The Outsider

The Outsider is often understood to encapsulate Camus's philosophical starting point. Sartre's essay, An explication of The Stranger, interprets the book's purpose as to portray the "feeling" of the Absurd – Camus's "point of departure". The novel, however, takes its place amongst a sea of ideas, reiterated and developed throughout a number of works from the same time period. Caligula, The Misunderstanding, A Happy Death and The Myth of Sisyphus were all written between 1936 and 1945. Camus's conception of Absurdity is manifested in each, however at the heart of all these works lies the unilateral pursuit of Ivan Fyodorovich's logic in The Brothers Karamazov: if God is dead, everything is permitted. Sagi perceives the works from a simpler point of view, believing them both to attempt an explication of the "experience of estrangement". This seems to reduce the explorations to a mediocre type of work, found in a vast category of books. It is my view that The Outsider goes much deeper in analysing and reflecting upon the time it is situated in.

What is essential for Camus, and hence what really constitutes the foundation of his philosophy, is the negation of immortality and God. The question is then asked: What is man left with? These works can all be interpreted with reference to this question, and it is perhaps in The Outsider that we find Camus's most lucid response.

Sartre's lecture, Existentialism is a Humanism also identifies the birth of existentialism in this logic. Without God, "man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to." It is this intangibility when confronting existence that Sartre explores in Nausea. While Sartre describes Camus's use of the absurd as "both a state of fact and the lucid awareness which certain people acquire of this state of fact", we can similarly understand his use of nausea. Nausea is both the fact of man's forlornness, and the heightened awareness resulting from the consciousness that ensues. It is important, however to note that both gain meaning from an individual subjectively confronting the world; not from an objectively absurd world confronting the individual . The similarities between The Outsider and Nausea can be traced to an undercurrent of Dostoevskian influence, however when considering their separate approaches to this anguish, it is the connexions to Nietzsche that are perhaps more significant.

The Outsider presents an antagonism towards Christianity that is more prominent than in Camus's preceding works. This is perhaps where we find the most obvious similarity linking Camus and Nietzsche. The asymmetrical dialogues put faith and the Absurd face to face, as Mersault's indifference contends with the Magistrate's compassion, his anger with the priest's promises of salvation. There is thus a strong focus on the disparity between Mersault's apathy and the pre-conceived societal values that others attempt to impose. Mersault is the absurd man, wishing to "live solely with what he knows, to accommodate himself to what is and to bring in nothing that is not certain." It is by negating all that is founded upon a belief in God, that all else follows. Like Nietzsche, Mersault's incense is directed against the priest's passive acceptance of values derived from a God that has been killed by man, "none of his certainties was worth one strand of a woman's hair. Living as he did, like a corpse, he couldn't even be sure of being alive." For Mersault, death is the only certainty.

The logic is followed through more ruthlessly in Caligula. Camus's own commentary upon the work summarises the hero's attempt to practice liberty "through murder and the systematic perversion of values." Caligula, in his denial of a higher principle, puts all values on an equal footing, refusing the logic of his subject Cherea who believes that some actions are more "praiseworthy" than others. This is alluded to in The Outsider when Mersault reflects on his friendship with Raymond - "What did it matter if Raymond was as much my pal as Celeste, who was a far worthier man?"

The Outsider can be seen as another Nietzschean experiment, which also practices the subversion of values and embraces perspectivism. Indeed, although Mersault's apparent passive indifference distinguishes him from Caligula, he is consumed by physical sensations. Even his name, a conjunction of the sea and the sun, brings together the rejuvenation he feels in the water, and his ambivalence towards the heat and beauty of the sun (recall Aristotle's conception of the sun as an enlightening force and contrast with Mersault's frustration at the glare as he fires bullet after bullet into someone he is indifferent to). Although not actively seeking to pervert social values, he is a realisation of Nietzsche's imperative to live passionately and this is what leaves him happy at the end of the novel. To affirm himself, Mersault's final words call for a consummation of the hatred against him.

Camus's The Myth of Sisyphus which is commonly correlated to The Outsider reveals a key difference to Nietzsche in his articulation of the Absurd. The two fundamental elements at the heart of the absurd are: humankind's innate desire for order, and "the unreasonable silence of the world" – which can be related to the conflicting Apollonian and Dionysian ways of perceiving existence. Consciousness occurs when we refuse to reconcile these diametrically opposed forces. The simultaneous recognition and rejection of our situation, that life is limited only by our individual subjectivity and death, holds these poles in equilibrium. Camus then describes an "existential leap" which escapes the absurd; however what he seeks to do is "remain on that dizzying crest".

the brothers karamazov

The Brothers Karamazov is not as famous as Crime and Punishment, although it is probably more important philosophically, its themes referred to throughout various essays. Two examples that come to mind are the Sartre paraphrase "If God is dead, then everything is permitted" (attributed to Dostoevsky as a quote but Sartre said it this way, not him) and the story of a boy being mauled by a dog - the "is this evil necessary?"/god existence dilemma.

These two examples are both presented in the story through Ivan Karamazov, and indeed, Camus refers to Ivan throughout The Rebel. A particularly nice (Camus) quote is "All the truth in the world is not worth a child's tears" - Ivan's level-headed philosophy, which Camus believed represented the real views of Dostoevsky.

So there is all that to bear in mind - the story is beautiful. It is a big book, however it is very enjoyable to read, and one sees elements of this story arise in other literature. The court case, of patricide (perhaps alluded to in The Outsider) is particularly enthralling, although it is perhaps just an excuse for Dostoevsky to write long showy speeches.

The three brothers, quite shamelessly manifest the heart, the mind and body. Alyosha (the heart) is such a beautifully innocent character that one can't help but admire his goodness. Classic Dostoevsky trademarks are present, in particular the madness which consumes Ivan (madness is a necessary consequence of all Dostoevsky's characters who cease to believe in God... not to be confused, although reminiscent, of Nietzsche's madman).

Finding a good translation, I think, is important. Some of the sayings, e.g. "One reptile will devour the other" must have quite a bit of room for interpretation, another translation reads "Viper eats viper..." and one American book I read was filled to the brim with the word gotten.

Whilst I enjoyed this book far more than Crime and Punishment, if recommending one or the other, I would probably defer to Crime and Punishment. It more clearly executes an idea that is important historically, whereas Brothers Karamazov is more a nice story with a few philosophical side-investigations.