Un gros ramassis de nihilisme et crises tout au long du roman. Ce roman démontre la nécessité d’un boulot ou d’un passe-temps dans ta vie pour éviter Un gros ramassis de nihilisme et crises tout au long du roman. Ce roman démontre la nécessité d’un boulot ou d’un passe-temps dans ta vie pour éviter que tu aies des crises existentialistes tout le temps. Lui, il quitte son boulot après avoir reçu un gros héritage qui lui permet de ne plus jamais travailler et il choisit de vivre seul mais ne fait rien avec son temps et choisit à la place de ruminer le manque de sens de la vie. C’est pas tant qu’on a besoin d’être productif mais qu’il faut qqch qui t’occupe l’esprit, si on le laisse vagabonder, on finit par devenir comme lui. Moi, je suis de l’avis que la vie n’a objectivement aucun sens réel mais il faut faire avec les moyens du bord, pourquoi pas juste essayer de profiter de la vie? C’est pas vivre dans l’ignorance ça, comme le personnage principal dit. Lui, il s’étonne de la façon dont tout le monde se comporte comme si c’était pas bizarre d’exister et pense que c’est lui, l’illuminé qui s’est rendu compte de l’absurdité de la vie, mais il a tout faux. C’est lui qui ne cherche jamais une solution à son problème et reste convaincu tout au long de l’intrigue de son “intelligence� (pas qu’il soit élitiste) et se positionne en tant qu’un spectateur des êtres humains, il les regarde travailler et vivre mais n’y participe jamais. Il crée des plans mais ne va jamais au bout des choses. Like bruhhh. Pour moi, il faut juste accepter le manque de sens et apprendre à vivre avec. Je trouve mieux de continuer à vivre malgré cette vérité et se réjouit tout de même de la vie, on a pas besoin de trouver un sens à la vie parce qu’il existe pas, mais ça va aller tout de même.
C’est un beau roman mais c’est pas très agréable à lire. J’avais l’impression que Ionesco rabâchait le même message tout au long du livre et je m’ennuyais quelque peu vers le milieu. J’aurais voulu que le personnage principal développe un peu mais non....more
A pretty short book, read it in one sitting. Bro this book made me so motivated LMAO. It puts a lot of emphasis on what you can personally do. SpecifiA pretty short book, read it in one sitting. Bro this book made me so motivated LMAO. It puts a lot of emphasis on what you can personally do. Specifically, if you control your own thoughts, you control your own future. Good thoughts lead to good actions and consequently, to a good future. And vice versa.
I find it funny that it's so contrasting with modern discours cuz it so clearly defines, these are BAD thoughts, while these are GOOD thoughts, that we need to get rid of these bad ones because they corrupt us and focus on the good ones. In contrast, I see more and more now that people are more interested in "the dark side" of people and consequently more accepting of our darker thoughts, and we're more like, it's natural dw blah blah blah. But this book is just the opposite lol....more
a friend recommended me the book, thanks for that, it was a pretty great book albeit short, I read it in two sittings in a day.
It's a fun little book a friend recommended me the book, thanks for that, it was a pretty great book albeit short, I read it in two sittings in a day.
It's a fun little book and since I read majorly non-fiction books, it was cool to see similar themes discussed in non-fiction books being expressed artfully in fiction books. I'm generally pretty dense with fiction so usually everything passes over my head but even i got the messages. I've come to similar conclusions as Nora did really when it comes to questioning my own academic path; I don't think there's a single program that I would wholeheartedly enjoy.
This book also made me think about the mindset of "never settle", that one advice that a bunch of people always tell me. Is that not super toxic lol? It's like trying to make me unsatisfied with my own life and I really don't need that. The idea of always looking for greener pastures believes in objective value in certain things which I don't really think exists. Maybe some other people have more cultural capital or just more capital but it doesn't mean that they are more satisfied than you always. Yeah its a fun book I liked it a lot....more
I want to return to this piece after reading more on Sartre's philosophy cuz I can sense that there's a bunch of messages left and right that I can't I want to return to this piece after reading more on Sartre's philosophy cuz I can sense that there's a bunch of messages left and right that I can't appreciate properly rn. Feels like I'm missing a lot but I tried to understand it with what basic knowledge I have of Sartre's philosophy.
First of all, fictional interpretations of hell are some of my favourite things in the world, just seeing how people all have different interpretations of what's supposedly the worst place possible in the world is always so thought provoking. "That's so horrible" I always tell myself after. From the descent into the circles of hell in in the movie As Above So Below and as well the one I'm really excited to read about now, Dante's Inferno, it's always so enjoyable to read about! In any case, Sartre proposes this alternative form of torture and I think he uses the notion of hell to reinforce his philosophy more than he means to say that this is what hell looks like.
This play is where the (sort of) famous phrase, "Hell is other people" comes from or for all the frenchies out there, "l'enfer, c'est les autres". It isn't to say that other people are hellish (though they sure can be) but that true hell is to be forever wrongly interpreted by those around you : to be unable to convince people otherwise who you are. Upon death, you can't fix anything anymore, you can't act and so their lasting gaze on you is who you are, as the dead are now deprived of agency to act on the real world. I'm sure this could be worded better by someone else LOL.
In the play, the three are confused as to why they are put together in the same room, not knowing initially that this place is hell. The only common link between the three is that they all either killed someone or drove someone to their deaths and now they are all three dead. I would say that their backgrounds almost don't impact directly the message except that they're all uniquely horrible. I'm amazed at how Sartre managed to write 3 characters with such unique passes that have a logical reason to never be able to get along, and they're really well built! It's like the characters constantly have each other in check mate Garcin not liking Estelle & Inès because they see him as a coward, Inès not liking Estelle & Garcin because she can't seduce Estelle and Garcin being able to seduce Estelle, and Estelle not liking Garcin & Inès because because Inès is a woman and because Garcin is a coward. What an awful trio LMFAO.
The three eventually come to the conclusion that they're in hell, hearing voices momentarily of how they're viewed from up above and become insatisfied of others perception of them. However, realizing they can't do anything about that, given that they're dead and in hell, they must turn to each other and convince one another that they're not that bad. But they can't get along with each other. But they have to convince each other. Etc. That's what I imagine Sartre describes as hell, not being able to change other's perception of oneself.
I think it supposes in a way that who we are is a cumulation of other's interpretation's. And that we must take advantage of our free will to rectify potential misunderstandings or whatever. But that all seems a bit silly to me? Wouldn't that lack of control on who you are, as you can't control what others think of you, go against the notion of free will which Sartre seems to talk about a lot? Especially since our actions that convince people to change their minds about us aren't objectively interpreted, like how voting for X politician can be to you a way to better society while others can interpret the same action negatively.
I feel like the belief of being trapped in the gaze of others, that we can only see our reflection through other's eyes as is suggested in the play with the lack of mirrors in the room and how Estelle is forced to see herself, literally, through Inès' eyes, is just a bit immature. Like people pleasing stuff. Sure, you could warp to other people's expectations but I'm of the belief that people really don't know much about you ever and to let other people dictate who you are is an endless venture of people pleasing. Kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy when it really doesn't have to be that way.
Anyways, not really too my thing, too much yapping, not much change, but cool idea!...more
I'm finally done this monster of a book :)), it's really good! I think this is the type of book that you read 2-3 times before you actually properly uI'm finally done this monster of a book :)), it's really good! I think this is the type of book that you read 2-3 times before you actually properly understand it cuz I know that after page 93, once he started illustrating the absurd in Don Juan etc. as well as what living with the absurd in mind is like in daily life, like being an artist etc., I was lost as all hell LOL. But I'm looking forward to the next time that I feel like picking back up this book again. This was my third attempt at the book, the previous two tries only being able to read up to the 60 page mark before I gave up, which explains why I understood up till page 93 so much better this time around. The writing of Camus here, normally so straightforward can only be described as enigmatic, a beautifully intricate puzzle that is locked. Eventually, after reading through his paragraphs, you may stumble upon a certain sentence of his, a key, that unlocks the meaning behind everything that you just read. And so, you reread that entire section again. Sometimes you aren't able to find that key at all and you're just lost, which is ok, it's not an easy read, come back to this book eventually and understand it better next time. The sentences are so intricately woven together, it's so dense too! I never thought an essay could be artful but it is here.
I feel like this book is so important to anyone who finds themselves unable to push themselves to do anything in life, crippled by a lack of meaning behind their actions. Personally, I feel like I'm haunted continuously by this inescapable loneliness that I can't seem to escape from, who's presence I only manage to push back temporarily with other people's company. I don't like feeling like this, it seems to invalidate everything else I do as I would question the purpose of my effort if at the end of the day, I wouldn't feel satisfied, so in the end, what's all this for?
Camus affirms instead that a lot of us view life through a futile optic. We evaluate the usefulness of our actions through asking ourselves: "what is the meaning behind this?", which can, if this line of questioning is continued, leads to the classic, "well, what is the meaning of life then?". And it is normal to ask this question, to search for meaning in life but this need will inevitably clash with the cold and silent universe and from this conflict, results the absurd, that is, the lack of meaning despite our instinct to have one.
There seems to be two responses to this dilemma: 1) lose all will for the activity and just stop doing it because you're convinced there's no point in it, and 2) continue doing it having convinced yourself of an often extrinsic goal. Camus invokes this same response in a more serious context, faced with this absurdity, should we: 1) commit suicide (as there is no meaning to what we do), or 2) continue to live through hope (e.g religion, etc.). Both answers are unsatisfactory as well, to give up faced with this lack of meaning, in knowing that all ends with our deaths, is simply unsatisfactory. One day or another, our short lives will find an end to themselves, so what difference does it make that you die now or later? Rather, to give up and choose death seems like a contradiction in itself. To choose suicide, we're convinced of a meaning in life through the lack of it so the logic doesn't stand until the end. If one were to admit life had no meaning, there would be no difference in dying today or dying at 80. Rather, it appears as an act out of fear, of someone unwilling to face life and suffer, as one rarely wants to die happy. The second option appears unsatisfactory as well, in hoping, I feel constrained. As if there is a constant tension between the strength of my hope and certain misfortunes. In some days, it is easy to hope, and life is easy, but in many other periods, this meaning that we give to our actions, is so strongly tested that even once making it through successfully, we end up exhausted.
These two options are what he calls "l'esquive", the act of dodging. We choose to avoid the absurd in one way by eliminating this need for meaning (aka dying), and in another, we bury the reality of the void through our own invented meaning (i.e through religion, existentialism etc.). Camus proposes instead, to follow the way of the world. Upon discovering the absurdity of our meaningless existence, Camus imagines that we find ourselves all of a sudden in this barren desert and we struggle to do everything we can to leave it. We end ourselves, maybe we give meaning to this place, but Camus says that it's best to do everything in your power to stay in it. We should swim with this absurdity and keep it close to our heart and let it penetrate everything that we experience.
In accepting meaninglessness, we become free (not completely free that is, as that is impossible) and what's more, at peace and in harmony with the world. No more do we struggle with our instinct or fight a continuous futile combat or have our values tested. Only then, can we appreciate properly anything. One must imagine Sisyphus, the man punished by the gods to continuously push a rock up the mountains only for it roll back down the mountain and for him to push it back up again for eternity. A futile task it seems, and yet Camus proposes that that is us. For what are we struggling to push up that rock for if only to be crushed by our own efforts again and again? Why should we live to push up this rock? These are not the questions to be asking. Rather, everything about this task is what's important (dodgy translation incoming):
"Each grain of rock, each shine of mineral of this mountain a night, by themself, forms a world. The struggle itself towards the summit suffices to fulfill the heart of man. One must imagine Sisyphus happy" (pg 168)
The experience is the goal, and one should continue to accumulate more and more experiences in their lifetime. Keep death close to your heart as you will die one day or another, keep meaninglessness as your companion as it will never part anyways, embrace these concepts and then discover the world. Rightfully so, Camus calls this la révolte or the revolt, where humans should fight, not against this destiny (i.e trying to live off hope), not comply with this destiny (i.e ending yourself early), but to fight despite our destiny, and in this fight, appreciate it for itself. You are going to die, but before that, try living....more
This book to me is such an enigma, and it's weird how I didn't notice that this is a book that I've had the chance to reread 4 whole times, 2 times byThis book to me is such an enigma, and it's weird how I didn't notice that this is a book that I've had the chance to reread 4 whole times, 2 times by school and 2 times for fun and every single time I've had a different interpretation of this book and I think having gotten a lot a lot more into philosophy since year 1, I think this book makes more sense now. Especially since the version I read actually has a note from the author himself! And on top of having read Camus' dissertation on absurdism (go read that book pls).
Meursault I think is represented by two qualities I think, indifference and honesty. Indifference when it comes to anything in life, meaning he feels no attachment to anything and anyone. Honesty not just in being incapable of telling lies to people, but being incapable of percieving life for anything than what it is : meaningless and aimless. Meursault refuses to attach himself to any human systems of value and doesn't shield himself from the indifference of the universe to him. He is in this way opposed to everyone else in the book and this message is permeated in every aspect of the book. His indifference towards his mother's death, not even knowing her age nor when she died, his lack of morality and his dubious actions, his inability to love Marie, his inability to consider future plans, his inner monologue existing completely in the past tense, his focus on the heat rather than grieving etc. It's subtly infused in Camus' writing and I eat it up.
Meursault, again an honest man, refuses to lie about the nature of life. His idea is simple though never explicitly stated, that because he is doomed to die, that nothing has meaning. My idea is that this is represented ironically through the sun which is usually a symbol of life. In this book however, the sun is omnipresent (as it is irl) and constantly enters Meursault's monologue. Yet nobody else seems to be paying attention to it and it is constantly on Meursault's mind. I think the sun represents death in a sense, Meursault who lives with it in mind, embraces dearly the sunlight and when he chooses to murder the person, the sun is strong and blinds his eyes. In this sense, he is l'étranger, the stranger as described in the title. He refuses to play this human game of believing in life after death, religion and deeper meaning and passion and embraces death.
Meursault however isn't meant to represent Camus' absurdist philosophy however until the end. It's only then when he starts to ressemble properly Sisyphus. In the beginning however, his lifestyle can only be described as hedonistic. Faced with the truth that there is only death awaiting him, he chooses to embrace surface level physical sensations and only that. However, towards the end, he has some sort of spiritual awakening, starting sometime during his court proceedings. At first, seeing Meursault, you'd be quick to assume that he's some sort of psychopath that just has trouble feeling deeply about anything in life. But it's evident that he's a normal person. When he witnesses his friends Celeste and Raymond trying to save him during the court proceedings, Meursault gets strongly emotional and even has the thought that "this is the first time I've ever wanted to kiss a man" he says LMFAO. When the priest starts yelling at him, he gets enraged and yells back, refusing to convert to christianity. I think Meursault is just numb and deeply convinced that since nothing is permanent, nothing has value. In a way, he's given up on life which is a sad mentality.
However, in the end, he has his spiritual awakening. He comes to the conclusion in his last moments that life is indeed valuable. Prepare for some terrible translation. I love this part.
-The priest says to him: "I'm with you. You can't know it becaus eyou your heart is blind. "
- Meursault says: "And I don't know why but something died in me. I screamed at him and insulted him and told him not to pray. I vomitted from the bottom of my heart my joy my anger and my frustration".
And then he rants a lot. But this emotional outburst is so out of character but I imagine it's been something that's been sitting in his heart since forever. He understands afterwards that his life, any animals lives and everything that ever existed is so infinitely valuable because there is a limit to their lives and that everything will come to an end one day. Meursault learns to feel grateful for ever having to be ablle to live his life no matter how meaningless, there was joy at the end of meaninglessness in a way. To live knowing that he would die and that everyone would die one day one way or another was a way to liberate himself from pressure to make his mark or anything. It's sad but he begins his revolt against meaninglessness at the end of his life and I think if he had found out earlier, he would have been more satisfied dying. Anywas I liked this book....more
I read this book thinking to like, get me back in the French mood yk to kick off my exchange program and if I stThanks Jaclyn for buying me this book.
I read this book thinking to like, get me back in the French mood yk to kick off my exchange program and if I still got it even though my french has been decaying since explore ☠️☠️☠️. I breezed through this book so hard and I’m pretty proud of how far I’ve come since I had to read this in class since gr11, I remember feeling a lot of friction when reading this but now it’s like no effort needed. Crime and punishment is harder to understand and that’s in english ☠️
This is such a cute cute book, I like it a lot. I love these like abstract children’s stories, like Alice in Wonderland, The Wizard of Oz, etc with really wack plot lines that idk how people come up with and it ends up being mainly for kids. Like the ones where explaining the plot sounds so silly. I’d like to find more French books like this cuz I get enough of that in English from Roald Dahl alone.
Anyways, how I see this book’s main message is now, “adults get caught up too often in abstractions related to what adulthood is supposed to be like that we forget the reason for which we undertook said tasks in the first place�. I don’t entirely agree with the message anymore though as I think it’s a bit silly to imagine that we can and should always experience everything as a child would and that we would be happier that way because there’s definitely a huge natural difference between adult and child, we just think and see the world differently and it’s not just a SOCIETY thing.
The little prince is a type of character similar to Klara in Klara and the Sun, a sort of alien that comes to witness a foreign culture and through their innocence, by contrast, put into light our weirdness. Idt the author did a super job nuancing the adult world as all it says is that big people do things that are hard to understand and seem nonsensical and so they’re being stupid.
Some things I didn’t understand was why the little prince liked the light house keeper more than the business man for example. Was it that he was working for something other than himself? In the end the lighthouse keeper is was just following orders whose source he doesn’t know, isn’t that more or less the same thing as what the business guy is doing? I don’t get it. Neither of their works bring any value to anyone, not even themselves as the little prince says so I don’t get why he likes the light house guy more. In any case, it’s a good general message don’t seperate the meaning of your work from your doing the work, work to live don’t live to work!
I thought that it was a cute point about how the pilot not knowing which star the little prince will be on makes all the stars special. I defo agree, I wonder though if the pilot would be happier knowing which exact star the prince will be on, is he happier in ignorance which makes the stars all magical or in exactitude? I feel like if I had a choice presented to me, I’d pick exactitude just out of human nature but I’d secretly be happier not having the choice and being able to imagine.
Also I really liked the idea of the price of love/happiness and how to be happy or have anything worthwhile in life, the risk of being hurt is incurred. The fox is the goat. But the trade off is that your world becomes more magical and everything becomes infused with their essence which is your love for them. It’s not just X, it could maybe be a gift to them, a reminder of them, anything. These connections your brain makes to the person, these subtle reminders of their existence in your life light up your world in a way and makes everything seem actually 3 dimensional. Or else all the earth would be is a giant big rock floating in space. ...more
Bon livre! C’est un aperçu de la vie d’un marginal, comment est-ce que votre entourage subirait un changement drastique qui vous différencie d’une perBon livre! C’est un aperçu de la vie d’un marginal, comment est-ce que votre entourage subirait un changement drastique qui vous différencie d’une personne « normale »? Comment est-ce que vos différences pèseraient sur la vie de vos proches? Et enfin, comment est-ce la façon dont ils vous traitent aurait un impact sur votre façon de concevoir les choses? J’étais à fond dedans! C’est un court livre que j’ai lu en entier dans deux séances de lectures.
La partie la plus intéressante que j’ai remarquée c’était comment le personnage principal assume très vite sa nouvelle forme alors que sa famille le rejètera tout au long du roman....more
Loading...
