I write in Spanish because my brain is fried. Wow. We were walking through the Dehesa and Riki told me why I was reading something I didn't understand. And the truth is there are many reasons but the coolest one is that I rescued this book after a night of a wilder after-party than the pigeons because I met a guy who blew my mind. And I wrote a story in which he embodied passive nihilism and I the active one and in which I accused him of having a beautiful soul in the Hegelian sense and then I told him something like you don't militate, you are an abstraction of a rebel, which is what Sartre said to Camus for writing unsmokable metaphysical tricks and anti-communist ones. This book is a wonder that it's more fun to have read than to read. A faithful defender of intellectuality but you go too far, Camus, and I suspect your rigor, surely there was no one who could stand you

\\n  “Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being.”\\n

Rebellion and revolution are two concepts that have intrigued scholars and thinkers for ages. They demand an in-depth psychological and historical exploration. It was not until Camus's "The Rebel" that we truly began to understand these subjects. Albert Camus, a prominent writer and intellectual of the twentieth century, wrote this essay with great brilliance and mastery. Reading it makes one feel like an intellectual renaissance man if they manage to understand everything he is talking about. There is no doubt about Camus's talent as a fiction writer. In this essay, his ability to wind up a topic by lapping it with another topic makes him a great essayist as well. We never get this much joy and wisdom while exploring politics and human nature.

Camus starts the first chapter by defining the title of the book. He says, \\n  “What is a rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal doesn’t imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion.”\\n By defining the rebel, Camus exposes us to the psychological contradiction of a rebel. When a rebel renounces the world or system around him, he renounces his own condition. His existence requires a movement to go back to his essence and security. So, by renouncing a certain value system, he is affirming an objective value for himself, towards which he will struggle. However, the inception of this attitude is just a rebellion, not necessarily a revolution (which comes from the collective movement of man to bring order to his promiscuous existence).

I must state here that I am not reviewing this book in an analytical sense because the book itself is an analysis documentation of a conflicted subject. Analyzing an analysis would be a pure mess. I am just a witness of an analysis, sharing my overall understanding of the book. Turning to the point of the book, Camus tries to formulate an overall determinant picture of the human instinct of revolution. He elaborates on metaphysical rebellion and historical rebellion most of the time. Along the way, he explains Nietzsche's brilliance in understanding the future picture of European civilization and nihilism. He also gives a sound commentary on Nietzsche's nihilism and Marx’s prophetic fall. By understanding the political situation of his time, he calls for an awareness to go back to the essence of rebellion rather than crossing the boundary of man's present situation.

As rebellion has always given birth to horrifying nihilism, it is time we embrace the innocence of rebellion but not march forward to raze the crown of gods and claim to be God ourselves. Every kind of rebellion, whether it led to utter tyranny or the total subjugation of man, demanded a kind of order or unity. But unfortunately, by trying to escape death and suffering, it boiled down to the desert of suffering again. By trying to manipulate the force of nature and history, it went back to where it never wanted to go. This is the paradox. There are two poles of human history: either justice or freedom. Whenever we wanted justice, we tyrannized over freedom, and whenever we wanted freedom, we killed justice. There is always this historical imbalance.

At the end of the book, in the chapter "Beyond Nihilism," Camus tells us to find an equilibrium between these two contradictory forces of nature. He says that this is only possible by moderation and limiting our values. He states, \\n  “We understand that rebellion cannot exist without a strange form of love. Those who find no rest in God or in history are condemned to live for those who, like themselves, cannot live: in fact, for the humiliated.”\\n Only by working for our current present rather than the distant future can we create a world where human love exists, even in the face of suffering, horror, and death. We should see ourselves as orphans and become our own parents, but not God. Whenever man plays God, he destroys. Instead, we should create like our life on this earth, as an artist creates his work of art or a child creates his/her own world. Rather than Karamazov's horrifying cry “If there is no God, everything is possible”, we should remember that “If there is no God, nothing is permitted.”

Too many young or neophyte readers approach Camus with the wrong expectations, truly seeking someone like Herman Hesse. Camus appears exotic and somewhat rogue-ish, an outsider. His so-called 'existentialism' (which is in fact a misnomer) is often wrongly regarded as a tacit 'approval' of aloofness, remoteness, iconoclasm, emotional detachment, and alienation. All these postures have a strong appeal to teen readers, adolescents, and intellectual dilettantes. As a result, everyone casually associates Camus with 'The Stranger' and other works of stylish abstraction. However, few readers bother to seek out this work ('The Rebel'), which is arguably his most robust and articulate writing. Over time, it has become one of my all-time favorite works of philosophy. It presents a series of challenging analyses in a clear and accessible form, making it highly readable. If you desire philosophy that examines society and culture rather than indulging in self-absorption, this offers a truly grand and wonderful reading experience.

As usual, Camus is brilliant.

I have perused the majority of his fictional works, and now I am gradually delving into his nonfiction and philosophical tomes.

I take great pleasure in his profound insights. The way he dissects various theories, his critical thinking, it all fascinates me.

Most of the time, I find myself in agreement with a significant portion of his viewpoints.

If you have a penchant for philosophy, then without a doubt, you will relish this one.

His works offer a unique perspective on life, society, and the human condition.

They make you think deeply, question your own beliefs, and expand your intellectual horizons.

Camus is truly a master of words and ideas, and his writings continue to inspire and enlighten readers around the world.

Whether you are a seasoned philosopher or a novice exploring the world of ideas, his books are well worth reading.

So, pick up one of his works and embark on a journey of intellectual discovery.

You won't be disappointed.

“If we believe in nothing, if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance.” This profound statement sets the tone for another AMAZING book. I simply can't describe the intense happiness I experienced while delving into this masterpiece. It was truly MINDBLOWING!

When I read Camus, it's as if he has an innate understanding of exactly what he's communicating. He leaves no stone unturned. The reader embarks on a journey starting with the essential question: Who is the rebel? And concludes with an incredibly perfect understanding. Camus is not JUST a writer; HE IS A REAL TEACHER.

I'm overjoyed that I've had the opportunity to read this book, and I'm determined not to stop until I've devoured all of Camus' works – especially his critical studies. His words have the power to transform our perspectives and make us think deeply about the world around us.

“The only way to face a world without freedom is to become so absolutely free that one makes one's own existence an act of revolt.” This profound statement encapsulates a powerful idea. In a world that may sometimes seem to lack true freedom, it is essential for individuals to strive for absolute freedom within themselves. By doing so, they can transform their very existence into a bold act of revolt against the constraints and limitations that seek to hold them back. This act of revolt is not one of aggression or violence, but rather a quiet yet powerful assertion of one's right to be free and to live life on one's own terms. It is a call to action for all those who yearn for a more just and free world, and a reminder that true freedom begins within each and every one of us.

Camus!

I'm truly proud to have finally delved into this book after years of proclaiming Camus as one of my favorite philosopher/writers. And he has indeed lived up to my expectations. However, I'll keep this review concise as I'm a bit behind in my reading schedule.

The book offers a wealth of great historical, literary, and sociocultural analysis. In fact, that forms the bulk of it. One could even say it's the methodology. But Camus does interject with a few positive/constructive philosophical conclusions from time to time to keep the reader engaged. I'll admit that parts of it can get a bit dry, but that might largely be my fault for not being more familiar with the texts being analyzed. I found that I really had to focus on reading this book alone and set aside my habit of reading multiple books sporadically.

In summary, we pick up from The Myth of Sisyphus where we established humanity's absurd existence, meaning there is no inherent meaning (ABSOLUTELY NONE). Well, none that's of much value anyway! So we create our own meaning and must imagine Sisyphus having a jolly good time rolling that boulder up the hill because life is full of suffering. It's not the most uplifting conclusion, but I'd argue it's an uplifting book to read for the average "existentialist" thinker (since we all exist). At any rate, the lack of meaning leads to a discussion about how we can obtain that long-sought-after meaning. Unfortunately, The Rebel is not about how Camus constructs that. It's about how humanity has continuously tried to construct it ever since the ancients had a different perspective on life (let's not get into the debate of cyclical versus linear conceptions of time).

Fortunately, since The Rebel is about how humanity has continuously tried to construct meaning, we get a nice review of how badly we've messed it up (COUGH Christianity COUGH). We jump from poets to historians to philosophers, disagreeing with Nietzsche, Marx, Hegel, and more (while also finding a few things to agree with them about), but mostly presenting in no uncertain terms the dreadful consequences in logic that result from certain ways of looking at things or applying reason.

This is what I truly love about Camus (and as I told my good friend Nick many times, because it's Platonic): rather than just looking at what people say, he deduces why they are saying it and ultimately the lengths they are willing to go to achieve their ends. And that's pretty much where the problem begins.

But let's skip to the end: justice can be cruel and pretensions toward rational dispensation always fail or involve condoning the death of innocents. Rebellion is good as a historical response to oppression, but when over-rationalized, it too fails. So the only real way to be a proponent of life is to rebel with moderation, knowing that people on both sides will always rationalize the cruelty and violence that they (and their means) inevitably cause.

So that's what Camus is all about. He doesn't love non-violence because power will always take advantage of it, but he's a philosopher of life. He hates the death penalty, he hates murder, and when searching for the ultimate premise of an argument, he always comes back to: can we do it without the death of innocents or being complicit in their deaths? Which, as a reason for doing something, seems pretty good to me. You might say, "but Anders you ridiculously naive fool, don't you realize that if we are to get anything done, we're going to have to kill a few people" or perhaps even use folksy euphemisms and say "You gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet." Well, that may be true! But it's not necessarily true; it's just true as a matter of expediency. And it may be that by the time I'm done thinking about how I might orient my thoughts to this principle that Camus pursues so doggedly of avoiding the death of innocents, I'll be dead. But I wager that it will be more worthwhile in the end and that it will lead to better thoughts and conclusions, even if I don't transcend this mortal realm and float up into the aether to join the host of Olympus.

Camus is a philosopher of life, but he's also a philosopher of self-examination, and this book approaches that task for only a portion of the whole of humanity. I've always wondered what the next book would have been like.

I shout that I don't believe in anything and that everything is absurd, but I can't doubt my shout and I need, at least, to believe in my protest. The first and only evidence given to me thus, within the experience of the absurd, is rebellion.

It's not easy to rate a work as such. I must confess that at least a quarter of the book remains beyond my understanding. It's clearly not an easy read. For to read this text, one has to have knowledge in a wide area, otherwise one can only wander.

Camus in this book takes a step aside, leaving the absurd and establishing a philosophy of solidarity, touching on and making a critique of themes such as nihilism, Marxism, socialism and the great revolutions, presenting his essay on rebellion.

The question that this essay attempts to answer is: Is the totality the unity? Through a detailed and great philosophical critique, Camus presents and interprets different ideas of authors such as Dostoyevski, Milton, Rimbaud, Sade, Nietzsche among others in relation to rebellion.

This is an excellent book! It offers profound insights into the complex themes of absurdity, rebellion, and the search for meaning in a chaotic world. Camus' writing style is engaging and thought-provoking, making it a must-read for anyone interested in philosophy and literature.

I am so stupid. Camus spoke so beautifully but I didn't understand. Or maybe the translation was bad. I didn't understand anything anyway. I was in the middle of my exam weeks and I tried to read it. It was a complete mess. I felt so ashamed. I put the book aside for a while and then I read it again.

I really wish I could have understood Camus better. His words seemed so profound and meaningful, but they just went over my head. Maybe I need to read more about his background and the context in which he wrote.

I also think that my lack of understanding might have something to do with my own knowledge and experience. I need to work on improving my reading comprehension skills and expanding my vocabulary.

Despite my difficulties, I still think that Camus is a great writer and I look forward to reading more of his works in the future. Maybe with more practice and study, I will be able to appreciate his writing on a deeper level.

**"Morality as a Limit and the Limit as Morality"**

In the early morning of August 21, 1968 (my summer standards were quite different), I woke up early. It was the day of our Bat mitzvah with a four-year delay. Anna Maria, my desk mate, and I would receive the membership card of the FGCI in the section of the neighborhood where the very serious and "shy" first-year philosophy student brother was the secretary. We had gone on vacation with the occupations of the universities, the marches against the Vietnam War, the French May, and the Prague Spring: topics that had replaced the hormonal chit-chat on the wall and the banter on the beach.

The radio was on in my room: the Soviet armored vehicles were driving around in Saint Wenceslas Square. I was immediately scared: how could one defend the Russians with a smoking gun at the scene of the crime? I called Anna Maria. What should we do?

Of course, I never had that card in my pocket without regrets. My paths, like those of many comrades, took other trajectories. However, I always had the feeling that our revolt would not lead to a revolution, especially now that the leading country of real communism had definitely soiled itself.

I had a "canonical" aversion to revolt, a small bourgeois thing sick with individualism. And despite the verbal distancing from the USSR, I continued to defend the thesis of my professor that the invasion and repression were the last resort to defend the freedom of the peoples of the East surrounded by Western capitalism.

It wasn't this that made me abstain from "The Rebel" but much more simply because I only knew "The Stranger" by Camus and I knew that he was an "existentialist" and a heretical communist (as was whispered without further investigation). And we rooted for Sartre.

I only got there now: both because of the background noise that re-evaluates Camus the philosopher, elevating him above his rival Sartre, who is by the way a fallen star, and thanks to the push of Ugo Leonzio, "preface writer of Guanda" for "Bagatelles for a Massacre": Celine would be a rebel (not at all rebellious, according to him). Strengthened by the prejudice that even a repentant communist is a hundred times better than a guilty Nazi - I confess - I could only put an end to the postponements.

Reading "The Rebel", I seem to see the same fear in Camus that I had in front of the disaster of the "country of the future sun". He starts from afar: from the nihilism he hates. Here I already feel in tune: he gives me "thoughts and words" to define my visceral aversion to everything that has the stench of nihilism. He overturns my concept of revolt: to be a man, he must revolt; without revolt, he is not, and he derives a new cogito, "I revolt, therefore we are".

The rebel is the oppressed who at a certain point rejects the humiliating order of his superior, is the one who tries to free himself from the yoke that keeps him in slavery: "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees". Revolt is the man's refusal to be treated as a thing: when human dignity is threatened and trampled upon, one must revolt in the present, to create what we are today and not what we will be tomorrow. It demands respect for itself by identifying with a community: in revolt, he finds the first value, solidarity, which is, simplifying, the limit beyond which every revolt loses the characteristics of the "we" and precipitates into the nihilism of everything is possible, even crime and genocide.

The Russian Revolution exceeded this limit; it represents the corruption and betrayal of revolt. With its inhuman and dehumanizing violence, it affirms that there is no human nature. The Russian Revolution (not Marx) gave up the present for an unlimitedly postponed tomorrow - the end of capitalism - imposing a totalitarianism for the sake of good: he who fights the regime is a traitor, he who does not support it zealously is suspect. For a distant justice, injustice is legitimized and justified for the entire duration of history; crime and mystification are accepted with the promise of a miracle.

It's not that I fully subscribe to this definition, continuing to think that in other local and general contexts, things would have gone better. Even if the interpretation of the historical "becoming" of Hegel, the substratum of the theories of the left Hegelians like Marx, has a bit upset me.

Camus was not a pacifist. Pacifism was a marginal concept in "our times": violence can be used provided it is limited and virtuous. The rebel kills and dies to make it understood that killing is impossible; he sacrifices himself to make it clear that killing, if necessary, is unjustifiable; he sacrifices himself, therefore, to shout to the world the supreme value of human life (he was referring to Kiliayev who accepted the gallows after killing a Romanov in the 1905 revolt). After all, didn't Christ, the rebel god, do the same, I say?

The limit is the morality of the rebel to stem the nihilistic excess that everything is possible because nothing exists outside of ourselves. Camus inherited this from the Greeks who took everything into account, balancing the shadow with the light because they denied nothing, neither the sacred nor reason. There is much more inside: more complex, more profound, more enlightening. There are Sade, Nietzsche, Saint-Just, Ivan Karamazov, Hegel, Marx, and down down to the great criminals of history.

(Book 530 from 1001 books) - L'Homme Révolté = The Rebel, Albert Camus

The Rebel is a profound 1951 book-length essay penned by the renowned Albert Camus. In this work, Camus delves deep into both the metaphysical and the historical evolution of rebellion and revolution within societies, with a particular focus on Western Europe. He weaves together the ideas and works of a diverse range of writers and artists such as Epicurus and Lucretius, Marquis de Sade, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Max Stirner, André Breton, and many others. By doing so, he presents an integrated, historical portrait of man in revolt.

Camus examines both rebellion and revolt, which can be regarded as the same phenomenon but in different personal and social contexts. He explores several 'counter cultural' figures and movements from the history of Western thought and art, highlighting the significance of each in the overall development of revolutionary thought and philosophy. This remarkable work has continued to attract interest over the years and has had a profound influence on modern philosophers and authors like Paul Berman and others.

In Iran, the book has been published under various titles such as «انسان طاغی», «انسان یاغی», and «عصیانگر». It has been translated by different individuals and published by several publishers including قطره, پرسش در آبادان, and نیلوفر. The different editions have varying page numbers and ISBNs. The work has been well-received in Iran and has contributed to the discussion and understanding of revolution, philosophy, and psychology among Iranian readers.

Reading, in the realm of the rebel, from those who say: No! In the face of the existing reality, of parents and divinity and thought and politics and the prevailing oppressive ideology, there is a moral rebellion, and reading in the rebellion of the atheists.

The book lived with it a dark period that was limited to the Jacobin and the old machine. Albert did not predict the rebellion of the modern ages.

Rebellion is a powerful force that challenges the status quo. It is a cry of dissent against the oppressive forces that seek to control our lives. In the act of reading, we can find inspiration and courage to rebel. The words on the page can open our eyes to new possibilities and give us the strength to stand up for what we believe in.

Whether it is a moral rebellion against the values of society or a rebellion of the atheists against the dogmas of religion, reading can be a catalyst for change. It allows us to explore different perspectives and question the assumptions that we have been taught. Through reading, we can become rebels in our own right and make a difference in the world.