Rebellion: The Best Way to Live in a Godless World

"I have quite simply laid my heart to rest on the ground, so bitter and dark." - Hölderlin

Albert Camus in The Rebel explains that we, whether we like it or not, are always under the influence of a philosophy. So it is better to know it and guide our lives ourselves - even if we are atheists. Why? Because, as he puts it: "The longing for murder is the longing for justice." (p. 18)

In this 400-page book, he examines atheism and different ways of dealing with it throughout history and finally comes to the conclusion: "I rebel, therefore we exist." (p. 36) But what exactly is rebellion? Rebellion is that which "rises up from the gutter of its own nothingness." (p. 20) That is, when we accept nothingness but do not give in to it. Rebellion means asking the question: "Can we find a rule for our conduct without a sacred world and its absolute values?" (p. 35)

Who is the rebel?
The rebel is the one who says "no." But not in order to give up and surrender, but in order to remain and fight. (p. 23) Camus explains that when the rebel desecrates the throne of God, he realizes that from then on, he himself must create the justice, order, and unity that he has always been seeking in his destiny. (p. 40)

However, rebellion is not at odds with nature, because "rebellion against nature is tantamount to rebellion against oneself." (p. 42) The rebel understands that if there is a God, he must be without faith, evil, or merciless. (p. 56) But he does not go to extremes in this way, because "the most legitimate rebellion, the complete study of freedom, leads to the majority's oppression." (p. 64) And he is aware of this. He knows that enthusiasm must not replace truth. (p. 74) and absolute atheism is contradictory, because it makes everything both permissible and impermissible. (pp. 58 and 102)

Can one always live in a state of rebellion?
Camus poses the question: "Can one always live in a state of rebellion and remain standing?" (p. 86) and throughout the book, the answer he gives is yes. The rebel does not surrender to nothingness, but he does not become God either, because becoming God means totalitarianism and the acceptance of evil. (p. 87)

He also believes that Christianity and socialism are both forms of atheism. Christianity, because "by carrying a fictional concept into life, it prevents the discovery of the real meaning of life." And socialism, because it still believes that history has a goal, and this means betraying life and nature. In conclusion, both are atheistic in different ways: "Atheism is not the one who has no faith in anything, but the one who has no faith in what is." (p. 100)

Nietzsche, the cry of protest against nothingness
Nietzsche was the one who told man: "This world is the only reality that you must be faithful to, live in, and find refuge in." (p. 103) He believed that if someone needs a reason to do good, one should not trust him. (p. 109) In the meantime, Camus also points out that "protest against evil is at the heart of rebellion." (p. 141)

Rebellion against atheism
Raw, excessive, and contradictory atheism denies everything and leaves nothing but emptiness. But the rebel takes one step further: he protests, but in order to find meaning in a godless world. He knows history and knows that the death of God has often been filled with the emergence of excessive and totalitarian ideologies. Therefore, he is careful not to go to extremes himself. He understands that rebellion, if it goes too far, can lead to nihilism and terror.

Camus in this book rejects the destruction of everything in order to reach an ideal society and emphasizes that if we once justify violence, there will be no more limit or boundary for it. He condemns all kinds of terror.

Rebellion, a way of living
Finally, Camus defines rebellion as "the refusal to treat man as a thing and to reduce him to the low level of history." (p. 331) Rebellion means the affirmation of the common nature of all human beings. The rebel is creative, while the mere atheist is only a destroyer. (p. 333) And most importantly, the rebel knows that instead of killing and dying, he must live and make life blossom. (p. 334)

Conclusion
Camus in The Rebel shows us that rebellion is not only possible but necessary. Although life is godless, we can give it meaning - not by surrendering to old values, not by absolute denial, but by creating a value that comes from our own hearts. This is what rebellion is: a no-saying that has a yes within itself.

Review here : https://readingupdates.substack.com/p...

This review provides a link to a specific reading update. It seems that the content at the given URL might offer valuable insights or information related to reading. Perhaps it includes summaries of recent books, recommended reads, or discussions about various literary works. By clicking on the link, readers can access the detailed reading update and explore the topics covered. It could be a great resource for those who are interested in expanding their reading horizons or keeping up with the latest literary trends. Whether you're a casual reader or a book enthusiast, this review and the linked reading update might have something to offer.

Finally, it has been done! A splendid and important book, written in the prose of a great writer. It is not only a comprehensive cultural excursus on the figure of the rebel (ranging from Sade to Rimbaud, the surrealists, the Russian nihilists, Nietzsche, the French Revolution, Marxism, to the revolt in literature and the visual arts), but also a true philosophical reflection on revolt, its moral and social importance, and its ontological difference from revolution.

In this essay, grace broken, individual consciousness, responsibility, justice, and solidarity are discussed. This is why, in my opinion, Camus, having overcome the nihilism of “The Myth of Sisyphus” where he already recognized the importance of a just personal action, here is truly a bearer of hope and left-wing ideals, much more so than the French intelligentsia of the time – Sartre above all – who became enemies with this book. It is also a book against: all forms of violence and totalitarianisms, which often embody them.

The deep rift between Sartre and Camus arose from the fact that Camus, after visiting Stalin's USSR, saw and developed his thought of dissent from Stalinist crimes. Sartre, who was aware of them like many of his colleagues, could not bear that his friend and companion “used” these true arguments that would discredit the entire socialist experiment underway in Russia. The Camus-Sartre dispute is thus much more than an ideological or philosophical one; it is that between two worlds: individual consciousness vs. political affiliation, justice vs. opportunism, the value of the individual and his critical sense vs. the acquiescent belonging to a Group-Party. Between the comfort of silencing the conscience and the discomfort of listening to it and giving it a voice, Camus chose the second, an act of courage that has always made me prefer him to Sartre.

In his reflection, Camus arrives at the conclusion that revolt is the only act that can give meaning to a meaningless world. It is a creative act, deeply vital, animated as it is by the desire to restore broken justice and repair a wrong that is seen and not necessarily personal. The rebel, as the artificer of life, cannot kill, but revolt often leads to revolution, which kills to assert itself and often kills afterwards to maintain itself as a new established power. The contradiction seems insurmountable. Instead, Camus, with a truly brilliant act of coherence, I believe, got out of the impasse as follows: if the rebel must kill to restore grace, he must do so on the condition of not being an executioner but a victim himself, he must kill the tyrant and then kill himself, like the first Russian revolutionaries.

Thus, revolt can never crystallize into revolution but must be a perpetual revolt, that of individual consciousness, above all. The rebel is a free, courageous, conscious, and solidary man, often a lonely man. Prometheus, who gives life, cannot become a tyrant in turn, but after giving life to the world, he must sacrifice his own to not be unjust. I cannot imagine a more moral and left-wing nihilism. I dare say that it seems Christian to me too: “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.” This absurd heroism has made many people wrinkle their noses, branding it as utopianism. So be it, I like utopians, those who do not resign themselves, those who try. The utopian will not change the world, but will at least change himself, his attempt gives meaning to an entire life and ennobles it: “better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees” and I applaud. Mythical Camus. Long live Camus, long live Sisyphus, and those who try!

In short, an important and very current book, against the massifications and the flattening of consciences that prevail in our society. The book of an honest, complex, very human man in his personal weaknesses, but courageous, “unjust and thirsty for justice”, and therefore much more Marxist than many of his former friends. Revolts and taking positions outside the chorus always have a price to pay, Camus certainly knew that, but like Sisyphus, I imagine him happy. I imagine the rebel Camus expelled from the Group-Party, alone, wet from the rain, beaten by the wind, but himself, free, compassionate, courageous, and happy! One must imagine Camus happy.

Camus, deixou-nos aqui um excelente ensaio, et pour cause.

He didn't leave any author or philosopher unturned. To be able to reach the end without wondering, in relation to a good dozen names: who are these people? It is a true test of intellectual endurance.

It is good. But I don't like essays.

Why did I read it? Reading has reasons that reason doesn't know

In the past, I had read some foreign books, "Ta'oon", several short stories and a play by Albert Camus, but I had never read a philosophical and critical work of his. I don't have much interest in philosophy and I haven't read much either.

The book "The Rebel" deals with the history of 300 years of Europe, the intellectual transformations of Europe, and even Greek myths and Christianity. More than 70% of the writers and thinkers mentioned by Camus are unfamiliar and foreign to me. Of course, among those I know and whose books I have read, Camus also wrote about people like Dostoyevsky, Hitler, Rousseau, Marx, Hugo, Tolstoy, and dozens of other writers. The book is so heavy and full of strange thoughts that I don't recommend reading it to those who lack courage. Reading this book is like the invasion of a Mongol army into the human brain, merciless and fast. The philosophy and ideas of Nietzsche, Marx, etc. attack the human brain.

Boldly, I can say that I can name few intellectuals and free thinkers who, like Camus, have a precise view of the world, especially the modern era. In my opinion, the current progress of Europe in terms of intellectual and civil liberties is at least largely due to the ideas of this man and his like-minded people.

Skip the 150 pages in the middle of the book. Just read the beginning and the end. The background and history is long-winded and irrelevant, but the takeaways are golden.

Here's what I got from it:

- The next great war is that between the artists and the conquerors. We don't know who will win, we just know that one of them will win. The conquerors can destroy, but they lack the ability to create. On the other hand, the artists can create, but they are unable to destroy. The ideal victor, or the real rebel, should be capable of doing both.

- Rebellions are not solely based on art, but they ultimately require art to survive and flourish. The real rebel loves life and lives in the present moment. He has no concern for preserving the past and is fixated on what the outcome of his present actions will bring for the future.

- Rebellion always begins as a necessity, emerging from a real or perceived need in society. The real rebel is one of the people he aims to liberate and does not consider himself superior to others. "In order to be a man, we must first refuse to be a god."

- People rebel not based on facts, but on tastes, values, and rights. To discard old tastes, values, and rights means to establish new, higher ones that everyone affected by the rebellion, including the rebel, must abide by.

- The real rebel does not place his hope in the future (e.g., "One day things will be better.") but in the present (e.g., "Things will be better today because we plan to make it so."). He refrains from using the word "I" and always employs the more collective "we."

There's more, but that's all I got for now. Camus, like me, has a profound respect (and love!) for Nietzsche. I suggest reading the two side by side to observe the parallels. The book constantly reminds me of Nietzsche's Zarathustra: "Fellow creators the creator seeks, those who grave new values on new tablets."

Thinking the name of the last chapter, "Thoughts at the meridian," would be an excellent title for an autobiography.

Camus makes me think deeply. He is the author who holds the power to direct my thoughts, following the path of his beliefs. Sadly, he is no longer with us. If he were alive today, I am certain he would have lent his support to the readers' movement against the irrational stance of the GR administration regarding the freedom of readers to express their views. He would have celebrated their rebellion and joined in to show his solidarity, for I firmly believe he understood that all readers have their own unique opinions and should be able to voice them freely. He wouldn't have been deterred by criticism.

As the renowned choreographer, Mark Morris, says: “You don’t have to like me, you don’t have to like my work, but you have to be able to say something about it. I love a vicious review, really ripping something apart, there’s nothing better than that! But it has to be done really courageously and accurately.”

I think Manny is one reviewer who has stood up for what he believes is right. And I join in to add my support by choosing not to review this work, which, as I read, I know will have a profound influence on me for a long time to come.

Posted with Manny's permission, his deleted review:
In the shower just now, I suddenly had a Eureka moment. The aspect of this current censorship war that's been most upsetting to us is the feeling of powerlessness. Goodreads can arbitrarily change the rules, and they hardly bother to respond when we complain. But we are not without power. There are twenty million of us, and only a few dozen of them. We just need to get a little more organized, and we can easily resist.

So here's one concrete way to do it, based on the legend of Hercules. You will recall that Hercules had a difficult time against the Lernean Hydra; every time he cut off one of its heads, ten more grew back. We can do the same thing if we adopt the following plan:
1. Back up all your reviews, so that you have a copy of everything you have posted.
2. If you think that one of your reviews has been unreasonably deleted by Goodreads, repost it with an image of the Hydra at the top.
3. If you see someone else posting a Hydra review, make a copy of it and post it yourself.

We can improve this basic scheme with a little thought; for example, it would be better to have a place where we keep HTML marked-up source of reviews, so that they can immediately be reposted with the same formatting, and we need a plan for duplicating deleted shelves. But we can sort that out later. Without getting too bogged down in the details, I'm sure you see what will happen. The net result of Goodreads unreasonably deleting a review will be that it immediately comes back in many different places.

People who know their Greek mythology will be aware that Hercules did in fact defeat the Hydra, and Goodreads can use the same method if they dare; they can close down the account of anyone who participates in the scheme. That will work, but I am not sure that anything less drastic will be effective. I think Goodreads will be reluctant to escalate to this level. A large proportion of the most active reviewers are now part of the protest movement, and they would be losing much of the content that makes the site valuable. Even more to the point, the media have already started to get interested (maybe you saw the article in the Washington Post). They would love the story, and it would create a mountain of bad publicity for Goodreads and Amazon.

I'd say the odds are heavily in our favor. Why don't we try it? I promise now to respond to any Hydra calls.

Cogito ergo sum, says Descartes. Rebel ergo sum, disagrees Camus. I rebel, therefore I define my existence, I destroy, therefore I live, I forge, therefore I give breath to the amalgam that composes my cell, steeling it with a purpose. "Every rebellion is a rebellion against our fate. All other pretexts are just excuses and justifications," he continues with the pen mercilessly in his hand. Truly, the slave feels his blood boil in his veins, he rises up passionately against his fate, against the fate of the slave, and suddenly his own observed fate that until now was in the mercy of God, now becomes one with the fate of every oppressed, every caste. Every distinct experience, every unique moment, now become neighboring warriors of the same caste. The rebellion that smoldered in one in a half-extinguished coal, with the entirety of the uprising, becomes a wild fire, flammable and uncontrollable like kerosene, that burns the entire generation of oppression. For rebellions to succeed, they require a catholicity. It is hoped that the oppressed anti-conformist will also succeed with his refusal to escape from the role of the abandoned desperado, and to rise to something higher, to a globalized consciousness that elevates him above human vanity, and makes him part of an idea. As Camus also tells us, the uprising has the tendency to attack the nations like a "flea" (a reference to the fable of 'the flea'). From the moment the first body will rise up against the whip, the first slave will be liberated, and the first master will lose his power. However, the price of the slave is sometimes very costly. The coin of martyrdom is unyielding and almost in every rebellion freedom is measured in blood and sacrifice. Here lies the paradox of all this. Like a slave, you say that you rebel because you want to live. You want, for the most part, to live a better life than the one that tortured you until now. However, you pay for your freedom with that life that until recently balanced the weight of it in breaths that made you loathe existence. "That which constitutes an excellent reason to live, is also an excellent reason to die." But what comes after the rebellion? What is it that makes us demand change? Hegel and Nietzsche, polemical and heroic idealists, without a second thought, with the masculine voice of war answer: "The will to power!" Survival, existence, everything you do every moment that passes is a means to an end that leads to something ulterior, to power. When we created the first tribal societies, we suffered to prevail over the physical phenomena and the violent nature, we suffered to hold on with our nails and teeth alive, because this is what the instinct of power and strength indicated to us. When we molded our God, and defined his elect mediator to transfer his heavenly psalm to us through the polity and ethics, we rebelled against the absolutism and the savage naturalistic life that hindered our evolution and well-being, and mainly we rebelled against Death. Then when as a people we had silenced the authoritarianism of the divinely appointed king who had appropriated the divine grace for his own benefit, we had to rebel again. The king had to die and new laws had to be born. We dragged the monarch out of his fictional castle and led him to the guillotine, while God waited his turn locked in the boudoir. The king died, the hour of God came. Yes. The rebellion exceeded the limits, killed God, allowed murder, dug, burned, lied and blasphemed, against everything that supported, in order for a new polity to be born. This is what we believed.... Finally, after the death of God, the price was incalculable. The absolute amoralism fell harmlessly on the chest of man and the orthodoxy expelled our square logic into madness, plunged into the depths of inductive thinking. Logic took the place of God, and inevitably, almost fatefully, nihilism took the place of logic. This conclusion is helped us to understand by Dostoyevsky. In his work, "The Brothers Karamazov", an excellent example of the nihilistic conclusion is given. The atheist Ivan Karamazov, always brandishing the title of the martyred by God as a banner, suddenly feels for the first time the horror of logic and almost goes crazy. "If there is a God, then how is it possible that he allows the death of children?" he wonders. The death of children was incomprehensible to him. The path of logic that he had chosen did not allow any brakes. The truth stood naked in front of him showing him its ugliest face. "Therefore, it is not possible that there is a God, or if there is, then he is a murderer, since he gives us life in a universe where we exist only to become fodder in the fields of death. And since death is allowed by the foundation of ethics.... Then everything is allowed!" Indeed. If there is no God, then there is no virtue, and if there is no virtue, then everything is permissible. Hell is open and awaits us. Saint Mark the Ascetic tells us. It is true that from the moment you decide to start the rebellion, you enter a path that is traversed by dogma and passion. The arms of extremism approach closer and closer to the ship of rebellion from the moment the passionate hearts take the helm in their hands. Destruction, and death in every rebellion were inevitable. From the Tsarist Russia of the 19th century and the youthful nihilist Sergei Nechayev who in the name of rebellion passed to the shores of death, to socialism and Lenin who in the name of the utopia that Marx promised destroyed and adopted all those means that he said would be abolished from the new world, the examples of rebellious madness are countless. And the main example of the most destructive nihilism was nothing other than Reich and fascism. German Nazism was an unbridled dynamism starved and humiliated, that gave the best soil for the ripening of the nihilistic self-destruction. The motto of Nazism was all or nothing. And finally it ended up sacrificing a promising "all" for an incomprehensible "nothing". What the rebel demands in the world is a totality. It is the removal of isolation that embraces sociability and acceptance. We are different from animals because our human consciousness is recognized also by the consciousness of our surroundings. Consciousness is acceptance and catholicity. Rebellious isolation leads to horrors. In the last chapters of the rebellious man, Camus, out of sentimentality, shouts for life and calls the reader, the nihilist, the rebel, the dogmatist, the reformer, the utopian to swear their oaths and promises only to life and to no idea. Rebellion is life-giving, but we must never forget the limits that separate us from nature. Acceptance and faith were and will always be the most powerful motives of this reality.

Rebellion

«The rebel prefers to stand and die rather than live on his knees.»

«I rebel, therefore we exist.»

«Rebellion is the affirmation of a common human nature, a nature that does not give power to the world.»

«The pain and suffering of children are not in themselves hateful, but the fact that their pain and suffering cannot be justified is the source of hatred.»

«Faith requires acceptance of the unknown and acceptance of evil, and submission to injustice.»

«Man is the only creature who does not want to be what he is.»

«He who commits suicide believes that he is destroying everything with him and taking it with him.»

«At the beginning, the burden demands justice, and at the end, it desires power.»

«This world is condemned to death and desolation from the start. So why do we postpone today's happiness to tomorrow?»

‏ «If the mind of the prisoner is powerful enough to create an ethical philosophy in the cell of the prison, this philosophy, if it is not a philosophy of submission, will be a philosophy of accommodation.» «Who is the rebel? He who does not say. But despite being rejected, he does not give up: he is also the one who, from the very first movement of his, cries out.»

«Man, by excessive deduction from logic, wants to transform the earth into a theocracy for his own god, and this is where the obedience to history begins and man, by identifying with history and by not remaining faithful to his true rebellion, condemns himself to the illusory revolutions of the twentieth century.»

I think Camus' ambitions far outdistanced his abilities in this work.

He is indeed a great novelist, but when it comes to being a philosopher, he falls short.

This book appears to be an effort on his part to position himself beside Sartre in the French philosophy of his era.

Camus endeavors to construct a coherent philosophical system to deal with the topic of revolution, yet it merely comes across as aimless ramblings.

The book lacks clarity and coherence, and it isn't really of much value.

Camus is much more successful in addressing the human condition in his novels and in "The Myth of Sisyphus".

His novels have the power to touch the hearts and minds of readers, presenting a more profound and engaging exploration of the human experience.

"The Myth of Sisyphus" also offers valuable insights into the absurdity of human existence and how we can find meaning in the face of it.

Overall, while Camus may have had great aspirations in this particular work, it fails to live up to his reputation as a thinker.

'I rebel, therefore we are.' This powerful statement encapsulates the essence of a profound idea. It implies that when an individual rebels, it is not just a solitary act but one that has the potential to bring about a sense of collective identity. The act of rebellion can unite people who share a common cause or dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Attached to this review is a link to a specific page on Goodreads. Additionally, there are several related categories such as Rebellion, Rationalism and totality, Other definitions of liberty, and the History of ideas in the 19th century. Each of these categories contains a list of books that offer further exploration of the relevant themes.

The quotes provided offer diverse perspectives on various aspects such as fascism, liberty, justice, and the role of ideology. For example, one quote states that fascism is based on contempt, and any form of contempt in politics can lead to its establishment. Another quote discusses the relationship between absolute liberty and justice, highlighting the need for a balance.

The ideas presented in this text are complex and thought-provoking. They invite readers to reflect on the nature of rebellion, the pursuit of liberty and justice, and the impact of ideology on society. By engaging with these ideas, we can gain a deeper understanding of our own world and the choices we make.

A such test cannot be commented (I think) here. A face-to-face discussion is required. The only thing I can say is that it is worth reading. It has a lot of elements (some with which one will identify and others will reject), which provide food for thought and for discussion.

This test seems to be quite complex and multi-faceted. It contains a wealth of information that can引发不同的反应和思考. Some of the elements might resonate strongly with the reader, while others might seem less relevant or even be disagreed with. However, regardless of one's personal stance on each individual element, the overall value of the test lies in its ability to stimulate thought and encourage further discussion. By engaging in a face-to-face conversation about the test, one can gain a deeper understanding of its various aspects and potentially learn something new. Therefore, it is definitely worth taking the time to read and consider this test, as it has the potential to be a valuable source of inspiration and learning.