Who is Meursault?

Reflecting back on the story as a whole, I realized that Meursault is actually a pretty ambiguous character. Meursault sounds more like a surname than a first name, and if this is true no first name is ever given. Research on the origin of "Meursault" only brings up a very boring Wikipedia page about a very boring commune in eastern France, and a type of wine. His name has no depth, and no apparent greater or hidden meaning.

Going even further, we never read anything about what Meursault looks like. We aren't given a particular age or any sense of how he dresses. The only physical attribute that's ever mentioned is Marie and his "brown bodies" (35) laying on his bed, and that was pretty darn general. And, considering the plot is set in Africa, that wasn't a hard attribute to guess anyway. And while his thoughts throughout the book can be interpreted, he never exclusively says much about his emotions, even though the story is first person, until the very end of the book. The only sensations we see him experience (for the most part) are purely physical; the hot sun when he shot the man, the uncomfortable heat every time a tense moment occurs in the story. We only see truly intense emotion emerge when he is put under the extremely high stress of his criminal trial, and even then his responses feel limited.

What we can interpret about his character from the events in the story is that he is honest, laid-back, unsentimental, atheistic, lacks a well defined moral code, and has a self proclaimed indifference to the world around him. While these are all solid personality traits, why aren't his physical attributes and deeper emotional responses more expanded upon in the story?

I think Meursault is meant to be the personification of existentialism as a whole, and without a face or an age of his own, he can easily become the physical embodiment of the philosophy as Camus defines it. Meursault does not follow the standards of society; he doesn't experience remorse for his reactions, he doesn't see a reason to follow religion, and he doesn't see any reasons to lie about his feelings, whether it's to protect others or even himself. Meursault is meant to be seen as an identity, not an individual, a canvas that Camus can paint his existentialist ideas on, and an individual without physical attributes that might restrict who Meursault can be identified with or interpreted as within that philosophy.

And following that same theme, he's also the embodiment of a rebel, a person operating outside the walls of society's systems. While other characters and society members are described in detail, Meursault is not. This serves to reiterate just how far outside society's norms he truly is. And society often kills what it doesn't understand.

Is Meursault Real?

There exists a common perspective on Meursault among several of the blog posts this week. I, like others, believe that Camus is able to articulate the entire story and entertain the reader without ever fully humanizing Meursault. Throughout the story, Meursault's indifference to all things around him make him seem as if he is less than human in his lack of emotion. Things that, arguably, bring the most pain and depression to an individual like the death of a parent seems to have no effect on Meursault and his life. Just after returning home from his mother's funeral, Meursault is preoccupied with Marie and, in a sense, he seems to go on with his life as if nothing profound has happened. Yet, maybe this is the ultimate expression of being alive. Maybe Meursault has something to teach us about life and how we respond to the world around us. But, I still feel as if Camus purposefully leaves Meursault in a state where he is acknowledged by the reader as an alive being, but is simultaneously lacking much of what constitutes a human's day to day life.

Only towards the end are we able to see a change in Meursault's emotional expression. Yet, the change is subtle and I think that Camus intended on ending the story with the main character still stuck in a position of indifference. By doing so, Camus is able to vivify his personal existentialist philosophy, and by leaving Meursault unidentified as a being that is separate in opinion and emotion than the reader, Camus sets up the story in a way that prevents the reader from seeing themselves in him. This opportunity provides the reader the chance to view Meursault's way of life and grasp Camus's philosophy without associating personal views and opinions that often accompany a reader's ability to connect with the main character.

You're Wrong, Mr. Heidkamp

As I was walking out of class today,  Jack Grondwalski comes up to me and says, "Mills, your facial expressions throughout that entire class were HILARIOUS". They certainly were, I just looked so, completely, utterly, blown. First, Mr. Heidkamp asked the question, "What is the essence of life?" Then looked to us to name certain aspects of our lives that we think make our lives, livable. But in actuality, the class didn't have anything to say. We answered his question with almost complete silence. Then he started naming and putting things on the board, such as love, relationships, and we got the hang of it. My first thought was, there is no definition, every person's life is different, and to each their own. However, our teacher continued to put more general stereotypical terms on the board like "success" and "God".

Then he proceeded to cross them out with red dry erase marker and write, "made up" next to them. We discussed for the rest of class how these essences of life were "social constructs" and  "a coping mechanism" for dealing with the "randomness of pain and suffering" in our daily lives.  Happiness, morality, justice, memories, all "made up".

In all honesty, I was mostly trying to break the system of teacher-student, and ask him questions. Get him riled up and annoyed, make him feel like he is back in high school. Hopefully, I succeeded.

Death Vs. Dying

It would be absurd to say that people do not wonder about death. We show curiosity toward it every day, even if we’re not directly aware of it. Death is the largest existing concept dealing with the unknown, so it only makes sense why it crosses our minds so often. But there is an important question to be asked here. Are we truly oh-so-curious about death itself, or is it the process of dying that begs for our attention?
When we flip through the newspaper, or, more likely in this day and age, stumble across news on or electronic devices, we often come across articles covering the topic of death. There are feature stories, crime updates, the obituaries section, and many more random snippets of our chosen publication that discuss some sort of death-related theme. It’s how we react to different kinds of media-related death references, though, that reveals a great amount about human nature.

 Take the obituaries section as an example. Most obituaries do not specify the cause of death, unless it is a special case or is already widely known throughout the community. We’ll read the short piece, learning about this particular person’s family, hobbies, character, and even the time and place of passing, but we’ll inevitably be left with the question: how did he/she die? We’ll ask ourselves this question whether we are aware of it or not and if we like it or not. Since we are not presented with a clue as to how this individual left the physical world, there is nothing that draws us in to the story of this stranger. What’s missing is the allusion to the process of dying, something that captivates us and feeds our curiosity toward the unknown.

 Although it may seem dark, imagine a story about a woman who was brutally murdered, such as the recent news of former Oak Park resident Sheila Von Wiese Mack’s beating death, filling the headlines of your local newspaper. “Beaten,” “strangled,” “stabbed,” “left in a ditch,” even “stuffed in a suitcase:” it’s hard to admit that these phrases don’t capture our attention. We’ll leave the story remembering the details of the gruesome murder for a long time, while we most likely will not remember the favorite professional golfer of the elderly man whose obituary said that he died “peacefully, surrounded by family and friends” at 7:13 p.m. last Wednesday.

 The point is, we like to get an image of the process of dying, and, once obtained, that image sticks with us longer than a casual mention of death does, and thus, death and dying are two very different concepts. The Stranger by Albert Camus makes this differentiation clear. Mersault, the protagonist and narrator, shows virtually no emotion regarding his own mother’s death, disregarding details of her passing, neglecting opening the casket to see her body, and passively participating in her memorial service. The lack of details and descriptive scenes in this part of the story lends to a lack of interest in the mother’s death on both Mersault’s part and the readers’ parts. However, in another part of the story, Mersault shoots a man referred to as “The Arab,” and the description of the killing includes more vivid imagery and complex language than the part about his mother’s death does. The clear description of the details surrounding the murder of the Arab show more interest in the death on, again, both Mersault’s part and the readers’ parts. Thus, we can see a clear difference between the notions of “death” and “dying.”

 It may seem a bit dark to argue that we like to learn gory details of death, but these details stick with us to a greater extent than just casual mentions of death itself do. This point lends itself to a greater discussion about human nature and our unconscious drives and interests in the process of dying.

Question today and question tomorrow.

What is the harm in subscribing to social constructs that exist today? Why must we question the society that has served us well? The issue with The Stranger's discussion of existentialism is that it poses a radical change in perspective from what we are used to. However, the message simply cannot be conveyed without presenting the argument in such a profound manner.

What many fail to recognize is that there is a spectrum, there is an extreme who questions all but another extreme who conforms to every social barrier. Alison Pope from Saunders' "Victory Lap" represents an extreme. Her life is molded by the social expectations of a beautiful, white girl in the 21st century. A key component of the story is her apparent naivete once she is afflicted by pain. It's evident that Alison has a liberated conscious, as in she recognizes the absurd; nevertheless, she ignores her thought, and thus she relishes in the idea that "Ignorance is bliss". Her parents enforcement of what happened the day Kyle came by into her head supports this statement. Saunders uses Alison as a critique of society, in that enough ignorance can sometimes be excessive and destructive to the community.

Mr. Heidkamp's address on Wednesday represents another extreme in which dependence on social constructs is completely eliminated. Obviously, that alternative is not popular amongst people today. So, wherein does there exist a happy medium?

It must be understood along a spectrum. The social constructs that are ingrained in our society cannot be understood as obstacles but rather inevitable components of society. At the same time, one cannot overlook how we are affected by social constructs because questioning is natural and induces growth. A true scholar learns to not only answer the question, but respond with another question.

Be an Existentialist for a Day!

To me, the existential ideals discussed in class are pretty attractive. Breaking free of the system, being an independant being, authenticity. However I don't think it's possible to "achieve" existentialism, and I don't think it's supposed to be. But it is something to think about when you go throughout your day and when you make decisions. Why are you doing the things you do?

I wake up in the morning around 7. Of course I wish everyday to immediately return to bed. Why don't I? I go to brush my teeth. Why do I brush my teeth? Is it because I want other people to know I'm hygienic? Partly, but I also like feeling minty fresh. I get dressed. Why do I wear what I wear? It's very likely I have other people's opinions in mind. But I also enjoy choosing what I wear and collecting clothing items I like. I drink coffee. Why? Do I want to have the ability to be more animated to talk to my peers? Or do I truly enjoy the taste and want to feel more awake, because I don't like feeling dead all day? I could question everything I do and my true intentions in doing it. The truth is, though, that human beings have goals and fears. They have dislikes and likes, and they need to recognize the idea of delayed gratification when they live their life. I think it's definitely possible to separate ourselves from caring about being judged. I don't think in order to authentically go through life you need to completely detach yourself from all the systems you're already participating in. It's just important to be aware of them. We should all probably graduate high school. We should probably brush our teeth. Existentialism is just something to think about.Unless you are born a truly indifferent Meursault like human being, you will have feelings, opinions, and aspirations that keep you from living like he does. That's inevitable. In today's society it is more likely than not you have to play into certain systems, such as our education, in order to get to where you want to go. Along the way, maybe all you have to do is pause and consider why you're doing what you're doing.

Crushing Freedom

It's easy to write existentialism off as a very pessimistic, depressed, and unwelcoming idea, and there is a good reason for that.  Some of it's fundamental ideas are incredibly radical and tend to tear down the very fabric of our society, such as the existence of a God.  In existentialism, there is no God, only man, and this is a key point in the philosophy that both sets it apart as radical, interesting, and also liberating.

In existentialism, the consequences of an absence of a God are what in the end define us as human.  Because there was no creator, that means that humans were not formed with a preconceived idea.  One day there weren't people, the next day there were.  No one sat down and said, "I'm going to make people so that there is a creature that can think and write about things" or anything along those lines.  We just popped up, because that's what happened.  We had to assign our own meaning to our lives, so that, in the words of Jean Paul Sartre, our existence precedes essence.

I bring up Sartre because he is my favorite existential philosopher, and I have always found it hard to disagree with his ideas.  One of my favorite beliefs of his was that of radical freedom, or that humans are inherently and inescapably free, and therefore have huge amounts of responsibility.  That means that whatever we do, we are choosing to do it, no matter what.  While it is true that there are sometimes outside factors that encourage one choice over another, called facticity, only the individual is responsible for his or her actions.  And because of this, each individual is setting an example for humanity.  According to Sartre, because we choose to do what we do, we do what we believe is the right choice that should be made, and thus what we would believe to be the best choice for all of humanity.  It's kind of a confusing concept to grasp at first, but it's hard to dispute.  For every choice, a person weighs what they value and choose whichever they believe holds more value.  For example, you could argue that when a person is being mugged at gunpoint and they hand over their money that they don't have free will.  I mean, they're under the threat of death, right?  But at the same time, instead of handing over the money, they could also try to fight back, or run away.  However, by giving the mugger the money, the person chose out of their own inherent free will to value their potential safety and health over that dollar amount.  By doing that, they are saying that the choice they made was the best one available, and if anyone else was in that situation, that choice would still be the best one to make.

So essentially, everything in existentialism boils down to human freedom, and that's why I both love and hate the philosophy.  I love it because it seems to get at what I've believed personally for a long time--that it's up to people to make meaning in their own lives, and that everything is a product of choice, but I hate it for the same reasons most others hate it--choice isn't always fun, good, or easy.  It would be nice if we could brush responsibility off of ourselves every once in a while, but that is simply not the case.  And the fact that there is facticity, these uncontrollable external forces that limit us, is incredibly frustrating because while we have freedom, it seems like freedom lite because there are still so many things we can't do.  So while existentialism is a liberating philosophy, it is still not an easy one to accept.

Live Like Meursault, or No?

Although Camus insisted that The Stranger was not purely an existentialist novel, existentialist views are clearly present through out the book. In class, we discussed that the key to living in the existentialist way was to reject all social constructs and live under one's own complete control. Accepting that life is meaningless and full of random suffering.

Meursault can be seen as living an existentialist life. He rejects all social systems and lives life the way he wants to. He takes on an indifferent personality and believes there is no meaning to anything. If Camus is trying to show Meursault as living a good existentialist life, then he has succeeded, but if he wants to convince others that this is a better way to live then he picked the wrong poster child.

While parts of Meursault's life can seem appealing, like his lack of worry about anything, other  parts of  his life are lacking.  Through his existentialist life, Meursault has befriended a suspicious neighbor who beats his mistress and agrees to act as a witness on his behalf. He agrees to marry a women even after he says he doesn't love her. He looses a job offer because he shows no drive or gratitude. He ends up in jail and on trial for shooting a man who he does not know five times for no reason. A life that includes all this does not seem to be one that someone would choose to live.

Although I am judging Meursault's life as someone who is affected by social constructs, Meursualt's life is still unappealing.  I think most people would chose to live where they are happy instead of having bad things happen to them like Meursault, even if it meant giving up some control of their life.  If Camus wanted existentialism to seem appealing to people whose lives are affected by systems, Meursault's life is not a good example.

A Trip to the Zoo - Who's Free and Who's Caged?

Today in class, once the explanation of Existential theory had been completely laid down, we got a chance to voice our skepticism.  A majority of the arguments seemed to be geared toward practicality.  Is Existentialism even possible for humans?  In our culture, how can we embrace "finding meaning of life through life itself" when rejecting our institutions could actually lead to death?  And on a slightly different note, if Existentialism involves questioning all systems, doesn't Existentialism become a system itself and contradict itself?  So one would have to fall into Existentialism without actually thinking about it or being externally influenced to subscribe to the philosophy.  Meta-thinking (thinking about thinking) would necessarily have to be absent.  This line of conversation brought to my mind one of the characteristics people use to differentiate human beings from animals - conscious thought.  And if conscious thought is the obstacle withholding humans from ideal existentialism, that makes animals the ideal existentialists because they - in the grandest generalization - lack that conscious thought.  (I internally groaned as Rachel mentioned the gold fish, bringing my train of thought to the verbal conversation - say much more and you'll have stolen my blog post!)

So if our conscious thought is what inevitably confines us, wouldn't it be better to be like animals?  A sizable debate is centered around the confining of animals within our zoos.  What the people who argue on either side of this debate probably don't realize is that the people walking around the zoo are maybe more restricted than the animals in cages.  And maybe zoos are part of another system humans have created to cover up the pain of life.  Perhaps we can't bear the freedom we recognize in animals and feel a need to establish our dominance over them despite our confinement. 

You may have noticed that this post majorly constitutes questions and hypotheticals.  It may even be a little bit annoying - where's the substance?  That's how I felt in my mind.  During the day, this theory progressed and yet no matter how much I made connections, losing my consciousness doesn't seem worth it.  That loss coupled with that freedom isn't appealing.  Only while I was reading other people's blog posts, I think I found a response rooted in Camus's "Myth of Sisyphus".  Camus argues that while all men suffer through the absurd, two of three peoples can still achieve some form of happiness.  The unaware does not recognize their absurd pursuits.  The aware person, however, can either suffer under their pain weighed down by knowledge, or they can come to terms with the inevitability of the absurd and even relish in it.  So for those struggling with Existentialism but feeling it holds truth for them, there is no need to worry over how to destroy human consciousness and become animal-like.  They simply need to accept the absurdity in their life and find comfort in that knowledge.  Maybe not simple after all; but would it still be worth it if it wasn't?

What Gives, Mr. Heidkamp??

Though this concept has been argued in a couple different posts already, I'm gonna make it mine too.

I wasn't in class today, so I didn't hear the end of Mr. Heidkamp's CRAZY spiel about social constructs from yesterday, but I'm really hoping he connected it back to existentialism and Meursault and wasn't just preaching at us about how stupid religion is, how love isn't real. The latter is the part of the argument that really rustled my jimmies more than anything else.

How can you say that love is nothing but a social construct, but pain and suffering are real? You say that love is made up, a sort of reaction formation that covers up the eternal agony mankind collectively experiences (the ONLY feeling that's legitimate, apparently). What does real mean to you? Perhaps you mean that love cannot exist without other people, and to a point that is true. But isn't a lot of the pain one experiences the result of other people too? You'll be affected if a loved one is hurt, or if someone bullies you. Words can be just as damaging as sticks and stones, if not worse, if the circumstances are right. And if you're empathetic, the knowledge that somebody else is hurting and suffering will often result in more pain than not having known them at all. By your logic, doesn't that make emotional pain nothing but a social construct too?

To that you might say that pain has a physical feeling rather than just psychological, caused by stimulus from injury. You could go into human anatomy and describe nerve cells and pain receptors and how they function, but isn't love a result of the nervous system as well? In Escape from Spiderhead, the test subjects were pumped full of hormones and chemicals that forced them to feel emotions of all shapes and sizes, from love to anguish in a matter of seconds. While the nervous system interprets pain receptors, the brain can also pump dopamine into your system to give you the happy go lucky feeling many people experience in love. A basic explanation of love as a bodily function is given here: http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-Love-As-a-Chemical-Reaction . Love can be just as physical as pain.

Next you might say that while pain can exist without any social interaction, like stubbing your toe on a table or tripping on a log and breaking your ankle, love can only be experienced between people. But then why do I love mountains? How can I love the ocean? Or the smell of rain? I love my childhood stuffed animals. Obviously, none of these are human. And if people had never influenced my opinions in my entire life, I wouldn't think those things any less beautiful. Just like pain, true love can exist without any human interaction at all.

Both love and pain can be emotional, both love and pain can be physical. How else can you define emotions and sensations? They can both be influenced by social interactions, they can both be independent. Why can't pain and suffering be constructs to limit too much love, why does it have to be your way? And I haven't even gotten into how love and pain are completely subjective and vary from person to person, I don't mind you arguing one way or another that they're primarily social constructs or concrete sensations, but your inconsistency is unjust and unreasonable and ridiculous and sdf;ldfgklahsdlvkghjadfs. How dare you. For me, that doesn't make any sense in the world.

Why Break Social Constructs?

What is the true reward of going outside the "social constructs" or systems of life? Why become an existentialist? After the discussion we had in class and having had time to think about it outside of class, I cannot see a true reward in becoming an existentialist. Sure, I see how we might be part of "systems" and how these systems can shape our lives, but leaving this system and normal life does not seem appealing. From what I got, becoming an existentialist means detaching yourself from the human population. If there is to be truly no influence on a person and for them to completely control themselves and their future, they must be alone. You must let go of everything you have been living with and for for your entire life. I feel like breaking the wall of social constructs has become too much of a social construct itself. I am perfectly content with how I/we live now; sports, religion, relationships, love, education, all these things put under the category of social constructs are what I  enjoy the most in life. Maybe I have been put into sports or brought up to believe school is important, but I do not have a problem with any of it, I  have no inclination to go "outside the box". The reward in my point of view of becoming an existentialist and becoming completely independent in mind is nothing special. I enjoy all the "social constructs" that we live in, and maybe it is just because we know nothing else, but I am fine with that.

It Makes No Difference

Existentialism states that we can only truly be free if we are entirely independent of the systems of society. These systems effect us both conscientiously and sub-conscientiously in almost every aspect of our lives whether we choose to accept it or not. Even if we believe that we have unique and personalized relationships and friendships they are still shaped by systems. This is apparent if you just examine your relationships. Do you kiss you friends like you would your boyfriend/ girlfriend? Do you obey them as you would your parents? Well why not? The answer is because those relationships are already defined by society and you act only within them. Similarly you can claim that everyone has their own individual ethics and no two people have the same, because they arise through personal experience. However society has still created the idea of morality, the idea that there is a right and a wrong. This concept does not exist within nature. Because these systems shape arguably all of our actions, we are not truly free, but rather slaves to society and the social norms of the systems. The only way to them set yourself free is to question everything about the world and about yourself and reject all of the worlds systems. You become truly free to define yourself, this is most human you can be. In this case identity is closely related to purpose or meaning. If you look at an object like a pen you can see its purpose, to solve our writing needs, it was created for that reason, it's purpose preceded its existence. Humans are totally different however, we must gain our purpose through our existence, it does not inherently exist. Existentialists believe that the systems of society define our purpose for us before we even exist, because of course they are so constraining. Therefor we are most human when we are outside of these systems and are free to define ourselves. The meaning of life then becomes for each person to gain their own subjective meaning through living life.

While I agree with a lot of things in existentialism but I think that there are some flaws and hypocrisies within it. To start, the idea that death is bad is itself a system, this was brought up in class by Isabel. And it is very true, we all just assume that death is this bad scary thing. But why? Ask yourself why you think death is bad? It's an inevitability, and this can't be avoided, everybody will die eventually, and countless people have done so already. So why is it this  big scary thing that almost everyone fears? It's because society has posited it this way, though various different notions, some stemming from separate systems entirely, such as religion. So the fact that the fundamental idea of existentialism, namely that in the world there is only pain and suffering- culminating in death, is itself a system, is a pretty big hole. Next is the problem of reaching the sort of existentialist goal of freedom from all systems. It is impossible to never be exposed to these systems as after we are born we are immediately expose to the system of parenthood and the relationship is often the first of our many experiences. So then if you cannot avoid these systems then in order to achieve this you must fully accept all systems and immerse yourself in all of them. Only then can u fully understand them and begin to comprehend what it means to be free. It reminds me of the idea in Marxism that says in order for society to become communist it must first be capitalist, so as to create the strife that starts the revolution and creates the communist society. In order for the good to happen (existentialist freedom), you must first accept the exact opposite, the every thing that the good posits is the problem (slavery of systems). And finally when you do achieve this state of "freedom" are you truly "free"? You are still effected by all of the systems in that you must rejects them, they still effect you just in different ways. Existence within systems can be defined by X, if you were to suddenly achieve a truly existential existence you would still be constrained by these systems by your forced rejection of them, your existence then can just be defined as -X. All of the opposite properties of X but still with all the same limitations, just in the inverse. Look at Meursault, his only character trait is that he is an existentialist, and all he does is just bounce from one system to the next forced to reject them all. The fact that they still exist means that he must avoid them and that becomes his identity. So it is all sort of futile.

Is it bad that I don't mind Social Constructs?

I'll admit that I was quite frustrated with Mr. Heidkamp these past two days when he seemed to be arguing as devil's advocate. Today, as he concluded the discussion with the main views of existentialism, his points made more sense, yet I could not help but to still wonder, why are the social systems he raged against so bad?

According to Existentialism, social systems such as organized religion, education, love, friendships, morality, success, etc, are purely social constructs that trap people into their patterns. What existentialists advocate is to break free of those systems and assert your authentic independence, be in complete control of yourself. This assertion sounds great, but to do so, one must accept the fact that life in itself is meaningless, and that the individual gives life meaning. It is the first belief that I cannot accept- life is not meaningless in and of itself. I believe that we find meaning in our relationships and our success, and that these "social constructs" are not entirely bad things. In fact, even if I did accept the existentialist belief that life is meaningless until you give it meaning and break free of the systems, I would not want to apply this to my own life. It is both inapplicable to today's world, and altogether not a desirous solution for me.

To completely break free of all of the systems- relationships, school, morality, justice, success- in the modern word would be near impossible. It would, for example, require dropping out of school, which then leads to no job or money, which then leads to homelessness and starvation. Be it good or bad, our society is constructed in a way that we need to participate in the systems to survive. Furthermore, and maybe I have just been brainwashed by our dominating culture, I actually enjoy our "social constructs." I love my family and friends, I enjoy working for success and attaining it, and I even like going to school sometimes. I don't want to leave all of those just to assert my independence. I cannot possess the indifference to love, jobs, and justice like Mersault does in The Stranger. So while I may be submitting myself to control by the system, I'll admit that it I won't mind it too much.

Let's Kill Our Heroes

Well I met an old man
dying on a train.
No more destination
no more pain.
Well he said
"one thing, before I graduate...
never let your fear decide your fate."

I say ya kill your heroes and
fly, fly, baby don't cry.
No need to worry cuz
everybody will die.
Every day we just
go, go, baby don't go.
Don't you worry we
love you more than you know. 
Well the sun one day will
leave us all behind.
Unexplainable sightings
in the sky.
Well I hate to be
the one to ruin the night.
Right before your, right before your eyes.

It was a little difficult to sit through that English class and not think about how crazy Mr. Heidkamp sounded. But what I realized after thinking over the class discussion a little more and listening to music is that existentialism is everywhere.

In the song Kill Your Heroes by Awolnation some existentialistic views can be found under the powerful drums and Aaron Bruno's screamy voice. Bruno starts the song like a story talking about an old man on a train. The lines "No more destination/ no more pain." highlight the fact that death is inevitable and ever present.

Bruno continues to tell his listeners to "kill their heroes." I do not think he means literally go and kill the person you want to emulate or look up to, but I think that the line is a metaphor and he is saying we should not waste time falling prey to social constructions like heroes. Believing in heroes is not going to get you anywhere in life.

"Every day we just/ go, go, baby don't go." This line was tougher to decipher. If we are analyzing this line with an eye for the existentialist then he is saying society just goes and if you want to get happiness from life then you cannot just go you have to be an individual. 

Bruno is getting at the core of existentialism. He is saying that life is best experienced when you are just living. In order to get the most out of our lives we need to ignore our "heroes" avoid social constructs and be as individualistic before our rapidly approaching demise.

Does everyone share the same meaning of life?

We began the discussion of existentialism with the idea that all the things that we make up in our minds to be the meaning of life, actually have no meaning at all. Or, rather, maybe they do have meaning to our shallow lives, but the meaning is all fake; something that we as humans socially constructed as a system of which to live by. What confuses me about this approach is that by saying that happiness, relationships, and love are all just part of a system, why is pain, suffering, and the anxiety and emotion that follows the idea of death not also system? Similar to what was brought up at the end of class, I think that the anxiety associated with the idea of dying is just as much a system as the happiness associated with relationships.

Everyone has their own definition of happiness and I think the same can be said for death. There are in fact several cultures that banish all anxiety-arousing ideas of death and turn them into something of which to celebrate. I think that by classifying the emotion of death so broadly, existentialists are not taking the entire human race into full account. By saying that we create these social constructs of ideal happiness (the left side of the board) to mask pain and suffering, "existentialists" are making pain and suffering into a system itself and therefore, it seems to me that there really is no way to truly escape the system, or to simply exist. 

While spending time in prison, Meursault remarks, "if I had had to live in the trunk of a dead tree, with nothing to do but to look up at the sky flowering overhead, little by little I would've gotten used to it..." (77). According to what I understand as existentialism, this seems to be what would be classified as authentic living, or living 100% detached from any of these social constructs. However, I feel that many would agree that living in a hollow tree trunk is not truly living your live to it's fullest extent and it seems to be hard to find meaning in that. While I understand that the benefit to this sort of life would be to have compete control over your life, it makes me question whether living detached from the system really worth it in the end.

Is existentialism worth its burden?

If adherence to existentialism denotes a liberation from the imprisonment by social constructs, it also gives singular, complete power to action. If not defined by identification with morality, justice, religion, faction, nation, institution, I am indeed free to individualize. 

My very self-hood becomes what I make of it. My choices carry weight like never before. I define myself through my actions. The undoing of the social constructs forces me to let my true inner self shine forth. Knowing each choice defines his very self-hood, near-crushing anxiety encompasses his each decision. Existentialism's hidden burden must be paralyzing.

Existentialism's first goal, as reported by the Handbook of Individual Therapy, by ed Dryden is

"to enable people to become more truthful with themselves."

But is being true to yourself worth the charge?

Meursault's Existence

In examining the character of Meursault I have come to discover his tendency to contract the personality of an existentialist.  One of the instances that have lead me to this conclusion is in the event of his mothers death.  When he attends her funeral he doesn’t show sadness or shed a tear, however, all of his mothers friends were crying and paying their respects.  Meursault’s indifference to his mothers death shows his resistance to the social confinement that that life systems create.  

Meursault also demonstrates existentialism when he kills a man at the end of part one of the novel.  Instead of thinking of morality and justice he becomes a radical subject and kills a man with indifferences and without a thought of how his actions could affect others.  

I think that Camus wrote Meursault as an existential character to portray his own existentialism.  Meursault doesn’t express his emotions nor does he seem to have feelings.  He is able to live happily on his own despite the random suffering that occurs in his life.  

Meaning of Life Found in a Rap Song?

After all this lovely talk of existentialism and the meaning of life in class, I have been pondering whether or not I agree with Mr. Heidkamp or not. After today's class I popped in my headphones and a song titled "Kush & Corinthians (His Pain)" came on, a rap song written by Kendrick Lamar. The title in itself is seemingly explicit and ignorant yet when I listened to the lyrics I was able to connect it to class. In the opening hook he sings,

Ride to it, ride to it, cause you never know
When a bullet might hit and you die to it, die to it
Die to it, die to it, live your life, live it right
Be different, do different things
Don't do it like he did, cause he ain't what you is
But we can win, wait, let's get straight to the point

To the meaning of life, what's my purpose?
Maybe this Earth is ain't a good place to be...

Is he an existentialist? Born in Compton, Kendrick is familiar with random pain and suffering as he shows in this lyric. Yet, still aware of this random suffering in this world, he keeps his head up and says that we need to live our lives and be different from others. He also questions the meaning of life, which possibly is unknowingly answered in the lyric prior, and concludes that this world is possibly a bad place due to all the pain and suffering he has witnessed. I find this incredible that in a song written by as some would say an "ignorant" rapper, we find a deep analyst of life. Even if you don't believe in existentialism it is still fascinating.

Why I like Camus

The last two days of discussion seemed to be Mr. Heidkamp vs. the English class. What sparked the heated controversy was the idea of abandoning social constructs in order to live an independent life. Camus argues that rejecting social constructs and accepting life as an inevitable travel towards death is what allows one to be truly free. However, many others asserted that social constructs, such as relationships, memories, etc., are what give meaning to life. To renounce them, one would have to live in isolation or be dead. While Camus's portrayal of Meursault in "The Stranger" may some bleak because he succeeds in living without social constructs, I think that Meursault is the most genuine character of all.

Mersault is a peculiar character, to say the least. He is indifferent to just about everything and seems to take life as it is. He is the epitome of Camus' existentialist, in that he values human experience over the essence of life. While this lifestyle can often make him appear cold or unkind due to his lack of emotional ties, especially in the case of his mother and Marie, compared with the other relationships in the book in my opinion, his life is most real, which is what Camus may be getting at. Raymond beats his mistress, Salamano abuses his dog, and Marie claims to be in love with Meursault at their second encounter. It is interesting to note that in all of these relationships, they end up alone. Raymond's mistress and Salamano's dog run away, and Meursault ends up in jail so Marie cannot see him. The relationships they form, or what Camus may see as their living under a system of social constructs, ultimately lead them to unhappiness.

Meursault, on the other hand, understands that no matter what, life ends in death. Though I agree that this is not the happiest way of living, he has the most control over his life; he has what Camus would call true freedom. In my opinion, this interesting ideology is what makes Camus a compelling writer.

Sisyphus and The Swimmer

As I read "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus, I found myself comparing Sisyphus to Neddy, the protagonist of "The Swimmer" by John Cheever. I think that Neddy resembles Sisyphus at a time before Camus' analysis of him: a prequel to Camus' essay. 

Camus takes interest in the time that Sisyphus spends descending the hill as the rock rolls down. Camus describes this time as a tragic "hour of consciousness" in which Sisyphus is acutely aware of the futility of his labor. Yet, Camus believes that, by acknowledging his suffering and seemingly purposeless existence, Sisyphus becomes superior to his own fate. Thus, he describes Sisyphus as victorious.

In "The Swimmer," Neddy approaches this "hour of consciousness." Unlike Sisyphus, he is so hopeful and driven by the goal of accomplishing his task that he is blissfully ignorant of his own suffering. He continues to swim towards his imagined home, unaware of his social and mental degeneration. Only when he reaches his empty house does he realize the gravity of his situation. 

Perhaps Sisyphus was once like Neddy: hopefully pushing the rock up the hill with a sense of purpose and believing that he might actually complete the task. And maybe, like Neddy at the end of the story, he had a moment when he realized that his labor truly had no purpose other than to distract him from the reality of his suffering.