Aujourd'hui, maman est morte. Ou peut-être hier, je ne sais pas. This simple yet profound sentence begins the story of Meursault. His mother's death doesn't seem to have a profound impact on him at first. He lives in a world where everything seems equal. Love, marriage, death, life, success, failure, good, and evil - all are the same to him. His body is the only guide, and he only focuses on fulfilling his basic needs. He eats, drinks, smokes, satisfies his desires, and engages in sexual activities. Even the killing of an Arab man doesn't faze him. He claims it was because of the sun. To him, people like his mother, Marie, the lawyer, the judges, and the priest are all like cartoons. He is completely detached from society, appearing as a cold and emotionless individual. But Meursault isn't weak. He has found a way to deal with a life that lacks meaning. His indifference is a defense mechanism, although he may not even realize it. He lives in a world that he doesn't belong to, a world that doesn't understand him and may even judge him harshly. Before his execution, he says, "I felt for the first time the kindness of the indifference of the universe." And with that, he meets his end. But does he truly become a lesser being there?

I think “The Stranger” is truly one of the dullest books I've read in quite some time.

I didn't exactly hate it, but rather, I just felt a profound sense of underwhelm. It was a strange concoction of being both stimulating and boring simultaneously!

I guess perhaps I'm not in the right state of mind or at the appropriate stage of life to fully appreciate the literary value that this classic holds.

That being said, it is undeniably a unique and “strange” book that brilliantly highlights the profound philosophies of absurdity and existentialism.

The book centers around Meursault, an Algerian man who is astonishingly emotionally detached and indifferent. He lives his life completely devoid of logic.

When his mother passes away, the only things that seem to bother him are the oppressive heat and the tiresome journey on his way to her funeral.

On one fateful occasion, he somehow gets himself inextricably tangled into a crime for which he has no apparent motive and feels no ounce of remorse.

The book delves deep into the themes of the meaninglessness and irrationality of human life. Meursault has an extremely simple way of thinking and he attaches no significance or weight to the actions he is performing because, in his view, nothing truly matters.

For the people around him, he is a complete stranger who refuses to conform to the established social norms and, as a result, is often condemned.

His biggest “crime” is simply not fitting into the predefined box and having a way of thinking that others find incomprehensible.

The protagonist’s blunt and brutally honest perspective was, without a doubt, the most interesting aspect of this book, while the plot itself, at times, felt rather tedious.

Nevertheless, the book is short and sweet, and the ending leaves the reader with some truly thought-provoking ideas to ponder.

**Psychological Philosophers**

Some psychological theories claim that humans have three spiritual stages. In the first stage, only oneself and one's own pleasure and happiness are important. If one cannot get what one wants, one will make trouble and take shortcuts. It's not that one is self-willed or heartless, but simply not aware of the happiness and unhappiness of others. Even if one loves others, it is for the pleasure that love brings to oneself. This stage is usually in the early years of life, in childhood. In the second stage, following the education of the family and society, one learns that one should sometimes give up what one wants and act according to something broader, called "duty" or "law". In the third stage, one gradually understands the "spirit of the law". One realizes that there are other people, and these others have souls like oneself, and the happiness and unhappiness of others are important to oneself. As a result, one acts out of a passion for morality and law, not just following society and not just out of fear of sanctions. This only occurs in old age.

Now, it is possible that someone, due to weak education or weak mental power, or for some other reason, may remain in the first or second stage. In this sense, "Morseu" is a mentally backward person who remains in the first stage (pleasure-seeking).

**Philosophical Psychologists**

However, can all the spiritual aspects of humans be summed up in these three simple stages? The problem with psychologists is that they are always looking for solutions to psychological problems at all costs. That is, they look at everything from this perspective. Based on this, if someone like "Morseu" has fallen into poverty and as a result has returned to the first stage, they do not think about whether there is really such a thing as poverty in reality or not. They think about how to solve the psychological problem of this person, regardless of what the world is really like.

However, the philosopher does not say this. The philosopher says let people suffer, but let them know what is going on outside. Let people, at the price of losing eternal spiritual peace, at the price of falling into decadence to forget themselves, know who they are, what they are, and where they are. In this sense, Morseu is ultimately a philosophical human being.

**Philosophical Psychologists**

Is it possible to combine these two views?

Psychological Philosophers
The three stages of human spiritual development as proposed by some psychological theories offer an interesting perspective.

In childhood, the focus is on personal pleasure and self-gratification.

As one grows and is influenced by family and society, the concept of duty and law begins to take shape.

Finally, in old age, there is a deeper understanding of the spirit of the law and the importance of others' well-being.

But what about those who, like Morseu, seem to be stuck in an earlier stage?

Philosophical Psychologists
Psychologists are often so focused on solving psychological problems that they may overlook the bigger picture.

They may not question the existence of certain concepts like poverty or the true nature of the world.

Philosophers, on the other hand, encourage people to endure suffering and seek knowledge about themselves and the world around them.

In this way, Morseu can be seen as a philosophical figure.

Philosophical Psychologists
The question remains: can these two viewpoints be reconciled?

Perhaps a combination of psychological and philosophical approaches could lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the human psyche.

Mersault is a twenty-something clerk. He is highly intelligent yet entirely lacking in ambition. He shows little emotion and has the attitude of "why bother about everything?" as he believes there's nothing wrong with the status quo.

However, if pushed, like when his girlfriend wants him to get married, he will go along with it. Or when his violent pimp neighbor asks him to write a nasty letter to his mistress, which backfires, he will act. It seems that inertia is his default state. The only time he truly shows emotion is when he is annoyed by the heat and glare of the sun, a rather commonplace event that annoys him greatly. It's also the only time he acts of his own volition.

His crime occurs when he is on the beach, invited by his pimp friend. He sees one of the Arabs, the brother of his friend's ex-mistress. The Arab has just stabbed his friend after the pimp attacked him. Mersault stares at him, annoyed to see him and further annoyed by the scorching sun, which was as hot as it was at his mother's funeral and annoyed him then as well, perhaps even more than his mother's death. The Arab flashes a knife, and Mersault remembers he has the pimp's gun, which he took to prevent violence. He shoots the Arab, and then, a few seconds later, he shoots the dead body four more times.

He is arrested and, after adjusting to prison life, he discovers that he takes pleasure in his memories and in looking at the small square patch of blue sky visible from his cell. He claims that if a person had only one day of freedom, it would create enough memories to sustain them for the rest of their life. But freedom or imprisonment, it all seems the same to him. He is certain that things will work out in his favor.

He refuses to assist his lawyer, denies the existence of God, has no belief in Jesus, and shows no remorse whatsoever. It's all the same to him. This moment, here and now, is all there is, he says, yet despite this, he desires more. It's too late, as the death knell rings and, at the last moment, he finally expresses emotion. When he is led to the guillotine, he wants there to be a large and noisy crowd of people who hate him. The same people who were bewildered that a law-abiding clerk could commit such a senseless and absurd murder. What is the purpose of this angry crowd? Why does he want them there? How else, without religion, can he expiate his sin?

Mersault is exquisitely portrayed as someone who watches but whose participation is limited to when it suits him. His lack of emotion means he is not fully immersed in situations, unlike the highly emotional people around him. These people, including his late mother's aged fiance, the pimp, his angry boss, the girlfriend who loves him, the mistress who fights back, the vengeful Arabs, and the religious lawyer, are all filled with passion. But he remains the outsider, observing much and acting little, except for that one fateful time.

Existentialism is not so much a philosophical choice for Mersault. While he holds those views, he does not do so through conviction or acceptance but rather because of his damaged personality. Perhaps this is why Camus denied that this was an existentialist book.

5 stars, plus 2 extra for the genius writing and the intense emotional involvement of the reader, or this reader at least.

"Life is meaningless."

This is a profound statement made by Albert Camus. He was a philosopher who delved deep into the human condition.

Camus never felt the joy of hyper-fixations. Hyper-fixations often bring a sense of intense focus and excitement to some people. However, for Camus, life seemed to lack such a source of joy.

He explored the idea that life may not have an inherent meaning, and that we must create our own meaning in the face of this existential void.

Camus' perspective challenges us to think about the nature of our own lives and the things that bring us joy and purpose.

Maybe we should question whether our hyper-fixations are truly fulfilling or if they are just distractions from the deeper questions of life.

In conclusion, Camus' view on the meaninglessness of life and his lack of experience with the joy of hyper-fixations offer us valuable insights into the human experience.

This book is truly a remarkable piece that can be simply described as one big "hey siri play IDGAF by Dua Lipa".

It seems to capture the essence and energy of that particular song, perhaps in a way that only a book can.

The words within its pages might carry the same sense of empowerment and liberation that the song does.

As you turn each page, you can almost feel the rhythm and attitude of IDGAF flowing through.

It's as if the book is a musical journey, taking you on a ride with Dua Lipa's powerful lyrics and infectious melody.

Whether you're a fan of the song or not, this book has the potential to draw you in and make you experience something unique.

It's a must-read for those who are looking for a book that breaks the mold and offers a fresh perspective.

So, go ahead and pick up this book, and let it transport you to a world where you can truly say "I don't give a f**k".

This intelligent, sincere, emotionless and troubled "foreigner" I pitied a great deal. I esteemed him deeply and loved him at times when he couldn't understand because the people around him couldn't bear the truth he was saying and meaning.

He is a socially inconsistent and contradictory person. On the one hand, he lives and enjoys his daily routine without any change and at the same time he is a flawless worker who follows schedules, work protocols and typical social relationships. On the other hand, he refuses to tell the slightest lie, he doesn't care about beliefs and mainly the feelings of others, he is socially isolated, he behaves irrationally, superficially, emotionlessly and he is nervous with any behavior that is unpredictable to him.

It's as if he lives in an aquarium with a warm and friendly stereotype environment for himself from which he watches with apathy and indifference whatever happens outside of it and although it makes his life difficult he stubbornly refuses to admit the commonly accepted things.

This "foreigner" surprises the reader even more.

He has no dreams, ambitions, friends. He doesn't actively participate in his own life either. He lives aimlessly, submissive to a fate that he doesn't try to change, he is atheist and in essence just a spectator of the world.

Parallel to the death of his mother - it's wonderfully spoiled to say "mom" in every indifferent reference to his mother - comes the crime he commits by killing an Arab.

"Today my mother died. Maybe yesterday, I don't know. I received a telegram from the nursing home: 'Mother passed away. Funeral tomorrow. Sincerely condolences.' This doesn't mean anything to me. It could have been yesterday too."

Indifferent at the funeral, emotionless in court, acquitted in prison.

Perhaps all this behavior and attitude was his defense, protection and weapon against his fears of life, death, loneliness, inhuman society.

He never shut up and never pretended to anyone. He didn't respect the "shoulds" of others. He didn't play roles to make an impression. He didn't put on the mask of perfect grooming to acquire the right to happiness and social acceptance.

In the midst of the absurd, he scorns his uniqueness and refuses to fit into the common perception.

He doesn't ask for forgiveness, he doesn't submit. He admits that he worshiped the burning sun of summer that led him to a true end.

"In order for everything to come to an end, in order for me to feel less alone, I have no choice but to hope that many spectators will come on the day I am executed and will greet me with shouts of hatred."

✡️

"Today mother died. Or maybe it was yesterday. I don't know."


I decided to reread "The Stranger" because in my first reading, which was a long time ago, there were aspects of the novel that remained in a gray area. And as time passed and I read other works ("The Plague", "The Fall", "The Myth of Sisyphus"), Albert Camus gradually became one of my favorite writers. He had an innate talent for描绘 characters who were both peculiar and impossible to forget, and he developed the existentialist current, which was also developed philosophically by Mr. Sartre.


In that first reading, I confessed to having mixed feelings because the nature of Meursault shocks every reader. He is a character that one rarely encounters in a novel, and it is quite difficult to hold oneself back as the story unfolds and we begin to discover who Meursault really is.


As I read (and reread), I would have liked to have the (fantastic) possibility of getting inside the book to go and slap that guy, at least to make him react because at times his responses become unbearable, exasperating, almost making one angry.


The way Camus塑造 Meursault's personality determines that he is truly unique. He is a type who seems to have all the worst qualities: laziness, boredom, apathy, weariness, impassivity, and any synonym that can be applied to these terms.


Meursault could easily suffer the punishment of the fourth degree of Purgatory in Dante's "Divine Comedy", doing endless work, running forever. He could easily inhabit that mountain for all eternity.


Meursault is a man without reaction, dull, without blood. Practically, life and events pass over him, and he remains unchanged. Not even the death of his own mother ("I thought that, after all, it was one less Sunday, that mother was now buried, that I was going to resume work, and that, in short, nothing had changed"), nor the murder of the Arab because "the sun bothered him" or the trial and his last few days before the execution disturb his way of being: He affirms: "I wasn't even sure I was alive, since I was living like a dead man."


Meursault is overcome by an overwhelming reality that he never faces, no longer fights or defends himself.


The passage of his trial reminded me a lot of that of another accused, I'm referring to Joseph K. in Franz Kafka's novel "The Trial" because of its connotations of claustrophobia and oppression in the suffocating enclosure crowded with people and because of the proximity to the platforms and the people, with almost no possibility of moving. In both novels, the high degree of heat is exasperating, perhaps as it should be in a trial of these characteristics. Maybe it's like that so that the accused confesses his crime more quickly, although in the case of Meursault, he already knows in advance that he is guilty and declares himself as such. Why protest or fight if he doesn't even care to get to that point. He is guilty and that's it.


The first time I read the book, I thought I connected Meursault (especially in the first pages) with Bartleby, the scrivener of Herman Melville with his "I would prefer not to", and I think they have certain things in common, while compared with other similar characters in literature, such as Gregor Samsa or the Underground Man of Dostoevsky, I discover that these others want to fight to wake up from that real nightmare (Samsa) or want to impose their principles against all odds (the Underground Man).


The case of Bartleby is challenging to the point of rebelling against what is imposed, but in a passive way. With Meursault, that doesn't happen.


He has chosen his destiny in a certain way, and the worst thing is that he has accepted it.

English (The Stranger) / Italiano

\\"The Stranger\\" was recommended to me by the protagonist of another book, The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky. In fact, many books are mentioned in \\"The Perks of being a Wallflower\\", but \\"The Stranger\\" is the one that intrigued both the protagonist and me the most.

Meursault, a modest French-Algerian employee, lives in Algiers. He goes through his daily routine with indifference, unable to openly express even the simplest of emotions. When he learns of his mother's death, who had been living in a hospice for her final years, he reacts with apathy.

\\"Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday; I can't be sure.\\"

One day, while at the beach with friends, Meursault kills an Arab, again with a sense of apathy. He calmly accepts his arrest and the subsequent trial, resigned to the inevitability of his fate. Meursault is neither a hero nor an antihero; he is the ultimate stranger, alien to all the emotional manifestations that are common to humans, more like an Asimovian android than a man.

This small book can be read in a day, but it will stay with you for weeks, gnawing at your conscience.

Vote: 8

\\"Lo Straniero\\" was suggested to me by the protagonist of another book, Noi siamo infinito by Stephen Chbosky. Actually, there are many books cited in \\"Noi siamo Infinito\\", but \\"Lo Straniero\\" is the one that piqued the curiosity of both the protagonist and myself the most.

Meursault is a humble French-Algerian employee who lives in Algiers. He lives his daily life with indifference, unable to openly display even the simplest of emotions. And it is with apathy that he learns of the death of his mother, who had been living in a hospice for some time.

\\"Today my mother died. Or maybe yesterday, I don't know.\\"

And it is always with apathy that one day, while going to the beach with friends, Meursault kills an Arab. Unmoved, he undergoes arrest and the consequent trial, calmly accepting the inescapability of his destiny. Neither a hero nor an antihero, Meursault is the stranger par excellence, foreign to all the emotional expressions common to human beings, more like an Asimovian android than a man.

A small book that can be devoured in a day, but that will continue to eat away at you for weeks.

Vote: 8

Forget hot girl summer.

It's time for life has no meaning winter.

Winter often brings a sense of coldness and bleakness. The days are shorter, the nights are longer, and the world seems to be covered in a blanket of monotony.

During this time, many people may find themselves feeling a bit down or lacking in motivation.

The hustle and bustle of summer with its parties and outdoor activities is long gone, replaced by the stillness and quiet of winter.

However, instead of viewing this as a negative, we can try to embrace the unique qualities of winter.

Maybe it's a time to slow down, reflect, and find meaning in the simple things.

We can curl up with a good book, enjoy a warm cup of cocoa, or take a peaceful walk in the snow.

Life may not always have a clear and obvious meaning, but that doesn't mean we can't find beauty and value in every season, even in the seemingly meaningless winter.

The Stranger by Albert Camus presents a complex and thought-provoking protagonist, Meursault. At first glance, one might be inclined to loathe him and distance oneself from his actions and attitudes. After all, he shows little emotion at his mother's funeral, kills a man in an impassive manner, and seems detached from the world around him. However, as one delves deeper into the story, it becomes clear that Meursault is not simply a cold-blooded freak or a sociopath. He experiences moments of happiness and satisfaction, and even shows a hint of compassion. He is simply indifferent to morality and follows his own inner compass.

The philosophy of absurdism, which Camus represents in this novel, is both simple and dangerously attractive. It posits that life has no inherent meaning, and that we can only find true freedom by accepting this absurdity. This idea challenges our traditional notions of right and wrong, good and evil, and forces us to question our own beliefs and values. It also raises important questions about the role of the individual in society, and the consequences of living a life that is out of step with the norms and expectations of others.

Despite the seemingly nihilistic nature of absurdism, there is a certain beauty and truth to it. It reminds us that life is short and unpredictable, and that we should not waste our time on things that do not truly matter. It also encourages us to be true to ourselves, even if this means going against the grain. In a world that is often filled with hypocrisy and pretense, Meursault's unwavering honesty and authenticity can be refreshing and inspiring. While we may not all agree with his actions or his philosophy, we can still learn from his example and strive to live our own lives with greater clarity and purpose.

**In Search of Lost Time**

The Stranger is a truly perplexing work. On the surface, it appears simple and straightforward in its story and writing. However, beneath this veneer lies a depth that is difficult to fathom. It is widely regarded as a philosophical novel, yet many readers are left grappling with the question of what exactly the philosophical lesson is. It's not like one of Aesop's fables where the moral is clearly spelled out. Camus seems to be hitting us with something profound, but the force of it makes it hard to precisely identify what that something is.

After a long and rather embarrassing struggle to reread the original French, my initial suspicion about the deeper meaning of the book was confirmed. This is a book that delves into the concept of time. It is, I believe, an allegorical exploration of how our perception and experience of time shape our very being, our thoughts, and our way of life.
Time is immediately highlighted in the first sentence when Meursault isn't sure what day his mother passed away. His subsequent blunder of requesting two days off for the funeral instead of one, due to forgetting the weekend was coming, further emphasizes his problem with time. The reader is left wondering what kind of man doesn't keep track of such basic details.
For the first half of the book, Meursault is completely immersed in the present moment. He is solely focused on sensations, desires, and fleeting thoughts, with no regard for the past or the future. This is the root of his apathy. When one is completely absorbed in the here and now, the only things that can capture their attention are bodily desires and passing fancies. Genuine care and concern, as well as any real interest, depend on a sense of past and future. Without ever thinking about these, our life becomes a passing dream, a causeless chaos.
This is reflected in Camus's language. As Sartre noted, the sentences in The Stranger are like islands, with the reader tumbling from one to the next, from nothingness to nothingness. This mirrors Meursault's thought process, which avoids all causal connection. One thing simply happens after another, with no real coherence. This is why Camus often sounds like Hemingway in this book, with the clipped sentences reflecting the discontinuous instants of time that pass before Meursault's eyes.
The truly disturbing thing, for me, is how easily Meursault manages to get by in this state. He makes friends, has a job, and even gets a girlfriend, and for a long time, he doesn't seem to get into any trouble. Yet, the reader is aware that he is, at the very least, bordering on being a sociopath. So, how is he able to function so well? This, I think, is the social critique hidden within the book.
Meursault lives a perfectly conventional life. For a Frenchman living in Algeria at that time, his life could hardly be more ordinary. This is no coincidence. Because he is not interested in or capable of making decisions, he has simply fallen into the path laid out for him by society. In fact, society has pre-fabricated everything he might need, pre-determining his options to such an extent that he can go through life without ever having to make a real choice. He gets along so well without having to make decisions because he is never asked to. Every decision is made by convention, every option circumscribed by custom.
Camus presents a problem: custom prevents us from thinking by limiting our decisions. But he doesn't just offer a diagnosis; he also prescribes a solution. To understand this, we must return to the subject of time. When Meursault is imprisoned, he initially becomes unhappy because he can no longer satisfy his immediate desires. This forces a change in him. Instead of being completely absorbed in the present, he begins to cultivate a sense of the past. He explores his memories and, for the first time, is able to redirect his attention from the immediate to the distant and the gone. He now has a present and a past, and his psychology develops a corresponding depth. The language also becomes less jerky towards the end and more like a proper narrative.
However, the real breakthrough doesn't occur until Meursault is forced to contemplate the future, which happens when he is sentenced to death. His thoughts are suddenly thrust towards this future event, the end of his existence. Thus, the circle that was opened at the beginning is closed at the end, with a perfect loop. The novel ends with a glimmer of hope for what is to come, just as it began with ignorance and apathy towards what has passed. Meursault's final breakthrough is a complete sense of time - past, present, and future - which gives him a depth and profundity that was entirely lacking at the start of the book.
In order to regain this sense of time, Meursault had to do two things. First, he had to remove himself from the tyranny of custom. Second, he had to contemplate his own death. And these two are related, as custom often discourages us from thinking about our mortality. Here, we have another circle that is opened and closed. At the beginning of the book, Meursault participates in the rituals associated with the death of a family member. These rituals are pre-determined and conventional, covering death with a familiar patina and making it into a routine matter. At the end of the book, society once again attempts to cover up death, this time in the form of the chaplain, who tries to conceal it with beliefs about God, repentance, and the afterlife.
Meursault's repentance comes when he sees through this illusion, throws off the veil of convention, and stares directly at his own end. In this one act, he transcends the tyranny of custom and, for the first time in his life, becomes truly free. This is the closest I can come to an Aesopian moral: Without directly facing our own mortality, we have no incentive to break out of the cycle of conventional choices. Our lives are pre-arranged and organized even before we are born, but when we understand death for what it is - a complete and irreversible end - it spurs us to reject the idle talk and comforting beliefs that are presented to us and to live freely.
This is what Camus would have all of us do: project our thoughts towards our own inevitable end, free of all illusions, so that we can regain our ability to make real choices, rather than simply choosing from a pre-determined menu. Only in this way will we cease to be strangers to ourselves.
(At least, that is the Heideggerian fable I think he was aiming for.)
____________________________
Now that we are in the holiday season, it occurs to me that under this interpretation, this book has almost exactly the same moral as A Christmas Carol. A man must be aware of the past, present, and future in order to be authentic. Perhaps Dickens is underrated as a moral philosopher.