Why did A Camus receive nobel prize? What did he accomplish as a writer?
"for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times"
To me he seems just like whiny child who disregards honor, emotion, respect and empathy (you know, all the normal human feelings) and then wonders why life sucks
I've read Stranger, Plague and Fall.
>disregards honor, emotion, respect and empathy
>What did he accomplish as a writer?
He wrote a bunch of pretty good books.
The Nobel prize isn't really a 'best writer' award, and you shouldn't treat it as such. The Nobel committee is frequently accused of blundering when awarding the literature Nobel(not giving it to Borges and Tolstoy, for instance).
>To me he seems just like whiny child who disregards honor, emotion, respect and empathy (you know, all the normal human feelings) and then wonders why life sucks
You know he was an active and outspoken humanitarian?
>Early on, Camus was active within the French Resistance to the German occupation of France during World War II, even directing the famous Resistance journal, Combat. On the French collaboration with Nazi occupiers he wrote: "Now the only moral value is courage, which is useful here for judging the puppets and chatterboxes who pretend to speak in the name of the people."
>In the 1950s, Camus devoted his efforts to human rights. In 1952, he resigned from his work for UNESCO when the UN accepted Spain as a member under the leadership of General Franco. In 1953, he criticized Soviet methods to crush a workers' strike in East Berlin. In 1956, he protested against similar methods in Poland (protests in Poznań) and the Soviet repression of the Hungarian revolution in October.
>Although favoring greater Algerian autonomy or even federation, though not full-scale independence, he believed that the Pieds-Noirs and Arabs could co-exist. During the war he advocated a civil truce that would spare the civilians, which was rejected by both sides, who regarded it as foolish. Behind the scenes, he began to work for imprisoned Algerians who faced the death penalty.
>Camus's well-known falling out with Sartre is linked to his opposition to communism. Camus detected a reflexive totalitarianism in the mass politics espoused by Sartre in the name of radical Marxism. This was apparent in his work L'Homme Révolté (The Rebel) which not only was an assault on the Soviet police state, but also questioned the very nature of mass revolutionary politics. Camus continued to speak out against the atrocities of the Soviet Union, a sentiment captured in his 1957 speech, The Blood of the Hungarians, commemorating the anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, an uprising crushed in a bloody assault by the Red Army.
It's the Myth of Sisyphus, it sums up his philosphy of absurdism. Camus deserves the prize and his works are important in the philosophical canon as well as the literary canon.
Camus is not 'depressing' or 'bleak' or any other negative adjective. He merely asserts that the world is absurd and doesn't adhere to any order that we can make sense of. We must imagine Sisyphus happy, for we are all Sisyphus; we all do menial tasks and what we consider important is, ultimately, about as important as pushing a giant stone up a cliff over and over again. Camus says, however, that we can find happiness in this life by throwing ourselves into these tasks with the knowledge that the world is absurd. It doesn't matter.
He's basically saying that the universe is crazy. We can't make sense of it. Things that try to order the universe (religion, other philosophers) are coping out. The universe can't be nearly ordered and subscribing to religion so that you can make sense of the universe is stupid, according to Camus (he probably wouldn't love the phrase 'It's all part of God's plan'). We should howeber, revolt against the absurd and do our part to find our own personal meaning in the universe, even though the universe itself may be meaningless.
Camus doesn't say 'the universe is meaningless, nothing matters.'
He says 'the universe is absurd, but we must try and find our own meaning and revolt against this absurdity'
He is certainly over-rated...L'etranger is a classic of JUVENILE fiction let's be real...I think he and Sartre got it because they fought with the ''good guys'' in WW2 and they defended the ''academy'' by being public intellectuals...whereas superior writers like Drieu la Rochelle and LF Celine were not given the prize because they supported the fascists...wrong side of history...even though hitler did nothing wrong amirite
>Camus most developed absurdism
I would disagree..."absurdism" in my view was developed over a very long period (beginning, perhaps, in response to the black plague) and Camus owed very much to his influences (I'm thinking Rabelais, Dostoyevsky and Jean Cocteau at least)...as far as his specific view of the irreconcilable search for meaning/lack of meaning, he was simply adding an emotional element (angst) to skepticism, existentialism, etc..
>Nietzsche was an existentialist but not an absurdist
Nietzsche often used Absurdity in exploring existential questions...if you apply the narrow definition of either of those words, Nietzsche was not either.
>I would disagree..."absurdism" in my view was developed over a very long period (beginning, perhaps, in response to the black plague) and Camus owed very much to his influences (I'm thinking Rabelais, Dostoyevsky and Jean Cocteau at least)...as far as his specific view of the irreconcilable search for meaning/lack of meaning, he was simply adding an emotional element (angst) to skepticism, existentialism, etc..
I agree that absurdism was developed over a very long period, I don't think anyone is doubting whether or not hints of absurdism (or existentialism, for that matter) can be found in many works (Kierkegaard, for instance). However, you must remember that absurdism is a term used to separate sects of existentialism and your personal qualms with the narrow definition of absurdism means nothing. To dispute that Camus is most frequently (and most deserving) of fleshing out and developing absurdism is frankly contrarian. I mean, the argument could be made that *nobody* deserves any credit for founding a school of thought because it can be traced before their work. However, they synthesized the thoughts into a coherent work, and thus they are accredited with founding, or even defining, the given school of thought. Your issue with this is not an issue with me, but with the already defined schools of thought.
>Nietzsche often used Absurdity in exploring existential questions...if you apply the narrow definition of either of those words, Nietzsche was not either
Again, Nietzsche is not an absurdist, for his philosophy does not conform to what defines absurdism... I mean, sure, you could say that 'well, Nietzsche says that the world is absurd though!' but that's not the only qualifier to being an absurdist (as defined by Camus or any contemporary philosopher). He was, however, an existentialist, I think you would agree? Again, existentialism is a broad term and Nietzsche certainly fits between the goalposts.
It seems you have issues with the definitions of absurdism and existentialism. That's not my fault. Saying that Camus didn't develop absurdism or Nietzsche wasn't an existentialist is contrarian.
In sum, you told me I was wrong because you adhere to bizarre, vaguely defined and personally-developed definitions of 'absurdism' and 'existentialism' that you made up.
you're right the kid I was replying to clearly has only read shit-tier try hard lit like Camus and has never ventured into the development of French literature/western philosophy of which Camus is merely a pop-culture byproduct of...he should gb2highschool and underageb&-aid his salty vagina before he an heroes like his Man crush DFW
they happen to be correct, informed definitions rather than what you managed to hear second hand from your h.s. debate coach when you weren't thinking of how much you hate yourself
>you're all wrong and I'm a genius
>vague allusion to intelligence
>vague allusion to intelligence
>vague allusion to intelligence
Lol'd. This is what happens when you get BTFO on /lit/ .
You have yet to defend Camus, because you can't. He wrote juvenile fiction and banked on the popularity of a bastardized form of existentialism. Joy Division is of more artistic value than his books...also like I said before, in my opinion, Drieu la Rochelle and Celine were finer existential novelists, but Camus got the prize because he was p.c. you aren't actually saying anything anon you're just expressing your buttangst
Urgh, this again. Nietzsche wasn't an existentialist, but he had an influence on subsequent existentialists. It's no the same thing.
Also you say 'digest standard misreading' nobel prize says 'development of his ideas into his own philosophy'.
Er... you realize that Camus didn't only develop absurdism through existential novels? He wrote essays/nonfiction as well? Also, perhaps you should see: >>7554142
I don't have to defend Camus, he isn't in need of defending. He is universally recognized as the founder of absurdism. If you have an issue with him synthesizing various thoughts that proceeded him, that's a bizarre hang-up unique to you. Synthesizing is not new.
You're the contrarian here mate, not me. I'm starting to get whiff of the arm-chair philosopher...
Better armchair than behind the front wheel snarf snarf...
If you use Camus' idiosyncratic, personal definition of the Absurd, then yes he is most instrumental in developing that. Okay, but is that a distinct contribution to literature or philosophy? I contend that it is not. Semantically, I must concede that I was being vague and lazy. What I intended to say was that Camus' "Absurdism" is not essentially unique, and is, I think, merely the popularization of extant concepts. You call it "synthesizing", and while I admit that such a thing exists, I would characterize the work of Camus to be more of a pastiche, as I have yet to read anything in his books that developed those concepts beyond what had already been said by others. (and I have read Stranger, Plague, The Rebel, Myth of Sisyphus, and the others included with the Rebel and the Myth of Sisyphus in whatever edition I was reading)
I think it is pointless to ask you to point out exactly what you think Camus contributed as you could just direct me back to the source material to which I would respond I don't have the time/inclination...so I will agree to disagree unless you have something in mind readily
I think Absurdism is unique in that it specifically addresses *how* one can come to terms with the realization that the universe is absurd. The contribution is unique because it attempts to provide a solution to the crisis of the man confronted with this realization. Absurdism asserts that one can rise above this by both accepting the absurd and rebelling against it.
Absurdism attempts to provide a solution to the notion that the universe isn't ordered in a meaningful way. Whether or not you consider this successful or a valid contribution is beside the point. I'm not sure why this argument has become about what Camus contributed. I merely said that Camus most developed absurdism. Your argument has changed from 'nah he didn't' to 'tell me why it matters'
Fuck you m8
I doubt even Camus would argue so hard that he "most developed" absurdism...he would most likely cop to his influences and admit his relatively minor place within the larger context of skepticism.
>Camus didn't most develop absurdism
Yeah he did
>oh ok. Hmm. Tell me why absurdism matters
Alright. Here's why
>Huh alright. Well. He didn't develop absurdism and it doesn't matter.
Can't argue with you anymore, you big buffoon. Enjoy your unwarranted sense of superiority
That's why I qualified it by saying >subscribing to religion *so that* you can make sense of the universe is stupid
Subscribing to religion is fine, as is God. However, using religion as a way of ordering the absurd universe is the issue. I agree with you. Sorry if that was unclear
He did not "most develop" absurdism, you bawling queen...in fact that auteur worship is the hallmark of casual opinion peddling.
Absurdism (i.e. Camus' absurdism) only matters to those who are satisfied with a popularization of concepts explored with much more integrity and subtlety elsewhere.
Why do you labor under the delusion that Camus' did something unique or that his "Absurdism" is somehow influential? How does it matter so much? You say that it offers a solution, but I would like to see where the solution he offers has found currency either within the limited world of academics (believe me, it hasn't, contemporary theorists wouldn't waste their time on it) or in the larger world, the world of action...Do you seriously think that anyone outside of high school is impressed by Camus so very much? You really just can't comprehend what I have written i'll sum it up
1. "Absurdism" even the form asserted by Camus to be his own, is clearly derivative, is a pastiche of already extant ideas (Ranging from the arguments of Zeno to the French Criminalist Ravachol)
2. Camus' body of work is marginally appreciated, and that only by people just beginning to read into existentialism
It is popular among youth for a reason..it popularizes the much more difficult work of other writers. Hell, I don't fault him for that, but I don't think it is unique, I don't think he can be given full credit even for the books he wrote himself
Yeesh, what is with you angry, self-important contrarians? I've never even said that I liked Camus. I just spelled out what absurdism is and asserted that he most developed it.
I genuinely don't care if it holds any weight as being a valid school of thought. I don't care if Camus was derivative or unoriginal. Im saying that he synthesized various thought that preceded him into a coherent 'absurdist' work. It isn't my fault that he is credited with most developing absurdism.
Things that are beside the point:
1. Not liking absurdism
2. Thinking absurdism is derivative
3. Thinking that absurdism is unimportant
4. Not liking the definition of absurdism
Im sure I'll now receive an angry rant about how absurdism didn't contribute anything worthwhile. Again, I don't care. IVe never said I like Camus. I was merely trying to explain what absurdism is to people who might not know before you raging auists hopped in the thread spouting insults and asserting that im wrong because absurdism isn'y a valid school of thought and he isn't respected academically. That doesn't mean im wrong. That means you don't like absurdism. I don't care. You are both sincerely retarded spergs, I hope you know that.