To
what extent do Meursualt and his philosophy threaten “the universe” (122)? Is Meursualt “the monster” and therefore
rightfully imprisoned and punished; or is the “gentle” and “indifferent”
universe and those in it “the monsters” for refusing to understand Meursualt’s plight
(122)? Is he more or less dangerous than a criminal who commits a crime with clear motive? As always - use evidence to support your interpretations.
I think that Meursualt's philosophy is threatening because he is indifferent to all of his actions. He even comments, "I had never been able to truly feel remorse for anything" (100). This lack of remorse makes his philosophy threatening and makes him more dangerous than a criminal who commits a crime with a clear motive because his belief that his actions are virtuously pointless leads him to randomly kill an Arab man.
ReplyDeleteEven though he is threatening and dangerous, I do not believe that Meursualt is rightfully punished. He is just misunderstood. Meursualt's way of thinking is so different from society's that they cannot relate to him. After Marie's questioning, the prosecutor concludes:
"'Gentlemen of the jury, the day after his mother's death, this man was out swimming, starting up a dubious liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy, for laughs. I have nothing further to say.' He say down in the still-silent courtroom" (94).
The fact that the room was silent means that they found something wrong with the way that Meurualt acted on this day. His actions did not follow the rituals of society after burying their dead. What they do not understand is that Meursualt does not feel sad because he sees death as the inevitable outcome of life. If the jury had known more of his philosophy then the outcome of the trial could have been very different.
Although Erica suggested that Meursault's lack of pleasure from killing the man prevents him from being a "monster" I consider him a "monster" due to his lack of openness. He is completely unwilling to change his perspective on life. While the chaplain is visiting him before his execution he says, "As for me, I didn't want anybody's help, and I just didn't have the time to interest myself in what didn't interest me" (117). He shows no interest in changing his ways and this is what I believe makes him a "monster." The people around him are doing their best to try and help him beginning with the lawyer, then the examining magistrate then with the chaplain. They show an intent to help him: "he stood up and told me that he wanted to help me, that I interested him" (67). It is this that disgusts me. How can he refuse the help from so many?
ReplyDeleteI also consider him just as much as a criminal as those who commit a crime with intent. His complete lack of remorse suggests that it is possible for him to commit a similar crime with no hesitation. He is therefore a threat to society.
I think that Meursualt and his philosophy greatly threaten the universe because he is unpredictable in his actions (impressionable) and these actions don’t adversely affect him. Mentally, Meursualt is unstable and handles situations differently than most humans. With his mother, Meursualt essentially feels nothing throughout the vigil and funeral process, only notices things like who is there, the heat, and Perez’s struggle. Especially with Perez’s struggle, Meursualt is only a viewer and does not feel the need to help or feel sympathy or connection despite this mans arduous walk to be at his mother’s funeral (17-18). Here, I think it is his lack of action which shows Meursualt’s character and it is his observation “nothing had changed” (24) that makes me believe that he has sociopathic tendencies. After Meursualt had shot the Arab he goes on to fire “four more times at the motionless body” (59) the overkill of his actions shows me that Meursualt is mentally disconnected from his actions and is indifferent to his actions and the consequence.
ReplyDeleteThe pattern of lack of reaction/emotion and sociopathic tendencies enables me to see that he is a monster where in his own mind he is doing no wrong, while in the reality we live in he is breaking serious moral codes. The meaning of death to Meursualt is that after one dies they are “free and ready to live it all again” (122), but to others death is mysterious. Meursualt accepting that death is inevitable makes him happy, but becuase others do not accept this and welcome death he cannot be a successfully functioning member of society.
It seems to me that from Meursault’s point of view the events that are going on around him are neither interesting or dull and I feel that he reacts to situations by taking the path of least resistance, their is a laziness about him. I agree with Erica because his choice to take the path of least resistance causes him to be impressionable. This is seen even in the little things such as when Raymond tells Meursualt he was thinking of having him write the letter to his mistress, “Since I didn’t say anything, he asked if I’d mind doing it right then and I said no” (32). Saying yes might have lead to Raymond asking why or questioning Meursualt, and despite his own opinions, Meursualt does what is asked of him. A criminal who commits a crime without a clear motive is always more dangerous because their thought process can never be truly understood and they may never understand the consequence of their own actions, making them susceptible to repeat their wrongs.
Meursault is not a typical criminal, nor should he be considered a bad person. I agree with Erica in that Meursault is just a misunderstood man. He is a simple man who was caught in the wrong place at the wrong time and unfortunately used the gun given to him by Raymond to defend himself. Meursault seems to be a man that shows no remorse for his actions, however he is only living a life void of definitive meaning. Meaning he does not find until the “wondrous” air of summer enters his cell in the prison. Meursault, “opened [himself] to the gentle indifference of the world.” (122), this reveals that Meursault has opened himself up in a revival of his spirit. He may not outwardly show remorse, but he does accept his actions and the fact that he “welcomes spectators” at his execution shows he has changed and has reflected on what he has done. For these reasons I do not see him as a more dangerous threat than a criminal who has committed crime with clearer intent.
ReplyDeleteGinny F.
If one interprets “the universe” as human society, then Meursault is threatening because his philosophy can lead to the breaking of society’s set of moral codes (122). However, his philosophy itself only rejects societal structure, and by itself does not lead to any harm. It is useless arguing that Meursault is threatening just because of his philosophy, as anyone’s philosophy can lead to an immoral act. I can understand everyone’s negative reaction to his apathy, but that is only when he is examined using a certain set of moral values. In a broader light, the universe can be considered on a much larger basis, if one does not consider morality to be of intrinsic value. Much as how the universe is “indifferent”, so is Meursault (122). In adopting an absurdist viewpoint, Meursault is actually more enlightened than the rest of society. Camus’s focus on absurdity in the novel is meant to satirize society’s rules; when Gabby mentioned how the prosecutor brought up Meursault’s activities the day after his mother’s death, it emphasizes how the trial revolves more around Meursault’s relationship with his mother. His lawyer even jokes “Come now, is my client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?” (96). The focus on Madame Meursault is ridiculous, but it is Camus’s way of addressing how society’s desire to impose rational explanations for irrational events is futile. In comparing Meursault to a criminal who commits a crime with a clear motive, I would agree with Ginny and disagree with Marissa and Alina; a strong example of immorality in contrast to Meursault’s amorality is Raymond. Of course, when referring to danger one must assume in the context of society. When Raymond is about to shoot an Arab, Meursault stops him, saying “he hasn’t said anything yet. It’d be pretty lousy to shoot him like that” (56). Where Raymond’s immorality is predictable and accountable, Meursault’s isn’t due to his apathy, creating unpredictability. Another example is how Raymond wants to “punish” his mistress (32). He works towards humiliation and revenge, whereas Meursault isn’t as dangerous. As a result, the clear motive is what causes more danger; an unclear motive only causes chaos as society always tries to force rationality in the absurd universe.
ReplyDelete