[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 22 KB, 203x285, The Stranger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814389 No.814389 [Reply] [Original]

Has anyone ever read this? What is your opinion on it?

>> No.814393

I guarantee you if you look through the 15 pages there is at least 3 of this.
I would almost be willing to bet money on it.
It's a good book. I read it before I came here, and because I don't get /lit/'s infatuation with it, I read it again. Still think it's just a good book.

>> No.814397

I just read it last week. It was alright, for some reason I expected more. I got that he didn't understand the value of life until it was revoke from him by an arbitrary justice system-- one more concerned with trivial details about his life than the senseless murder he commits.

>> No.814402

I really, really liked it. I can't explain why. I just did.

>> No.814407

I related to it a lot. people remark about how emotionless I am sometimes and I wonder why it matters

>> No.814409

If you're in the middle of an existential crisis, stay the fuck away from it.

Otherwise, good book.

>> No.814419

>>814409

lol, I'll second that one. I'm always worried when I start connecting with the emotionless character who can randomly murder someone.

>> No.814425

>>814409
if you're in the middle of an existential crisis, I can't think of a better thing to read

>> No.814428

I read it 3 years ago for senior year. meh, honestly didn't like it that much. not much of a fan of this type of literature though. The characters seemed really boring to me.

>> No.814430

>>814425

Because you want him to kill someone out of the absurdness of life?

>> No.814449

Similar to Crime and Punishment, except without the shitty ending

>> No.814455

>>814430

He does figure it out in the end....

>> No.814457

I liked it. I'm rereading it again and taking notes of some events that have a specific existentist meaning so I can take more from it.

>> No.814473

I hear The Plague is better.

>> No.814498

>>814430
this reminds me of that Sopranos episode where A.J. talks about Nietzsche.

>> No.814502

>>814473
Confirming.

>> No.814512

>>814389


A man who converted from nihilism to existentialism the way Camus wanted France to do.

That's the entirety of it's subtext: an allegory in effort to lift some French out of post-war depression.

In today's culture though, every point made in this book comes off as common sense.

>> No.814527

>>814389
this (and the plague) are mileage-will-vary and, more than a lot of stuff I've read, sensitive to the disposition of the reader. the utility of either can be found in how you feel about your life afterwards.

I'd recommend reading myth of sisyphus before getting into his fiction. he isn't much of a philosopher and it has convoluted moments, but it helped me understand the spirit of his fiction much better. getting familiar with his motives will help you tell the difference between what Kierkegaard meant by angst and what teenagers mean. camus was considerably more kierkegaard than teenager.

>> No.814532

>>814527

Existential despair?

TEENAGERS MUST BE FUCKING DEEP.

>> No.814533

>>814512
like hell it does

I've heard the same slogans as everyone else about existentialism becoming more passe the farther we get from wwII, but I just think that's a steaming load of bullshit.

>> No.814540

>>814532
I don't understand the tone of this

>> No.814547

>>814540


Teenagers suffer from angst. Therefore, they must be deep.

>> No.814557

>>814502
Seconding confirmation. The Plague is a much more engaging read, as well as being more interesting in its themes and ideas.

>> No.814558

>>814533


It's not a very complex philosophy, especially the atheistic branch.

Basically, do your own fucking thing. I think growing up in western culture, especially one that focuses so heavily on teaching individualism, we develop this mindset from childhood.

So the intricate, eloquent, arguments in favor or existentialism, while interesting and informative, feel like a reinforcement of a common ideology. An ideology we don't really perceive as having any alternatives. So, while it may not be passe, to hear it now sounds somewhat meaningless if it's not in the context of a classroom discussion.

>> No.814560

>>814557
what themes and ideas were those?

>> No.814561

>>814547

oh

>> No.814570
File: 4 KB, 111x123, 1270337531627.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814570

>>814561

Yeah...

>> No.814572

>>814558
well, no, the slogans aren't "complex"; that's what makes them slogans. the stuff you're relegating to "classroom discussion" are all the reasons for believing them which are, like, important or something.

>> No.814575

>>814560
Well obviously there's the point that the plague represent the Nazi occupation of France, but to go deeper than that the plague is, to connect it to Camus' own philosophy, the rock of Sisyphus. The Doctor and those who actively work at caring for and fighting the disease, in the small and individual ways they can, is an example of rolling the ball uphill. They are all completely aware that once the disease shows its certain symptoms, the people will die. Yet there are a few of them who refuse to simply accept that these people should simply fall into the street and die. Also the obvious theme of people who pretend nothing is wrong and try to live like normal at its beginnings, and then of course there are those who fall into fear and shut their doors as the plague gains virulence. There are several points at which Camus is quite clearly also pointing out a very real difference between existentialism and his own concept of absurdism: there is no hope, existentialism's "harsh optimism" is lost in his own rendering of it, and on top of that, there are many things in life which will remove your options (quarantine), which Sartre always refused to be true.
All of the themes and ideas are somewhat the same, however what makes them more interesting is that they are better illustrated with the narrative of The Plague.

>> No.814576

>>814558
growing up in western culture has also conditioned you to translate everything into soundbites made entirely of digestible chunks of stupid and bloviate about those chunks dismissively. since those chunks are all you're operating with, that must be all there is.

>> No.814577

>>814572

I thought by "slogans" you were referring to arguments against the validity of existentialism still being a legitimate philosophical movement.

>> No.814584

im pretty sure the fall is better than both the stranger and the plague

>> No.814587
File: 4 KB, 143x125, 1259187023219.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814587

>>814576

>An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[3]

>> No.814589

>>814577
I did. Are you noticing a theme?

>> No.814591

>>814576

Is it a soundbite if I spend the entire post bloviating on it?

>> No.814593

>>814587
that's not ad-hominem. what you cited is what I'm proposing as RESPONSIBLE for the shitty analysis I disagree with.

>> No.814600

>>814591
why can't you bloviate about a soundbite?

troll better

>> No.814605

>>814593

Regardless of what you agree with, attacking the credentials of the critic, by saying I'm fucking stupid, or that my analysis is narrow and obtuse due to my inability to examine information, is exactly what an ad hominem is. You're refuting my ability to analyze, not the analysis. Goofball.

>> No.814608

>>814589

The classroom discussion is the important stuff, yes.

But that doesn't change the fact that the synopsis of the philosophy comes across as generic and obvious to today's culture.

>> No.814612

>>814605
according to your criteria, it'd be fallacious for me to assert that blind people don't make good eye-witnesses because they're blind.

>> No.814615

>>814612


That's a horrible example. More like if a blind person wrote an argument on the internet, and then you said they can't write a decent argument because they're blind.

>> No.814617

>>814608
we mean this in different senses, but I totally agree that it's a condition of the culture that existentialism seems passe. But that's not because we're more "enlightened" as per the standards of existentialism, it's because of sparknotes.

>> No.814621

>>814615
right, that would be a fallacious ad-hominem. luckily for me, I didn't do anything like that.

I'm waiting for quality trolling to get me all riled up. Try a character that isn't a teenager with whom I'm supposed to get exasperated because they're making an ass out of themselves and refuse to see it, even with the assistance of illustrated examples.

>> No.814641
File: 10 KB, 201x252, 1267601429400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814641

>>814621


Well you've trolled me masterfully.

Saying nothing of substance, refusing to accept logical fallacy, and then asserting intellectual superiority.

Textbook trolling.

>> No.814657

I read it for the first time yesterday. I didn't like the first half or so, the characters view point made it quite boring for me. After the arab dies, and his perspective through the trial were however pretty interesting.

I was a bit puzzled as to why he killed the arab (was it self defense; or did he just simply feel like it?) does anyone mind explaining that to me?

>> No.814677

>>814641
I'm not trolling you. You might be, but just in case you're a legitimately mistaken wayward teenager, I'll sacrificed some vanity and recap:

1. you said existentialism was easy-peasy and pretty much, like, "just do you, man". Sartre's "Being and Nothingess," for example, is notoriously incomprehensible in spots (that doesn't make it good, but incomprehensible != easy-peasy).
2. I pointed out that your thinking existentialism was easy-peasy might be a you-problem, since the alternative is your having an easier time w/ Sartre's metaphysics than every other human being.
3. Not believing the latter, I put forward a bold conjecture: you think it's simple because the handout/sparknotes/in-class movie was simple.
4. you said 3 was ad-hominem
5. I laughed because that's silliness.

>> No.814721

>>814657

He shot the Arab on account of the knife suddenly projecting light into his eyes, combined with the particular conditions on the beach overwhelming him. From Mersault's point of view it was an act of self-defense against the universe, for which the Arab was an unfortunate conduit.[/quote]

>> No.814723

>>814721

Not sure how I threw a quote tag in there.

>> No.814727
File: 27 KB, 400x472, desmond.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814727

>From Mersault's point of view it was an act of self-defense against the universe, for which the Arab was an unfortunate conduit.
>an act of self-defense against the universe

>> No.814854

I read the read original french version, and let met tell you, its quality just doesn't match up to its reputation here on /lit/. It's not a bad book by any means, but putting it on a "must-read" list is nothing short of pretentious and stupid.

>> No.814873

ITT: Morons who don't know what Satre's existentialism is.
Why when philosophy comes up do people become dunces?

>> No.814876

Learn french and read it in french.
The english version is terribad.
Also, not an existential novel.

>> No.814885

>>814873
>Why when philosophy comes up do people become pretentious assholes?

Every retarded teenager going through his pseudo-rebellious phase has heard of existentialism. It's a shit philosophy, and this book has nothing to do with it anyway.

>> No.814887

>>814885
Heard of doesn't appear to require any form of understanding. Also, i know it's not an existential novel i wrote>>814876

>> No.814889

>>814885
>existentialism. It's a shit philosophy
Yeah, because experiencing life without judgement is a terrible idea. Just living without getting all butthurt by the inequities and difficulties of day-to-day existence is a real shit philosophy.

>> No.814900

>>814889
Existentialism requires us to be born without an essence since Satre only brought it up in opposition to determinism in the free will debate.
People are born with predermining characteristics e.g. genes.
Therefore we have an essence that determines our characteristics and we our existence doesn't precede our essence.
So we don't alter our essence through actions.
Existentialism is shit because it's wrong.

Learn some philosophy before you start living a pointless one you moron.

>> No.814901
File: 15 KB, 383x522, camus1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814901

>>814727

Yeah, it's an excellent device on Camus' part. Glad you agree, Stag.

>> No.814905
File: 87 KB, 469x428, trollface_hd_523.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814905

>>814889

>> No.814906
File: 29 KB, 346x450, george_soros_eyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814906

>>814900
>we our existence doesn't precede our essence.

>> No.814909

>>814906
Raging so hard at>>814900
i didn't even re read before i mauled submit

>> No.814910

>>814909

>>814900 = >>814889

>> No.814911

>>814910
WTF this isn't /sci/ what's with all the math?

>> No.814914
File: 77 KB, 475x311, winner.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814914

>>814911
I linked the wrong post is all.
Calm down dear

>> No.814915

>>814900
Genetics are in no way an "essence" of mankind's consciousness. Your post shows an ignorance of biology, human behavioral psychology, and philosophy, all in one fell swoop. Congratulations, you are multi-tasking stupidity.

>> No.814919
File: 25 KB, 460x276, larry_david_huh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814919

>>814900

>> No.814924
File: 35 KB, 517x373, facepalm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814924

>>814915
Actually an essence is something that determines a characteristic.
Genetics determine characteristics
Genetics are an essence.
Also, see any philosophy textbook before contesting this.
You're the one being ignorant.

>> No.814928

I really liked it.
There was something refreshing about Meursault.
He was actually different from people and not just pretending/wanting to be and wasn't even that bitchy about it.
UNLIKE some other characters (I'm looking at you Werther, you usless spleen fucker)

>> No.814929

>>814915
>>> Doesn't study Biology, Psycology or Philosophy

>> No.814931

>>814919
Basic undergraduate philosophy

>> No.814933

>>814900
>So we don't alter our essence through actions.

Would learning be an action? Assuming I understand you right, you seem to be disregarding the effect of other people in the development of what we'd call an essence, something which Camus and Sartre explicitly highlighted through existentialism and the absurd.

>> No.814936

>>814924
Trying to link philosophy's "essence" to biological genes is a really stupid idea. There are a thousand things that determines a person's characteristics - genes are one small part of that.

>> No.814940

>>814933
You're wrong, go on http://plato.stanford.edu/ or get a textbook and look up the free will debate. I can't be arsed with morons and trolls.
Also, please actually do this before going "herp derp you obviously don't know because you won't say"

>> No.814941

>>814936
As soon as we have an essence that precedes our existence determinism sets in.
philosophy101.jpg

>> No.814949

>>814941
Your are intentionally conflating "essence" and "biological genes" to somehow make this argument more dumb than it needs to be. You have taken one philosophy class, barely understood what was happening, and now are trolling 4chan with your idiocy.

>> No.814952

>>814941

Genetic makeup is negligible compared to experience. You're simply saying in your original post that Sartre etc didn't pay enough attention to genetics in the way we live our lives, therefore they are wrong. You're being foolish.

>> No.814958

>>814949
Undergrad at York actually not that it matters.
To anyone who's studied philosophy it's fairly obvious you have no idea what you're talking about.
It's a widely aknowledged concrete criticism of existentialism, why do you think it's better than it is?
Also i honestly don't get how you can be so arrogant as to argue when you havn't a clue what it actually entails. An essence is just something that determines how something MAY act in given circumstances, for example the structure of a chair determines how it acts when i sit on it, the chair, the materials it's made of etc = essence. In order for existentialism to work we need to be born without ANY form of essence otherwise determinism sets in. Genes are a form/part of essence as they determine certain things about us.
DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>> No.814961

>>814952
Not according to physicalism, to which by the way the only libertarian retort is HEY WE HAVE A MAGIC NON PHYSICAL MIND. You do realise that existentialism requires "the ability to do otherwise".
i.e Pleasing as we please.
which we can't do
we can only act as we please

>> No.814962
File: 76 KB, 922x692, wtfamireadinglit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814962

>>814961
>physicalism
>libertarian retort

>> No.814964

>>814962
Yeah, I didn't get that one either. Not that I disagree with his post.

>> No.814967

>>814958
>In order for existentialism to work we need to be born without ANY form of essence
Does not compute. Why would this be?

>> No.814972

I had to read it in French. Didn't understand shit.

>> No.814974

>>814964
Physicalism as in philisophical physicalism, which doesn't acount for the direction or "willing" of feelings.
I.e Love is a physical chemical process. It doesn't however acount for the "direction" of the feeling. i.e i love my wife not a table.
Libertarians e.g. Descartes posit the "willing" faculty as a non corporeal substance. Which moves the body to action.
This obviously fails as it would require an input of energy which A doesn't happen and B rapes the first law of thermodynamics.

>> No.814982

>>814974
This thread just went full retard or full trololololo, I can't tell.

You're really going to use the First Law of Thermodynamics to discount Descartes' philosophical principles?

>> No.814983

>>814967
As soon as we have an essence before we exist determinism sets it.
People seem to fail to realise existentialism is about having free will.
>>814969
Numerous philsophy classes, My bad didn't realise it was equivalent to 3 years of a masters in one of the best english universities for philosphy.
If however, you do actually think hey, maybe a guy who's been doing this for about 6 years has a point, go on standfors phil encyclopedia or get a textbook from a library (lacewing is awesome).
I honestly don't have a problem with you but you're being stupid.

>> No.814986

>>814982
Nope, i'm going to use it to discount his dualist approach, just like every other philosopher since Hume....

>> No.814989

>>814986
Hume used the First Law of Thermodynamics to discount Descartes' dualism?

WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING IN THIS THREAD? AM I BEING TROLLED OR NOT?!?!

>> No.814991

>>814989
You're being trolled.
Thermodynamics was used to discount it much later.
The guy is still right, dualism doesn't work.
Hume and everyone else discounted it for other reasons, myth of volitions etc. Maybe that's where he got confused.

>> No.814993

>>814991
It is, sorry.
Thermodynamics was used later, but Hume and everyone since raped dualism.
It's just hard to think coherently with so many trolls and idiots.

>> No.814996
File: 71 KB, 533x400, fuck a car.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814996

>>814974

You love your wife presumably because she has an amiable personality and you share a mutual history. There are plenty of people who are affectionate towards animals and inanimate objects, be it by chemical imbalance or not.

By the way, stop throwing around libertarian as if it means anything.

>> No.814997
File: 40 KB, 470x370, funny-pictures-cat-will-not-listen-to-lion-cub-anymore.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
814997

Fuck this shit, I'm outta here. You people claiming to have philosophy degrees are confusing your history, misstating your physics, spelling like drunken 8th graders, and exhibiting the rhetorical skills of typical 4chan morons.

I think you idiots are lying and have no idea what you're talking about. Enjoy your sub-Wikipedia-level understanding of philospohy.

Pic related.

>> No.814999

I deleted my post because as I said in it, I'm not an existentialist, and I wondered why I was criticizing what I saw to be, on second thought a rather interesting way to look at it.
Please continue, anons, I have a couple questions I'd like to ask as far as genes and determinism, and also if you'd like to expand on or simply source the point about dualism and Boyle, please do so.

>> No.815004

>>814996
Satre's libertarianism = existentialism.
It's just a philosophy term like physicalism and materialism, it means a
different thing to us.

>> No.815008

http://www.99chan.org/ph/res/11244.html
Everyone stop being faggots and do some homework.

>> No.815032

>>814997
Isn't the point of a philosophy degree to teach you to reason about the world, form logical arguments and express those ideas coherently to others?

If you were in this thread and attended university-level philosophy courses you must demand a refund. You were bamboozled.

>> No.815038

>>815032
That guy isn't me (university dude)
And yeah the first year is about that, but most of the time you're just learning a philosophers ontology and why it's wrong, you don't actually get anything fun to do till about year 3. Most of it just like history of philosophy.

>> No.815045

To whoever just deleted their post:

I meant "everyone in this thread is clearly an idiot and has the argumentative talent of a mute lobotomy patient." Seriously, people are in here claiming, "Oooh I trained six years in philosophy at a prestigious university!" and then they write with the eloquence and clarity of a porpoise with a fountain pen stuck in its blow-hole.

>> No.815051

>>815045
Epic analogy.
Fairly pointless though.
refutecentralpoint.jpg

>> No.815054

>>815038
Isn't the point of essay writing in your philosophy classes 1) to show a clear understanding of the philosophers you have studied during the semesster 2) to make reasonable, textually-supported arguments about that philosopher's ideas?

In this thread people have done nothing but "no u, idiot!" back and forth. Philophy majors should be embarrassed.

>> No.815055

Why has so much time been wasted over what is a fairly average book and a fairly terrible philosophy?

>> No.815057

>>815054
takes like 20 pages of writing.
All i can muster in my blind rage is a quick summary and an Ad hom.

>> No.815059

>>815057
>I am incapable of thought and react like an enraged baboon when people are wrong on the internet.
If you actually knew what you were talking about making a semi-coherent post that displayed your knowledge wouldn't take 20 pages, require reference to your class notes, or take some inordinate amount of time. Contribute to this board with your massive brain and college education. Don't shit on it with your impotent anger.

>> No.815063

>>815059
It really does take about 20 pages if you want to make a step by step fool proof evaluation of an ontology, which is what is needed.
The rest of what you said is right though. Can't help but rage unforunately. Guess i'm just an ass, but im still right!

>> No.815067

>>815063
No one wants a step-by-step fool-proof refutation of existentialism in this thread. They just want a post that shows understanding of what the hell existentialism is.

Namedropping a bunch of random terms you learned from an all-night Wikipedia session doesn't count.

>> No.815090

>>815067
Existentialism is another form of self determination.
Essences determine how an object may act under given circumstances.
Satre believed that in most objects essence precedes existence.
He believed in humans existence precedes essence.
Thus we determined our own essence as we acted.
We don't call Marcel Proust great for no reason, we call him great because of his actions which determined who he was.
Humans are born with an essence though and as such are succeptible to causal necessity as are physical objects.
= no free will

>> No.815115

I've thought of this, and a philosophy professor didn't go into much detail when I remarked on it, I assume either because it had nothing to do with her lecture (it didn't) or because my remark was incredibly stupid (it may be) or because it would come up in another context, but:
Sartre's own ontology presents a concept of humans "being hurled" into consciousness/existence. He presents it also in his essay Existentialism is a Humanism as "showing up on the spot" in my textbooks' translation. Now, what I said, and the professor just sort of nodded and gave a very noncommittal answer I don't remember, was that what Sartre posits in this concept is that all humans share this, that they all are defined by it... wouldn't this, under Sartre's own ontology, be an essence? The fact of existence is itself its own essence.

>> No.815116
File: 198 KB, 303x600, wss.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
815116

>> No.815125

>>815115
Nope, essence is defined through actions and changes with them.

>> No.815154

>>815115
Did you bring up some completely and totally tangential point of your own in the middle of a lecture

Are you a that kid