Bro, I'm completely crazy about this book. It has enlightened me. My God, how beautiful humanity is in its incessant search for totality. But it always forgets to find the unity that can only arise within ourselves. Only through refusal, never through negation, can we reach a state of affairs where the meaning of life fulfills its purpose as a subjective and arbitrary experience. The revolt is the individual imposing his limits regarding excessive evil, but there must also be limits regarding excessive good. We cannot have hubris. We are not and will not be God. That guy is dead. All of us, one day, will also die. We are not divine and perfect, we are fallible and finite. Let love guide our spirit towards everything until, one day, the simple fact of having existed, loved, felt, thought will be reason enough for us to give up all of this in an acceptance of the true and only peace attainable in this world, since in it we are condemned to live constricted by labels, systems, and social contracts not consented to. I'm very grateful for having read this book. It's good to know that in the midst of wild tempests, a ray of sun can be enough.

My arrow must be accurate.

The main thesis of this book is that the two major ideologies that dominated the era in which the author lived (namely fascism and communism) were bad from a moral or philosophical perspective because they had roots in nihilism.

Camus is not very clear about what he means by nihilism. He describes Nietzsche as the standard-bearer of nihilism among philosophers, but he also mentions other writers. Notably, he cites the Marquis de Sade as a nihilist. Finally, Camus says that it is very important to read Turgenev's novel "Fathers and Sons" because the character Bazarov offers a masterful portrait of the nihilist man.

In the end, for Camus, the word "nihilism" seems to be reduced to two notions: (1) life is absurd; and (2) ethics has no basis. Normally, a rebellious man is a good man because he rebels with the aim of putting an end to an injustice that affects a community or collectivity. Unfortunately, when the rebellious man falls under the influence of nihilism, he becomes a monster like Stalin or Hitler.

Camus insists that despite the fact that communism and Nazism had different goals, both ideologies were deeply nihilistic. He writes, "It is not fair to identify the ends of fascism and Russian communism. The first figures the exaltation of the executioner by the executioner himself. The second, more dramatic, the exaltation of the executioner by the victims. The first has never dreamed of liberating all of man, but only of liberating some by subjugating others. The second, in its deeper principle, aims to liberate all by enslaving all, temporarily. One must recognize the grandeur of the intention. But it is just, on the contrary, to identify their means with the political cynicism that they both drew from the same source, moral nihilism." (p. 308)

According to Camus, Nazism saw sadism and murder as ends in themselves, while communism regarded them as means. The criminality of Nazism was evident. The case of communism was more complicated. First, Marx was a Hegelian and believed that history followed an inevitable course. The duty of man was to help the prescribed historical progress. According to Camus, communism made man the slave or the plaything of history. Because communism was nihilistic, its methods were criminal.

Camus claims not to be an existentialist because the existentialists support communism (which is part of Hegelianism). Camus is therefore against all historicism because he believes that there are eternal values. Camus ultimately rallies to classical philosophy. The solution to the problems of humanity is found in the Platonic dialogue where it is recognized that everyone (all the parties in the debate) has rights. He writes, "Plato is right against Moses and Nietzsche. The dialogue at the height of man costs less than the gospel of totalitarian religions, monologued and dictated from the top of a solitary mountain.... The rebel doubtless demands a certain freedom for himself; but in no case, if he is consistent, the right to destroy the being and the freedom of the other." (p. 354-355)

This was not an easy book, and that's on more than one level.

I am always leery of philosophical arguments where the writer accepts only his own terms and definitions. Camus gets so wrapped up in his idea of a rebel that he approaches it as a universality. I really couldn't buy into his thought process after that.

The best parts of the book for me were the discussion of revolution in France, along with the ideas of Rousseau and Saint-Just, and his references to The Brothers Karamazov. It made me very glad to find a copy around the house. I still have to find a copy of the Social Contract but I'll be reading them all after reading The Rebel.

I guess that makes getting through this book worth it!

Overall, The Rebel presented some challenging ideas that required careful consideration. While I had my reservations about Camus' approach, the sections on French revolution and related thinkers were quite engaging. The references to other notable works like The Brothers Karamazov added depth to the discussion.

Although I struggled with certain aspects of the book, it has ultimately piqued my interest in further exploring these philosophical concepts. I look forward to reading the Social Contract and seeing how it ties in with the ideas presented in The Rebel.

In conclusion, despite its difficulties, The Rebel has left a lasting impression on me and has inspired me to continue my journey of intellectual exploration.