You read Mit o Sizifu. Ogled o apsurdu, and your head hurts as you push through the density of ideas. But in the end, you conclude that it is an intellectual feat that is hard to repeat. It seems impossible that this essay, which is book-length, could lead you on such a journey.

It's not an easy read, but it's worth coming back here, googling references - it's worth admitting that even when you try, sometimes you won't be able to reach that intellectual level. It would be better to have a live conversation, but today we are more forced to photograph the text and then put it into ChatGPT, again being surprised at how GPT-4 manages to put some conclusions into the right context.

\\"What is the rebellious man? The man who says 'no'. The slave who has received orders all his life suddenly experiences a new order as unacceptable. 'This has been going on for too long', 'up to here, but no further'... This 'no' confirms the existence of a limit. He opposes the order that suppresses a certain right and points to the right whose violation he will not tolerate. To remain silent means to leave the impression that the man has no stance and wants nothing, and in certain cases, this means completely coming to terms with such a situation.\\"

\\"There are crimes of passion and crimes of logic\\" is the first sentence, and it continues with the story and analysis of rebellion, from Prometheus to the 1917 revolution. This historical-philosophical-literary study was published in 1951, and in it, Camus analyzes various forms of rebellion, combines philosophical depth with the consideration of daily political and moral reality. In addition, there are also the unsurpassed Nietzsche, there is Ivan Karamazov, there are other great rebels of literature.

Camus tries to understand what individual rebellions have in common - first, rebellion against God and the conclusion that God is dead, then philosophical understandings (that Nietzsche, for example, did not kill God, but simply thought that he was born into a world where God was already dead), and later the focus is primarily on France and the October Revolution. Is it possible to have an ethical and morally pure rebellion - or is even that which starts with the purest intentions doomed to no longer be able to respect human freedom and dignity from a certain moment? We all want both truth and freedom, but is it possible to have both? Over time, you realize that, of course, it's not (\\"Absolute freedom is the right of the strongest to rule, and the greatest freedom is the freedom to commit murder.\\"), so perhaps every revolution is sooner or later doomed to violate its initial principles and that for which it was started. Is any murder justified for the sake of greater ideas? For example, should the king have been killed in 1793? And if so, at what point should the guillotine have been stopped to preserve the spirit of the revolution?

This French giant was a socialist, but here, unlike Sartre, he sharply criticized the Soviet Union and Stalinism. However, it is clear to you that he is not criticizing out of ill will, or because he is convinced that communism is not possible - on the contrary, he is criticizing out of love, because he wants a true and pure revolution. Even when he forces you to conclude that perhaps such a thing is not even possible, Camus does not give up, he is not cynical and does not conclude that a better world is not possible. \\"This is an attempt to understand one's own time. Whether it is poverty, that time when one begins to act, forced to kill. We can only act in our own time and among the people who surround us. We will understand nothing if we do not determine whether we have the right to kill another person, or at least to accept that he will be killed. It is important to establish how we should behave in the world, such as the one we have inherited.\\"

This book does not impose an opinion, often does not even give answers - but it poses extremely difficult questions. As I was trying to answer them, I felt excited, as if I was in my first year of college and drinking in some new fascinating ideas - and isn't that the best possible recommendation for a book? Perhaps there need to be prerequisites for you to like it as I do (a love for history, a leftist view of the world, existentialism as a life guide), but subjectively... Nikomahova etika, Mit o Sizifu. Ogled o apsurdu, Država, Pobunjeni čovek. There aren't many like this.

Rebellion, on the other hand, fractures the being and helps it to overflow. It releases jets that, when stagnant, become furious.

This is an essay that deeply analyzes the concept of rebellion from different perspectives and in the context of Europe after World War II (it also analyzes about two centuries, from the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, through Marx, Nietzsche, and so on).

It is not my favorite work of Camus, but it has brilliant reflections. I highly recommend it.

The idea of rebellion as a force that fractures and liberates is a fascinating one. It shows how rebellion can have a powerful impact on individuals and society. By looking at different historical events and thinkers, the essay provides a comprehensive understanding of the concept.

Although it may not be everyone's favorite, the brilliant reflections in this essay make it well worth reading. It can inspire readers to think about their own relationship with rebellion and how it can be used to bring about positive change.

Freedom absolute corrupts justice. Justice absolute denies freedom. In order to reach a conclusion, both of these must find their limitations within each other.

A person may think that the period during which 70 million people have disappeared, been imprisoned or killed should be immediately and severely condemned. However, the reason for that must be deeply understood.

Every ideology is in conflict with human psychology.

Every type of dictatorship implies a certain kind of adaptation and unity.

We need to realize that freedom and justice are not mutually exclusive but rather intertwined. Absolute freedom without any regard for justice can lead to chaos and anarchy. On the other hand, absolute justice that suppresses freedom can result in a totalitarian regime. We must strive to find a balance between the two.

When it comes to historical events such as the disappearance, imprisonment, or killing of a large number of people, we cannot simply rush to judgment. We need to carefully analyze the circumstances and understand the underlying reasons.

Ideologies often claim to have the answers to all of society's problems, but in reality, they can sometimes lead to more harm than good. We should be critical of ideologies and not blindly follow them.

Dictatorships may seem to bring a sense of order and unity, but at what cost? The suppression of individual freedoms and the violation of human rights are unacceptable. We must always strive for a democratic and just society.

Although Camus is often remembered more prominently as a literary author rather than a philosopher, I firmly believe that this work of his is truly fantastic. It has had a profound influence on me and my way of thinking, perhaps even more so than any other author, with the possible exceptions of Nietzsche and George Steiner. Camus, being such a remarkable author, makes this work not particularly difficult to read. In contrast to, for example, Sartre's philosophical works, which can be quite dense (while I do appreciate "Being and Nothingness," Sartre sometimes seems to overcomplicate things). This makes Camus' work accessible to those who have not received a formal education in philosophy. Moreover, the subject matter is interesting in almost every aspect, making this book, all in all, a nearly perfect one.

To live is not merely stating existence; it is, in fact, a form of rebellion. Life presents us with numerous challenges and obstacles that attempt to confine and limit us. However, by choosing to live, we are defying these limitations and asserting our right to exist in our own unique way.

Rebellion through living can take many forms. It can be as simple as pursuing our dreams and passions, even when faced with doubt and criticism from others. It can also involve standing up for what we believe in, even in the face of adversity. By living rebelliously, we are making a statement that we will not be silenced or oppressed.

In a world that often tries to conform us to its standards, living rebelliously is a powerful act of self-expression. It allows us to break free from the chains of mediocrity and embrace our true selves. So, let us choose to live boldly and rebelliously, and make our mark on the world.

A historical-philosophical research article. In my opinion, it is necessary to have a background on some issues (such as the French Revolution of 1789, Nietzsche, Marxism and the Russian Revolution, the World Wars, Greek myths, Dostoyevsky, Proust, etc.) to achieve better quality. Even for the second time I read it, I still felt the need to read many things before I could approach "The Rebel" for the third time.

From the preface of Camus to the book:

"Crimes are of two kinds, crimes of passion and crimes of logic. The law easily distinguishes them from each other, more or less, by taking into account premeditation. Our era is the era of premeditation and perfect crime. The criminals of this period are no longer those helpless children who used love as an excuse. On the contrary, they are adults with an irrefutable excuse: their excuse is a philosophy that can be used for any purpose, and can even turn judges into murderers."

"Two centuries of metaphysical or historical rebellion stand before our thought. Perhaps only one historian can present in detail the movements and theories that have followed one another in this field. But at least, a summary search in this regard should be possible. In the pages that will come after this, only historical evidence has been presented and a hypothesis, the only possible hypothesis, cannot explain everything after this; however, to a certain extent, it indicates the direction of our century and almost completely explains its tremors. The amazing history presented here is the history of the pride of Europeans."

"Only by conducting research on the behaviors, claims, and victories of rebellions can we understand their causes. Perhaps we will find a principle for action in their outcomes, a principle that Pocahontas could not leave at our disposal; or at least, we will find a sign that indicates our right, or our duty, in killing; and finally, we will find a hope for creation. Man is the only creature that does not accept what he is. The question is whether the only consequence of this refusal is that he is forced into self-destruction and the destruction of others? And whether every rebel must express himself in justification of mass murder or, on the contrary, without having an impossible claim to innocence, he can reveal the logical principles of criminality."

There was a time a few years ago when I delved deep into the works of Camus. In fact, it was a veritable binge as I was captivated by his writing, both in fiction and non-fiction. His ideas seemed to speak directly to me, and I couldn't get enough.

However, as time went on, my interest slowly began to wane. It wasn't that Camus wasn't a brilliant writer; of course he was. But perhaps I had simply read too much of him, and his ideas started to feel a bit repetitive.

Looking back, I realize that I should have read "The Rebel" earlier, when his books had a stronger hold on me. In this work, Camus explores the concept of rebellion through the lens of metaphysical and political revolt. He examines the ideas of thinkers such as the Marquis de Sade, Baudelaire, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Marx, and Hegel.

Camus views revolt as an essentially positive act, one that is both against and for something. He believes that man's hope lies in the rebel who acts in the name of moderation and life, who joins with others in a common fate, and who tempers his revolt with restraint to avoid the cycle of dictatorship.

This exploration of nihilism and rebellion is full of thought-provoking ideas that will appeal to intellectuals and those studying philosophy. However, Camus's essays and non-fiction may not be as accessible to the casual reader.

For me, "The Rebel" was well-written and thought-provoking, but it didn't quite have the impact I had hoped for. I thought that taking a break from reading Camus would make his work feel fresh again, but that wasn't the case. In literary terms, I've moved on. Overall, I would rate this book a 3/5.

An interesting book indeed, yet I also discovered it to be rather challenging to peruse. My knowledge regarding French literature or philosophy is woefully insufficient. However, the fundamental question that he poses is of utmost relevance. We despise injustice, and instinctively, it appears patently correct to rise up against unjust authority. But then, why does it almost invariably turn out so horribly wrong when we take such action, and ultimately culminate in an even more egregious injustice?

Perhaps it is because our understanding of what truly constitutes justice is often clouded by our own biases and emotions. Or maybe it is due to the complex web of power dynamics and social structures that exist within a society. Whatever the reason may be, it is clear that the issue of justice and revolt is not as simple as it may seem at first glance.

This book forces us to confront these difficult questions and to think more deeply about the nature of justice and our role in society. It challenges us to look beyond our immediate instincts and to consider the long-term consequences of our actions. In doing so, it provides us with a valuable opportunity for self-reflection and growth.

**Original Article**: This is a simple article. It has a few sentences. The content is not very complex.

**Expanded Article**:

This is a rather simple article.

It consists of just a few sentences.

The content within it is not overly complex.

It presents a basic idea or set of ideas in a straightforward manner.

There are no convoluted concepts or elaborate explanations.

It is easy to understand and follow.

Even those with a limited knowledge of the subject matter can quickly grasp what is being said.

Despite its simplicity, it still manages to convey the necessary information.

It serves its purpose well, whether it is to provide a brief overview, make a simple point, or just offer some light reading.

In conclusion, this simple article has its own charm and utility.

Well,

you won't read this awesome never-ending essay unless you should write an essay on it.

It is truly a remarkable piece that presents some very interesting arguments.

The way the author argues is quite engaging and thought-provoking.

However, despite my love for the way he argues, I have to admit that I will never finish it.

There are just so many pages and so much to absorb.

It seems like it could go on forever.

Maybe one day I will find the time and the motivation to complete it, but for now, it remains an unfinished task.

Nonetheless, I still appreciate the effort that went into writing this essay and the valuable insights it provides.

It serves as a reminder of the power of words and the importance of careful argumentation.

Perhaps it will inspire others to take on the challenge and explore its depths further.

Who knows what new discoveries and understandings might be waiting within its pages?

****3.5 stars. However, I round it up to 4 stars.****

The Rebel is truly one of the most deeply philosophical books I have ever had the privilege of reading. From the very first word, it hits you with a powerful impact. Consequently, it took me a significant amount of time to read and fully understand the contents of this precious work by the renowned French/Algerian philosopher Albert Camus. The most remarkable aspects of this masterpiece, which still stay with me as I reflect on it, are the chapters regarding the 'haunting' execution of King Louis XVI and the connection between Rebellion and Art. The latter begins with Camus partially refuting Nietzsche's famous aphorism "No artist tolerates reality", presenting an equally profound insight that "No artist can ignore reality." Interestingly, Camus contends that writers, rather than fine artists, bear the majority of the responsibility for rebellion on the aesthetic plane. The complexity of the arguments put forward by Camus on this topic is truly awe-inspiring. He clearly read and synthesized a vast amount of literature to write The Rebel with such conviction and a mastery of history, philosophy, and politics. This is no easy accomplishment.

Moreover, Camus expresses his arguments and shapes his concepts with great precision and literary elegance. This often led me to reread certain parts of the text to fully appreciate the depth of meaning Camus infused into every sentence. Equally impressive is that Camus, who was initially a staunch pro-communist leftist, had the courage to publish The Rebel, in which he condemns the murderous atrocities of the totalitarian communist regime in the Soviet Union that followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. In essence, this book marks Camus' shift in allegiance from the extreme left to a more moderate, humanist philosophy. For this, he paid the price of being ostracized by many of his contemporaries, including the famous existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre.

However, The Rebel does have its shortcomings. It is extremely dense and heavy on philosophy. One needs to be extremely well-versed in philosophy to keep up with Camus' arguments. I often found myself struggling to follow him. Additionally, some parts of the book, particularly those on Naziism and Communism in Russia, go into excruciating detail and at times seem to deviate into intellectual tangents. This made it difficult for me to maintain my engagement with the content at times.

In conclusion, The Rebel may not be suitable for everyone. I would highly recommend this book to passionate students of philosophy and history who are willing to put in the effort and take the time to explore the details. It is definitely not a light read for a rainy Sunday afternoon!

Camus begins by presenting a statement of purpose, much like Derrida's 'Force of Law,' Benjamin's 'Critique of Violence,' and Agamben's State of Exception. He ponders the question of whether innocence, once it gets involved in action, can avoid committing murder.

He summarizes his previous work in The Myth of Sisyphus as the repudiation of suicide and the acceptance of the desperate encounter between human inquiry and the silence of the universe. Here, he notes that suicide would mean the end of this encounter, and absurdist reasoning cannot consent to this without negating its own premises. Similarly, absurdism condemns murder. It is a Cartesian moment for him as absurdism, like methodical doubt, has wiped the slate clean. What remains after this is "The first and only evidence that is supplied me, within the terms of the absurdist experience, is rebellion."

He then proceeds to conduct several examinations of rebellion. Starting with the philosophy of rebellion, he remarks that it might exist only in a society where a theoretical equality conceals great factual inequalities. He invokes Scheler to infer that anomie dwells at the center of the nomos, and with the theory of political freedom, there is an increasing awareness in man of the idea of man and a corresponding dissatisfaction in our society. His conclusion is "I rebel—therefore we exist." He examines the work of de Sade, Baudelaire, Lautreamont, Nietzsche, Artaud, Breton, Marx, and others in order. Ultimately, he concludes that one hundred and fifty years of metaphysical rebellion and nihilism have witnessed the persistent reappearance of the same ravaged countenance of human protest, with all of them decrying the human condition and its creator and affirming the solitude of man and the nonexistence of any kind of morality, somehow finding atheism at the root of philosophical rebellion.

The gears then shift to an examination of historical rebellion. However, this argument is not very strong from the start, doomed by imprudent statements such as "Just as the history of metaphysical rebellion began with Sade, so our real inquiry only begins with his contemporaries, the regicides, who attack the incarnation of divinity without yet daring to destroy the principle of eternity," or "Every ideology is contrary to human psychology," or "Joseph de Maistre qualified the Revolution as satanic."

He completely loses my sympathy when he proclaims that "All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State. 1789 brings Napoleon; 1848, Napoleon III; 1917, Stalin; the Italian disturbances of the twenties, Mussolini; the Weimar Republic, Hitler." This view considers fascism as a form of revolution and fails to evaluate the transformation preceding the distortion of the new regime. Although he makes cogent comments about fascism, they are misplaced, essentially equating NSDAP violence with proper revolutions. The odd thing is that he understands that the references to fascism are inappropriate but includes them anyway, despite clearly stating that "The name revolution, to which Hitler's adventure had no claim, was once deserved by Russian Communism, and although it apparently deserves it no longer, it claims that one day it will deserve it forever."

Despite my misgivings about his conflation of bolshevism and fascism (it is difficult to see fascism as a rebellion), he is a vivid writer. He makes statements such as "Thus there is only one hell and it is on this earth: and it is against this that the struggle must be waged," and "The future is the only transcendental value for men without God," which are meant as critiques of left revolutionaries. At times, it seems as though he is engaged in a covert polemic with Sartre. He also repeatedly refers to Marxist predictions as 'prophecy,' which is quite annoying.

Likely required reading, along with his other texts, it is recommended for those rebels who end up taking sides against the revolution.