One Answer

  1. The fact is that in the conditions of the story itself, the hero of Meursault is in some way self — justified.

    Camus is, on the one hand, a continuation of the line of French moralism, on the other — in the person of Camus, this line has no system, because Camus does not believe in rational, clearly standing on one thing, amenable to description of morality. It is there, it is located and protected, it is constantly in opposition to everything that is outside. But nothing can be said about this morality.

    It is obvious that it does not fit either the idealism of faith or the pragmatism of history. Where it can come from in this case is exactly what Camus is trying to find out in The Outsider.

    For Meursault's character, life is spent in such a distorted state of enlightenment. On the one hand, he is always in the present moment, and for him there is nothing but things, objects, that can be felt and touched. He sees straight, speaks accurately and dryly. He does not always know what concerns him, but he knows exactly what does not concern him — and first of all this is all abstract, ideological, theoretical. Everything outside of itself, everything that works on symbols. Even the idea of an afterlife for him depends on the memories of life on earth.

    At the same time, his condition can hardly be called blissful. His interaction with the world is characterized by apathy, inattention, and inability to engage in dialogue. They don't understand other people's feelings or intentions very well. The objects that make up his world have only the most basic, most primitive properties. All he feels is barely rising out of this drowsy indifference, and almost the only thing that gives him an intense feeling is the Algerian heat, the hot sun, and the sweat pouring into his eyes — which, as he will later say, is why he committed the murder.

    This is a ridiculous excuse, but even it is redundant. In Camus's model, phenomena have no causes and no effects, everything just happens-not for some reason, but with someone, and the only thing that this someone can do in response is somehow adapt to what is happening, try to find some meaning of their own in previously meaningless circumstances.

    Death equalizes everything in any case. So you can do anything you want, but you can't do anything anyway.

    The question is inevitably what to do in such conditions. How to choose something.

    Meursault believes that he is right, because, according to him, he chose it himself — and for him it is the main criterion of morality and the main criterion of life. This kind of Nietzschean, Kierkegaardian refraction is certainly flawed, because in the end it still leads him to execution, and not for any truth, but only for the fact that Meursault, in a fever and for no reason at all, took one extra step towards the Arab, provoking senseless bloodshed.

    Whether this can be justified-probably not. But something else is important.

    It is important that Meursault's breakthrough does not occur after the murder, but after a dialogue with the priest on the last night before the execution. Only then does Meursault formulate for the first time exactly why he is right. In fact, for the first time in the entire text, he begins to really speak. This speech is also mixed up, it happens in chunks and does not carry any final meaning, any real meaningfulness, because it still can not stand on anything — but after that, Meursault becomes easier. He comes to terms with the world, and for the first time finally begins to feel it with enough intensity that you can actually believe it.

    In other words, Meursault has found his meaning, and for Camus this emphasis is more important.

    Justification and non-justification lie on a different plane-one that Meursault, he says, simply never thought about.

Leave a Reply