[PDF] FROM AN EXISTENTIALIST ANGLE CAMUSNUN MEURSAULTU

View - Download FROM AN EXISTENTIALIST ANGLE CAMUSNUN MEURSAULTU

Previous PDF

Next PDF

CAMUS'S MEURSAULT: FROM AN EXISTENTIALIST ANGLE

Arzu ÖZYÖN*

Abstract

This study aims to display the protagonist of Camus's

The Stranger

, namely Meursault, as an existentialist character. In doing so, it analyses the protagonist and unfolds his life in the light of the major principles of existentialism, which are the rejection of God, flaming passion for l ife, struggle against death, the sense of alienation, freedom of choice, suffering as a part of the world, indi vidual as the centre of the world

versus the other people and institutions, the abandonment of man (facticity), and the use of myth. Thus,

it strengthens the notion that Camus is an existentialist author, who has created an entirely existentialist

protagonist contrary to the idea that he is not an existentialist. Key Words: Existentialism, Death, Suffering, Alienation, Freedom, Myth, Abandonment CAMUS'NUN MEURSAULT'U: VAROLUŞÇU BÍR AÇIDAN

Özet

Bu çalışma Camus'nun

The Stranger (Yabancı)

adlı romanının ana karakteri Meursault'u varoluşçu bi r karakter olarak ele almaktadır. Bunu yaparken de ana karakteri, varol uşçuluğun temel prensipleri olan yaşamın bir anoğlunun terkedilmişliği ve mit kullanımı ışığ

ında

tersine, tamamiyle varoluşçu bir karakter yaratmış varoluşçu bir yazar olduğu düşüncesi de perçinlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Varoluşçuluk, Ölüm, Acı Çekme, Yabancılaşma, Ö zgürlük, Mit, Terk edilmişlik.

Pamukkale Üniversitesi

Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi

Sayı 13, 2012, Sayfa 89 -104

e-posta:arzuozyon@dpu.edu.tr

In the aftermath of World War II, Camus was

put in the category of existentialist writers.

However, he denied to be an existentialist

and refused repeatedly any such label in an interview he gave to Jeanine Delpech in 1945.

He rejected all ideological associations saying:

"No, I am not an existentialist. Sartre and I are always surprised to see our names linked

Les Nouvelles Littéraires

, November

15, 1945:1+ qtd. in Baker, 1993). So, how

come that he created a totally existentialist character, Meursault in his

The Stranger

? The answer comes from Baker :"But for all practical purposes he is one, at least in his philosophy of the absurd, in his constructive and moral pessimism, in his portrayal of the alienated man in L'Etranger (The Staranger), and in his plays" (Baker, 1993: 53). This means that though

Albert Camus rejects to be an existentialist

author, he is in fact an existentialist ,especially due to his philosophy of the absurd. Therefore, the aim of this study is to present one of Albert Camus' protagonists, Meursault, as an existentialist character, and thus to prove once more that Camus is an existentialist author. In order to do this, Meursault will be analysed in detail in terms of the following existentialist principles respectively: the rejection of God, flaming passion for life, struggle against death, the sense of alienation, freedom of choice, suffering as a part of the world, individual as the centre of the world versus the other people and institutions, the abandonment of man (facticity), the use of myth.

The major principle of existentialism is

the rejection of God, which is very evident in Camus's

The Stranger

, where the main character Meursault refuses the fact that God exists. As Loose explains it: 90
Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, Number 13, 20 12

Since the absurd issues from a collision

between the human need for unity and the silence of an unreasonable world, the absurd can be defined as "sin without God". This does not mean that the absurd excludes God, which would be to postulate that there is a God. What it does mean is that God's existence or non-existence would not alter one bit the metaphysical Picture: the human condition would remain the same with or without God. (...) Even though the absurd is "sin without God," the introduction of evil into the discussion forces the consideration of the problem of God and, ultimately, man's submission to or revolt against God (Loose, 1962: 204-206).

Loose presents two alternatives for the

problem of God: either people are not free and God, the omnipotent, is responsible for evil; or people are free and responsible but

God is not omnipotent. If God is omnipotent

and all the evil is the result of his designs, then what is the point in punishing man for the evil, why does man have to suffer for the designs of a cruel God? This situation creates a tension which demands either submission to or revolt against God. In other words, man must choose either obedience or revolt and freedom. There are no other alternatives.

Whereas, if God is not omnipotent, then man

becomes god, and he has two options in that case as well: he can either stay and face up to the absurd by rebelling against it till death and madness prevents him from doing so, or he can attempt to escape it. In the case of

Meursault, the second alternative seems to

be a stronger probability, which means that

God is not all-powerful, and man becomes

god, who prefers to stay and face the absurd by struggling against it. In the novel there are two striking examples that reveal his denial of God. The first example takes place when he is taken before the examining magistrate for the second time. The magistrate says that Meursault interests him, and that, with

God's help, he will do something for him.

But first he wants to ask some questions. He

asks Meursault if he loved his mother, and he answers he did. Then, he wants to learn why he paused between the first and second shot. Meursault does not reply. He asks the

same question two more times and seeing that Meursault remains silent, he stands up suddenly, rushes to him and takes out a silver

curifix and shouts: "Do you know what this is?" I said, "Yes, of course." Speaking very quickly and passionately, he told me that he believed in God, that it was his conviction that no man was so guilty that God would not forgive him, but in order for that to happen a man must repent and in so doing become like a child whose heart is open and ready to embrace all. (...) he cut me off and urged me one last time, drawing himself up to his full height and asking me if I believed in God. I said no.

He sat down indignantly. He said it was

impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless. "Do you want my life to be meaningless?" he shouted. As far as I could see, it didn't have anything to do with me, and I told him so.

But from across the table he had already

thrust the curifix in my face and was screaming irrationally, "I am a Christian. I ask Him to forgive you your sins. How can you not believe that He suffered for you?" I was struck by how sincere he seemed, but

I had had enough. It was getting hotter

and hotter. As always, whenever I want to get rid of someone I'm not really listening to, I made it appear as if I agreed. To my surprise, he acted triumphant. "You see, you see!" he said. "You do believe, don't you, and you're going to place your trust in Him, aren't you?" Obviously, I again said no. He fell back in his chair. (...) In a low voice he said, "I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours. The criminals who have come before me have always wept at the sight of this image of suffering (Camus,1955: 68-70).

Here, Meursault persistently says that he does

not believe in God, and thus tries to deny the existence of a God. Whatever the magistrate does, says or thinks does not matter to him, and does not alter the fact that he is a nonbeliever. He also does not refrain from repeating his disbelief in God several times.

Although Meursault is conscious of the fact

that his disbelief runs a risk of rendering the magistrate's life meaningless, he does not care about this and repeats his words that he does not believe in God. 91

The second example about the denial of God

is seen almost at the end of the novel when the confrontation between Meursault and the chaplain takes place. At the beginning of the fifth chapter, in the second part of the novel

Meursault says: "For the third time I've refused

to see the chaplain. I don't have anything to say to him; I don't feel like talking, and I'll be seeing him soon enough as it is" (Camus,1955:

208). In this fragment it is seen that he has

already refused the chaplain twice, and now refuses him for the third time. His words give such a sense that he has already started to get tired of him. After some time, when the chaplain once more comes to see him,

Meursault refuses him again. He says: "I didn't

need to see the chaplain", then after so long a time he starts to think about Marie, what she is doing, and if she is alive or dead. At that time the chaplain comes in. Meursault relates the event as such:

It was at that exact moment that the

chaplain came in. When I saw him I felt a little shudder go through me. He noticed it and told me not to be afraid. I told him that it wasn't his usual time. He replied that it was just a friendly visit and had nothing to do with my appeal, which he knew nothing about. He sat down on my bunk and invited met o sit next to him. I refused. (...) suddenly he raised his head and looked straight at me. "Why have you refused to see me?" he asked. I said that I didn't believe in God. He wanted to know if I was sure and I said that I didn't see any reason to ask myself that question: it seemed unimportant. (...)

He (...) asked me if I wasn't talking that

way out of extreme despair. I explained to him that I wasn't desperate. I was just afraid, which was only natural. "Then

God can help you," he said. "Every man I

have known in your position has turned to Him." I acknowledged that that was their right. It also meant that they must have had the time for it. As for me, I don't want anybody's help, and I just didn't have the time to interest myself in what didn't interest me. (...)At that he stood up and looked me straight in the eye. It was a game I knew well. (...) he said, "Have you no hope at all? And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing remains?" "Yes," I said (Camus, 1955: 115-117).

In this fragment, it is clearly seen that there

is a confrontation in which the chaplain tries to persuade Meursault to turn to God and repent, and Meursault stubbornly refuses to do so. Therefore, the tension between the two is increasing up to a point where Meursault will not be able to bear it anymore. In these two instances there seems to be a common point, that is, both men, the magistrate and the chaplain, fail to understand or accept the fact that Meursault is a very diffrent man and should not be compared with other or previous criminals they have met so far. These two representatives of social institutions, one of law and the other of religion, make the same mistake and compare him to the previous criminals who had normal human reactions, accepted and expected from normal people in such situations by the society in such a social order. However, it is easily perceived that

Meursault is not one of these ordinary man or

"everyman" as they call it. As Sprintzen states: "He does not 'live by the rules.' He does not think like ordinary people. He does not pay his respects, but seems indifferent to everything that is usually taken seriously" (Camus,

1955: 29), because, in both cases he has the

impression that these are only games that he knows very well and refuses to assent to the will of the two men. Furthermore, when the priest asks him to look at the wall to find the divine face of God, Meursault says the only face he sees on the wall is Marie's face, not God's.

Richard Baker expresses this earthly desire of

Meursault in his own words: "The divine face

Meursault sees on the wall in his cell is Marie's, a symbol of a relationship and friendship that he would like to continue developing; (...)" (Camus, 1955: 72). Therefore, even in such a situation, in which an ordinary man would try to turn to God and would ask for forgiveness,

Meursault is still after his earthly desires.

Hence, on no condition does he assent to the

will of the chaplain, who is a representative of the religious system Meursault is very foreign to, about asking for forgiveness from God.

Instead, he stubbornly expresses his disbelief

in God, and says that he cannot waste his limited time on Him. What he holds as the sole truth and the certainty is this life he continues to lead and his awating death, and other than these two certainties nothing matters to him. 92
Pamukkale University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, Number 13, 20 12

One of the significant components of

existentialism is man's passion for life, his "intense involvement in existence." Since he is conscious of the fact that death is waiting for him at the end of life, he does everything to lead a life as intense as possible. What becomes important for him is not the quality of his experiences but the quantity of them.

It is as if he were in a hurry to live, and to

accumulate as many experiences as possible until death or madness takes over him. Now, man does not ask for immortality, but only tries to "exhaust the field of the possible", as Camus expresses in

The Myth of Sisyphus

. Man is only given the moving present, therefore he must learn how to be happy in this present, how to exhaust the possibilities that this present life gives to him. Sprintzen, in the light of some of Camus's works - especially

Two Sides of

the Coin , Nuptials, and The Stranger - tries to define the characteristics of Camus's "Algerian

Man," which will help here to understand

Meursault's passion for life. He is a man with

no past and no traditions, but wholly devoted to the present living "with neither myths nor consolation". He invests all his assets on this earth, and left defenseless against death.

The gifts of physical beauty have been

heaped upon [him]. And, also the strange greediness that always goes along with the wealth that has no future. (...) a distaste for stability and a lack of regard fort he future. (...) in a hurry to live. (...) in this summer sky emptied of tenderness, beneath which all truths can be told and on which no deceitful divinity has traced the signs of hope or of redemption.

Between this sky and the faces turned

toward it there is nothing on which to hang a mythology, a literature, an ethic, or a religion - only stones, flesh, stars, and those truths the hand can touch. [He] wagered on the flesh, knowing [he] would lose. There is nothing [in Algiers] for [him] seeking knowledge, education, or self- improvement (Albert Camus, "Summer in

Algiers," Lyrical and Critical Essays, 89-90

qtd. in Sprintzen, 1988)

As is clearly presented above the Algerian

man's life is of present, it has neither past nor future; it can only end in death. He has no ambitions and plans for the future and he only seeks to exhaust or drain the possibilities of

his present life and accepts the conditions of this life without question. He has neither hope or redemption, nor ethic or religion. What he only cares about and believes in are the things

he can see and touch such as stones, flesh, and stars. He also likes being in direct contact with the nature or a union with nature. "The sun, sea and women in the sunlight", which are a few essential and perishable possessions, and riches of the living culture, give meaning to his life (Preface to

Rivages

, qtd. in Sprintzen, 1988)

Not surprisingly Camus's Meursault, like

the author himself, has almost all these characteristics of the "Algerian man." So, his love of life overpowers everything. As Baker states, Meursault is incredibly disinterested in anything except the pure flame of life. For him the only truth and value is his life and the possibilities that his life presents him to exhaust. He does not care about past or future, but only immediate present and tries to live it fully. He is a clerk without ambition, who rejects his boss's offer for a better job and a position in Paris. He is a man who will marry

Marie if she wants, and does not consider

marriage a big and serious matter. As Sprintzen explains, he is obviously an intelligent man; however, having been compelled to leave school due to poverty, he arrived at the conclusion that ambition was a waste of time and effort. All that mattered was living one day at a time, accepting the pleasures offered, and expecting no more. Having given up the future, his life follows the trajectory of the moment: job, acquaintances, social routines, climate. Events happen and he responds (Camus, 1955: 25). In other words, stripped of hope, ambition and sense of future, Meursault lives only in the present or in a succession of presents, and as fully as possible trying to drain all the possibilities of life. In some parts of the novel, his passion for life is felt very intensely. What is particularly emphasized in these parts of the novel is Meursault's physical needs and immediate wishes and pleasures.

During the funeral for example, instead of

mourning for his mother, he thinks about very trivial things saying: "All of it - the sun, the smell of varnish and incense, and my fatigue after a night without sleep - was making it hard for me to see or think straight" (Camus,

1955: 17). So, what he cares during the funeral

is a sleepless night and his fatigue, not his 93
mother or her death. After a short time, at the end of the funeral, as he leaves the village, he thinks of "people, voices, the village, waiting in front of a café, the incessant drone of the motor, and [his] joy when the bus entered the nest of lights that was Algiers and [he] knew [he] was going to go to bed and sleep for twelve hours" (Camus, 1955: 18). Here, again Meursault's physical needs overpower his mother's death and the significance of the funeral, and generally expected behaviours from him in such a situation. Just the day after the funeral, while he is shaving, he decides to go for a swim and catches the streetcar to go to the public beach down at the harbor. He runs into Marie Cardona there and a very sensual scene takes place in the water. Meursault relates it as such:

I helped her onto a float and as I did, I

brushed against her breasts. I was still in the water when she was already lying flat on her stomach on the float. She turned toward me. Her hair was in her eyes and she was laughing. I hoisted myself up next to her. It was nice, and, sort of joking around, I let my head fall back and rest on her stomach. She didn't say anything so I left it there. I had the whole sky in my eyes and it was blue and gold. On the back of my neck I could feel Marie's heart beating softly. We lay on the float for a long time, half asleep. When the sun got too hot, she dove off and I followed. I caught up with her, put my arm around her waist, and we swam together. She laughed the whole time. On the dock, while we were drying ourselves off, (...) I asked if she wanted to go to the movies that evening. She laughed again and told me there was a

Fernandel movie she'd like to see (Camus,

quotesdbs_dbs48.pdfusesText_48

[PDF] albert camus létranger pdf gratuit

[PDF] albert camus la peste pdf

[PDF] albert camus le premier homme pdf

[PDF] albert camus pdf gratuit

[PDF] alberta ferretti 2017 haute

[PDF] alc algerie anglais

[PDF] alc marrakech resultat 2015

[PDF] alcani teste grila

[PDF] aleph paulo coelho pdf français

[PDF] alex rider point blanc pdf

[PDF] alfa laval pdf

[PDF] alfa nancy

[PDF] alfredo quinones

[PDF] alfredo quinones md

[PDF] algebra pdf