Meursault as Christ in The Stranger (The Outsider)
In one of his later interviews, Camus made the somewhat irritated comment that Meursault is the “only Christ we deserve.” While this seem to be a pithy, witty comment, we need to figure out how Meursault is like Christ. Christ taught his disciples and had them go and teach others, yet Meursault has no disciples and chooses to say little. Meursault murders while Christ brings a man back from the dead. Most drastically, Christ ”died for our sins” in order to make all those who follow free from original sin. Meursault just dies.
So it is hard to see the link. If, however, we are to take Camus seriously, we need to push hard on this comparison. Christ lived his life along an orchestrated plan. At the garden of Gethsimede, Christ looks to heaven and asks that “this cup be taken from me.” Later, he recants and continues along his preordained path to crucifixion. Meursault never gets that chance. Instead of the hand of God or Fate pushing him inexorably forward, he chooses Chance. Chance put him on the floor with ...
In Camus’ The Stranger, the use of the minor character Raymond helps illustrate the absurd nature of Meursault. Through imagery, dialogue, and irony, the novel investigates the moral decisions Meursault makes under Raymond’s influence. The constant tactical bribery and other forms of manipulation steer Meursault’s writing of the letter that leads to him killing the Arab and ultimately receiving the death penalty. Camus uses Raymond to highlight the cultural and societal values. In addition, through Raymond’s help, Meursault ends up in jail where he finally realizes the theme that life is
Socrates a classical Greek philosopher and character of Plato’s book Phaedo, defines a philosopher as one who has the greatest desire of acquiring knowledge and does not fear death or the separation of the body from the soul but should welcome it. Even in his last days Socrates was in pursuit of knowledge, he presents theories to strengthen his argument that the soul is immortal. His attempts to argue his point can’t necessarily be considered as convincing evidence to support the existence of an immortal soul.
...r has not done makes no essential difference at the end. The nurse at the funeral tells him, "if you walk too slowly, you'll get heat exhaustion, but if you walk too fast, then the cool air in church will give you a chill.” As he kills the Arab, he thinks, "Whether I fire or don't fire is irrelevant; the ending will be the same.” And at the trial, Meursault tells the prosecutor, "I have lived my life thus and did x, but if I had done y or z instead, it wouldn't have mattered.” And, ultimately, Meursault turns out to be correct; he discovers that when death approaches, all men are equal, no matter what their ages or previous lives. Meursault views death as an escape: you can't escape from it, but you can escape into it, and he prepares himself to do so, bit by bit. Each parellel incident is just one more winding round of the rope that will bind him completely.
... his mother and the idea of God which is again supported by his close relationships. Those relationships are with people who don’t believe in a higher being or who show no true morals. Camus accommodates white with many objects and people, yet purposely excludes Meursault and refers to him as dark. All of these techniques show Meursault as a nonreligious man with potential to harm without remorse. This leads up to his interaction with light where he feels uncomfortable just as he does with God. Meursault’s history and personality lead up to the murder of the Arab, the distraction of the light, and in the end, accusing God, “the light”, for his criminal behavior. Human nature needs moral standards or the world would be as corrupt as Meursault’s life.
In the book Republic, Plato is on a quest to define Justice as he builds the ideal city. His city is ruled by philosopher kings, the true rulers. Philosophers, in Plato’s opinion, are best fit to rule and judge because of their love of knowledge and wisdom. When arguing philosophers have the experiences of all regimes Plato says, “The philosopher to have tasted the kind of pleasure that comes from the sight of things as they truly are. ‘so far as experiences goes, then,’ I said, ‘he is the one who is in the best position to judge” (325). Plato believes, that because philosophers have all the parts of the soul that other types of rulers contain, plus the ability to be able to see the world for what is, they then have
If you had to choose between both greek philosophers to run a "just city" the best choice would be Aristotle. He had fully established himself under his mentor Plato and created better and stronger ideas. In ending I do believe Aristotle's views of democracy were highly optimistic in contrast Plato seemed to not think highly of every one having some sort of freedom in the political world.
The great philosopher, Plato, wrote two specific dialogues; the book Timaeus and the book Critias. Plato was a professional teacher who valued intelligence immensely. Plato founded the first Philosophical Academy in Athens in the early fourth century BC. He devoted his life to philosophy and the teachings of his friend Socrates. Plato learned from Socrates and passed on his knowledge to his students. After his friend's sudden death, Plato became dissatisfied with the government in Athens. He filtered away from his family and lived his dream of researching and teaching philosophy. Plato focused on many philosophical aspects and wrote numerous dialogues. In the book Timaeus, Plato spoke of the beginning of the world and the creation of living creatures. Plato believed the human body and soul were created with precise, divine planning.
A democracy in Plato’s Republic is viewed as one of the lowest types of regimes a city could have because it can be the one that fails the easiest. There are five total regimes that Plato ranks having to do with how successful they can be. The best being a Aristocracy, then Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy and the worst being Tyranny. Each type of regime that fails degenerates into a worse regime. For example, if a Democracy fails then it later becomes a Tyranny.
In the Plato’s Republic mainly discuses the idea of what justice is. The answer to this question has a variety of answers according to the Republic, which makes it very interesting. Throughout this book, you will be driven in many directions of what justice is. Some may the answer is to primarily is doing the right thing. The main issue comes from about is whether to try and be just at the expense of staying poor, or lie, or even use the very unjust means to get what one wants in life. The main point of the book is a man who tries to be very just, may spend life wandering in the streets in search for money, while the man who lies to get their way, will be rich. This essay looks at the Thrasymachus’s concept of and the Socrates’s concept of justice. The essay also looks at the author thinks that the unjust man will be happier that the just man. It explores the reasons why the concepts are right or wrong.
Society believes Meursault as an emotionless killer or a stranger to society’s morality, Meursault then can’t explain why he couldn’t feel any emotion, drive, or thoughts of remorse for his murder. Lastly, when the chaplain visits Meursault against his wishes, this scene shows how society expects everyone to ask for forgiveness from God when near death. Meursault then thinks it is absurd and refuses to believe it because he says it’s ridiculous and there’s no time at all.
...everyone is surrounded by death. Camus explains that life isn’t about what is not envisioned, but it’s about what is evident. Meursault’s feeling of apathy is directly related to his conviction that life lacks necessary order and meaning, “As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope…I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world,” as he awaits his impending death, he finally recognizes that life is the most complex entity in the universe and one only has one life to live, so live it wisely (122). In the end, Meursault changed spiritually because he didn’t concentrate as much on the physical world because while he was in prison, he thought about life’s gifts and (although still atheist) realizes that faith in yourself and life is very important. There is also some irony here; he finally realizes the meaning of live just as he awaits his death.
It is true that Meursault was different from the rest of society. However, he changes throughout the trial and eventually becomes an existentialist hero. This is because he finds meaning in life. It is ironic, though, that he learns to appreciate life after his is effectively over. His apathetic approach to life is made clear from the first page: “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know.” This foreshadows his approach to everything else in the book. His indifference to Maman’s death contrast’s significantly to Salamano’s distress at losing his dog. Many of the characters in this book also function to highlight his qualities through contrast.
Camus' choice of Meursault, an unusual person, who does not 'play the game', enables him to demonstrate this argument. Meursault's first words are 'Mother died today.' He is very quiet and detached and likes to observe events around him like a spectator, regardless of their importance to him. At his mother's funeral, he does not cry, he smokes and drinks coffee, and this turns out to be the reason for his execution. It may appear that the fact that Meursault is killed because of the way he acts at his mother's funeral is a sign of hubris, much like Creon's in Antigone, who does not respect Polynices' death properly.
Meursault was always indifferent. Meursault accepted death. Why? Meursault saw the purpose of life meaningless. That is “Absurdity”! Absurdity, how does that word sound? Pretty bad, eh? Absurdity when used like “that’s absurd!” gives the feeling of negative judgment and a sense of finality. The idea of the Absurd seems to attach itself with meaningless, pointless and other such words that express a destination but without the means to get there and vice versa means but no destination. So from there I inferred that Camus does not believe in God nor any high law or universal law that are associated with a divinity, which is a path in life (either the means or the destination). So what is Absurd? The Absurd is living, a quest to find the meaning of anything within a reality with no purpose. Reality has no purpose because there is no high law, a universal law nor a God. Therefore this reality must be randomness. I believe that Camus wants us to see this and begin questioning our existence. So he wants he wants us to see the Absurdity and to cope with the Absurdity.
Camus writes in a simple, direct, and uncomplicated style. The choice of language serves well to convey the thoughts of Meursault. The story is told in the first person and traces the development of the narrator's attitude toward himself and the rest of the world. Through this sort of simple grammatical structure, Camus gives the reader the opportunity to become part of the awareness of Meursault. In Part I, what Meursault decides to mention are just concrete facts. He describes objects and people, but makes no attempt to analyze them. Since he makes no effort to analyze things around him, that job is given to the reader. The reader therefore creates his own meaning for Meursault's actions. When he is forced to confront his past and reflect on his experiences, he attempts to understand the reasons for existence. At first, Meursault makes references to his inability to understand what's happening around him, but often what he tells us seems the result of his own indifference or detachment. He is frequently inattentive to his surroundings. His mind wanders in the middle of conversations. Rarely does he make judgments or express opinions about what he or other characters are doing. Meursault walks through life largely unaware of the effect of his actions on others.