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 CaThe 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 – 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 – 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. ...more
I knew Bertrand Russell first through his autobiography and then some of his essays and Religion and science. This book I think had probably a revolutI knew Bertrand Russell first through his autobiography and then some of his essays and Religion and science. This book I think had probably a revolutionary effect in its own time when there were still so many cumbersome laws for marriage, divorce and sexual affairs in Europe and USA. Laws which were fundamentally based on religious superstitions where it was so difficult to change the law unless as Russell says himself those who are now old or middle-aged have died.
The book starts with a historical discussion on Matriarchal and Patriarchal societies where first the biological father was not clear and children liked by the fathers (the man who lived with the women) and possessed by their mothers and uncles. Then Patriarchal societies came and combined with religions, women were restricted to assure that children had only one biological father. Then it goes to romantic love, starting (mainly) from middle age and reaching its apogee in the romantic movement with Shelley as its chief apostle.
He truly revealed (and amazed me) his opinions on women in a chapter called "The Liberation of Women". He believed that women in centuries were misunderstood by men and excluded from cultures and now it's their right to express their true selves.
In future chapters he talked about love, marriage, prostitution and the role of government in families especially fathers' duties.
I have to say this book-- more than teaching new points to me-- showed me how pacifist philosopher Russell was. He put it into simple and witty words and never compassionates with religious moralities. ...more
My first exposure to Existentialism is a Humanism was in our faculty book fair when I was the second year student of engineering. I bought this book aMy first exposure to Existentialism is a Humanism was in our faculty book fair when I was the second year student of engineering. I bought this book and another book Hajj written by Ali Shariati. I was totally a blockhead. I knew almost nothing about literature, philosophy, theology, God and whatever else which wasn't science. All I knew was that I was a Muslim, growing up in a religious family and society, but I always wished to choose my beliefs by myself, I mean I wish to have some well thought and examined ideas based on good books that I needed to read. The very first step for a journey of self discovery was to find someone to help me understand at least from which way I had to start. I needed a motive force; an initial velocity or initial condition. But actually the most difficult part was that. To read an atheistic philosophy or a religious book in order to reinforce the basis of your beliefs. The latter was the one that I used to hear from people around myself. You should first read books about your own religion then read other kind of philosophies in order to critic them by your own reasons. Obviously, that way wasn't correct. If my religious thoughts were correct they shouldn't be changed after reading other kind of books. And now that I think about it, my situation was just like the man in that example of Sartre in this book who wasn't sure about which way he had to choose. And Sartre's suggestion was: "You are free, so choose; in other words, invent. No general code of ethics can tell you what you ought to do; there are no signs in the world". Even, I was free in choosing my guidance. Reading Existentialism is a Humanism or Hajj?! That was the question. It was not actually that simple. For a long time I felt I was a suspended particle, with no special orientation. A point in the Cartesian system with no coordinates with a very random and accidental motion.
I chose Sartre.
I chose him not that I knew him or the impression of a friend or someone else encouraged me to read him. All I knew about him was that he was a great philosopher of 20th century. His philosophy affected many things in many countries and my own region of world was not an exception. I needed to feel that I was "Free" . My friends kept saying "Do not engage yourself with Sartre, it will plunge you into despair." Indeed it did. It was officially the first time in my life that I was reading a book saying there was no need to consider God in life, it was extremely different from what we had "proudly" been taught at schools.
Existentialism is a Humanism was indeed among one of top ten books which change my life. A new window. A new way of thinking. A new way of living.
This is the third time that I read it and if I get any time I will read it again. Not that this is too difficult to understand, I think this book needs a general background of philosophy. Surely, I now understand it better that 8 years ago, but still I can't totally connect all the parts and come to one conclusion, for instance I do not know anything about phenomenology, materialism or philosophy of Marx.
The first part of the book is a speech about Existentialism, then two Q&As that the first one still very philosophical and the second one is more about Sartre himself in his 70.
I have already highlighted every sentence of this book. I think this is a precise explanation of Existentialism, a good start in order to read his other work "Being and Nothingness"....more
This leads to a special conception of the work of art. Too often the work of a creator is looked upon as a series of isolated testimonie
[image]
This leads to a special conception of the work of art. Too often the work of a creator is looked upon as a series of isolated testimonies. Thus, artist and man of letters are confused. A profound thought is in a constant state of becoming; it adopts the experience of a life and assumes its shape. Likewise, a man's sole creation is strengthened in its successive and multiple aspects: his works. One after another they complement one another, correct or overtake one another, contradict one another, too. If something brings creation to an end, it is not the victorious and illusory cry of the blinded artist: "I have said everything," but the death of the creator which closes his experiences and the book of his genius.
Loading...
