What do you think?
Rate this book
§²§Ñ§Ù§Ò§å§ß§ä§å§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ú§ñ§ä §é§à§Ó§Ö§Ü
¡°§²§Ñ§Ù§Ò§å§ß§ä§å§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ú§ñ §é§à§Ó§Ö§Ü¡± ¨C §Ö §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§ñ §ß§Ñ §Ú§Õ§Ö§Ú§ä§Ö §ß§Ñ §Ò§å§ß§ä§Ñ ¨C §Þ§Ö§ä§Ñ§æ§Ú§Ù§Ú§é§Ö§ã§Ü§Ú §Ú §á§à§Ý§Ú§ä§Ú§é§Ö§ã§Ü§Ú ¨C §á§â§à§ä§Ú§Ó §ß§Ö§ã§á§â§Ñ§Ó§Ö§Õ§Ý§Ú§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §é§à§Ó§Ö§ê§Ü§Ú §Õ§Ö§Ý§Ñ. §¡§Ü§à §Ô§Ý§Ñ§Ó§ß§Ú§ñ §Ó§ì§á§â§à§ã §Ó ¡°§®§Ú§ä§Ñ §Ù§Ñ §³§Ú§Ù§Ú§æ¡± §Ö §ã§Ñ§Þ§à§å§Ò§Ú§Û§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à, §ä§à §Ó ¡°§²§Ñ§Ù§Ò§å§ß§ä§å§Ó§Ñ§ß§Ú§ñ §é§à§Ó§Ö§Ü¡± §ã§Ö §Ù§Ñ§ã§ñ§Ô§Ñ §Ó§ì§á§â§à§ã§Ñ §Ù§Ñ §ã§á§â§Ñ§Ó§Ö§Õ§Ý§Ú§Ó§à§ã§ä§ä§Ñ §ß§Ñ §å§Ò§Ú§Û§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à. §·§à§â§Ñ§ä§Ñ §Ó§Ú§ß§Ñ§Ô§Ú §ã§Ñ §ã§Ö §å§Ò§Ú§Ó§Ñ§Ý§Ú §Ó§Ù§Ñ§Ú§Þ§ß§à. §´§à§Ù§Ú, §Ü§à§Û§ä§à §å§Ò§Ú§Ö §á§à§Õ §Ó§Ý§Ú§ñ§ß§Ú§Ö§ä§à §ß§Ñ §Ñ§æ§Ö§Ü§ä §Ö §ã§ì§Õ§Ö§ß §Ú §á§à§ã§Ý§Ö §Ö§Ü§Ù§Ö§Ü§å§ä§Ú§â§Ñ§ß. §¯§à §Õ§ß§Ö§ã §Ù§Ñ§á§Ý§Ñ§ç§Ñ §á§â§Ö§Õ§ã§ä§Ñ§Ó§Ý§ñ§Ó§Ñ§ä §ß§Ö §ä§Ö§Ù§Ú §á§â§Ö§ã§ä§ì§á§Ý§Ö§ß§Ú§ñ §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §ã§Ñ §Ö§Õ§Ú§ß§Ú§è§Ú, §Ñ §Õ§ì§â§Ø§Ñ§Ó§ß§Ú§ä§Ö §å§á§â§Ñ§Ó§ß§Ú§è§Ú §Ü§à§Ú§ä§à §ç§Ý§Ñ§Õ§ß§à§Ü§â§ì§Ó§ß§à §Ú§Ù§á§â§Ñ§ë§Ñ§ä §ß§Ñ §ã§Þ§ì§â§ä §Þ§Ú§Ý§Ú§à§ß§Ú §ç§à§â§Ñ, §Ú §à§á§â§Ñ§Ó§Õ§Ñ§Ó§Ñ§ä §Þ§Ñ§ã§à§Ó§Ú§ä§Ö §å§Ò§Ú§Û§ã§ä§Ó§Ñ §ã §Ú§ß§ä§Ö§â§Ö§ã§Ú§ä§Ö §ß§Ñ §ß§Ñ§è§Ú§ñ§ä§Ñ, §Õ§ì§â§Ø§Ñ§Ó§ß§Ñ§ä§Ñ §Ò§Ö§Ù§à§á§Ñ§ã§ß§à§ã§ä, §á§â§à§Ô§â§Ö§ã§Ñ §ß§Ñ §é§à§Ó§Ö§é§Ö§ã§ä§Ó§à§ä§à §Ú §Ý§à§Ô§Ú§Ü§Ñ§ä§Ñ §ß§Ñ §Ú§ã§ä§à§â§Ú§ñ§ä§Ñ.
332 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1951
3,309 people are currently reading
70.7k people want to read
About the author
Albert Camus
938?books35k?followersWorks, such as the novels
The Stranger
(1942) and
The Plague
(1947), of Algerian-born French writer and philosopher Albert Camus concern the absurdity of the human condition; he won the Nobel Prize of 1957 for literature.
Origin and his experiences of this representative of non-metropolitan literature in the 1930s dominated influences in his thought and work.
He also adapted plays of Pedro Calder¨®n de la Barca, Lope de Vega, Dino Buzzati, and Requiem for a Nun of William Faulkner. One may trace his enjoyment of the theater back to his membership in l'Equipe, an Algerian group, whose "collective creation" R¨¦volte dans les Asturies (1934) was banned for political reasons.
Of semi-proletarian parents, early attached to intellectual circles of strongly revolutionary tendencies, with a deep interest, he came at the age of 25 years in 1938; only chance prevented him from pursuing a university career in that field. The man and the times met: Camus joined the resistance movement during the occupation and after the liberation served as a columnist for the newspaper Combat.
The essay Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), 1942, expounds notion of acceptance of the absurd of Camus with "the total absence of hope, which has nothing to do with despair, a continual refusal, which must not be confused with renouncement - and a conscious dissatisfaction."
Meursault, central character of L'?tranger (The Stranger), 1942, illustrates much of this essay: man as the nauseated victim of the absurd orthodoxy of habit, later - when the young killer faces execution - tempted by despair, hope, and salvation.
Besides his fiction and essays, Camus very actively produced plays in the theater (e.g., Caligula, 1944).
The time demanded his response, chiefly in his activities, but in 1947, Camus retired from political journalism.
Doctor Rieux of La Peste (The Plague), 1947, who tirelessly attends the plague-stricken citizens of Oran, enacts the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice, and confirms words: "We refuse to despair of mankind. Without having the unreasonable ambition to save men, we still want to serve them."
People also well know La Chute (The Fall), work of Camus in 1956.
Camus authored L'Exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) in 1957. His austere search for moral order found its aesthetic correlative in the classicism of his art. He styled of great purity, intense concentration, and rationality.
Camus died at the age of 46 years in a car accident near Sens in le Grand Fossard in the small town of Villeblevin.
Chinese °¢¶û±´¡¤¼ÓçÑ
Origin and his experiences of this representative of non-metropolitan literature in the 1930s dominated influences in his thought and work.
He also adapted plays of Pedro Calder¨®n de la Barca, Lope de Vega, Dino Buzzati, and Requiem for a Nun of William Faulkner. One may trace his enjoyment of the theater back to his membership in l'Equipe, an Algerian group, whose "collective creation" R¨¦volte dans les Asturies (1934) was banned for political reasons.
Of semi-proletarian parents, early attached to intellectual circles of strongly revolutionary tendencies, with a deep interest, he came at the age of 25 years in 1938; only chance prevented him from pursuing a university career in that field. The man and the times met: Camus joined the resistance movement during the occupation and after the liberation served as a columnist for the newspaper Combat.
The essay Le Mythe de Sisyphe (The Myth of Sisyphus), 1942, expounds notion of acceptance of the absurd of Camus with "the total absence of hope, which has nothing to do with despair, a continual refusal, which must not be confused with renouncement - and a conscious dissatisfaction."
Meursault, central character of L'?tranger (The Stranger), 1942, illustrates much of this essay: man as the nauseated victim of the absurd orthodoxy of habit, later - when the young killer faces execution - tempted by despair, hope, and salvation.
Besides his fiction and essays, Camus very actively produced plays in the theater (e.g., Caligula, 1944).
The time demanded his response, chiefly in his activities, but in 1947, Camus retired from political journalism.
Doctor Rieux of La Peste (The Plague), 1947, who tirelessly attends the plague-stricken citizens of Oran, enacts the revolt against a world of the absurd and of injustice, and confirms words: "We refuse to despair of mankind. Without having the unreasonable ambition to save men, we still want to serve them."
People also well know La Chute (The Fall), work of Camus in 1956.
Camus authored L'Exil et le royaume (Exile and the Kingdom) in 1957. His austere search for moral order found its aesthetic correlative in the classicism of his art. He styled of great purity, intense concentration, and rationality.
Camus died at the age of 46 years in a car accident near Sens in le Grand Fossard in the small town of Villeblevin.
Chinese °¢¶û±´¡¤¼ÓçÑ
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 947 reviews
September 12, 2021
(Book 530 from 1001 books) - L'Homme R¨¦volt¨¦ = The Rebel, Albert Camus
The Rebel is a 1951 book-length essay by Albert Camus, which treats both the metaphysical and the historical development of rebellion and revolution in societies, especially Western Europe.
Camus relates writers and artists as diverse as Epicurus and Lucretius, the Marquis de Sade, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Stirner, Andr¨¦ Breton, and others in an integrated, historical portrait of man in revolt.
Examining both rebellion and revolt, which may be seen as the same phenomenon in personal and social frames, Camus examines several 'counter cultural' figures and movements from the history of Western thought and art, noting the importance of each in the overall development of revolutionary thought and philosophy. This work has received ongoing interest, influencing modern philosophers and authors such as Paul Berman and others.
???????? ??? ??? ?? ?????: ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????????? (????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????) ??????? ????? ?????? ?????: ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? 1996??????
?????: ????? ????? ???????: ???? ????? ?????: ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? 1374? ?? 353?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? 1392? ??336?? ???? 9789643416065? ??? ???? ??????? ????? 1382? ?? 291?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ? 1386? ?? 312?? ???? 9789646629707? ????? ?????? - ????? ? ????????? ?? ????????? ?????? - ??? 20?
?????: ???????? ???????: ???? ????? ?????: ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? 1387? ?? 404?? ???? 9789644483837?
????? ? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? 1951??????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ? ?????????? ? ??????? ????? ????? ? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???????
????? ?????? ????? 17/07/1399???? ???????? 20/06/1400???? ???????? ?. ???????
The Rebel is a 1951 book-length essay by Albert Camus, which treats both the metaphysical and the historical development of rebellion and revolution in societies, especially Western Europe.
Camus relates writers and artists as diverse as Epicurus and Lucretius, the Marquis de Sade, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Stirner, Andr¨¦ Breton, and others in an integrated, historical portrait of man in revolt.
Examining both rebellion and revolt, which may be seen as the same phenomenon in personal and social frames, Camus examines several 'counter cultural' figures and movements from the history of Western thought and art, noting the importance of each in the overall development of revolutionary thought and philosophy. This work has received ongoing interest, influencing modern philosophers and authors such as Paul Berman and others.
???????? ??? ??? ?? ?????: ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ???? ????? ??????????? (????? ???? ?? ??????? ??????) ??????? ????? ?????? ?????: ??? ??????? ??? ????? ??? 1996??????
?????: ????? ????? ???????: ???? ????? ?????: ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? 1374? ?? 353?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? 1392? ??336?? ???? 9789643416065? ??? ???? ??????? ????? 1382? ?? 291?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ? 1386? ?? 312?? ???? 9789646629707? ????? ?????? - ????? ? ????????? ?? ????????? ?????? - ??? 20?
?????: ???????? ???????: ???? ????? ?????: ????? ??????? ?????? ??????? 1387? ?? 404?? ???? 9789644483837?
????? ? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?? ??? 1951??????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ? ?????????? ? ??????? ????? ????? ? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ????????? ? ????????? ????? ???????? ? ??????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ??????? ???????????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ???????
????? ?????? ????? 17/07/1399???? ???????? 20/06/1400???? ???????? ?. ???????
March 6, 2018
As long as mankind has told stories, the topic of rebellion has been central.
¡°Man¡¯s disobedience and the loss thereupon of Paradise¡±, as well as Satan¡¯s rebellion against the oppressive authority of God in Heaven are the two main strands in Milton¡¯s classic , to just name one of countless examples, summing up human experience in unforgettable drama.
Camus analyses the topic from a philosophical and historical viewpoint, and gives a perfect example for his thesis on revolution and the development of mankind by writing this long reflective essay, rebelling against the predominant ideas of his own time.
Starting with the metaphysical revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but always with the disastrous contemporary world post 1945 in mind, Camus embarks on a quest to establish the nature and consequence of revolts and revolutions, and to define the limits within which it is still possible to justify violence and stay human.
It is not an easy read, definitely not something to skim through in a couple of hours. I had to put it aside more than once and read up on other authors, as well as other texts by Camus, to eventually be able to finish it. I am happy I did, for Camus certainly was ¡°ahead of his time¡±, if I may use that absurd term in honour of his celebration of absurdity in general. Writing at a time when collectivist ideology was en vogue, especially in France dominated by Sartre, he makes a claim for a reevaluation of revolutionary developments focusing on individuals and their choices and responsibilities.
What is a rebel, he asks in the initial paragraph:
¡°Un homme qui dit non. Mais s¡¯il refuse, il ne renonce pas: c¡¯est aussi un homme qui dit oui, d¨¨s son premier mouvement.¡±
A human who decides that a limit is reached, and change has to happen.
Camus slowly guides the reader through the various causes and effects of religious, historical and political revolts and revolutions, as well as artistic revolutions in modern society. He explains the initiatives deriving from a sense of justice, and the consequences of absolute faith in the revolutionary cause, leading to its proverbial eating its own children and turning into its opposite, until a new revolution takes place.
While Communist followers embraced individual sacrifice and collective action, encouraging violence, even murder, with the argument that the future utopian fair state would justify any means, Camus pointed to the destructive power of justice without liberty of individuals, or liberty without justice to limit it:
¡°En face d¡¯une future r¨¦alisation de l¡¯id¨¦e, la vie humaine peut ¨ºtre tout ou rien. Plus est grand le foi que le calculateur met dans cette r¨¦alisation, moins vaut la vie humaine.¡±
This idea is made perfectly clear, and more accessible, in Camus¡¯ play , focusing on the historical events in Russia in 1905, culminating in the murder of the Archduke and the execution of Kaliayev, the socialist terrorist. The dialogues and conflicts between different revolutionaries make the different positions come alive. As Kaliayev and his positions are discussed in detail in L¡¯Homme r¨¦volt¨¦ as well, the play and the essay can be read as complements, artistic expression and philosophical reflection supporting the thesis from different perspectives and with different audience in mind.
For many of Camus¡¯ contemporaries, his middle way of trying to balance freedom and justice was almost treason against a religiously protected cause to change the future radically, but for our contemporary world, he seems almost prophetic. Many thinkers who have struggled to come to grips with the idea of freedom and justice have developed systems that build on Camus¡¯ thought of balancing ideal and reality to be able to achieve tangible change.
Amartya Sen¡¯s for example, strongly advocates a step-by-step reform programme of feasible projects, rather than theorising or giving up the whole idea of justice altogether because a perfect world is unachievable.
Amin Maalouf, on the other hand, has shown the disastrous effects of monofocal ideological or religious identification on society, leading to violence and murder in the name of an identity that is non-negotiable, and focused on ultimately - in future - uniting the entire world under the banner of one specific idea or belief. He also speaks up for diversity, not uniformity of the world as the goal, and for giving up trying to mould the world according to one narrow minded, exclusive worldview. However, both in Sen¡¯s and Maalouf¡¯s approach, freedom to develop individual traditions is limited by the duty to respect other individuals¡¯ equal rights to justice.
Camus¡¯ response to the missionary approach to humankind is:
¡°La vraie g¨¦n¨¦rosit¨¦ envers l¡¯avenir est ¨¤ tout donner au pr¨¦sent.¡±
If you work for a better world here and now, no human sacrifice in the name of a future utopia is justified. Balance of power is the democratic answer to the human condition:
¡°La libert¨¦ absolue raille la justice. La justice absolue nie la libert¨¦. Pour ¨ºtre f¨¦condes, les deux notions doivent trouver, l¡¯une dans l¡¯autre, leur limite. Aucun homme n¡¯estime sa condition libre, si elle n¡¯est pas juste en m¨ºme temps, ni juste si elle ne se trouve pas libre.¡±
We certainly need to consider his passionate plaidoyer for a balanced world without extremist terrorists of one kind or the other, approving of violence in the name of their presumed future uniform, worldwide utopia.
It is time to rebel and say NO! To dogmatic violence. And it is time to say YES! To all of humankind, by respecting every individual¡¯s right to freely develop their identity within the limits of justice.
Highly recommended!
¡°Man¡¯s disobedience and the loss thereupon of Paradise¡±, as well as Satan¡¯s rebellion against the oppressive authority of God in Heaven are the two main strands in Milton¡¯s classic , to just name one of countless examples, summing up human experience in unforgettable drama.
Camus analyses the topic from a philosophical and historical viewpoint, and gives a perfect example for his thesis on revolution and the development of mankind by writing this long reflective essay, rebelling against the predominant ideas of his own time.
Starting with the metaphysical revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries, but always with the disastrous contemporary world post 1945 in mind, Camus embarks on a quest to establish the nature and consequence of revolts and revolutions, and to define the limits within which it is still possible to justify violence and stay human.
It is not an easy read, definitely not something to skim through in a couple of hours. I had to put it aside more than once and read up on other authors, as well as other texts by Camus, to eventually be able to finish it. I am happy I did, for Camus certainly was ¡°ahead of his time¡±, if I may use that absurd term in honour of his celebration of absurdity in general. Writing at a time when collectivist ideology was en vogue, especially in France dominated by Sartre, he makes a claim for a reevaluation of revolutionary developments focusing on individuals and their choices and responsibilities.
What is a rebel, he asks in the initial paragraph:
¡°Un homme qui dit non. Mais s¡¯il refuse, il ne renonce pas: c¡¯est aussi un homme qui dit oui, d¨¨s son premier mouvement.¡±
A human who decides that a limit is reached, and change has to happen.
Camus slowly guides the reader through the various causes and effects of religious, historical and political revolts and revolutions, as well as artistic revolutions in modern society. He explains the initiatives deriving from a sense of justice, and the consequences of absolute faith in the revolutionary cause, leading to its proverbial eating its own children and turning into its opposite, until a new revolution takes place.
While Communist followers embraced individual sacrifice and collective action, encouraging violence, even murder, with the argument that the future utopian fair state would justify any means, Camus pointed to the destructive power of justice without liberty of individuals, or liberty without justice to limit it:
¡°En face d¡¯une future r¨¦alisation de l¡¯id¨¦e, la vie humaine peut ¨ºtre tout ou rien. Plus est grand le foi que le calculateur met dans cette r¨¦alisation, moins vaut la vie humaine.¡±
This idea is made perfectly clear, and more accessible, in Camus¡¯ play , focusing on the historical events in Russia in 1905, culminating in the murder of the Archduke and the execution of Kaliayev, the socialist terrorist. The dialogues and conflicts between different revolutionaries make the different positions come alive. As Kaliayev and his positions are discussed in detail in L¡¯Homme r¨¦volt¨¦ as well, the play and the essay can be read as complements, artistic expression and philosophical reflection supporting the thesis from different perspectives and with different audience in mind.
For many of Camus¡¯ contemporaries, his middle way of trying to balance freedom and justice was almost treason against a religiously protected cause to change the future radically, but for our contemporary world, he seems almost prophetic. Many thinkers who have struggled to come to grips with the idea of freedom and justice have developed systems that build on Camus¡¯ thought of balancing ideal and reality to be able to achieve tangible change.
Amartya Sen¡¯s for example, strongly advocates a step-by-step reform programme of feasible projects, rather than theorising or giving up the whole idea of justice altogether because a perfect world is unachievable.
Amin Maalouf, on the other hand, has shown the disastrous effects of monofocal ideological or religious identification on society, leading to violence and murder in the name of an identity that is non-negotiable, and focused on ultimately - in future - uniting the entire world under the banner of one specific idea or belief. He also speaks up for diversity, not uniformity of the world as the goal, and for giving up trying to mould the world according to one narrow minded, exclusive worldview. However, both in Sen¡¯s and Maalouf¡¯s approach, freedom to develop individual traditions is limited by the duty to respect other individuals¡¯ equal rights to justice.
Camus¡¯ response to the missionary approach to humankind is:
¡°La vraie g¨¦n¨¦rosit¨¦ envers l¡¯avenir est ¨¤ tout donner au pr¨¦sent.¡±
If you work for a better world here and now, no human sacrifice in the name of a future utopia is justified. Balance of power is the democratic answer to the human condition:
¡°La libert¨¦ absolue raille la justice. La justice absolue nie la libert¨¦. Pour ¨ºtre f¨¦condes, les deux notions doivent trouver, l¡¯une dans l¡¯autre, leur limite. Aucun homme n¡¯estime sa condition libre, si elle n¡¯est pas juste en m¨ºme temps, ni juste si elle ne se trouve pas libre.¡±
We certainly need to consider his passionate plaidoyer for a balanced world without extremist terrorists of one kind or the other, approving of violence in the name of their presumed future uniform, worldwide utopia.
It is time to rebel and say NO! To dogmatic violence. And it is time to say YES! To all of humankind, by respecting every individual¡¯s right to freely develop their identity within the limits of justice.
Highly recommended!
Want to read
February 8, 2017. . .As soon as a man, through lack of character, takes refuge in doctrine, as soon as crime reasons about itself, it multiplies like reason itself and assumes all the aspects of the syllogism. . . . The purpose of this essay is once again to face the reality of the present, which is logical crime, and examine meticulously the arguments by which it is justified.(p. 3)
This can be very interesting if, like me, you abhor historical Sovietism and all that it has wrought. I found that Sarah Bakewell's excellent new book provided just the background I needed to start this. Published in French in 1951, what I especially like so far is Camus's refusal to embrace the concept of the worker's collective. He writes only about the individual and his or her need for rebellion. A very brave book. For example:
Man's solidarity is founded upon rebellion, and rebellion, in its turn, can only find its justification in this solidarity. We have, then, the right to say that any rebellion which claims the right to deny or destroy this solidarity loses simultaneously its right to be called a rebellion and becomes in reality an acquiescence in murder. (p. 22)
How they must have hated him. The section on the lunatic Marquis de Sade is breathtaking. My disgust always prevented me from reading him for subtext. But Camus shows us how...
Two centuries ahead of his time and on a reduced scale, Sade extolled totalitarian societies in the name of unbridled freedom. . . . The history and the tragedy of our times really begin with him. . . . Our times have limited themselves to blending, in a curious manner, his dream of a universal republic and his technique of degradation. Finally, what he hated most, legal murder, has availed itself of the discoveries that he wanted to put to the service of instinctive murder. Crime, which he wanted to be the exotic and delicious fruit of unbridled vice, is no more today than the dismal habit of a police-controlled morality. Such are the surprises of literature. (p. 46)
Lucretius is touched upon, Valentinus and some of the other Gnostics, Milton's , Dandyism, the Romantics, Ivan Karamazov's moral position on crime¡ªparticularly patricide¡ªin Dostoyevsky's , and Nietzsche, of whom Camus said, "he recognized nihilism for what it was and examined it like a clinical fact." (p. 66)
"When the ends are great," Nietzsche wrote to his own detriment, "humanity employs other standards and no longer judges crimes as such even if it resorts to the most frightful means." He died in 1900, at the beginning of the century in which that pretension was to become fatal.(p. 77)
Rimbaud is "...the poet of rebellion¡ªthe greatest of all." His decision to stop writing being perhaps the ultimate act of rebellion. "He illustrates the struggle between the will to be and the desire for annihilation, between the yes and the no, which we have discovered again and again at every stage of rebellion." (p.91)
January 18, 2008
Although I've always been temperamentally skeptical of Utopias, I'm thankful to Camus for completely inoculating me, as a 15-year-old, against the various postures of chic revolt so common among the teenagers of bored, affluent nations. There was no silk-screened Che across my bosom. Revolutions aren't secular versions of the Rapture, in which the "bad" government disappears, to be replaced by a new, "good" one. Revolution is generally a social calamity, a nightmare of inhumanity: one regime dissolves, and in the already violent chaos of meltdown various factions kill, rape and pillage in a struggle for ascendancy; the leaders of said factions tend to be nihilistic knaves (Lenin, Hitler) who would have lived, ranted, been ignored and died safely on the fringes of the old society. This book is an awesome display of philosophical insight and moral awareness; next to Camus, Sartre is at best a naive bourgeois, from a distance lionizing the revolutionaries who would have destroyed him if they had had the chance, and at worst a cynical degenerate, a knowing flatterer of tyrants.
December 27, 2018
???????? ???????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ? ????? ??? ?? ??????????? ????? ???? ??? <???? ????> ??????
? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ?????? 33 ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????: ????? ????- ?????? ?????????- ???? ??????- ?????? ??????- ????- ??????? ????- ???- ??????? ?????- ???? ????- ????? ? ??????- ?????? ??????- ??????? ???? ??????
---------------------------------------------
????????? "?????? ????"? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ? ?????? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ????? <???> ???? ???... ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? <???> ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? <??> ?????? ? ????? ?????... ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???... ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ?? ????? ? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????
??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????... ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ???
??????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???. ????? ??????: ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???
?????? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ? ??? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???????... ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????.. ?? ????? ? ??????? ?? ???
??? ????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??????
???????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????. ?????? ? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????... ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ? ?????? ???... ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???. ????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???. ??? ???????? ? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???????????? ????? ???
?????? ? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ? ????? ????? ????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????... ?? ??? ??????? ??? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????. ??????? ????? ? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???.. ??? ???? ? ??? ????? ? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ???
---------------------------------------------
??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????
*
?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ??? ? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ? ????? ???? ?????
*
?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???.. ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ???.. ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??????
---------------------------------------------
???????? ? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ? ????? ???? ????? ?????
????????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ????
?<????? ????? ? ??????>
? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ?????? 33 ??? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??????: ????? ????- ?????? ?????????- ???? ??????- ?????? ??????- ????- ??????? ????- ???- ??????? ?????- ???? ????- ????? ? ??????- ?????? ??????- ??????? ???? ??????
---------------------------------------------
????????? "?????? ????"? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ? ?????? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ????? <???> ???? ???... ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? <???> ? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? <??> ?????? ? ????? ?????... ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ??????? ???... ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ?? ????? ? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????
??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????... ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ???
??????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???. ????? ??????: ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???
?????? ????? ????????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????? ? ??? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ???????... ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????.. ?? ????? ? ??????? ?? ???
??? ????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??????
???????? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????. ?????? ? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????... ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ? ?????? ???... ?? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???. ????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???. ??? ???????? ? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???????????? ????? ???
?????? ? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ? ????? ????? ????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????... ?? ??? ??????? ??? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????. ??????? ????? ? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???.. ??? ???? ? ??? ????? ? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ???
---------------------------------------------
??????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??????
*
?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ??? ? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ? ????? ???? ?????
*
?????? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???.. ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ???.. ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ??????
---------------------------------------------
???????? ? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ? ????? ???? ????? ?????
????????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ? ???? ???? ????
?<????? ????? ? ??????>
September 22, 2018
????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ? ???? ??? ???? ? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???. ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ????? ?? ???. ?????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????. ?????? ? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????. ????????? ? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????. ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??????. ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???!
?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ? ?? ??????? ?? ???. ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ? ?? ???? ?????? ???. ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ? ???? ???? ?? ?????.
?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???: ????? ?? ???. ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ?????. ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ??????. ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???.
???? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???. ????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ? ??? ????? ???? ???.
1397/06/31
?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ? ?? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ????. ?????????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????. ????? ????? ???? ??? ? ????? ????? ?? ?????: ?????. ? ????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ??????.? 7
?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ? ?? ??????? ?? ???. ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ? ?? ???? ?????? ???. ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????????? ? ???? ???? ?? ?????.
??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ???!? 80
?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???: ????? ?? ???. ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ?????. ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ??????. ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???.
???? ?????? ???? ? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???. ????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ????????? ? ??? ????? ???? ???.
?? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ? ????: ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???. ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???.? 307
1397/06/31
February 14, 2016
Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present.
Want to read
December 9, 2014Camus makes me think. He is the author who has the power to steer my thoughts, along the line of his beliefs. He is dead. If he were alive, I am sure he would have supported the readers' movement against the irrational outlook of GR administration as regarding the freedom of readers to express their views. He would have hailed their rebellion and joined in to support, because I am sure he understood that all readers have their own opinions. He wouldn't be bothered by criticism.
As the choreographer, Mark Morris () says :
¡°You don¡¯t have to like me, you don¡¯t have to like my work, but you have to be able to say something about it. I love a vicious review, really ripping something apart, there¡¯s nothing better than that! But it has to be done really courageously and accurately.¡±
I think Manny is one reviewer who has stood for what he feels is right and I join in to add my support by deciding not to review this work, which, as I read, I know will influence me for times to come.
Posted with Manny's permission, his deleted review:
In the shower just now, I suddenly had a Eureka moment. The aspect of this current censorship war that's been upsetting us most is the feeling of powerlessless. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ can arbitrarily change the rules, and they hardly even bother to respond when we complain. But we are not powerless. There are twenty million of us, and only a few dozen of them. We just need to get a little more organized, and we can easily resist.
So here's one concrete way to do it, based on the legend of Hercules. You will recall that Hercules had a difficult time against the Lernean Hydra; every time he cut off one of its heads, ten more grew back. We can do the same thing if we adopt the following plan:
1. Back up all your reviews, so that you have a copy of everything you have posted.
2. If you think that one of your reviews has been unreasonably deleted by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, repost it with an image of the Hydra at the top.
3. If you see someone else posting a Hydra review, make a copy of it and post it yourself.
We can improve this basic scheme with a little thought; for example, it would be better to have a place where we keep HTML marked-up source of reviews, so that they can immediately be reposted with the same formatting, and we need a plan for duplicating deleted shelves. But we can sort that out later. Without getting too bogged down in the details, I'm sure you see what will happen. The net result of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ unreasonably deleting a review will be that it immediately comes back in many different places.
People who know their Greek mythology will be aware that Hercules did in fact defeat the Hydra, and Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ can use the same method if they dare; they can close down the account of anyone who participates in the scheme. That will work, but I am not sure that anything less drastic will be effective. I think Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ will be reluctant to escalate to this level. A large proportion of the most active reviewers are now part of the protest movement, and they would be losing much of the content that makes the site valuable. Even more to the point, the media have already started to get interested (maybe you saw the article in the Washington Post). They would love the story, and it would create a mountain of bad publicity for Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ and Amazon.
I'd say the odds are heavily in our favor. Why don't we try it? I promise now to respond to any Hydra calls.
As the choreographer, Mark Morris () says :
¡°You don¡¯t have to like me, you don¡¯t have to like my work, but you have to be able to say something about it. I love a vicious review, really ripping something apart, there¡¯s nothing better than that! But it has to be done really courageously and accurately.¡±
I think Manny is one reviewer who has stood for what he feels is right and I join in to add my support by deciding not to review this work, which, as I read, I know will influence me for times to come.
Posted with Manny's permission, his deleted review:
In the shower just now, I suddenly had a Eureka moment. The aspect of this current censorship war that's been upsetting us most is the feeling of powerlessless. Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ can arbitrarily change the rules, and they hardly even bother to respond when we complain. But we are not powerless. There are twenty million of us, and only a few dozen of them. We just need to get a little more organized, and we can easily resist.
So here's one concrete way to do it, based on the legend of Hercules. You will recall that Hercules had a difficult time against the Lernean Hydra; every time he cut off one of its heads, ten more grew back. We can do the same thing if we adopt the following plan:
1. Back up all your reviews, so that you have a copy of everything you have posted.
2. If you think that one of your reviews has been unreasonably deleted by Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ, repost it with an image of the Hydra at the top.
3. If you see someone else posting a Hydra review, make a copy of it and post it yourself.
We can improve this basic scheme with a little thought; for example, it would be better to have a place where we keep HTML marked-up source of reviews, so that they can immediately be reposted with the same formatting, and we need a plan for duplicating deleted shelves. But we can sort that out later. Without getting too bogged down in the details, I'm sure you see what will happen. The net result of Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ unreasonably deleting a review will be that it immediately comes back in many different places.
People who know their Greek mythology will be aware that Hercules did in fact defeat the Hydra, and Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ can use the same method if they dare; they can close down the account of anyone who participates in the scheme. That will work, but I am not sure that anything less drastic will be effective. I think Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ will be reluctant to escalate to this level. A large proportion of the most active reviewers are now part of the protest movement, and they would be losing much of the content that makes the site valuable. Even more to the point, the media have already started to get interested (maybe you saw the article in the Washington Post). They would love the story, and it would create a mountain of bad publicity for Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ and Amazon.
I'd say the odds are heavily in our favor. Why don't we try it? I promise now to respond to any Hydra calls.
May 20, 2016
The Rebel is the longest and at some points most difficult essay I¡¯ve ever read. I think the title of the book itself is enough attractive for both Camus fans and other readers to choose this book.
But who is a rebel?!
A rebel is someone who says no ¨C to a master. He was a slave, a labor, perhaps a mechanical iron man built by bolts and nuts who did whatever he was said to do. But the moment he rises and rebels he feels the stream of blood in his veins. He feels he¡¯s alive. Despite this alive and fresh change, in order to move ahead, he needs to ¨C kill.
Atrocities have two reasons: love and philosophy. Heathcliff could kill anybody without bothering himself to ask why he killed. He was in love. But once came a day when people killed because they thought they had a rational philosophy for it. They killed because they believed in freedom, peace, equality, a country with no social class. At this point the truth was twisted. Where were they going? Nobody knew.
In 19th century human beings killed God. They proved that there wasn¡¯t any God for real in anytime. Nihilists rode their horses. A true nihilist killed himself a real one killed others. Now that there wasn¡¯t any God, and any purpose to living for, men tried to create their own rules.
In this book only the non-religious rebellion was discussed, however we can have rebellion based on religion. The ideologies are different but I think they have so many similarities with each other; both believe in future, both believe in universality, and both of them kill.
This book was written 60 years ago, but one can see that the idea is still new.
But who is a rebel?!
A rebel is someone who says no ¨C to a master. He was a slave, a labor, perhaps a mechanical iron man built by bolts and nuts who did whatever he was said to do. But the moment he rises and rebels he feels the stream of blood in his veins. He feels he¡¯s alive. Despite this alive and fresh change, in order to move ahead, he needs to ¨C kill.
Atrocities have two reasons: love and philosophy. Heathcliff could kill anybody without bothering himself to ask why he killed. He was in love. But once came a day when people killed because they thought they had a rational philosophy for it. They killed because they believed in freedom, peace, equality, a country with no social class. At this point the truth was twisted. Where were they going? Nobody knew.
In 19th century human beings killed God. They proved that there wasn¡¯t any God for real in anytime. Nihilists rode their horses. A true nihilist killed himself a real one killed others. Now that there wasn¡¯t any God, and any purpose to living for, men tried to create their own rules.
In this book only the non-religious rebellion was discussed, however we can have rebellion based on religion. The ideologies are different but I think they have so many similarities with each other; both believe in future, both believe in universality, and both of them kill.
This book was written 60 years ago, but one can see that the idea is still new.
November 21, 2008
Interesting book, though I also found it challenging to read. I don't know nearly enough about French literature or philosophy. But the basic question he asks is extremely relevant. We hate injustice, and intuitively it seems clearly right to revolt against unjust authority. So why does it nearly always go so wrong when we do so, and end up with an even worse injustice?
February 11, 2025
?????: ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???
??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ? ???? ????...? ¨C ????????
???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????. ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ????¡ª??? ??? ?????????? ?????. ???? ??? ?? ??? ????: ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???.? (???)
?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????: ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????.? (???) ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???????.? (???) ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????????. ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????: ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? (???)
??????? ?????
???????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????. ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ? ????? (???). ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? (???).
?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???.? (???) ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? (???). ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ????????????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????.? (???) ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???. ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? (???) ? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ??????? ??????? (??? ? ???).
??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????
???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????: ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ?????? (???) ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???. ??????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????????? ? ????? ?????. (???)
?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ??????????? ?????. ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????.? ? ?????????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ? ?????. ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ???????????????: ???????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????.? (????)
????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????
???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???: ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?????? ???.? (????) ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? (????). ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???.? (????)
????? ?? ????? ???????????
??????????? ???? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????. ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????: ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???. ?? ????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????????????? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ??? ???. ????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????. ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???? ???.
???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???. ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????.
?????? ???? ???? ????? ????
?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???????.? (????) ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????????. ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ???????. (????) ? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ???? ????? ??? ? ????? ?????. (????)
?????
???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???. ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ??????¡ª?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. ??? ???? ????? ???: ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????.
??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ? ???? ????...? ¨C ????????
???? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????. ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ? ????????? ?? ?????? ????? ????¡ª??? ??? ?????????? ?????. ???? ??? ?? ??? ????: ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???.? (???)
?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ??????????? ? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??????: ??? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????.? (???) ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???????.? (???) ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????????. ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????: ???? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ??? ???????? (???)
??????? ?????
???????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???????. ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ? ????? (???). ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? (???).
?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ???.? (???) ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? (???). ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ????????????????? ?????? ???????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????????.? (???) ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???. ?? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? (???) ? ??????????? ????? ?????????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ? ?? ??????? ??????? (??? ? ???).
??? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????
???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??????: ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ?????? (???) ? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ???. ??????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???????????? ? ????? ?????. (???)
?? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ? ?????????? ?? ?? ???? ??????????? ?????. ??????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????.? ? ?????????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ? ?????. ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ???????????????: ???????????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?????.? (????)
????? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????
???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???: ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?????? ???.? (????) ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? (????). ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???.? (????)
????? ?? ????? ???????????
??????????? ???? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????. ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????: ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???. ?? ????? ?? ???????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????????????? ?????? ? ???????? ?? ??? ???. ????????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?????. ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???????? ? ???? ???? ???.
???? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???. ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????.
?????? ???? ???? ????? ????
?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ? ?? ?? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???????.? (????) ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????????. ??????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ???????. (????) ? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ???? ????? ??? ? ????? ?????. (????)
?????
???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???. ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ??????¡ª?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???????? ????? ?? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??????. ??? ???? ????? ???: ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????.
Read
May 14, 2016?? ??? ????? ? ?? ? ??? ????? ? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????.
????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ????? ?????.
????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ????????? ? ????? ?????.
August 7, 2021
'I rebel, therefore we are.'
Attached to this review:
/review/show...
ALSO SEE:
Rebellion:
Rationalism and totality:
Other definitions of liberty:
History of ideas in the 19th century:
Quotes:
'Le fascisme, c'est le m¨¦pris, en effet. Inversement, toute forme de m¨¦pris, si elle intervient en politique, pr¨¦pare ou instaure le fascisme.
[...]
On n'interpose pas entre le chef et le peuple un organisme de conciliation ou de m¨¦diation, mais l'appareil justement, c'est-¨¤-dire le parti qui est l'¨¦manation du chef et l'outil de sa volont¨¦ d'oppression.'
'La libert¨¦ absolue, c'est le droit pour le plus fort de dominer. Elle maintient donc les conflits qui profitent ¨¤ l'injustice. La justice absolue passe par la suppression de toute contradiction : elle d¨¦truit la libert¨¦.'
'La r¨¦volte n'est nullement une revendication de libert¨¦ totale. Au contraire, la r¨¦volte fait le proc¨¨s de la libert¨¦ totale. Elle conteste justement le pouvoir illimit¨¦ qui autorise un sup¨¦rieur ¨¤ violer la fronti¨¨re interdite. Loin de revendiquer une ind¨¦pendance g¨¦n¨¦rale, le r¨¦volt¨¦ veut qu'il soit reconnu que la libert¨¦ a ses limites partout o¨´ se trouve un ¨ºtre humain, la limite ¨¦tant pr¨¦cis¨¦ment le pouvoir de r¨¦volte de cet ¨ºtre. [...] La libert¨¦ qu'il r¨¦clame, il la revendique pour tous ; celle qu'il refuse, il l'interdit ¨¤ tous. Il n'est pas seulement esclave contre ma?tre, mais aussi homme contre le monde du ma?tre et de l'esclave.'
'Le monde marche ¨¤ l'aventure, il n'a pas de finalit¨¦. Dieu est donc inutile, puisqu'il ne veut rien. S'il voulait quelque chose [...] il lui faudrait assumer ? une somme de douleur et d'illogisme qui abaisserait la valeur totale du devenir ?. [...] Priv¨¦ de la volont¨¦ divine, le monde est ¨¦galement priv¨¦ d'unit¨¦ et de finalit¨¦. C'est pourquoi le monde ne peut ¨ºtre jug¨¦.'
'L'asc¨¨se nietzsch¨¦enne, partie de la reconnaissance de la fatalit¨¦, aboutit ¨¤ une divinisation de la fatalit¨¦. [...] Le mouvement de r¨¦volte o¨´ l'homme revendiquait son ¨ºtre propre dispara?t sans la soumission absolue de l'individu au devenir. L'amor fati remplace ce qui ¨¦tait un odium fati.'
'Nietzsche est bien ce qu'il reconnaissait ¨ºtre : la conscience la plus aigu? du nihilisme. Le pas d¨¦cisif qu'il fait accomplir ¨¤ l'esprit de r¨¦volte consiste ¨¤ le faire sauter de la n¨¦gation de l'id¨¦al ¨¤ la s¨¦cularisation de l'id¨¦al. Puisque le salut de l'homme ne se fait pas en Dieu, il doit se faire sur la terre. Puisque le monde n'a pas de direction, l'homme, ¨¤ partir du moment o¨´ il l'accepte, doit lui en donner une, qui aboutisse ¨¤ une humanit¨¦ sup¨¦rieure.
'Le nietzsch¨¦isme, th¨¦orie de la volont¨¦ de puissance individuelle, ¨¦tait condamn¨¦ ¨¤ s'inscrire dans une volont¨¦ de puissance totale. Il n'¨¦tait rien sans l'empire du monde. Nietzsche ha?ssait sans doute les libres-penseurs et les humanitaires. Il prenait les mots ? libert¨¦ de l'esprit ? dans leur sens le plus extr¨ºme : la divinit¨¦ de l'esprit individuel. Mais il ne pouvait pas emp¨ºcher que les libres-penseurs partissent du m¨ºme fait historique que lui, la mort de Dieu, et que les cons¨¦quences fussent les m¨ºmes. Nietzsche a bien vu que l'humanitarisme n'¨¦tait qu'un christianisme priv¨¦ de justification sup¨¦rieure, qui conservait les causes finales en rejetant la cause premi¨¨re. Mais il n'a pas aper?u que les doctrines d'¨¦mancipation socialistes devaient prendre en charge, par une logique in¨¦vitable du nihilisme, ce dont lui-m¨ºme avait r¨ºv¨¦ : la surhumanit¨¦.'
'L'homme, au bout de sa r¨¦volte, s'enfermait; sa grande libert¨¦ consistait seulement, du ch?teau tragique de Sade au camp de concentration, ¨¤ b?tir la prison de ses crimes. Mais l'¨¦tat de si¨¨ge peu ¨¤ peu se g¨¦n¨¦ralise, la revendication de libert¨¦ veut s'¨¦tendre ¨¤ tous. Il faut b?tir alors le seul royaume qui s'oppose ¨¤ celui de la gr?ce, celui de la justice, et r¨¦unir enfin la communaut¨¦ humaine sur les d¨¦bris de la communaut¨¦ divine.'
'La revendication de justice aboutit ¨¤ l'injustice si elle n'est pas fond¨¦e d'abord sur une justification ¨¦thique de la justice. Faute de quoi, le crime aussi, un jour, devient devoir. Quand le mal et le bien sont r¨¦int¨¦gr¨¦s dans le temps, confondus avec les ¨¦v¨¨nements, rien n'est plus bon ou mauvais, mais seulement pr¨¦matur¨¦ ou p¨¦rim¨¦. Qui d¨¦cidera de l'opportunit¨¦, sinon l'opportuniste ?'
'Dans la pens¨¦e fixe de son temps, la pens¨¦e allemande a introduit tout d'un coup un mouvement irr¨¦sistible. La v¨¦rit¨¦, la raison et la justice se sont brusquement incarn¨¦es dans le devenir du monde. Mais, en les jetant dans une acc¨¦l¨¦ration perp¨¦tuelle, l'id¨¦ologie allemande confondait leur ¨ºtre avec leur mouvement et fixait l'av¨¨nement de cet ¨ºtre ¨¤ la fin du devenir historique, s'il en ¨¦tait une. Ces valeurs ont cess¨¦ d'¨ºtre des rep¨¨res pour devenir des buts. Quant aux moyens d'atteindre ces buts, c'est ¨¤ dire la vie et l'histoire, aucune valeur pr¨¦existante ne pouvait les guider. Au contraire, une grande partie de la d¨¦monstration h¨¦g¨¦lienne consiste ¨¤ prouver que la conscience morale, dans sa banalit¨¦, celle qui ob¨¦it ¨¤ la justice et ¨¤ la v¨¦rit¨¦ comme si ces valeurs existaient hors du monde, compromet, pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, l'av¨¨nement de ces valeurs. La r¨¨gle de l'action est donc devenue l'action elle-m¨ºme qui doit se d¨¦rouler dans les t¨¦n¨¨bres en attendant l'illumination finale. La raison, annex¨¦e par ce romantisme, n'est plus qu'une passion inflexible.
[...] L'action n'est plus qu'un calcul en fonction des r¨¦sultats, non des principes. Elle se confond, par cons¨¦quent, avec un mouvement perp¨¦tuel.'
=> Ceci dit, Camus prend l'exemple de Napol¨¦on...
Autrement dit ce calcul rationnel de l'efficacit¨¦ des moyens mis au service d'une fin est inscrite dans le mouvement de la R¨¦volution de 1789, puisque la R¨¦volution permet justement l'av¨¨nement d'un Barras, puis d'un Napol¨¦on. Encore qu'on pourrait remonter bien plus en amont encore.'
[Sur Hegel et ses h¨¦ritiers: ]
'Le cynisme, la divinisation de l'histoire et de la mati¨¨re, la terreur individuelle ou le crime d'?tat, ces cons¨¦quences d¨¦mesur¨¦es vont alors na?tre, toutes arm¨¦es, d'une ¨¦quivoque conception du monde qui remet ¨¤ la seule histoire de produire les valeurs et la v¨¦rit¨¦. Si rien ne peut se concevoir clairement avant que la v¨¦rit¨¦, ¨¤ la fin des temps ait ¨¦t¨¦ mise au jour, toute action est arbitraire, la force finit par r¨¦gner. [...] L'attitude de Hegel consiste ¨¤ dire : ? Ceci est la v¨¦rit¨¦, qui nous para?t pourtant l'erreur, mais qui est vraie, justement parce qu'il lui arrive d'¨ºtre l'erreur. Quant ¨¤ la preuve, ce n'est pas moi, mais l'histoire, ¨¤ son ach¨¨vement, qui l'administrera. ? Une pareille pr¨¦tention ne peut entra?ner que deux attitudes : ou la suspension de toute affirmation jusqu'¨¤ l'administration de la preuve, ou l'affirmation de tout ce qui, dans l'histoire, semble vou¨¦ au succ¨¨s, la force en premier lieu. Dans les deux cas, un nihilisme.'
'On ne comprend pas en tout cas la pens¨¦e r¨¦volutionnaire du XXe si¨¨cle si on n¨¦glige le fait que, par une fortune malheureuse, elle a puis¨¦ une grande partie de son inspiration dans une philosophie du conformisme et de l'opportunisme. La vraie r¨¦volte n'est pas mise en cause par les perversions de cette pens¨¦e.'
'Le marxisme n'est pas scientifique ; il est, au mieux, scientiste. Il fait ¨¦clater le divorce profond qui s'est ¨¦tabli entre la raison scientifique, f¨¦cond instrument de recherche, de pens¨¦e, et m¨ºme de r¨¦volte, et la raison historique, invent¨¦e par l'id¨¦ologie allemande dans sa n¨¦gation de tout principe. [...] [La raison historique] m¨¨ne le monde en m¨ºme temps qu'elle pr¨¦tend le juger.'
'Si le socialisme, dit un essayiste libertaire [Ernestan], est un ¨¦ternel devenir, ses moyens sont sa fin. Exactement, il n'a pas de fin, il n'a que des moyens qui ne sont garantis par rien s'ils ne sont garantis par une valeur ¨¦trang¨¨re au devenir. [...]
Il n'y a donc dans cet univers, aucune raison d'imaginer la fin de l'histoire. Elle est pourtant la seule justification des sacrifices demand¨¦s, au nom du marxisme, ¨¤ l'humanit¨¦. Mais elle n'a pas d'autres fondement raisonnable qu'une p¨¦tition de principe qui introduit dans l'histoire, royaume qu'on voulait unique et suffisant, une valeur ¨¦trang¨¨re ¨¤ l'histoire. Comme cette valeur est en m¨ºme temps ¨¦trang¨¨res ¨¤ la morale, elle n'est pas ¨¤ proprement parler une valeur sur laquelle on puisse r¨¦gler sa conduite, elle est un dogme sans fondement qu'on peut faire sien dans le mouvement d¨¦sesp¨¦r¨¦ d'une pens¨¦e qui ¨¦touffe de solitude ou de nihilisme, ou qu'on se verra imposer par ceux ¨¤ qui le dogme profite. La fin de l'histoire n'est pas une valeur d'exemple et de perfectionnement. Elle est une valeur d'arbitraire et de terreur.'
'L'Empire suppose une n¨¦gation et une certitude : la certitude de l'infinie plasticit¨¦ de l'homme et la n¨¦gation de la nature humaine. Les techniques de propagande servent ¨¤ mesurer cette plasticit¨¦ et tentent de faire co?ncider r¨¦flexion et r¨¦flexe conditionn¨¦.'
'Qu'est-ce que le roman, en effet, sinon cet univers o¨´ l'action trouve sa forme, o¨´ les mots de la fin sont prononc¨¦s, les ¨ºtres livr¨¦s aux ¨ºtres, o¨´ toute vie prend le visage du destin. Le monde romanesque n'est que la correction de ce monde-ci, suivant le d¨¦sir profond de l'homme.'
----
The War Room in Dr Strangelove - Stanley Kubrick (1964)
Attached to this review:
/review/show...
ALSO SEE:
Rebellion:
Rationalism and totality:
Other definitions of liberty:
History of ideas in the 19th century:
Quotes:
'Le fascisme, c'est le m¨¦pris, en effet. Inversement, toute forme de m¨¦pris, si elle intervient en politique, pr¨¦pare ou instaure le fascisme.
[...]
On n'interpose pas entre le chef et le peuple un organisme de conciliation ou de m¨¦diation, mais l'appareil justement, c'est-¨¤-dire le parti qui est l'¨¦manation du chef et l'outil de sa volont¨¦ d'oppression.'
'La libert¨¦ absolue, c'est le droit pour le plus fort de dominer. Elle maintient donc les conflits qui profitent ¨¤ l'injustice. La justice absolue passe par la suppression de toute contradiction : elle d¨¦truit la libert¨¦.'
'La r¨¦volte n'est nullement une revendication de libert¨¦ totale. Au contraire, la r¨¦volte fait le proc¨¨s de la libert¨¦ totale. Elle conteste justement le pouvoir illimit¨¦ qui autorise un sup¨¦rieur ¨¤ violer la fronti¨¨re interdite. Loin de revendiquer une ind¨¦pendance g¨¦n¨¦rale, le r¨¦volt¨¦ veut qu'il soit reconnu que la libert¨¦ a ses limites partout o¨´ se trouve un ¨ºtre humain, la limite ¨¦tant pr¨¦cis¨¦ment le pouvoir de r¨¦volte de cet ¨ºtre. [...] La libert¨¦ qu'il r¨¦clame, il la revendique pour tous ; celle qu'il refuse, il l'interdit ¨¤ tous. Il n'est pas seulement esclave contre ma?tre, mais aussi homme contre le monde du ma?tre et de l'esclave.'
'Le monde marche ¨¤ l'aventure, il n'a pas de finalit¨¦. Dieu est donc inutile, puisqu'il ne veut rien. S'il voulait quelque chose [...] il lui faudrait assumer ? une somme de douleur et d'illogisme qui abaisserait la valeur totale du devenir ?. [...] Priv¨¦ de la volont¨¦ divine, le monde est ¨¦galement priv¨¦ d'unit¨¦ et de finalit¨¦. C'est pourquoi le monde ne peut ¨ºtre jug¨¦.'
'L'asc¨¨se nietzsch¨¦enne, partie de la reconnaissance de la fatalit¨¦, aboutit ¨¤ une divinisation de la fatalit¨¦. [...] Le mouvement de r¨¦volte o¨´ l'homme revendiquait son ¨ºtre propre dispara?t sans la soumission absolue de l'individu au devenir. L'amor fati remplace ce qui ¨¦tait un odium fati.'
'Nietzsche est bien ce qu'il reconnaissait ¨ºtre : la conscience la plus aigu? du nihilisme. Le pas d¨¦cisif qu'il fait accomplir ¨¤ l'esprit de r¨¦volte consiste ¨¤ le faire sauter de la n¨¦gation de l'id¨¦al ¨¤ la s¨¦cularisation de l'id¨¦al. Puisque le salut de l'homme ne se fait pas en Dieu, il doit se faire sur la terre. Puisque le monde n'a pas de direction, l'homme, ¨¤ partir du moment o¨´ il l'accepte, doit lui en donner une, qui aboutisse ¨¤ une humanit¨¦ sup¨¦rieure.
'Le nietzsch¨¦isme, th¨¦orie de la volont¨¦ de puissance individuelle, ¨¦tait condamn¨¦ ¨¤ s'inscrire dans une volont¨¦ de puissance totale. Il n'¨¦tait rien sans l'empire du monde. Nietzsche ha?ssait sans doute les libres-penseurs et les humanitaires. Il prenait les mots ? libert¨¦ de l'esprit ? dans leur sens le plus extr¨ºme : la divinit¨¦ de l'esprit individuel. Mais il ne pouvait pas emp¨ºcher que les libres-penseurs partissent du m¨ºme fait historique que lui, la mort de Dieu, et que les cons¨¦quences fussent les m¨ºmes. Nietzsche a bien vu que l'humanitarisme n'¨¦tait qu'un christianisme priv¨¦ de justification sup¨¦rieure, qui conservait les causes finales en rejetant la cause premi¨¨re. Mais il n'a pas aper?u que les doctrines d'¨¦mancipation socialistes devaient prendre en charge, par une logique in¨¦vitable du nihilisme, ce dont lui-m¨ºme avait r¨ºv¨¦ : la surhumanit¨¦.'
'L'homme, au bout de sa r¨¦volte, s'enfermait; sa grande libert¨¦ consistait seulement, du ch?teau tragique de Sade au camp de concentration, ¨¤ b?tir la prison de ses crimes. Mais l'¨¦tat de si¨¨ge peu ¨¤ peu se g¨¦n¨¦ralise, la revendication de libert¨¦ veut s'¨¦tendre ¨¤ tous. Il faut b?tir alors le seul royaume qui s'oppose ¨¤ celui de la gr?ce, celui de la justice, et r¨¦unir enfin la communaut¨¦ humaine sur les d¨¦bris de la communaut¨¦ divine.'
'La revendication de justice aboutit ¨¤ l'injustice si elle n'est pas fond¨¦e d'abord sur une justification ¨¦thique de la justice. Faute de quoi, le crime aussi, un jour, devient devoir. Quand le mal et le bien sont r¨¦int¨¦gr¨¦s dans le temps, confondus avec les ¨¦v¨¨nements, rien n'est plus bon ou mauvais, mais seulement pr¨¦matur¨¦ ou p¨¦rim¨¦. Qui d¨¦cidera de l'opportunit¨¦, sinon l'opportuniste ?'
'Dans la pens¨¦e fixe de son temps, la pens¨¦e allemande a introduit tout d'un coup un mouvement irr¨¦sistible. La v¨¦rit¨¦, la raison et la justice se sont brusquement incarn¨¦es dans le devenir du monde. Mais, en les jetant dans une acc¨¦l¨¦ration perp¨¦tuelle, l'id¨¦ologie allemande confondait leur ¨ºtre avec leur mouvement et fixait l'av¨¨nement de cet ¨ºtre ¨¤ la fin du devenir historique, s'il en ¨¦tait une. Ces valeurs ont cess¨¦ d'¨ºtre des rep¨¨res pour devenir des buts. Quant aux moyens d'atteindre ces buts, c'est ¨¤ dire la vie et l'histoire, aucune valeur pr¨¦existante ne pouvait les guider. Au contraire, une grande partie de la d¨¦monstration h¨¦g¨¦lienne consiste ¨¤ prouver que la conscience morale, dans sa banalit¨¦, celle qui ob¨¦it ¨¤ la justice et ¨¤ la v¨¦rit¨¦ comme si ces valeurs existaient hors du monde, compromet, pr¨¦cis¨¦ment, l'av¨¨nement de ces valeurs. La r¨¨gle de l'action est donc devenue l'action elle-m¨ºme qui doit se d¨¦rouler dans les t¨¦n¨¨bres en attendant l'illumination finale. La raison, annex¨¦e par ce romantisme, n'est plus qu'une passion inflexible.
[...] L'action n'est plus qu'un calcul en fonction des r¨¦sultats, non des principes. Elle se confond, par cons¨¦quent, avec un mouvement perp¨¦tuel.'
=> Ceci dit, Camus prend l'exemple de Napol¨¦on...
Autrement dit ce calcul rationnel de l'efficacit¨¦ des moyens mis au service d'une fin est inscrite dans le mouvement de la R¨¦volution de 1789, puisque la R¨¦volution permet justement l'av¨¨nement d'un Barras, puis d'un Napol¨¦on. Encore qu'on pourrait remonter bien plus en amont encore.'
[Sur Hegel et ses h¨¦ritiers: ]
'Le cynisme, la divinisation de l'histoire et de la mati¨¨re, la terreur individuelle ou le crime d'?tat, ces cons¨¦quences d¨¦mesur¨¦es vont alors na?tre, toutes arm¨¦es, d'une ¨¦quivoque conception du monde qui remet ¨¤ la seule histoire de produire les valeurs et la v¨¦rit¨¦. Si rien ne peut se concevoir clairement avant que la v¨¦rit¨¦, ¨¤ la fin des temps ait ¨¦t¨¦ mise au jour, toute action est arbitraire, la force finit par r¨¦gner. [...] L'attitude de Hegel consiste ¨¤ dire : ? Ceci est la v¨¦rit¨¦, qui nous para?t pourtant l'erreur, mais qui est vraie, justement parce qu'il lui arrive d'¨ºtre l'erreur. Quant ¨¤ la preuve, ce n'est pas moi, mais l'histoire, ¨¤ son ach¨¨vement, qui l'administrera. ? Une pareille pr¨¦tention ne peut entra?ner que deux attitudes : ou la suspension de toute affirmation jusqu'¨¤ l'administration de la preuve, ou l'affirmation de tout ce qui, dans l'histoire, semble vou¨¦ au succ¨¨s, la force en premier lieu. Dans les deux cas, un nihilisme.'
'On ne comprend pas en tout cas la pens¨¦e r¨¦volutionnaire du XXe si¨¨cle si on n¨¦glige le fait que, par une fortune malheureuse, elle a puis¨¦ une grande partie de son inspiration dans une philosophie du conformisme et de l'opportunisme. La vraie r¨¦volte n'est pas mise en cause par les perversions de cette pens¨¦e.'
'Le marxisme n'est pas scientifique ; il est, au mieux, scientiste. Il fait ¨¦clater le divorce profond qui s'est ¨¦tabli entre la raison scientifique, f¨¦cond instrument de recherche, de pens¨¦e, et m¨ºme de r¨¦volte, et la raison historique, invent¨¦e par l'id¨¦ologie allemande dans sa n¨¦gation de tout principe. [...] [La raison historique] m¨¨ne le monde en m¨ºme temps qu'elle pr¨¦tend le juger.'
'Si le socialisme, dit un essayiste libertaire [Ernestan], est un ¨¦ternel devenir, ses moyens sont sa fin. Exactement, il n'a pas de fin, il n'a que des moyens qui ne sont garantis par rien s'ils ne sont garantis par une valeur ¨¦trang¨¨re au devenir. [...]
Il n'y a donc dans cet univers, aucune raison d'imaginer la fin de l'histoire. Elle est pourtant la seule justification des sacrifices demand¨¦s, au nom du marxisme, ¨¤ l'humanit¨¦. Mais elle n'a pas d'autres fondement raisonnable qu'une p¨¦tition de principe qui introduit dans l'histoire, royaume qu'on voulait unique et suffisant, une valeur ¨¦trang¨¨re ¨¤ l'histoire. Comme cette valeur est en m¨ºme temps ¨¦trang¨¨res ¨¤ la morale, elle n'est pas ¨¤ proprement parler une valeur sur laquelle on puisse r¨¦gler sa conduite, elle est un dogme sans fondement qu'on peut faire sien dans le mouvement d¨¦sesp¨¦r¨¦ d'une pens¨¦e qui ¨¦touffe de solitude ou de nihilisme, ou qu'on se verra imposer par ceux ¨¤ qui le dogme profite. La fin de l'histoire n'est pas une valeur d'exemple et de perfectionnement. Elle est une valeur d'arbitraire et de terreur.'
'L'Empire suppose une n¨¦gation et une certitude : la certitude de l'infinie plasticit¨¦ de l'homme et la n¨¦gation de la nature humaine. Les techniques de propagande servent ¨¤ mesurer cette plasticit¨¦ et tentent de faire co?ncider r¨¦flexion et r¨¦flexe conditionn¨¦.'
'Qu'est-ce que le roman, en effet, sinon cet univers o¨´ l'action trouve sa forme, o¨´ les mots de la fin sont prononc¨¦s, les ¨ºtres livr¨¦s aux ¨ºtres, o¨´ toute vie prend le visage du destin. Le monde romanesque n'est que la correction de ce monde-ci, suivant le d¨¦sir profond de l'homme.'
----
The War Room in Dr Strangelove - Stanley Kubrick (1964)
July 18, 2019
There was a time a few years ago when I read a lot of Camus, there was a big binge on him in fact, as I was deeply interested in his work, both fiction and non-fiction. But that interest slowly started to wear down and he was eventually nudged aside, because, dare I say it, I'd had enough of him. Not because he wasn't a brilliant writer, of course he was, but because I simply read too much of him. Well, I really should have read this back then, when his books really fascinated me more. Camus here explores the act of rebellion through the history of metaphysical and political revolt. He looks at the concepts of the Marquis de Sade, Baudelaire,Dostolevsky, Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel to name a few. He conceives of revolt as an essentially positive act, at once against and for something. Man's hope lies in the rebel who revolts in the name of moderation and life, who joins through his act in the common fate, who tempers his revolt with a restraint that leads away from the vicious circling to successive dictatorships. This exploration into nihilism and rebellion in which Camus is full of ideas to point out new, stimulating areas of thought will be appreciated by the intellectual type and those studying philosophy. Camus's essays and non-fiction though aren't really aimed at the casual reader. The Rebel, although well written and though thought-provoking, didn't stimulate me, philosophically speaking, as much as what I'd hoped it would. I though the big break of not reading him would have made him feel fresh, like when I first read him, but it didn't. I've moved on, in literary terms anyway. It's a 3/5 for me.
August 20, 2014
???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ? ????? ??? ??? ???.?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ???????????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ????????? ? ?????? ? ??? .?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ? ???? ?? ? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ? ????? ????????? ????? ? ????? ?? ??? ????? .???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????
December 25, 2023
Pro?ita? , boli te glava dok se probija? kroz gustinu ideja, ali na kraju zaklju?i? da je to intelektualni poduhvat kakav se te?ko ponavlja. Deluje da je nemogu?e da te i ovaj esej du?ine knjige povede na takvo putovanje.
Nije lako ?tivo, ali vredi se i ovde vra?ati, guglovati reference - vredi i priznati da ?ak i kad se trudi?, ponekad ne?e? uspeti da se popne? na taj intelektualni nivo. Lep?e bi bilo razgovarati u?ivo, ali danas smo vi?e prisiljeni da fotografi?emo tekst, pa ga ubacujemo u ChatGPT, ponovo bivati iznena?en kako GPT-4 uspeva neke zaklju?ke da stavi u pravi kontekst.
"?ta je pobunjeni ?ovek? ?ovek koji ka?e 'ne'. Rob koji ?itavog ?ivota prima nare?enja, novi nalog odjednom do?ivljava kao neprihvatljiv. 'Ovo suvi?e dugo traje', 'dovde da, odavde ne'... To 'ne' potvr?uje postojanje granice. On se suprotstavlja poretku koji gu?i neko pravo i ukazuje na pravo ?ije kr?enje ne?e trpeti. ?utati zna?i ostaviti utisak da ?ovek nema stav, i da ni?ta ne ?eli, a u odre?enim slu?ajevima to zna?i u potpunosti se miriti sa takvim stanjem."
"Postoje zlo?ini iz strasti i zlo?ini logike" je prva re?enica, a nastavlja se istorijom i analizom pobune, od Prometeja do revolucije 1917. Ova istorijsko-filozofsko-literarna studija je objavljena 1951., a u njoj Kami analizira razli?ite oblike pobune, kombinuje filozofsku dubinu sa razmatranjem dnevnopoliti?ke i moralne stvarnosti. Osim toga, tu su i neprevazi?eni Ni?e, tu je Ivan Karamazov, tu su drugi veliki pobunjenici knji?evnosti.
Kami poku?ava da shvati ?ta pojedine pobune imaju zajedni?ko - najpre pobuna protiv boga i zaklju?ak da je bog mrtav, pa filozofska shvatanja (da Ni?e, na primer, nije ubio boga, ve? je jednostavno mislio da je ro?en u svetu u kom je bog ve? mrtav), a kasnije fokus pre svega na Francusku i Oktobarsku revoluciju. Da li je mogu?e imati eti?ku i moralno ?istu pobunu - ili je ?ak i ono ?to po?ne sa naj?istijim namerama, osu?eno na to da od nekog trenutka ne mo?e vi?e da po?tuje ljudsku slobodu i dostojanstvo? Svi ?elimo i pravdu i slobodu, ali da li je mogu?e i jedno i drugo? Vremenom shvati? da, naravno, nije ("Apsolutna sloboda je pravo najja?eg da vlada, a najve?a sloboda je sloboda po?initi ubistvo."), pa je stoga mo?da i svaka revolucija pre ili kasnije osu?ena na kr?enje svojih po?etnih principa i onoga zbog ?ega je pokrenuta. Da li je neko ubistvo opravdano zarad ve?ih ideja? Da li je, na primer, trebalo ubiti kralja 1793. godine? I ako jeste, u kom trenutku je trebalo zaustaviti giljotinu, da bi se sa?uvao duh revolucije?
Ovaj francuski velikan je bio socijalista, ali je ovde za razliku od Sartra, o?tro kritikovao Sovjetski savez i Staljinizam. Me?utim, jasno ti je da ne kritikuje iz zle namere, ili zbog toga ?to je uveren da komunizam nije mogu? - naprotiv, kritikuje iz ljubavi, zato ?to ?eli pravu i ?istu revoluciju. ?ak i kad te natera da zaklju?i? da tako ne?to mo?da nije ni mogu?e, Kami se ne predaje, nije cini?an i ne zaklju?uje da bolji svet nije mogu?. "Ovo je poku?aj da se shvati sopstveno doba. Da li je nedu?nost, onog ?asa kad po?ne da dela, prinu?ena da ubija. Mo?emo delati samo u svom vremenu i me?u ljudima koji nas okru?uju. Ni?ta ne?emo shvatiti ako ne utvrdimo da li imamo pravo da ubijemo drugog ?oveka, ili bar da prihvatimo da on bude ubijen. Va?no je da ustanovimo kako da se pona?amo u svetu, takvom kakvog smo zatekli.
Ova knjiga ne name?e mi?ljenje, ?esto ni ne daje odgovore - ali zato postavlja itekako te?ka pitanja. Dok sam poku?avao da odgovorim na njih, ose?ao sam se uzbu?en, kao da sam na prvoj godini faksa i upijam neke nove fascinantne ideje - i zar nije to najbolja mogu?a preporuka za knjigu? Mo?da treba da postoje preduslovi da bi ti se dopala kao meni (zaljubljenost u istoriju, levi pogled na svet, egzistencijalizam kao ?ivotna vodilja), ali subjektivno... , , , . Nema mnogo ovakvih.
Nije lako ?tivo, ali vredi se i ovde vra?ati, guglovati reference - vredi i priznati da ?ak i kad se trudi?, ponekad ne?e? uspeti da se popne? na taj intelektualni nivo. Lep?e bi bilo razgovarati u?ivo, ali danas smo vi?e prisiljeni da fotografi?emo tekst, pa ga ubacujemo u ChatGPT, ponovo bivati iznena?en kako GPT-4 uspeva neke zaklju?ke da stavi u pravi kontekst.
"?ta je pobunjeni ?ovek? ?ovek koji ka?e 'ne'. Rob koji ?itavog ?ivota prima nare?enja, novi nalog odjednom do?ivljava kao neprihvatljiv. 'Ovo suvi?e dugo traje', 'dovde da, odavde ne'... To 'ne' potvr?uje postojanje granice. On se suprotstavlja poretku koji gu?i neko pravo i ukazuje na pravo ?ije kr?enje ne?e trpeti. ?utati zna?i ostaviti utisak da ?ovek nema stav, i da ni?ta ne ?eli, a u odre?enim slu?ajevima to zna?i u potpunosti se miriti sa takvim stanjem."
"Postoje zlo?ini iz strasti i zlo?ini logike" je prva re?enica, a nastavlja se istorijom i analizom pobune, od Prometeja do revolucije 1917. Ova istorijsko-filozofsko-literarna studija je objavljena 1951., a u njoj Kami analizira razli?ite oblike pobune, kombinuje filozofsku dubinu sa razmatranjem dnevnopoliti?ke i moralne stvarnosti. Osim toga, tu su i neprevazi?eni Ni?e, tu je Ivan Karamazov, tu su drugi veliki pobunjenici knji?evnosti.
Kami poku?ava da shvati ?ta pojedine pobune imaju zajedni?ko - najpre pobuna protiv boga i zaklju?ak da je bog mrtav, pa filozofska shvatanja (da Ni?e, na primer, nije ubio boga, ve? je jednostavno mislio da je ro?en u svetu u kom je bog ve? mrtav), a kasnije fokus pre svega na Francusku i Oktobarsku revoluciju. Da li je mogu?e imati eti?ku i moralno ?istu pobunu - ili je ?ak i ono ?to po?ne sa naj?istijim namerama, osu?eno na to da od nekog trenutka ne mo?e vi?e da po?tuje ljudsku slobodu i dostojanstvo? Svi ?elimo i pravdu i slobodu, ali da li je mogu?e i jedno i drugo? Vremenom shvati? da, naravno, nije ("Apsolutna sloboda je pravo najja?eg da vlada, a najve?a sloboda je sloboda po?initi ubistvo."), pa je stoga mo?da i svaka revolucija pre ili kasnije osu?ena na kr?enje svojih po?etnih principa i onoga zbog ?ega je pokrenuta. Da li je neko ubistvo opravdano zarad ve?ih ideja? Da li je, na primer, trebalo ubiti kralja 1793. godine? I ako jeste, u kom trenutku je trebalo zaustaviti giljotinu, da bi se sa?uvao duh revolucije?
Ovaj francuski velikan je bio socijalista, ali je ovde za razliku od Sartra, o?tro kritikovao Sovjetski savez i Staljinizam. Me?utim, jasno ti je da ne kritikuje iz zle namere, ili zbog toga ?to je uveren da komunizam nije mogu? - naprotiv, kritikuje iz ljubavi, zato ?to ?eli pravu i ?istu revoluciju. ?ak i kad te natera da zaklju?i? da tako ne?to mo?da nije ni mogu?e, Kami se ne predaje, nije cini?an i ne zaklju?uje da bolji svet nije mogu?. "Ovo je poku?aj da se shvati sopstveno doba. Da li je nedu?nost, onog ?asa kad po?ne da dela, prinu?ena da ubija. Mo?emo delati samo u svom vremenu i me?u ljudima koji nas okru?uju. Ni?ta ne?emo shvatiti ako ne utvrdimo da li imamo pravo da ubijemo drugog ?oveka, ili bar da prihvatimo da on bude ubijen. Va?no je da ustanovimo kako da se pona?amo u svetu, takvom kakvog smo zatekli.
Ova knjiga ne name?e mi?ljenje, ?esto ni ne daje odgovore - ali zato postavlja itekako te?ka pitanja. Dok sam poku?avao da odgovorim na njih, ose?ao sam se uzbu?en, kao da sam na prvoj godini faksa i upijam neke nove fascinantne ideje - i zar nije to najbolja mogu?a preporuka za knjigu? Mo?da treba da postoje preduslovi da bi ti se dopala kao meni (zaljubljenost u istoriju, levi pogled na svet, egzistencijalizam kao ?ivotna vodilja), ali subjektivno... , , , . Nema mnogo ovakvih.
April 12, 2021
Das Buch habe ich mal vor fast f¨¹nfundzwanzig Jahren gekauft, aber damals anscheinend nur zu einem Drittel gelesen. Jedenfalls verr?t mir das ein Lesezeichen, dass ich darin gefunden habe. Schade eigentlich, denn so ist mir doch einiges Interessantes entgangen. Besonders der letzte Teil, in dem Albert Camus f¨¹r ein mittelmeerisches Denken pl?diert, das im Grundsatz die Relativit?t aller Weltanschauungen betont und ganz allgemein die Menschlichkeit ¨¹ber abstrakte Systeme stellt.
Was immer wir tun, die Ma?losigkeit wird stets ihren Platz im Herzen des Menschen bewahren, wo die Einsamkeit beheimatet ist. Wir tragen alle unsere Kerker, unsere Verbrechen und Verheerungen in uns. Doch unsere Aufgabe ist es nicht, sie in der Welt zu entfesseln, sondern sie in uns und den anderen zu bek?mpfen. (S.340)Sehr lesenswert und immer noch aktuell. Gerade in Zeiten zunehmender Polarisierung und unvers?hnlicher Meinungen.
Die wahre Gro?z¨¹gigkeit der Zukunft gegen¨¹ber besteht darin, in der Gegenwart alles zu geben. (S.343)
June 30, 2019
Cogito ergo sum, ¦Ë?¦Å¦É ¦Ï Descartes. Rebel ergo sum ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Õ¦Ø¦Í¦Å? ¦Ï ¦ª¦Á¦Ì?. ¦¥¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó? ?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ï¦Ñ?¦Æ¦Ø ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ?¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Î¦Ç ¦Ì¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Õ¦Ø ?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Æ¦Ø, ¦Ò¦Õ¦Ô¦Ñ¦Ç¦Ë¦Á¦Ó? ?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ä?¦Í¦Ø ¦Ð¦Í¦Ï? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Á¦Ì?¦Ë¦Ã¦Á¦Ì¦Á ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Ó¦Å¦Ë¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë¦Ï?¦Ð¦É ¦Ì¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ö¦Á¦Ë¦Ô¦Â¦Ä?¦Í¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á? ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ì¦Å ?¦Í¦Á¦Í ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ï¦Ð?. ?¦ª?¦È¦Å ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦É¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Á¦Ð?¦Í¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦É ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ì¦Ï?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ì¦Á?. ?¦Ë¦Å? ¦Ï¦É ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ë¦Ï¦É¦Ð¦Å? ¦Á¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Ì?? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ð¦Ë? ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Ï¦Õ?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ä¦É¦Ê¦Á¦É¦Ï¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã?¦Å?? ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å¦Ö?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ð?¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Í¦Å¦Ë?¦Ç¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ö?¦Ñ¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô. ?¦Í¦Ó¦Ø?, ¦Ï ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë?¦Â¦Ï? ¦Í¦É?¦È¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Á?¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Í¦Á ¦Ê¦Ï¦Ö¦Ë?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Ò¦Ó¦Á ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ë?¦Ã¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Å¦Î¦Å¦Ã¦Å?¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Æ?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Á¦Ð?¦Í¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦É ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ì¦Ï?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ì¦Ï?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë?¦Â¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Î¦Á¦Õ¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Ç ¦Ä¦É¦Ê? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ì¦Ï?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì?¦Ö¦Ñ¦É ¦Ð¦Ñ¦É¦Í ¦Â¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ê?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Ë¦Å¦Ï? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Å¦Ï?, ¦Ó?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ?¦Í¦Á ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ì¦Ï?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ð¦É¦Å¦Ò¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á?. ¦ª?¦È¦Å ¦Î¦Å¦Ö¦Ø¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ó? ?¦Ð¦Á¦Ë¦Î¦Ç, ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í¦Á¦Ö¦É¦Ê? ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ?¦Æ¦É, ¦Ã?¦Í¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦Ë?¦Ï¦Í ¦Ã¦Å¦É¦Ó¦Ï¦Í¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë¦Å¦Ì?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ä¦É¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ô. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦É¦Ã?¦Â¦Ñ¦Á¦Æ¦Å ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ?¦Í¦Á¦Í ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ì¦É¦Á ¦Ì¦É¦Ò¦Ï¦Ò¦Â¦Ç¦Ò¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦È¦Ñ?¦Ê¦Á, ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Î?¦Ã¦Å¦Ñ¦Ò¦Ç?, ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ã¦Ñ¦É¦Å¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Õ¦Ø¦Ó¦É?, ¦Å?¦Õ¦Ë¦Å¦Ê¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Í¦Å¦Î?¦Ë¦Å¦Ã¦Ê¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Á¦Í ¦Ê¦Ç¦Ñ¦Ï¦Æ?¦Í¦Ç, ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Á?¦Å¦É ¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ê¦Ë¦Ç¦Ñ¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ã¦Å¦Í¦É? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ð?¦Å¦Ò¦Ç?. ¦¯¦É ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Ð¦Å¦Ó?¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Í, ¦Á¦Ð¦Á¦É¦Ó¦Ï?¦Í ¦Ì¦É¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦È¦Ï¦Ë¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á. ¦¡¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Å¦Ô¦Å¦Ë¦Ð¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦Å? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ð¦Å¦Ó?¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ã¦Ê¦Ø¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï? ¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï¦Ì¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Ì¦É¦Ò¦Ó?? ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ?¦Ñ¦Í¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Í¦Á ¦Î¦Å¦Õ?¦Ã¦Å¦É ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ñ?¦Ë¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Å¦Ã¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ë¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦É¦Ì¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï¦Ô ¦Í¦Ó¦Å¦Ò¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ?¦Í¦Ó¦Ï, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Í¦Å¦Ë¦É¦Ö¦È¦Å? ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ê?¦Ó¦É ¦Á¦Í?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ï, ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ì¦É¦Á ¦Ð¦Á¦Ã¦Ê¦Ï¦Ò¦Ì¦É¦Ï¦Ð¦Ï¦É¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å?¦Ä¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Å¦Î¦Ô¦×?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Ð?¦Í¦Ø ¦Á¦Ð ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Á¦Í¦È¦Ñ?¦Ð¦É¦Í¦Ç ¦Å¦Ô¦Ó?¦Ë¦Å¦É¦Á, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ê?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Ì?¦Ñ¦Ï? ¦Ì¦É¦Á? ¦É¦Ä?¦Á?. ?¦Ð¦Ø? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ë?¦Å¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦ª¦Á¦Ì?, ¦Ç ¦Å¦Î?¦Ã¦Å¦Ñ¦Ò¦Ç ?¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Í¦Á ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ò¦Â?¦Ë¦Ë¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Á ?¦È¦Í¦Ç ¦Ò¦Á¦Í ¦Ì¦É¦Á ?¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Ï?¦Ê¦Ë¦Á? (¦Í?¦Î¦Ç ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ì¦Ô¦È¦É¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ñ¦Ç¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¡®¦Ç ¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Ï?¦Ê¦Ë¦Á¡¯). ¦¡¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ã¦Ì? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Ï¦Ñ¦Ì? ¦È¦Á ¦Ò¦Ç¦Ê¦Ø¦È¦Å? ¦Å¦Í?¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ì¦Á¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ã¦É¦Ï, ¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë?¦Â¦Ï? ¦È¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ¦Ø¦È¦Å?, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Á¦Õ?¦Í¦Ó¦Ç? ¦È¦Á ¦Ö?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦É¦Ò¦Ö? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô. ¦³¦Ï ¦Ó?¦Ì¦Ç¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë?¦Â¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ì¦Ø? ¦Ì¦Å¦Ñ¦É¦Ê?? ¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ?? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë? ¦Ä¦Á¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Ç¦Ñ?. ¦¯ ¦Ï¦Â¦Ï¦Ë?? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ö¦Å¦É¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ì¦Å?¦Ë¦É¦Ê¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Ö¦Å¦Ä?¦Í ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ç ¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ?¦Á ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó¦Ñ¦É?¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Å ¦Á?¦Ì¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦È¦Ô¦Ò?¦Á. ¦¥¦Ä? ?¦Ã¦Ê¦Å¦É¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ?¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Á¦Ô¦Ó?. ¦²¦Á¦Í ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ë?¦Â¦Ï? ¦Ë¦Å? ?¦Ó¦É ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó¦Å?? ¦Ã¦É¦Á¦Ó? ¦È?¦Ë¦Å¦É? ¦Í¦Á ¦Æ?¦Ò¦Å¦É?. ¦¨?¦Ë¦Å¦É? ¦Ø? ¦Å¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ë¦Å?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Í¦Á ¦Æ?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ì¦É¦Á ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ç ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Å¦Ê¦Å?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Á¦Ë¦Á¦É¦Ð¦Ø¦Ñ¦Ï?¦Ò¦Å ¦Ì?¦Ö¦Ñ¦É ¦Ó?¦Ñ¦Á. ¦¸¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ñ?¦Í¦Å¦É? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦È¦Å¦Ñ?¦Á ¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Å ¦Å¦Ê¦Å?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Ñ¦É¦Í ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ë?¦Ã¦Ï ¦Æ?¦Ã¦É¦Æ¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Â?¦Ñ¦Ï? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ò¦Å ¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Å? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Å ?¦Ê¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Í ¦Í¦Á ¦Ë¦Á¦Ö¦Ó¦Á¦Ñ?? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ?¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Î¦Ç. ?¦¥¦Ê¦Å?¦Í¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ó¦Å¦Ë¦Å? ?¦Í¦Á? ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦É¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ë?¦Ã¦Ï? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Æ?¦Ò¦Å¦É?, ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦É ?¦Í¦Á? ¦Å¦Î¦Á?¦Ò¦É¦Ï? ¦Ë?¦Ã¦Ï? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Ð¦Å¦È?¦Í¦Å¦É??. ?¦Ì¦Ø? ¦Ó¦É ?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç; ¦³¦É ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Å¦Ê¦Å?¦Í¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ê?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Á¦É¦Ó¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Á¦Ë¦Ë¦Á¦Ã?; ¦¯ ¦¶?¦Ã¦Ê¦Å¦Ë ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦?¦Ó¦Ò¦Å, ¦Å¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ñ¦Ø¦Ì¦Á¦Ë?¦Ï¦É ¦É¦Ä¦Å¦Á¦Ë¦É¦Ò¦Ó??, ¦Ä?¦Ö¦Ø? ¦Ä¦Å?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ê?¦×¦Ç, ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Á¦Ñ¦Ñ¦Å¦Í¦Ø¦Ð? ¦Õ¦Ø¦Í? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ì¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦Ï?¦Í: ?¦§ ¦È?¦Ë¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ä?¦Í¦Á¦Ì¦Ç!?. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Â?¦Ø¦Ò¦Ç, ¦Ç ?¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Î¦Ç, ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Ó¦É ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê?¦Í¦Å¦É? ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ã¦Ì? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ¦Í?¦Å¦É ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ?¦Í¦Á ¦Ì?¦Ò¦Ï ¦Å¦Í?? ¦Ò¦Ê¦Ï¦Ð¦Ï? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ï¦Ä¦Ç¦Ã¦Å? ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ê?¦Ó¦É ¦Á¦Ð?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ï, ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Î¦Ï¦Ô¦Ò?¦Á. ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Õ¦Ó¦É?¦Î¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Å? ¦Á¦Ã¦Å¦Ë¦Á?¦Å? ¦Ê¦Ï¦É¦Í¦Ø¦Í?¦Å?, ¦Ð¦Á¦Ò¦Ö?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ê¦Ñ¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Å¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ø¦Í ¦Õ¦Ô¦Ò¦É¦Ê?¦Í ¦Õ¦Á¦É¦Í¦Ï¦Ì?¦Í¦Ø¦Í ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Â?¦Á¦É¦Ç? ¦Õ?¦Ò¦Ç?, ¦Ð¦Á¦Ò¦Ö?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Ê¦Ñ¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦È¦Ï?¦Ì¦Å ¦Ì¦Å ¦Í?¦Ö¦É¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Å ¦Ä?¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Á ¦Æ¦Ø¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦Í¦Ï?, ¦Ã¦É¦Á¦Ó? ?¦Ó¦Ò¦É ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ô¦Ð¦Ï¦Ä¦Å?¦Ê¦Í¦Ô¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Í¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Î¦Ï¦Ô¦Ò?¦Á? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ä?¦Í¦Á¦Ì¦Ç?. ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ð¦Ë?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦È¦Å? ¦Ì¦Á?, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Å¦Ê¦Ë¦Å¦Ê¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Å¦Ò?¦Æ¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦Õ?¦Ñ¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ï¦Ô¦Ñ?¦Í¦É¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ä¦É?¦×¦Á¦Ë¦Ì¦Á ¦Ì?¦Ò¦Ø ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë¦É¦Ó¦Å?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ç¦È¦É¦Ê??, ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Å¦Í?¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë¦Ô¦Ó¦Á¦Ñ¦Ö?¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Æ¦Ø?¦Ä¦Ç ¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô¦Ñ¦Á¦Ë¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Â?¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Å¦Ì¦Ð?¦Ä¦É¦Æ¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Î?¦Ë¦É¦Î¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Å¦Ô ¦Æ¦Ç¦Í, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó? ¦Ê?¦Ñ¦É¦Ï ¦Ë?¦Ã¦Ï ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Á¦Ð?¦Í¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦É ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦¨?¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï. ¦²¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í?¦Ö¦Å¦É¦Á ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ï ¦Ò¦Á¦Í ¦Ë¦Á?? ¦Å?¦Ö¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Á¦Ð¦Ç¦Ô¦Ä?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Á¦Ô¦È¦Á¦É¦Ñ¦Å¦Ò?¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Å?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ë¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Â¦Á¦Ò¦É¦Ë¦É? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Å?¦Ö¦Å ¦Ò¦Õ¦Å¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦È¦Å?¦Á ¦Ö?¦Ñ¦Ç ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ä¦É¦Ê? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Ô¦Ì¦Õ?¦Ñ¦Ï¦Í, ?¦Ð¦Ñ¦Å¦Ð¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Î¦Á¦Í?. ¦¯ ¦Â¦Á¦Ò¦É¦Ë¦É?? ?¦Ð¦Ñ¦Å¦Ð¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Ð¦Å¦È?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Í?¦Ï¦É ¦Í?¦Ì¦Ï¦É ?¦Ð¦Ñ¦Å¦Ð¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦Ã¦Å¦Í¦Í¦Ç¦È¦Ï?¦Í. ¦²?¦Ñ¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Ç ?¦Î¦Ø ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Á ¦Õ¦Á¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦Ö¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ï¦Ä¦Ç¦Ã?¦Ò¦Á¦Ì¦Å ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ã¦Ê¦É¦Ë¦Ï¦Ó?¦Í¦Á, ¦Å¦Í? ¦Ï ¦È¦Å?? ¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ?¦Ì¦Å¦Í¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Å¦É¦Ñ? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Ë¦Å¦É¦Ä¦Ø¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ì¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô¦Í¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï?¦Ì¦É. ¦¯ ¦Â¦Á¦Ò¦É¦Ë¦É?? ¦Ð?¦È¦Á¦Í¦Å, ¦Ç ?¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Å¦Ï? ?¦Ñ¦È¦Å. ¦¦Á¦É. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Î¦Å¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Á¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Á ?¦Ñ¦É¦Á, ¦Ò¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ø¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦È¦Å?, ¦Å¦Ð?¦Ó¦Ñ¦Å¦×¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Õ?¦Í¦Ï, ?¦Ã¦Ä¦Á¦Ñ¦Å ?¦Ê¦Á¦×¦Å ¦Å?¦Ð¦Å ¦×?¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ñ?¦Ì¦Á¦Î¦Å, ¦Å¦Í?¦Í¦Ó¦É¦Á ¦Ò¦Å ?¦Ë¦Á ?¦Ò¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç¦Ë?¦Ó¦Å¦Ô¦Å, ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Ã¦Å¦Í¦Í¦Ç¦È¦Å? ?¦Í¦Á ¦Í?¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ó¦Å¦Ô¦Ì¦Á. ¦§ ?¦Ó¦Ò¦É ¦Ð¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦Å?¦Á¦Ì¦Å¡. ¦³¦Å¦Ë¦É¦Ê? ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦È?¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Å¦Ï? ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ó?¦Ì¦Ç¦Ì¦Á ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Á¦Í¦Ô¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ã¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï. ¦¯ ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ë¦Ô¦Ó¦Á¦Ñ¦Ö¦É¦Ê?? ¦Á¦Ì¦Ï¦Ñ¦Á¦Ë¦É¦Ò¦Ì??, ?¦Ð¦Å¦Ò¦Å ¦Á¦Ò?¦Ê¦Ø¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó?¦È¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Í¦È¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦Ï¦Ñ¦È¦Ï¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦É¦Ò¦Ì?? ¦Å¦Î?¦È¦Ç¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ó¦Å¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Ã¦Ø¦Í¦Ç ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦É¦Ê? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ?¦Í¦Ï¦É¦Á, ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ê¦Ñ¦Ç¦Ì¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦Á ¦Â?¦È¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Ã¦Ø¦Ã¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ò¦Ê?¦×¦Ç?. ¦³¦Ç ¦È?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Å¦Ï? ¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Å ¦Ç ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦É¦Ê?, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ð?¦Õ¦Å¦Ô¦Ê¦Ó¦Á, ¦Ò¦Ö¦Å¦Ä?¦Í ¦Ì¦Ï¦É¦Ñ¦Á?¦Á, ¦Ó¦Ç ¦È?¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Å ¦Ï ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ä¦Å¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ì??. ¦³¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ë¦Ç¦Î¦Ç ¦Á¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Â¦Ï¦Ç¦È?¦Å¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ë?¦Â¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ï ¦¦Ó¦Ï¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Ã¦É?¦Õ¦Ò¦Ê¦É. ¦²¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Ñ¦Ã¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ?¦¯¦É ¦¡¦Ä¦Å¦Ñ¦Õ¦Ï? ¦ª¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ì?¦Æ¦Ø¦Õ? ¦Ä?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ?¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦É¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê? ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ?¦Ä¦Å¦É¦Ã¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ä¦Å¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ë¦Ç¦Î¦Ç?. ¦¯ ?¦È¦Å¦Ï? ¦©¦Â?¦Í ¦ª¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ì?¦Æ¦Ø¦Õ, ¦Ê¦Ñ¦Á¦Ä¦Á?¦Í¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á? ¦Ð?¦Í¦Ó¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ë¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ö¦Å¦É¦Ñ¦Á¦Õ¦Å¦Ó¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Ð ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦È¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Á¦Í ¦Ë?¦Â¦Á¦Ñ¦Ï, ¦Î¦Á¦Õ¦Í¦É¦Ê? ¦Í¦É?¦È¦Å¦É ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ç ¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Õ¦Ñ?¦Ê¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Ö¦Å¦Ä?¦Í ¦Ó¦Ñ¦Å¦Ë¦Á?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É. ?¦¡¦Í ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦È¦Å?? ¦Ó?¦Ó¦Å ¦Ð¦Ø? ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦È?¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ø¦Í ¦Ð¦Á¦É¦Ä¦É?¦Í;? ¦Ä¦É¦Å¦Ñ¦Ø¦Ó?¦Ó¦Á¦É. ¦¯ ¦È?¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ó¦Ø¦Í ¦Ð¦Á¦É¦Ä¦É?¦Í ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Á¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Í?¦Ç¦Ó¦Ï?. ¦¯ ¦Ä¦Ñ?¦Ì¦Ï? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦É¦Ê?? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Å?¦Ö¦Å ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Ë?¦Î¦Å¦É ¦Ä¦Å ¦Ö¦Ø¦Ñ¦Ï?¦Ò¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦Ì?¦Á ¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ö¦Ï¦Ð?¦Ä¦Ç. ¦§ ¦Á¦Ë?¦È¦Å¦É¦Á ?¦Ò¦Ó¦Å¦Ê¦Å ¦Ã¦Ô¦Ì¦Í? ¦Ì¦Ð¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ò¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ä¦Å?¦Ö¦Í¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ö¦Å¦É¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ò¦Ø¦Ð¦Ï. ??¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ä¦Å ¦Ã?¦Í¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Í¦Á ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦È¦Å??, ? ¦Á¦Í ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Ó?¦Ó¦Å ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Õ¦Ï¦Í¦É??, ¦Á¦Õ¦Ï? ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ä?¦Í¦Å¦É ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Ò¦Å ?¦Í¦Á ¦Ò?¦Ì¦Ð¦Á¦Í ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Í¦Á ¦Ã?¦Í¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ò¦Ð¦Ï¦Ñ? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Á ¦Ö¦Ø¦Ñ?¦Õ¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Á¦Í?¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô. ¦ª¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Õ¦Ï? ¦Ï ¦È?¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Å¦Ä¦Ñ¦Á¦É¦Ø¦Ó? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ç¦È¦É¦Ê??¡. ¦³?¦Ó¦Å ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ó¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦É!? ¦°¦Ñ?¦Ã¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É. ¦¡¦Í ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦È¦Å?? ¦Ó?¦Ó¦Å ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Á¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó?, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Í ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ¦Ô¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Ö¦Å¦É ¦Á¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó? ¦Ó?¦Ó¦Å ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Å¦Ð¦É¦Ó¦Ñ¦Å¦Ð¦Ó?. ¦§ ¦Ê?¦Ë¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Í¦Ï¦É¦Ö¦Ó? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ¦É¦Ì?¦Í¦Å¦É. ¦¬¦Á? ¦Ë?¦Å¦É ¦Ï ¦Ç¦Ä¦Ô¦Ð¦Á¦È?? ¦¬¦Á¦Ñ¦Ê?¦Ò¦É¦Ï? ¦¦Ó¦Å ¦²¦Á¦Í¦Ó. ¦¥?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ë?¦È¦Å¦É¦Á ¦Ð¦Ø? ¦Á¦Ð ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ã¦Ì? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Õ¦Á¦Ò?¦Æ¦Å¦É? ¦Í¦Á ¦Î¦Å¦Ê¦É¦Í?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç, ¦Ì¦Ð¦Á?¦Í¦Å¦É? ¦Ò¦Å ?¦Í¦Á¦Í ¦Ä¦Ñ?¦Ì¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ö¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ä?¦Ã¦Ì¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ð?¦È¦Ï?. ¦³¦Á ¦Â¦Ñ?¦Ö¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Á¦Ê¦Ñ?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á? ¦Ð¦Ë¦Ç¦Ò¦É?¦Æ¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ?¦Ë¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ð¦É¦Ï ¦Ê¦Ï¦Í¦Ó? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ñ?¦Â¦É ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ã¦Ì? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ï¦É ¦Õ¦Ë¦Ï¦Ã¦Å¦Ñ?? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ñ¦Ä?¦Å? ¦Ð¦Á?¦Ñ¦Í¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ð¦Ç¦Ä?¦Ë¦É¦Ï ¦Ò¦Ó¦Á ¦Ö?¦Ñ¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô?. ¦§ ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï¦Õ?, ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ï ¦È?¦Í¦Á¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ê?¦È¦Å ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ð?¦Õ¦Å¦Ô¦Ê¦Ó¦Á. ¦¡¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ó¦Ò¦Á¦Ñ¦É¦Ê? ¦±¦Ø¦Ò?¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô 19¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦É?¦Í¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ?¦Õ¦Ç¦Â¦Ï ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ä¦Å¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ó? ¦²¦Å¦Ñ¦Ã¦Ê?¦É ¦¦Å¦Ó¦Ò?¦Ã¦É¦Å¦Õ ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Í¦Ï¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Ð?¦Ñ¦Á¦Ò¦Å ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Ï? ¦Ó¦É? ?¦Ö¦È¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦È¦Á¦Í?¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ì?¦Ö¦Ñ¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ò¦Ï¦Ò¦É¦Á¦Ë¦É¦Ò¦Ì? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦«?¦Í¦É¦Í ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Í¦Ï¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ï¦Ô¦Ó¦Ï¦Ð?¦Á? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ô¦Ð¦Ï¦Ò¦Ö?¦È¦Ç¦Ê¦Å ¦Ï ¦¬¦Á¦Ñ¦Î ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Å¦×¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ô¦É¦Ï¦È?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ò¦Å ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Å¦Ê¦Å?¦Í¦Á ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ì?¦Ò¦Á ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ó¦Á¦Î¦Å ¦Ð¦Ø? ¦È¦Á ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Â?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï¦Í¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Í?¦Ï ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï, ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Ä¦Å?¦Ã¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç? ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ¦Á¦Í?¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ñ?¦È¦Ì¦Ç¦Ó¦Á. ¦ª¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Ô¦Ñ?¦Á¦Ñ¦Ö¦Ï ¦Ð¦Á¦Ñ?¦Ä¦Å¦É¦Ã¦Ì¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï¦Õ¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Á¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ä¦Å¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï? ¦Ä¦Å¦Í ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ?¦Ë¦Ë¦Ï ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Á ¦±?¦É¦Ö ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Õ¦Á¦Ò¦É¦Ò¦Ì?. ¦¯ ¦£¦Å¦Ñ¦Ì¦Á¦Í¦É¦Ê?? ¦Í¦Á¦Æ¦É¦Ò¦Ì?? ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ?¦Í¦Á? ¦Á¦Ä?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ê¦Ó¦Ï? ¦Ä¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦Ì¦É¦Ò¦Ì?? ¦Ë¦É¦Ì¦Ï¦Ê¦Ó¦Ï¦Í¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Å¦Î¦Á¦È¦Ë¦É¦Ø¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï?, ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ?¦Ä¦Ø¦Ò¦Å ¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Ï ?¦Ä¦Á¦Õ¦Ï? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ø¦Ñ?¦Ì¦Á¦Í¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ä¦Å¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ó¦É¦Ê?? ¦Á¦Ô¦Ó¦Ï¦Ê¦Á¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï¦Õ¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á?. ¦³¦Ï ¦Ì?¦Ó¦Ï ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Í¦Á¦Æ¦É¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï? ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Ë¦Á ¦Ç ¦Ó?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ó¦Á. ¦ª¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Å¦Ë¦É¦Ê? ¦Ê¦Á¦Ó?¦Ë¦Ç¦Î¦Å ¦Í¦Á ¦È¦Ô¦Ò¦É?¦Ò¦Å¦É ?¦Í¦Á ¦Å¦Ë¦Ð¦É¦Ä¦Ï¦Õ?¦Ñ¦Ï ??¦Ë¦Á? ¦Ã¦É¦Á ?¦Í¦Á ¦Á¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Í?¦Ç¦Ó¦Ï ?¦Ó?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ó¦Á?. ¦¡¦Ô¦Ó? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Æ¦Ç¦Ó?¦Å¦É ¦Ï ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ê?¦Ò¦Ì¦Ï ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ì¦É¦Á ¦Ï¦Ë?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á. ¦¥?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ç ?¦Ñ¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ì?¦Í¦Ø¦Ò¦Ç? ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Ò¦Ð?¦Æ¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Ó¦Ñ¦Ï¦Õ¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ä¦Ï¦Ö?. ¦¥?¦Ì¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Å ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Õ¦Ï¦Ñ¦Å¦Ó¦É¦Ê¦Ï? ¦Á¦Ð ¦Ó¦Á ¦Æ?¦Á ¦Å¦Ð¦Å¦É¦Ä? ¦Ç ¦Á¦Í¦È¦Ñ?¦Ð¦É¦Í¦Ç ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å?¦Ä¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ã¦Í¦Ø¦Ñ?¦Æ¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å?¦Ä¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ð¦Å¦Ñ?¦Ã¦Ô¦Ñ¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Á?. ¦§ ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Å?¦Ä¦Ç¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ç ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ä¦Ï¦Ö? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ç ¦Ê¦Á¦È¦Ï¦Ë¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ç ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ì?¦Í¦Ø¦Ò¦Ç ¦Ï¦Ä¦Ç¦Ã¦Å? ¦Ò¦Å ¦Õ¦Ñ¦É¦Ê¦Á¦Ë¦Å?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Å?. ¦²¦Ó¦Á ¦Ó¦Å¦Ë¦Å¦Ô¦Ó¦Á?¦Á ¦Ê¦Å¦Õ?¦Ë¦Á¦É¦Á ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ó¦Ç¦Ì?¦Í¦Ï¦Ô ¦Á¦Í¦È¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô, ¦Ï ¦ª¦Á¦Ì?, ¦Â¦Ñ?¦È¦Å¦É ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ò¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦É¦Ò¦È¦Ç¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ò¦Ì?, ¦Õ¦Ø¦Í?¦Æ¦Å¦É ¦Ã¦É¦Á ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ê¦Á¦Ë¦Å? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ã¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç, ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ì¦Ç¦Ä¦Å¦Í¦É¦Ò¦Ó?, ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í¦Á¦Ò¦Ó?¦Ó¦Ç, ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ä¦Ï¦Ã¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê?, ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ì¦Å¦Ó¦Á¦Ñ¦Ñ¦Ô¦È¦Ì¦É¦Ò¦Ó?, ¦Ó¦Ï¦Í ¦Ï¦Ô¦Ó¦Ï¦Ð¦É¦Ò¦Ó? ¦Í¦Á ¦Ä¦Å¦Ò¦Ì¦Å?¦Ò¦Å¦É ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô? ?¦Ñ¦Ê¦Ï¦Ô? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ó¦É? ¦Ô¦Ð¦Ï¦Ò¦Ö?¦Ò¦Å¦É? ¦Ó¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Ï¦Í?¦Ö¦Á ¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç ¦Æ¦Ø? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ò¦Å ¦Ê¦Á¦Ì¦É? ¦É¦Ä?¦Á. ¦§ ¦Å¦Ð¦Á¦Í?¦Ò¦Ó¦Á¦Ò¦Ç ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Æ¦Ø¦Ó¦É¦Ê?, ¦Á¦Ë¦Ë? ¦Ä¦Å ¦Ð¦Ñ?¦Ð¦Å¦É ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ó? ¦Í¦Á ¦Î¦Å¦Ö?¦Ò¦Ï¦Ô¦Ì¦Å ¦Ó¦Á ?¦Ñ¦É¦Á ¦Ð¦Ï¦Ô ¦Ì¦Á? ¦Ä¦É¦Á¦Ö¦Ø¦Ñ?¦Æ¦Ï¦Ô¦Í ¦Á¦Ð? ¦Ó¦Ç¦Í ¦Õ?¦Ò¦Ç. ¦§ ¦Á¦Ð¦Ï¦Ä¦Ï¦Ö? ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦Ç ¦Ð?¦Ò¦Ó¦Ç ?¦Ó¦Á¦Í ¦Ê¦Á¦É ¦È¦Á ¦Å?¦Í¦Á¦É ¦Ð?¦Í¦Ó¦Á ¦Ó¦Á ¦Ä¦Ô¦Í¦Á¦Ó?¦Ó¦Å¦Ñ¦Á ¦Ê?¦Í¦Ç¦Ó¦Ñ¦Á ¦Á¦Ô¦Ó?? ¦Ó¦Ç? ¦Ð¦Ñ¦Á¦Ã¦Ì¦Á¦Ó¦É¦Ê?¦Ó¦Ç¦Ó¦Á?.
February 5, 2021
YouTube kitap kanal?mda Albert Camus'n¨¹n hayat?, b¨¹t¨¹n kitaplar? ve kronolojik okuma s?ras? hakk?nda bilgi edinebilirsiniz:
"Yeni y?la nas?l girerseniz o y?l ?yle ge?er" diye bir efsane vard?r ya, i?te ben de 2021 y?l?na Camus'n¨¹n Ba?kald?ran ?nsan kitab?yla girip b¨¹t¨¹n bir y?l? ba?kald?r? d¨¹?¨¹nceleriyle ge?irmek istedim. Hem kitap okumak da en b¨¹y¨¹k ba?kald?r? ?e?idi de?il midir?
Descartes'?n "D¨¹?¨¹n¨¹yorum, ?yleyse var?m" felsefesini, "Ba?kald?r?yorum, ?yleyse var?z" haline d?n¨¹?t¨¹ren Camus asl?nda bizi ba?kald?r?n?n tarihi ve bi?imleri konusunda bilgi sahibi olmaya ?a??r?yor. Hem biz de g¨¹n i?inde nelere ba?kald?rm?yoruz ki?
Kendi ad?ma ?rnek verecek olursam, ?ekilciliklere ba?kald?r?yorum, grupla?malara ba?kald?r?yorum, samimiyetsizliklere, Tanr?'ya inanmas?n? ya da inanmamazl???n? bir g?steri? bi?imi olarak sunanlara, kitap okumayanlara, okuyup da hala cahil kalmay? ba?arabilenlere ba?kald?r?yorum. Daha bu senenin ba??nda nelere ba?kald?raca??m konusunda da asl?nda di?er insanlar? bilgilendirmi?tim. Mesela asgari ¨¹cretten bile az ¨¹cret ?nerip de modern k?le arayan i?verenlere, ayr?ca bana dikte edilen ve pek ?ok ki?inin m¨¹ptelas? oldu?u 8-5 mesai d¨¹zenine de ba?kald?rd???m? s?ylemi?tim. Evet... Art?k ba?kald?r?yorum, ?yleyse var?m! Peki siz nelere ba?kald?rmak isterdiniz?
Camus'n¨¹n bireysel insan?n salt kendi benli?iyle olu?um s¨¹recini anlatmas? daha ?ok Tanr?'n?n varl???n? reddetmesi ve kendi bireyselli?ini bulmas? ¨¹zerinden gidiyor. Bu konuda ben kendi d¨¹?¨¹ncemi buraya ili?tireyim hemen. Bir Tanr?¡¯n?n varl???na inan?p inanmaman?z sizi gerizekal? birisi yapmaz. Ama bir Tanr?¡¯n?n varl???na inanan ya da inanmayan birisine kar???yorsan?z, o zaman siz de kolayl?kla bir gerizekal? olabilirsiniz. O y¨¹zden asl?nda gerek bu kitab?n gerekse de genel olarak bize ba?kald?rmay? ??reten kitaplar?n ana amac? bu olmal?: Gerizekal? olmay?n.
Ayr?ca bu kitab?n ad?n?n g¨¹zelli?ine bak?p bal?klama atlamak isteyenlerden misiniz yoksa? O zaman Yunan mitolojisi, Prometheus ve Zeus aras?ndaki insan-Tanr? kar??la?malar?, Marquis de Sade ve kitaplar?, Dostoyevski'nin kitaplar? ve ?zellikle Karamazov Karde?ler kitab?, Nietzsche'nin "Tanr? ?ld¨¹!" demesinin felsefi, dini ve tarihi sebepleri, Nietzsche'nin b¨¹t¨¹n ahlaki de?erleri reddedi?inin nedenleri, Camus'n¨¹n Sisifos S?yleni kitab?nda temelini att??? uyumsuz ve abs¨¹rt olan insan?n ¨¹st¨¹ne bir de bireysel ba?kald?r?da bulunan insan?n eklenmesi, Lautr¨¦amont ve Rimbaud'un ?iirleri, Jean Jacques Rousseau ve Toplum S?zle?mesi kitab?, Hegel felsefesi, Hitler fa?izmi, Rus devrimleri, Bazarov, Bakunin, Ne?ayevizm, Marx ve kapitalizm hakk?ndaki d¨¹?¨¹nceleri, Proust ve Kay?p Zaman?n ?zinde serisi gibi konularda altyap?n?z?n olmas? ve ondan sonra bu kitab? okuman?z bence ?ok daha iyi olur.
Elbette ben de bu konular?n hepsi hakk?nda bilgi sahibi de?ildim. Sonu?ta do?du?umuzda bu bilgilerden yoksun olarak do?uyoruz ve kendimizi zamanla geli?tirip nelere ba?kald?rmam?z gerekti?ini de zamanla se?ebiliyoruz. O y¨¹zden Camus'n¨¹n bu kitab? bence yukar?da yazd???m konular hakk?nda da size ara?t?rma ipu?lar? sunabilir ve hangi yazar?n hangi ba?kald?r? bi?imiyle size katk? sunaca?? konusunda bir yol ?izebilir. Yani Camus diyor ki: Abicim ben 360 sayfa kitap yazm???m, e bir zahmet sen de art?k nelere ba?kald?raca??n? bu kitab?n i?indekilerden yola ??karak kendin se?...
Hatta bu konular?n ¨¹st¨¹ne bir de "Ba?kald?ran ?nsan okuma rehberi" verecek olsayd?m ?ncelikli olarak Camus'n¨¹n Tersi ve Y¨¹z¨¹, Yaz, Mutlu ?l¨¹m, Sisifos S?yleni ve Yabanc? gibi kitaplar?n? okuyup ard?ndan Camus'n¨¹n uyumsuz insan d¨¹?¨¹ncelerini anlay?p bu kitaba ge?menizi tavsiye ederdim. Kesinlikle ama kesinlikle Camus'den okuyaca??n?z ilk kitap bu olmamal?. ?ncelikli olarak Camus'n¨¹n kendisi i?in belirledi?i umut ve bireysel ba?kald?r? metaforu olan "g¨¹ne?"i Tersi ve Y¨¹z¨¹, Sisifos S?yleni ve Mutlu ?l¨¹m gibi kitaplar?ndan anlay?p daha sonras?nda da yine Sisifos S?yleni kitab?ndaki Sisifos mitiyle birlikte insan-d¨¹nya ba?ba?al???n? anlaman?z gerekti?ini d¨¹?¨¹n¨¹yorum.
Albert Camus'n¨¹n b¨¹t¨¹n kitaplar? i?in detayl? okuma rehberini en yak?n zamanda haz?rlayaca??m.
"Yeni y?la nas?l girerseniz o y?l ?yle ge?er" diye bir efsane vard?r ya, i?te ben de 2021 y?l?na Camus'n¨¹n Ba?kald?ran ?nsan kitab?yla girip b¨¹t¨¹n bir y?l? ba?kald?r? d¨¹?¨¹nceleriyle ge?irmek istedim. Hem kitap okumak da en b¨¹y¨¹k ba?kald?r? ?e?idi de?il midir?
Descartes'?n "D¨¹?¨¹n¨¹yorum, ?yleyse var?m" felsefesini, "Ba?kald?r?yorum, ?yleyse var?z" haline d?n¨¹?t¨¹ren Camus asl?nda bizi ba?kald?r?n?n tarihi ve bi?imleri konusunda bilgi sahibi olmaya ?a??r?yor. Hem biz de g¨¹n i?inde nelere ba?kald?rm?yoruz ki?
Kendi ad?ma ?rnek verecek olursam, ?ekilciliklere ba?kald?r?yorum, grupla?malara ba?kald?r?yorum, samimiyetsizliklere, Tanr?'ya inanmas?n? ya da inanmamazl???n? bir g?steri? bi?imi olarak sunanlara, kitap okumayanlara, okuyup da hala cahil kalmay? ba?arabilenlere ba?kald?r?yorum. Daha bu senenin ba??nda nelere ba?kald?raca??m konusunda da asl?nda di?er insanlar? bilgilendirmi?tim. Mesela asgari ¨¹cretten bile az ¨¹cret ?nerip de modern k?le arayan i?verenlere, ayr?ca bana dikte edilen ve pek ?ok ki?inin m¨¹ptelas? oldu?u 8-5 mesai d¨¹zenine de ba?kald?rd???m? s?ylemi?tim. Evet... Art?k ba?kald?r?yorum, ?yleyse var?m! Peki siz nelere ba?kald?rmak isterdiniz?
Camus'n¨¹n bireysel insan?n salt kendi benli?iyle olu?um s¨¹recini anlatmas? daha ?ok Tanr?'n?n varl???n? reddetmesi ve kendi bireyselli?ini bulmas? ¨¹zerinden gidiyor. Bu konuda ben kendi d¨¹?¨¹ncemi buraya ili?tireyim hemen. Bir Tanr?¡¯n?n varl???na inan?p inanmaman?z sizi gerizekal? birisi yapmaz. Ama bir Tanr?¡¯n?n varl???na inanan ya da inanmayan birisine kar???yorsan?z, o zaman siz de kolayl?kla bir gerizekal? olabilirsiniz. O y¨¹zden asl?nda gerek bu kitab?n gerekse de genel olarak bize ba?kald?rmay? ??reten kitaplar?n ana amac? bu olmal?: Gerizekal? olmay?n.
Ayr?ca bu kitab?n ad?n?n g¨¹zelli?ine bak?p bal?klama atlamak isteyenlerden misiniz yoksa? O zaman Yunan mitolojisi, Prometheus ve Zeus aras?ndaki insan-Tanr? kar??la?malar?, Marquis de Sade ve kitaplar?, Dostoyevski'nin kitaplar? ve ?zellikle Karamazov Karde?ler kitab?, Nietzsche'nin "Tanr? ?ld¨¹!" demesinin felsefi, dini ve tarihi sebepleri, Nietzsche'nin b¨¹t¨¹n ahlaki de?erleri reddedi?inin nedenleri, Camus'n¨¹n Sisifos S?yleni kitab?nda temelini att??? uyumsuz ve abs¨¹rt olan insan?n ¨¹st¨¹ne bir de bireysel ba?kald?r?da bulunan insan?n eklenmesi, Lautr¨¦amont ve Rimbaud'un ?iirleri, Jean Jacques Rousseau ve Toplum S?zle?mesi kitab?, Hegel felsefesi, Hitler fa?izmi, Rus devrimleri, Bazarov, Bakunin, Ne?ayevizm, Marx ve kapitalizm hakk?ndaki d¨¹?¨¹nceleri, Proust ve Kay?p Zaman?n ?zinde serisi gibi konularda altyap?n?z?n olmas? ve ondan sonra bu kitab? okuman?z bence ?ok daha iyi olur.
Elbette ben de bu konular?n hepsi hakk?nda bilgi sahibi de?ildim. Sonu?ta do?du?umuzda bu bilgilerden yoksun olarak do?uyoruz ve kendimizi zamanla geli?tirip nelere ba?kald?rmam?z gerekti?ini de zamanla se?ebiliyoruz. O y¨¹zden Camus'n¨¹n bu kitab? bence yukar?da yazd???m konular hakk?nda da size ara?t?rma ipu?lar? sunabilir ve hangi yazar?n hangi ba?kald?r? bi?imiyle size katk? sunaca?? konusunda bir yol ?izebilir. Yani Camus diyor ki: Abicim ben 360 sayfa kitap yazm???m, e bir zahmet sen de art?k nelere ba?kald?raca??n? bu kitab?n i?indekilerden yola ??karak kendin se?...
Hatta bu konular?n ¨¹st¨¹ne bir de "Ba?kald?ran ?nsan okuma rehberi" verecek olsayd?m ?ncelikli olarak Camus'n¨¹n Tersi ve Y¨¹z¨¹, Yaz, Mutlu ?l¨¹m, Sisifos S?yleni ve Yabanc? gibi kitaplar?n? okuyup ard?ndan Camus'n¨¹n uyumsuz insan d¨¹?¨¹ncelerini anlay?p bu kitaba ge?menizi tavsiye ederdim. Kesinlikle ama kesinlikle Camus'den okuyaca??n?z ilk kitap bu olmamal?. ?ncelikli olarak Camus'n¨¹n kendisi i?in belirledi?i umut ve bireysel ba?kald?r? metaforu olan "g¨¹ne?"i Tersi ve Y¨¹z¨¹, Sisifos S?yleni ve Mutlu ?l¨¹m gibi kitaplar?ndan anlay?p daha sonras?nda da yine Sisifos S?yleni kitab?ndaki Sisifos mitiyle birlikte insan-d¨¹nya ba?ba?al???n? anlaman?z gerekti?ini d¨¹?¨¹n¨¹yorum.
Albert Camus'n¨¹n b¨¹t¨¹n kitaplar? i?in detayl? okuma rehberini en yak?n zamanda haz?rlayaca??m.
May 29, 2007
Although Camus is remembered more as a literary author than a philosopher, I think this work is fantastic. It's influenced me and my thinking more than any other author (apart from perhaps Nietzsche and George Steiner). Because Camus is such a wonderful author it is also not a particularely difficult read, as opposed to, say, Sartre's philosophical works (I do like Being and Nothingness, but he's really overdoing it), which makes it accessible for those who have not been educated in philosophy as well. The subject matter is also interesting for just about everything, which makes this altogether a pretty much perfect book.
August 7, 2021
Um livro poderoso que demonstra o qu?o Camus estava disposto a aprofundar a sua vis?o do mundo. Apesar de n?o ter conseguido chegar a ela, realizou um enorme caminho na sua busca e talvez tivesse chegado mais perto se n?o tivesse partido t?o cedo.
Deste livro extra¨ª uma parte consider¨¢vel sobre a discuss?o que Camus realiza sobre o marxismo, que vale por todo o livro, e coloquei no blog intitulado:
"Camus sobre a hip¨®tese cient¨ªfica de Marx"
Deste livro extra¨ª uma parte consider¨¢vel sobre a discuss?o que Camus realiza sobre o marxismo, que vale por todo o livro, e coloquei no blog intitulado:
"Camus sobre a hip¨®tese cient¨ªfica de Marx"
March 16, 2020
??? ?? ????? ?? 5 ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ? ???? ?????? ?????.
????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ???. ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ????.
???? ?? ????? ????? ?????. ????? ???? ? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ? ?? ??????? ???? ? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????.. ? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??.
?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????.
????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????.
????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????. ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???.
????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ???. ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ????.
???? ?? ????? ????? ?????. ????? ???? ? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ? ?? ??????? ???? ? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????.. ? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ??.
?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ? ?? ?? ????? ???? ?????.
????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????????? ???????? ??????? ????? ????????? ????? ??????????? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????.
????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????. ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???.
August 16, 2012
???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??????, ???? ??????? ??? ??????, ?????? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????, ????? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???????? ? ???????? ? ????? ??????, ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????.
? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ??????, ? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???, ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ??????.
? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ??????, ? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???????, ??? ? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???, ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ??????.
May 23, 2018
.
??????? ??? ???? ????
.
?? ??? ??? ? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ???.
?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???!
???? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???! ?? ??? ????? ? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????!
?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????.
??? ???? ????? ??? ????????
??????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?????????? ???? ? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ? ?????!
??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???...
?? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ???? ? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??!
???? ? ?????????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? "??? ??? ???? ???" ? "??? ???..." ???? ?????...
? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ? ??? ?? ????? ? ??? ? ??? ????? ???...
?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ? ????...
????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ????? ????? ? ???????????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????????? ? ??????? ? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??!
????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????????? ? ???? ? ????? ????? ? ???? ? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????!
? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????!
???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????... ???? (100)
????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????... ???? (201)
??????? ?????? ????? ????.?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???. ????(141)
?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????... ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ???? (246)
.
???? ?? ??? (????? ????? ?? ?? ?????.)
????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? (?? ???? ?????) ?? ?????.?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???.?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????!
???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???. ???? (233)
.
????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ? ????? ??????.?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????????. ???? (334)
.
??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ????????! ???? (376)
??????? ??? ???? ????
.
?? ??? ??? ? ????????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ???.
?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???!
???? ?? ?????? ? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???! ?? ??? ????? ? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????!
?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????.
??? ???? ????? ??? ????????
??????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ?????????? ???? ? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ? ?????!
??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???...
?? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??? ? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ? ?????? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ??? ???? ? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ??!
???? ? ?????????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? "??? ??? ???? ???" ? "??? ???..." ???? ?????...
? ?? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ? ??? ?? ????? ? ??? ? ??? ????? ???...
?? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ? ????...
????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ? ????? ????? ? ???????????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????????? ? ??????? ? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ??!
????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????????? ? ???? ? ????? ????? ? ???? ? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????. ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????!
? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????!
???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????... ???? (100)
????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????... ???? (201)
??????? ?????? ????? ????.?????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???. ????(141)
?????? ?? ??? ????? ??????????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????... ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????. ???? (246)
.
???? ?? ??? (????? ????? ?? ?? ?????.)
????? ???????? ?? ??? ???? (?? ???? ?????) ?? ?????.?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???.?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ?????!
???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???. ???? (233)
.
????? ?? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ? ????? ??????.?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????????. ???? (334)
.
??????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ????????! ???? (376)
June 17, 2023
????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????
???? ? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??? ??????
???? ? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ? ?? ??? ??????
July 20, 2007
I must confess that I didn't find much that was especially insightful in Camus' account of rebellion, revolution, and nihilism here while reading it, but now that I look back on it, I see that he actually has much to say--and that much of it is worthwhile.
Camus begins by defining the rebel as one who affirms by negating, who says yes in saying no--one who decries absolute freedom in establishing limits to acceptable behavior. He thus immediately counterposes the rebel with the nihilist, who, in denying that anything has meaning, valorizes a conception of life which is dominated by mere facts--power. He takes issue with revolutionary movements as they have existed in the twentieth century, claiming most of them to have betrayed the origins of rebellion by replacing it with an absolutist--even, totalitarian--ethic. He sees much to be respected in the efforts of the Russian 'revolutionaries' of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (a group from which he of course excludes Lenin), who rebelled against tsarism and tyranny often violently. Camus finds their nobility partly in the fact (which he posits) that these revolutionaries, unlike many of their counterparts of the twentieth century, were often quite consumed by doubt and engaged in murder and assassination only with much reluctance and much moderation. He laments, then, the disappearance of such doubt and moderation in the nihilism that gripped much of the twentieth century, nihilism that gave rise to the uncompromising ideology of Marxism-Leninism and, not unrelatedly, Nazism, and denounces its consequences.
Camus also roundly criticizes many of his intellectual contemporaries for their undying faith in Marxism, claiming, for one, that Marxism reproduces some of the central problems of religious faith (ie, in relegating justice, etc., to the "Later On," as he puts it--that is, post-capitalist society) and entails the negation of much that is defensible and good in humanity by reducing human obligation to the promotion of revolution. I think he's certainly on to something here, but I think his reading of Marx is also somewhat flawed, in that Camus seems to disregard Marx's concern with emancipation and free conscious activity in his efforts to discredit the approach of the "prophet of justice." Camus posits a different approach to social change, claiming that rebels/revolutionaries, in their efforts to combat injustice, should never lose sight of the importance of beauty within the conception of human dignity.
It seems that many so-called revolutionaries, though (probably more of the socialist-Marxist bent), would reject Camus' analysis as sentimental and, in fact, supportive of the status quo. Does Camus then break with the predominance of Marxist thought in his day and accept something close to anarchism? He certainly seems to reject revolutionary society (at least, the revolutions demonstrated thus far by history), but he remains highly critical of bourgeois society as well. Contemplating these tensions is crucially important, and Camus's The Rebel certainly represents an important contribution to this debate.
Camus begins by defining the rebel as one who affirms by negating, who says yes in saying no--one who decries absolute freedom in establishing limits to acceptable behavior. He thus immediately counterposes the rebel with the nihilist, who, in denying that anything has meaning, valorizes a conception of life which is dominated by mere facts--power. He takes issue with revolutionary movements as they have existed in the twentieth century, claiming most of them to have betrayed the origins of rebellion by replacing it with an absolutist--even, totalitarian--ethic. He sees much to be respected in the efforts of the Russian 'revolutionaries' of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (a group from which he of course excludes Lenin), who rebelled against tsarism and tyranny often violently. Camus finds their nobility partly in the fact (which he posits) that these revolutionaries, unlike many of their counterparts of the twentieth century, were often quite consumed by doubt and engaged in murder and assassination only with much reluctance and much moderation. He laments, then, the disappearance of such doubt and moderation in the nihilism that gripped much of the twentieth century, nihilism that gave rise to the uncompromising ideology of Marxism-Leninism and, not unrelatedly, Nazism, and denounces its consequences.
Camus also roundly criticizes many of his intellectual contemporaries for their undying faith in Marxism, claiming, for one, that Marxism reproduces some of the central problems of religious faith (ie, in relegating justice, etc., to the "Later On," as he puts it--that is, post-capitalist society) and entails the negation of much that is defensible and good in humanity by reducing human obligation to the promotion of revolution. I think he's certainly on to something here, but I think his reading of Marx is also somewhat flawed, in that Camus seems to disregard Marx's concern with emancipation and free conscious activity in his efforts to discredit the approach of the "prophet of justice." Camus posits a different approach to social change, claiming that rebels/revolutionaries, in their efforts to combat injustice, should never lose sight of the importance of beauty within the conception of human dignity.
It seems that many so-called revolutionaries, though (probably more of the socialist-Marxist bent), would reject Camus' analysis as sentimental and, in fact, supportive of the status quo. Does Camus then break with the predominance of Marxist thought in his day and accept something close to anarchism? He certainly seems to reject revolutionary society (at least, the revolutions demonstrated thus far by history), but he remains highly critical of bourgeois society as well. Contemplating these tensions is crucially important, and Camus's The Rebel certainly represents an important contribution to this debate.
September 15, 2023
****3.5 stars. However, I round it up to 4 stars.****
The Rebel is one of the most intensely philosophical books that I have read in my entire life. It packs a punch from the word go. As a result it took me quite some time to read and digest the contents of this gem from the legendary French/Algerian philosopher Albert Camus. The most striking parts of this opus, which linger with me even now as I reflect on The Rebel, are the chapters about the 'haunting' execution of King Louis XVI and the connection between Rebellion and Art. The latter began with a partial refutation by Camus of Nietzsche's famous aphorism "No artist tolerates reality", with an equally profound insight that "No artist can ignore reality." Interestingly Camus argues that writers and not fine artists shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for rebellion on the aesthetic plane. The intricacy of the arguments advanced by Camus on this topic is awe inspiring. He clearly read and synthesized a vast trove of literature in order write The Rebel with such conviction and command of history, philosophy and politics. This is no small feat. Moreover, Camus expresses his arguments and shapes his concepts with precision as well as literary finesse. This often led me to reread some parts of the text just to fully appreciate the depth of meaning infused by Camus into every sentence. Equally impressive is that Camus, who had a been initially staunch pro-communist leftist, dared to publish The Rebel in which he condemns the murderous atrocities of the totalitarian communist regime in the Soviet Union that followed from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Effectively, this book signifies Camus' change in allegiance from the extreme left towards a more moderate, humanist philosophy. For this he paid the price of being ostracized by many of his contemporaries including the famous existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre.
Where The Rebel, perhaps falls short is that it is very dense and philosophy heavy. One needs to be extremely well versed in philosophy to keep up with Camus' arguments. I found myself treading water many times, just barely managing to follow him. Also, some parts of the book, in particular on Naziism and Communism in Russia go into excruciating detail and at times seem to veer off into intellectual tangents. This made it hard at times for me to sustain my engagement with the content of the book.
In short, The Rebel is perhaps not for everyone. I would highly recommend this book to avid students of philosophy and history, who are willing to make the effort and take the time to delve into the details. This is not a light read for a rainy Sunday afternoon!
The Rebel is one of the most intensely philosophical books that I have read in my entire life. It packs a punch from the word go. As a result it took me quite some time to read and digest the contents of this gem from the legendary French/Algerian philosopher Albert Camus. The most striking parts of this opus, which linger with me even now as I reflect on The Rebel, are the chapters about the 'haunting' execution of King Louis XVI and the connection between Rebellion and Art. The latter began with a partial refutation by Camus of Nietzsche's famous aphorism "No artist tolerates reality", with an equally profound insight that "No artist can ignore reality." Interestingly Camus argues that writers and not fine artists shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for rebellion on the aesthetic plane. The intricacy of the arguments advanced by Camus on this topic is awe inspiring. He clearly read and synthesized a vast trove of literature in order write The Rebel with such conviction and command of history, philosophy and politics. This is no small feat. Moreover, Camus expresses his arguments and shapes his concepts with precision as well as literary finesse. This often led me to reread some parts of the text just to fully appreciate the depth of meaning infused by Camus into every sentence. Equally impressive is that Camus, who had a been initially staunch pro-communist leftist, dared to publish The Rebel in which he condemns the murderous atrocities of the totalitarian communist regime in the Soviet Union that followed from the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Effectively, this book signifies Camus' change in allegiance from the extreme left towards a more moderate, humanist philosophy. For this he paid the price of being ostracized by many of his contemporaries including the famous existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre.
Where The Rebel, perhaps falls short is that it is very dense and philosophy heavy. One needs to be extremely well versed in philosophy to keep up with Camus' arguments. I found myself treading water many times, just barely managing to follow him. Also, some parts of the book, in particular on Naziism and Communism in Russia go into excruciating detail and at times seem to veer off into intellectual tangents. This made it hard at times for me to sustain my engagement with the content of the book.
In short, The Rebel is perhaps not for everyone. I would highly recommend this book to avid students of philosophy and history, who are willing to make the effort and take the time to delve into the details. This is not a light read for a rainy Sunday afternoon!
Read
September 12, 2015???? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????.??? ,???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? "??? ???????" ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???,??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ????.
??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????.????? ? ??????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??? ???.???,?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????-????? ? ??? ? ????-?? ???.
??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????.????? ? ??????? ???? ???? ? ??? ??? ???.???,?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????-????? ? ??? ? ????-?? ???.
July 22, 2009
I admit ¨C when I first picked up The Rebel in this artful Penguin edition, I was picturing beatniks with berets and cigarettes contesting over existentialist espressos about the absurdity of man and the imperative to resist. Instead I found myself pounding through pages of difficult, beautifully-phrased polemic, never quite sure what was being argued for or against. It's not so much that Camus meanders as that he seems to take a very long, philosophical-historical route to reach the most obvious conclusion: Murder is always wrong, without exception ¨C and whenever we champion a system of faith or justice or equality which justifies depriving others of life and liberty, we stumble into "nihilism" ¨C or more simply, into inhumanity.
Camus opens with the provocative aphorism "Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is" ¨C and concludes with a line worthy of a flower-child ¨C "instead of killing and dying in order to produce the being that we are not, we have to live and let live in order to create what we are." But the meditative chapters in between are demanding and sometimes revelatory.
This is far from my favorite book by Camus (I'm particularly fond of L'?tranger), but when he published it in 1951 it was an astounding feat of courage, earning him derision, isolation and the enmity of Sartre & Co. He is a hero to me, most of all in his refusal to be one.
Camus opens with the provocative aphorism "Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is" ¨C and concludes with a line worthy of a flower-child ¨C "instead of killing and dying in order to produce the being that we are not, we have to live and let live in order to create what we are." But the meditative chapters in between are demanding and sometimes revelatory.
This is far from my favorite book by Camus (I'm particularly fond of L'?tranger), but when he published it in 1951 it was an astounding feat of courage, earning him derision, isolation and the enmity of Sartre & Co. He is a hero to me, most of all in his refusal to be one.
September 4, 2021
I find myself extremely ill qualified to comment or review this masterpiece.
The way Camus condenses such paradoxical questions into words, explaining it all so easily, is simply incredible.
It definitely helps a lot, understanding the obscurity through the mind of this unmatched genius!
All I can say is,
It is undoubtedly one of the best books I've ever read.
Also, a must read to help understand this conundrum of the illogical reign of man.
No, our civilization survives in the complacency of cowardly or malignant minds - a sacrifice to the vanity of ageing adolescents. Lucifer also has died with God, and from his ashes has arisen a spiteful demon who does not even under stand the object of his venture.
The way Camus condenses such paradoxical questions into words, explaining it all so easily, is simply incredible.
It definitely helps a lot, understanding the obscurity through the mind of this unmatched genius!
All I can say is,
It is undoubtedly one of the best books I've ever read.
Also, a must read to help understand this conundrum of the illogical reign of man.
No, our civilization survives in the complacency of cowardly or malignant minds - a sacrifice to the vanity of ageing adolescents. Lucifer also has died with God, and from his ashes has arisen a spiteful demon who does not even under stand the object of his venture.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 947 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.