Many say they value “open-mindedness”- a vague concept, but generally definable as a sort of mental flexibility stemming from a willingness to be adventurous. As with all values, open-mindedness exists as a spectrum, the extremes of which are frowned upon. Both complete mental rigidity and total nonconformity are generally viewed as negative. It is through this lens, the extremities of open-mindedness, that I will analyze one particular construction of Camus’ writing: “I could either do A or not do A.”
Meursault frequently used the above construction, thinking things like the following:
Meursault frequently used the above construction, thinking things like the following:
“It was then that I realized that you could either shoot or not shoot.” (56)
“To stay or to go, it amounted to the same thing. “ (57)
“Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying.” (114)
“He could either sit down or stand up.” (118)
A or not A- they amount to the same thing in Meursault’s mind. He could shoot just as easily as he could not shoot. This is open-mindedness in its consummate form: an extreme mental flexibility that defies social conventions. As evidenced by Meursault’s trial, his “extreme open-mindedness” was considered impropriety by the rest of society. Guilty. With the trial’s verdict, Camus’ poses a central (arguably thematic) question:
Is true freedom of thought compatible with human society?
This is really interesting, however I am not sure if it all bubbles down to open-mindedness. Open-mindedness connotes to me the willingness to try new things and accept new things. Meursault, however, comes across as more indifferent than open-minded. He doesn't accept things because they are a different opinion, he views all opinions as insignificant, whether they are different or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erin. I think that Mersault's reaction (or lack thereof) to different occurrences in his life symbolize his indifference and his self-isolation from the constructions of emotions that guide the decisions of others around him. He observes the effects of those constructions over how others act, and in his observation, he narrates his own thoughts on how he is unaffected by them, and thus indifferent.
DeleteI concur with what was said above. To address Camus' central query, as Ari identified it, I think that freedom of thought is compatible with contemporary society. Meursault, while not completely a free-thinker, is still capable of evaluating all possible options rationally and bluntly. However, Meursault's thought is not the thing that Camus is putting under the microscope. I think a more appropriate question would be "Is true freedom of action compatible with human society?" Superficially, it would seem as if Camus is arguing that it is not, since Meursault has been punished for taking action. However, I believe that Camus is actually advocating for the possibility of true freedom of action in a society, an achievement that would only be possible in conjunction with true freedom of thought. Camus believes that Meursault is a liberated individual, because through his use of free thought, unencumbered by biases and preconceptions, he has the ability to act freely as well. Ultimately, Meursault loses his liberty, but Camus seems to imply that this is not due to any mistake on his part, but rather because of the close-mindedness of the people who surround him - people on the jury, his lawyer, the magistrate. As the novel concludes, Meursault awaits his end, but does not seem to feel remorse over his choices because they were his to make.
DeleteI really think that this interpretation of "open-mindedness" is interesting. I am still a little confused on how you connected the idea of open-mindedness to "To do A or not to do A". I also agree with Erin in the idea that the definition of open-mindedness to try new things.
ReplyDelete