense of Pluralism and Equality, he argues that every society decides on the value of a social good and therefore should distribute those good according to the meanings they have. The social goods (healthcare, office, membership, money, politics, education) are divided into spheres each having their own distributive arguments. Walzer’s acceptance of the pluralistic nature of human group and ideology leads to his argument of a complex equality, one that contrasts the ideas of equality explicit in Rawlsian Liberalism.
In A Theory of Justice John Rawls presents his argument for justice and inequality. Rawls theorizes that in the original position, a hypothetical state where people reason without bias, they would agree to live in a society based on two principles of justice (Rawls 1971, 4). These two principles of justice are named the first and second principles. The first is the equal rights and liberties principle. The second is a combination of the difference principle and the fair equality of opportunity principle, or FEOP (Rawls 1971, 53). Rawls argues that inequality will always be inevitable in any society (Rawls 1971, 7). For example, there will always be a varied distribution of social and economic advantages. Some people will be wealthier than others and some will hold places of greater importance in society. Rawls’s argument is that to ensure the stability of society the two principles of justice are needed to govern the assignment of rights and regulate the inequality (Rawls 1971, 53). Any infringement of an individuals rights or inequality outside the parameters of the principles of justice are unjust.
Nozick has another aspect to his theory called the Lockean Proviso. Originally the proviso was about land and property rights. One person could not justly take all the fertile land in an area. They could only take a portion of lan...
His conception of justice was entirely different because he did not believe arranging ones wealth amongst society, instead he believed that people created their own wealth and could do as they pleased with it as long as their properties or material goods were earned fairly which determined a just society. Justice for Nozick is more of the historical issues on how each transaction took place.
The novel opens with Meursault having just learned that his mother has died. His reaction to her death is far from typical, and he simply says, “Maman died today, or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.” As he prepares to leave town to attend the funeral, he expresses a sort of general discomfort. This discomfort can be seen in his extremely uncomfortable conversation with his boss, in which Meursault simply tells his boss, “it’s not my fault.” Meursault also wishes that the funeral were already over so that, “the case would be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it.”
Hinduism is a religion that teaches people not only the ultimate goal of their existence but also the best method to achieve it. In order to do this, an individual’s life must be separated into four phases (also called Asramas). These are:
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.
Meursault is distant from set plans, ambitions, desires, love, and emotions in general. He has a difficult time with emotions such as regret and compassion. The reader sees the nature of his personality in the first few lines of the novel: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." When he hears of the death of his mother through a telegram, he is unattached, and can be considered uncaring.