Free Will or Determinism: What Does Camus Think?

Free will is the idea that people are in control of their own behavior and their actions result from a conscious decision. The free will ideology also states past events will not implicitly influence present or future actions. Finally, free will says that we are wholly responsible for our actions.

Determinism is that idea that everyone’s course of action is predetermined. Determinism would mean that if we were to go back in time and relive what we have already experienced, no events or conditions would be altered. Conversely, determinism says if we were able to gather substantial information, we could accurately predict the future.

What does Camus think?
Albert Camus believes in a person’s ability to have free will that within what is predetermined and has a novel hypothesis about consciousness. In his essay on Sisyphus he writes, “If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious” (2). His argument says by maintaining the illusion of free will we are able to avoid tragedy. There are certain things we are fated to do; certain toils we must endure, certain successes we will have, certain journeys we will go on. But how we get from point A to point B—what music we listen to while we do our chores, what color pen we will use on the science test we are about to ace, whether to take I-290 or side streets to get downtown—is where we can exercise our freedom. The major plot points are already laid out, but we get to write in the details.

We must be careful, he implies, of getting too caught up in the things we cannot control, because by doing so we will find ourselves disheartened and stagnant. We must find where freedom hides and savor it when we do.

Is Meursault really the existential hero we thought?

Throughout reading the book it seems on the surface that Meursault is an existential hero, especially because for most of the book he fulfills all 6 tenets of existentialism. While it is written by an author who is one of the forefathers of existentialism the ending of the book seems to question Meursault as a existential hero. We largely see this in one of the the final scenes while he is imprisoned where he is longing for escape or for the chance of survival. He wishes that the guillotine breaks or for the possibility, even if it is 1 in 1000 chance of freedom. He thinks that if there were to be such a thing it would not be as hard on prisoners. These thoughts are very anti-existentialist. For multiple reasons this goes against the foundations of existentialism; specifically the futility of life and the inevitableness of death. Yet he still cannot accept the certainty of his own death. He claims there's something "out of proportion" between the verdict being read and the events that had passed since then. He continues to until the very end to hope that death doesn't come, while he does accept death he does not embrace it.

Virtual Reality: A Step Through Another Door

Virtual reality provides an opportunity to experience a life that someone else lives. The 360 degree view of the videos was amazing as it allowed me to feel as though I was surrounded and actually living in the setting. However, I think that virtual reality can only go so far as to show what someone’s life is really like. While it seems as though we are engaged in what is happening on the screen, it does not mean that we are actually there experiencing what is actually happening. Some things in the 360 degree view of the migrant experiences would be hard to empathize with fully because we would not have truly gone through the same thing because it’s virtual. For example, the planes in the video that was 11 minutes and 49 seconds an experience that I could definitely sympathize with, but it’s never happened to me so I cannot empathize. Therefore, virtual reality experiences provide an opportunity to be informed about what is happening in other people’s lives, but does not provide the full experience because it is still virtual.

Existentialism- Meaning of Life

The argument of existentialism that we have talked about in class and that Camus touches on in the myth he tells is very complex. The argument of love, justice, e.t.c being social structures that have just been around since the beginning of human life is very intriguing.

At first, it seemed very odd because all of these things are what we live our lives by. I do agree with the argument that they are just social structures because it is a fact that we are not born with any of those things, we are trained by society that that is what is important. Furthermore, I would not say that I agree completely with the existentialism beliefs because for me, the meaning of life is about feelings good and enjoying life anyway you want too. If you really wanna find love, if you wanna cure diseases, or make a ton of money, whatever makes you feel happy and good inside is what one should do. That is what the meaning of life is for me and that is the flaw in existentialism that I cannot agree with.

Is Meursault's Atheism Existentialist?

In Albert Camus' The Stranger, in the fifth and final chapter, Meursault encounters a chaplain before he lives out his death sentence. The chaplain expresses confusion at Meursault's seeming lack of care for his own situation, but Meursault is steadfast in his beliefs. He does not attempt to explain his position to the chaplain to the fullest extent possible, merely answering the questions that are asked of him, and later getting annoyed at the amount of questions being asked. He believes that there is no life after death, and the fact that there is no life after death does not concern him.

For its time, Meursault's atheism was likely perceived as existentialist. as his lack of belief in God indicates a belief in himself as a free agent (as well does the rest of the book). If there was no God, then what else could determine humanity's actions but individual humans?

When looked at through a modern lens, atheism is not necessarily indicative of an existentialist viewpoint. Atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a religion. That does not imply the existence of believe in oneself. Due to the increasing cultural prevalence of atheism in society, we are not necessarily inclined to believe that if one does not believe in God, one must believe in individuality.

On the contrary, non existentialist atheists might believe that humanity as a whole (large scale peer pressures) or the as-yet-to-be-defined set of laws that govern the universe as a whole yet don't subscribe to a deity. Or perhaps they believe that humans had free will at one point, but the advent of societal constructs such as justice, love, and friendship became so ingrained in the human psyche that we no longer have the freedom to think outside of them.

Regardless, when analyzing from a modern perspective, the fact of Meursault's atheism cannot be used as proof of his existentialism. It's up to the rest of the book to do that.

Is God Absurd?

In philosophy, "The Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value in the meaning of life and the human inability to find any. Camus employs this theory in his analysis of The Myth of Sisyphus.

Sisyphus, according to Greek legend, was condemned to forever repeat the same meaningless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. Camus believes that as long as Sisyphus accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd struggle, then he can find happiness in it. This notion of an absurd struggle is also expanded upon in Camus' writing of The Stranger.

In the The Stranger, on page 69 Camus writes, "He asked me if I believed in God. I said no. He sat down indignantly. He said that it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he was ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless. 'Do you want my life to be meaningless?' he shouted." Camus emphasizes that without the presence of God this man's life would be meaningless. Dissimilar to the boulder that Sisyphus pushes, the presence of God in this man's life enables the man to live a life that is not absurd. Thus, the belief in God as a higher power enables individuals to live a life that is not absurd; God is not absurd.

Forgetting Our Greatest Desires

I somewhat agree with Camus’ argument that simple pleasures have room to emerge once people stop longing for things they can not have. I was not persuaded until I saw the parallels between his essay and Meursault's actual life. In Cumus’ essay, he argues that Sisyphus’ punishment is not the most grueling in the world because Sisyphus can be happy if he loses his desire to have things on Earth. Once he becomes content with his position in life, he will be joyful because he won’t be preoccupied with striving for anything more than what’s in front of him.

Meursault faces this reality while in prison. When he first arrived, he had the mindset of a free man. Once he lost his desire to have and do things from the free world like smoking cigarettes and going to the beach he was content with his life in prison and understood his punishment.

I do find there to be a fault in Camus’ argument. There are people who are not okay with giving up on their lives when something is not available to them. For some people, trying to get what they don’t already have is the driving factor in their lives. People who grew up without the same luxuries as others use that experience to drive them to earn what they never had. They would go to school, work, and do all what they needed so that they could live a life where they would be able to have all that they desired.

I suppose happiness is relative. Some people will be able to find happiness by being complacent while others will find happiness through hard work.

A Hesitant Defense of Meursault

In Albert Camus's The Stranger, Meursault is sentenced to death for not conforming with the jury's view on humanity. The thing that condemns Meursault the most in his trial is his lack of visible grief for his mother's death. It is this lack of grief that causes the jury to believe he is inhuman. The jury and Meursault have differing views on what makes one human. The jury believes that a base of humanity is that one will feel love and grief for a parent who passes, and will mourn in a unspecified way that they deem appropriate, but one which Meursault clearly violates. As such, the jury is convinced by the prosecution that Meursault is a "monster", as they continuously paint him throughout the trial.

But we the audience, with full insight to Meursault's thoughts, can see him as a person, and know they are misinterpreting the events as well as failing to understand Meursault as a person. Meursault takes enjoyment of from the physical things in life, the murder was not premeditated, and his mother's advice is mentioned throughout the novel, suggesting Meursault did care for his mother, even if it was not as shown or typical of what society would expect.

In light of this, we must ask ourselves: Did Meursault deserve the death sentence? And can anyone really make judgments about what makes one human?

Meursault was a person, and felt emotions, even if they were not the ones deemed appropriate by society. Does this make him human? Or does his general indifference to emotions truly make him an inhuman monster? And most importantly, why? Who has the right to decide what one must feel to be a human?

At the end of the day, Meursault undeniably was a murderer, as so legally did deserve some sort of punishment. However, in addition to being punished for murder, he is also being punished for failing some abstract notion of humanity pushed by society, leading me to conclude that the death sentence was an unnecessary extremity.

Why You Should Have No Hope

In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus essentially argues that Sisyphus is happiest when he gives up hope that he will succeed in getting the rock to the top of the mountain without it falling. While the idea that there should be no hope may seem very pessimistic at first, it has a good amount of truth to it. If you hope for things and hope that you don’t experience pain then you will only be sad and disappointed when your hopes aren’t fulfilled. As sad as it is, pain and suffering are inescapable in life. Without it there would be very few of the social constructs like justice systems that have been created in the hopes of minimizing pain and suffering.

If one comes to accept pain and doesn’t hope for a perfect life or doesn't hope to have a big house or a lot of money, then they won’t be upset when things don’t necessarily go their way because they were ready for it. This allow people to appreciate the smaller things because they aren’t expecting more. It also makes it so that pain isn’t as negative of an experience because they expect it which makes those people happier overall.

Physical vs. Emotional World of Stranger

Reading the first part of The Stranger, by Albert Camus, I noticed his surprising lack of emotions in his writing and his preference of describing physical aspects in the book.

These physical aspects are centered around the main character in the book, Meursault, as the story is told from his point of view.

The story begins with a very objective statement. "Manman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know." Throughout the story, Meursault seems devoid from feeling any grief for his mothers death. He doesn't know how old she was when she died. He doesn't know her friends, and tell us that he rarely saw his mother. Camus purposefully leaves out many details about the emotions of Merursault.

On the other hand, Camus provides an abundant amount of details of Mersaults physical state and his surroundings. For example, the heat of the sun bothers and hurts Mersualt much more than the thought of burying his mother and only living relative. He describes, “I could feel the blood pounding in my temples.”

Mersault also describes his physical relations with Marie much more than his feelings towards her. When she asks him if he wants to marry her, he simply responds with, “Sure.” He says that he doesn’t care which girl it is with.

By leaving out or simply glossing over many aspects of social or emotional situations, Mersault’s descriptions become much more clear and detailed as he discusses the weather or his actions. This style of narration clearly shows Mersaults preference of the physicals world over the emotional world.

Correcting A Wrong With Another Wrong?

The death penalty is offered in 30 states in the United States. Last year 23 people were executed on death penalty. Was their crime bad enough to end their lives? An eye for an eye? Does it make sense to correct a wrong with another wrong?

In The Stranger, by Albert Camus, Meursault, the main character, is put on death penalty for murdering another man. To end another's life is an awful crime. He cut the Arab's life short probably by 50 years, causing so much pain to his family and friends that will have a lasting impact on them forever. But then something does not add up. How can killing a man be corrected by killing someone else? Meursault's friends will suffer just as much as the Arab's friends. His death will still be painful. My personal opinion is that convicted felons would be punished more if spending the rest of their life in prison. There they are stripped of their freedom and have nothing to do but think of the awful mistake they made to get in prison. This I personally feel like is the more morally correct decision and the felon would still serve their punishment.

Does Meursault have Emotions or is He a Sociopath??

A sociopath is a person with a personality disorder that manifests itself as extreme anxiety and a lack of conscience. Throughout The Stranger, Meursault consistently shows little emotion towards the things around him. In the most recent chapters when Meursault goes to prison for murder, he does not seem to feel emotion about it and just wants to pass the time in whatever way he can. Even though he has a serious girlfriend, when she comes to visit, he is happy to see her, but after she is gone, rarely thinks about her. This shows that even though he has these relationships he only sees life as something that he has to get through. Furthermore, unlike the other prisoners, he is able to get used to prison life and almost doesn't understand how bad it is supposed to be. He does not feel extreme misery towards everything and instead thinks that everything is basically normal. He doesn't miss the people in his life outside of prison and seems to leave everything behind, rarely thinking about them. Relating to the definition of sociopath, Meursault has not shown any sadness about being in prison and does not even begin to feel guilt about the murder that he committed. A sociopath shares similar thoughts, almost seeing the world as a black and white place where nothing truly matters.

Meursault vs James (The End of the F***ing World)

A modern day example of Meursault's existential existence is found in the character James from the netflix series "The End of The F***ing World." For those who've never seen the show, it follows a boy named James who believes himself to be a psychopath who meets a troubled young girl named Alyssa from his school. Because he believes he is capable, he decides he will attempt to kill her. 

Meursault and James are not completely identical, James has a more active desire for violence whereas Meursault is not capable of computing complex emotions and basic human interactions. However, they both clearly lack the ability to be sympathetic to others and this characteristic shapes the plot of both of their stories. 

Marie and Alyssa both bring out the more ''human'' side of Meursault and James. For example, Meursault feels happy when he sees Marie smile and is able to be romantic with her in ways he cannot be with anyone else. Alyssa serves a similar purpose to James because she helps him realize his true intentions as they develop feelings for each other. Marie However, is a much less developed character than Alyssa. 

As readers, we only see Marie as a something to serve Meursault. She is the object and Meursault is the subject. Alyssa, on the other hand,  is given her own backstory and the audience sees multiple instances where she is speaking from her own perspective. Alyssa and James appear to have more mutual recognition in their relationship because of this. 

Overall, the two stories can classify their characters in a similar way: distant, unemotional, and unrelatable. Camus constructs Meursault to be a symbol of the existentialist existence by demonstrating the ways in which he doesn't participate in any social constructs. If one compares this to James, his character begins with and existential life, but conforms to the social construct of love. So in other words, one can be viewed as the prime existentialist while James transforms into the more typical person who takes part in social constructions and beliefs. 

Murderer or psychopath?

At the ending of part one we are left guessing what the outcome will be for Meursault. In the beginning of part 2, Meusault is being questioned by the police. When being questioned he says that he believes everyone should eventually die, when talking about his mother. the look the interviewer had was the same as anyone, disgust. Meursault didn't understand why it made him uncomfortable but wanted to apologize to keep them on good terms. And throughout the prosecution the questions seem to focus more on Meursault's inability to have feeling towards his moms death and how he doesn't believe in god. Instead of focusing on the crime that was committed, focusing on the factors that may have a hand in it, it kind of hides the fact that he killed a person. With this the question is raised whether Meursault should be considered a psychopath or a murderer.

Meursault's Algeria

Meursault published The Stranger in 1942, years before the tension between the French and Algerians came to fruition, during the Algerian War of Independence. At the same time of the publishing, the North African campaign of World War II had begun. France was under the Nazi's control, so British and American soldiers invaded the French colonies of North Africa in an attempt to free them. Due to this extensive fighting, one would assume that strains French-Arab relationship would be put on the back burner. The prevalence of the general "Arab" in the story says otherwise. Besides the Arab nurse from the beginning of the book, seemingly the only interactions Meursault has with Arab people is negative. The Arab characters do not have as much depth as the French or pied-noir characters, showing the distance between the two groups.

People Can Get Used to Anything

In the book, The Stranger by Albert Camus, the main character gets sent to jail for killing an Arab man. He killed this man with no motive, and shot the man a total of 5 times. Currently Meursault is looking at life in prison, or even the death penalty.

One of the passages in the book focuses on Meursault's internal thoughts. He explains to the reader that "my thoughts were still those of a free man", meaning he still felt the urge to take part in everyday activities. For instance, he still longs for a morning swim with his girlfriend Marie or a cigarette to get him buzzed. Although, one guard expresses, that this is the point of prison, the point is to take away the freedom you once had. 

Despite this, humans are extremely adaptable. If you feel you have nothing to live for you can focus on the little things. He uses the example of his lawyers ties, when he had nothing else to look forward to he would wait to see the color of his lawyers tie. Life is about the small victories. For instance, if he guessed the lawyers tie correct it would cause Meursault to feel alive again, even if it is only for a short time.

After all, life is a mental game. You can get through anything with a little grit and distraction. It is a lot harder said than done, but it is possible, and Meursault is a prime example. The key is to focus on the little things, Meursault choose to read a small newspaper scrap he found with a gruesome story on it countless times. He let the story take over is mind, he worked through all the possible outcomes and spent the majority of his time deconstructing the story in order to distract himself. I find it very fascinating that some humans are capable of such mindless thoughts, I am interested to see how this amount of distraction and grit will get Meursault through his time in prison or...won’t.

The Fault in Existentialism

It's safe to say that the past week of English class has definitely sparked conversations that have us all thinking. Whether the idea of existentialism has questioned beliefs you've held your entire life, or whether you have the idea down pat, existentialism is a concept that we should all seriously take the time to consider.

For me, I never knew how much of an existentialist's ideologies I would agree with. Now, I think that I see their point of view more clearly than I ever have before. However, there's still something about existentialism that irks me just a tiny bit.

The notion that, because in the end all human's are subject to the same fate (the randomness of death), you shouldn't worry too much about what goes on in your present life is a dangerously depriving mindset to take on. While feelings like love, or the definition of a family, are simply social constructions, they're still systems that exist and that we live with. To say to yourself that you shouldn't bother with those constructions because they become obsolete at the end of your life, is to deprive yourself of living in the moment, which is just as important as the fate of all humans.

I couldn't imagine living my life without falling in love, without creating my own version of a family, or without achieving what I perceive to be success. To an existentialist it wouldn't matter in the long run, but to me it's about what matters in the moments in which they're happening. It's not fair to sacrifice those experiences for the sake of finishing the race of life early.

Life Without Social Constructs

Camus’ argument in his essay The Myth of Sisyphus on the quality of Sisyphus’ life seems very inaccurate. He argues Sisyphus is living a happy life while pushing a rock up a mountain just to see it roll to the bottom when he reaches the top. Camus' existentialist beliefs bash social constructs, which is why Sisyphus is able to live a "happy" life. Although social constructs often get the worse of people, they also are necessary for having a structured and meaningful life. If everyone was an existentialist, life would be extremely boring and not worth living.

Imagine a world full of Meursaults. It would be terrible. Or imagine being Sisyphus, and claiming to be happy. There would be very little pleasure or fun in life, and Camus would be lying to say he would be fine living Sisyphus’ life. Just living to live isn’t happy by any means, and Camus doesn’t seem to understand that. It could be argued that feelings are a social construct, but they are also very natural, and life without emotion or feelings is unhealthy. People need motives in their life to be productive, and existentialists lack this, which makes the quality of the world go down, consequently making the quality of life decrease. Based off of Camus’ The Stranger, existentialists seem to be self-centered and mean, which is something this world definitely doesn’t need more of.

A Surprise Turn

As I read the end of part one and part two of The Stranger, I could not help but draw the parallel to current court cases like the George Zimmerman and Jason Van Dyke trials. As soon as I read Meursault's killing, I was almost positive he would walk away unscathed. The parallels were almost too perfect.

Meursault was an armed white man attacking a person of color with no effective arms. Though the Arab had the knife, Meursault was under no threat when he decided to pull the trigger.  Similarly to these current killings in America, the power was completely unbalanced, yet the one with more used it in the worst way possible.

As I read the end of part one, I could already see the story playing out. Meursault sits in jail for a couple weeks awaiting trial before walking away free on a claim of self-defense or similar defense. However, part two of the story was a pleasant surprise. I have become so accustomed to hearing white men walking free after killing a person of color that I couldn't imagine the trial to go fairly. Even last week, when Jason Van Dyke was ruled guilty in the trial of Laquan McDonald, I could hardly believe the news as I heard it.

To hear the story talk about Meursault staying in prison for an extended period and coming to terms with his internment was a new angle that simply felt right. Meursault is obviously a peculiar case, but seeing justice served against him was a surprise that I was not disappointed by. In a time where we have become highly desensitized to the injustices of judicial systems, the story of Meursault was an awakening to how justice should proceed.

My View on Camus Argument

I actually do agree with Camus’ reading of the myth because I think that it shows how powerful an individual can be, and that they can make a situation good for them no matter who is controlling things. One part of Camus’ argument about finding happiness through the absurd I found a little hard to agree with because it is most times the absurd that gives people their most troubles.

I do agree that Sisyphus is the hero in the story, and that through his resilience he was able to overcome the Gods that were making him push the rock up the hill. I am not sure how happy Sisyphus was while pushing the rock up the hill, so Camus’ argument that he began to enjoy what he was doing seems like a stretch to me. Overall, humans are built to overcome challenges and that is what Sisyphus did in this scenario.