Albert Camus. The Rebel. An Essay on Man in Revolt With a Foreword by Sir Herbert Read. A revised and complete translation of l'homme revolte by Anthony . Albert Camus v THE STRANGER 1 THE Stranger By ALBERT CAMUS Translated from the French by Stu. Albert Camus The Rebel - Light Force Network. Camus, The Rebel. 1. Camus, Albert. () The Rebel. New York: Vintage Books. Part One: The Rebel. What is a rebel? A man who says no, but whose refusal.

The Rebel Albert Camus Pdf

Language:English, Portuguese, Hindi
Genre:Children & Youth
Published (Last):10.01.2016
ePub File Size:24.46 MB
PDF File Size:15.25 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration Required]
Uploaded by: EVANGELINA

With these disclaimers, Albert Camus disavows virtually every conventional .. public break with Sartre over The Rebel and his positions on the Cold. War and. The Rebel (French: L'Homme révolté) is a book-length essay by Albert Camus, which . Print/export. Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version. Revolution Versus Revolt: Revisiting Albert Camus' 'The Rebel'. Mangesh Kulkarni. 58 AMERICA'S POLICY OF ENGAGEMENT WITH CHINA For full text.

David Sprintzen suggests these taken-for-granted attitudes operate implicitly and in the background of human projects and very rarely become conscious Sprintzen , Camus felt that it was urgent to critically examine these attitudes in a world in which calculated murder had become common.

The book provides a unique perspective—presenting a coherent and original structure of premise, mood, description, philosophy, history, and even prejudice. These certainly reached back to his expulsion from the Communist Party in the mids for refusing to adhere to its Popular Front strategy of playing down French colonialism in Algeria in order to win support from the white working class.

Then, making no mention of Marxism, The Myth of Sisyphus is eloquently silent on its claims to present a coherent understanding of human history and a meaningful path to the future. Validating revolt as a necessary starting point, Camus criticizes politics aimed at building a utopian future, affirming once more that life should be lived in the present and in the sensuous world.

He explores the history of post-religious and nihilistic intellectual and literary movements; he attacks political violence with his views on limits and solidarity; and he ends by articulating the metaphysical role of art as well as a self-limiting radical politics.

In place of argument, he paints a concluding vision of Mediterranean harmony that he hopes will be stirring and lyrical, binding the reader to his insights. As a political tract The Rebel asserts that Communism leads inexorably to murder, and then explains how revolutions arise from certain ideas and states of spirit.

Furthermore, Camus insists that these attitudes are built into Marxism. Marxists think this, Camus asserted, because they believe that history has a necessary logic leading to human happiness, and thus they accept violence to bring it about.

As does the rebel who becomes a revolutionary who kills and then justifies murder as legitimate. According to Camus, the execution of King Louis XVI during the French Revolution was the decisive step demonstrating the pursuit of justice without regard to limits. It contradicted the original life-affirming, self-affirming, and unifying purpose of revolt.

Camus focuses on a variety of major figures, movements, and literary works: the Marquis de Sade, romanticism, dandyism, The Brothers Karamazov, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, surrealism, the Nazis, and above all the Bolsheviks. Camus describes revolt as increasing its force over time and turning into an ever more desperate nihilism, overthrowing God and putting man in his place, wielding power more and more brutally.

Historical revolt, rooted in metaphysical revolt, leads to revolutions seeking to eliminate absurdity by using murder as their central tool to take total control over the world.

Communism is the contemporary expression of this Western sickness. We might justly expect an analysis of the arguments he speaks of, but The Rebel changes focus. His shift is revealed by his question: How can murder be committed with premeditation and be justified by philosophy?

He does not address the Holocaust, and although his had been a voice of protest against Hiroshima in , he does not now ask how it happened. As a journalist he had been one of the few to indict French colonialism, but he does not mention it, except in a footnote. How was it possible for Camus to focus solely on the violence of Communism, given the history he had lived, in the very midst of the French colonial war in Vietnam, and when he knew that a bitter struggle over Algeria lay ahead?

It seems he became blinded by ideology, separating Communism from the other evils of the century and directing his animus there.

Item Preview

But something else had happened: his agenda had changed. Absurdity and revolt, his original themes, had been harnessed as an alternative to Communism, which had become the archenemy. The philosophy of revolt became Cold-War ideology. Because The Rebel claimed to describe the attitude that lay behind the evil features of contemporary revolutionary politics, it became a major political event.

Join Kobo & start eReading today

Readers could hardly miss his description of how the impulse for emancipation turned into organized, rational murder as the rebel-become-revolutionary attempted to order an absurd universe. In presenting this message, Camus sought not so much to critique Stalinism as its apologists. His specific targets were intellectuals attracted to Communism—as he himself had been in the s.

But it also reflects his capacity for interpreting a specific disagreement in the broadest possible terms—as a fundamental conflict of philosophies. They are studded with carefully composed topic sentences for major ideas—which one expects to be followed by paragraphs, pages, and chapters of development but, instead, merely follow one another and wait until the next equally well-wrought topic sentence. The going gets even muddier as we near the end and the text verges on incoherence.

However the strain stems from the fact that he is doing so much more. Rebellion, Camus has insisted, will entail murder. He has said that death is the most fundamental of absurdities, and that at root rebellion is a protest against absurdity.

Thus to kill any other human being, even an oppressor, is to disrupt our solidarity, in a sense to contradict our very being. It is impossible, then, to embrace rebellion while rejecting violence. There are those, however, who ignore the dilemma: these are the believers in history, heirs of Hegel and Marx who imagine a time when inequality and oppression will cease and humans will finally be happy.

For Camus this resembles the paradise beyond this life promised by religions, and he speaks of living for, and sacrificing humans for, a supposedly better future as, very simply, another religion. Moreover, his sharpest hostility is reserved for intellectuals who theorize and justify such movements. Accepting the dilemma, Camus is unable to spell out how a successful revolution can remain committed to the solidaristic and life-affirming principle of rebellion with which it began.

Albert Camus

In addition, as Foley points out, Camus attempts to think through the question of political violence on a small-group and individual level. Both in The Rebel and in his plays Caligula and The Just Assassins, Camus brings his philosophy to bear directly on the question of the exceptional conditions under which an act of political murder can considered legitimate. Furthermore, because the killer has violated the moral order on which human society is based, Camus makes the demand that he or she must be prepared to sacrifice his or her own life in return.

But if he accepts killing in certain circumstances, Camus rules out mass killing, indirect murder, killing civilians, and killing without an urgent need to remove murderous and tyrannical individuals.

Philosopher of the Present In The Rebel, a complex and sprawling essay in philosophy, the history of ideas and literary movements, political philosophy, and even aesthetics, Camus extends the ideas he asserted in Nuptials and developed in The Myth of Sisyphus: the human condition is inherently frustrating, but we betray ourselves and solicit catastrophe by seeking religious solutions to its limitations.

Our alternatives are to accept the fact that we are living in a Godless universe—or to become a revolutionary, who, like the religious believer committed to the abstract triumph of justice in the future, refuses to live in the present. Having critiqued religion in Nuptials, Camus is self-consciously exploring the starting points, projects, weaknesses, illusions, and political temptations of a post-religious universe.

He describes how traditional religion has lost its force, and how younger generations have been growing up amid an increasing emptiness and a sense that anything is possible.

He further claims that modern secularism stumbles into a nihilistic state of mind because it does not really free itself from religion. Our modern need to create kingdoms and our continuing search for salvation is the path of catastrophe.

Thus in the twenty-first century Camus remains relevant for having looked askance at Western civilization since classical times, at progress, and at the modern world. At the heart of his analyses lie his ambivalent exploration of what it is like to live in a Godless universe.

Albert Camus The Rebel

But to restrain oneself from this effort is to feel bereft of justice, order, and unity. Camus recognizes that hope and the revolutionary drive are essential directions of the post-classical Western spirit, stemming from its entire world of culture, thought, and feeling.

The possibility of suicide haunts humans, as does the fact that we seek an impossible order and an unachievable permanence. Camus never directly attacks existentialist writers, but largely confines himself to describing their inability to remain consistent with their initial insight. His reflexive anti-Communism notwithstanding, an underlying sympathy unites Camus to those revolutionaries he opposes, because he freely acknowledges that he and they share the same starting points, outlook, stresses, temptations, and pitfalls.

Although in political argument he frequently took refuge in a tone of moral superiority, Camus makes clear through his skepticism that those he disagrees with are no less and no more than fellow creatures who give in to the same fundamental drive to escape the absurdity that we all share. This sense of moral complexity is most eloquent in his short novel The Fall, whose single character, Clamence, has been variously identified as everyman, a Camus-character, and a Sartre-character.

He was all of these. Clamence is clearly evil, guilty of standing by as a young woman commits suicide. In him Camus seeks to describe and indict his generation, including both his enemies and himself. His monologue is filled with self-justification as well as the confession of someone torn apart by his guilt but unable to fully acknowledge it.

Sitting at a bar in Amsterdam, he descends into his own personal hell, inviting the reader to follow him. Clamence is a monster, but Clamence is also just another human being Aronson , Camus won the Nobel Prize for literature in , after The Fall was published. The story, a literary masterpiece, demonstrates a unique capacity at the heart of his philosophical writing. Life is no one single, simple thing, but a series of tensions and dilemmas.

The most seemingly straightforward features of life are in fact ambiguous and even contradictory. Camus recommends that we avoid trying to resolve them. We need to face the fact that we can never successfully purge ourselves of the impulses that threaten to wreak havoc with our lives. He wishes to feel less lonely by hoping that a large crowd of spectators would greet him with howls of execration on the day of his execution.

Such a notion of revolt does not by itself permit of any significant moral differentiation, and in the ultimate analysis it also involves the acceptance, however defiant, of one's fate. All these limitations come to the fore in Camus' portrayal of the conqueror in Trie Myth, as the latter cannot significantly transcend them despite his invocation of fraternity and his heroic defence of lost causes. Thus, at this stage, his understanding of revolt remains way below the threshold of politics, which generally involves collective action informed by moral considerations and frequently geared to social transformation.

A properly political problematique of revolt, however, emerges in the next phase encompassing Letters to a German Friend His earlier notion of revolt rooted in these premises provided no clear refutation of the legitimacy of murder. Hence in Tfie Rebel he redefined revolt as the simultaneous refusal of injustice and the affirmation of the common dignity of human beings.

Pained by the degeneration of revolt into nihilistic, totalitarian revolution, he began a genealogical inquiry to discover the ways in which the spirit of revolt had been corrupted. Camus points out that lacking both the classical faith in the goodness of nature and medieval piety, modern Europe has given rise to 'metaphysical revolt', which he describes as a protest against the incoherence and injustice of the whole of creation. He argues that by swinging wildly from the pole of absolute negation to that of absolute affirmation, this form of protest betrays its original impulse.

In both cases it ends in murder and loses the right to be called revolt. Camus offers a parallel critique of the contradictions of 'historical revolt', which transforms the metaphysical urge for existential unity into a revolutionary quest for political totality. Despite their admirable intention to realise perfect justice and freedom, revolutionaries are driven to fit the world into an ideological straitjacket.

Thus the Jacobins' deification of formal virtue led to the degeneration of the French revolution into a regime of terror and oppression. Even this semblance of morality was destroyed by Hegel, who historicised the whole of reality and consecrated historical efficacy as the sole guide to political action.

He also glorified conflict and held out an apocalyptic vision of the future. The cult of efficacy, violence and total revolution ensued in individual terrorism best exemplified by nineteenth-century Russian revolutionaries like Nechaiev.

In the twentieth century it gave rise to State terrorism in the form of fascism and communism. What troubled Camus was communism, which offered a comprehensive critique of history and society, practised rational terrorism and aimed at world revolution. He traced the roots of Stalinist nihilism to Lenin's opportunist use of Marxism, which itself was a romantic ideology of historical reason as it simultaneously claimed to shape and judge history.

In the last section of Uie Rebel, Camus outlines his conception of 'authentic revolt'. He derives from great art the need to avoid the polar extremes of total affirmation and total negation of the world so as to maintain a creative tension between the two attitudes. Similarly the rebel must eschew both bourgeois nihilism based on formal virtue and revolutionary nihilism which glorifies pure expedience.

To this end, Camus counsels the regeneration of Mediterranean 'solar' thought, which envisions a community founded on the respect and responsibility of each for all and an uninterrupted dialogue among the individuals. Such an ethic would entail a spirit of moderation in the pursuit of humanly desirable ends defined in terms of relative values and approximative thought, which assume only limited knowledge and a calculated culpability.

The principles of revolt so conceived are neither purely historical nor entirely transhistorical, but a product of moral choice exercised by men amidst the struggles and contradictions of their social existence. Among these principles are: Camus finds an affirmation of these principles in the revolutionary morality espoused by the Russian rebel Kaliyaev and his comrades. It was this morality which enabled them to pursue revolutionary goals without falling into the trap of nihilism.

However, Camus' perception of the proneness of revolutionary politics to nihilism and his limitations as a political theorist prevented him from offering any definite anarcho-syndicalist programme. Instead, he commended the balance of liberty and welfare achieved by Scandinavian social democracy as a concrete manifestation of the spirit of authentic revolt. In his final credo he nevertheless speaks of authentic revolt as a harmonious blending of Nietzsche, Marx, Lenin and Kaliyaev: Not even that phantom Nietzsche.

All may indeed live again, side by side, with the martyrs of , but on condition that it is understood that they correct one another, and that a limit, under the sun, shall curb them all.

Tfie Rebel evoked predictable ideological responses in the Cold War atmosphere of the s. The conservatives, liberals and the anti-Stalinist left praised the book, while the communists were bitterly critical.

In the ensuing controversy, Satre and Jeanson charged Camus with philosophical incompetence, an ineffectual moralism devoid of any sense of history and a capitulation to the forces of reaction. Camus accused his detractors of surrender to historicism and communism, and warned that this was an invitation to totalitarianism. John Cruickshank objects to its individualistic approach to history and society.

However, Wollheim finds Camus' Kantian definition of revolt problematic — it can as logically yield universal malevolence as universal benevolence.

Camus' style has also evoked a mixed response. Its passion, moral nobility and sheer brilliance have drawn praise; but critics point out that it is often marred by avoidable ellipses and dogmatism. While it is true that Hie Rebel fails to provide an adequate theoretical and practical programme of emancipation, the philosophical position it embodies remains relevant to contemporary intellectual and political concerns.

Through its spirit of moderation, its advocacy of relative values and approximative thought, and its acknowledgement of its own fallibility, it offers an ontological orientation to the self and the world, which is attuned to the requirements of the late modern Zeitgeist. In its critique of the hubristic grand narratives of European modernity, it prefigures many themes currently championed by the postmodernists.

At a time of unprecedented ideological conformism and sterility, it provides both the Utopian energy and the conceptual resources needed to reinvent a humane socio-political order. For biographical details, see Herbert Lottman, Albert Camus: A Biography London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, Justin O'Brien London: Hamish Hamilton, National Publishing House, See Albert Camus, The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt tr.

Anthony Bower New York: Vintage Books, Justin O'Brien Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Albert Camus, The Rebel , p.Not only did he reject this rigid dichotomy in his search for a third, more humane alternative, he began a profound critique of those aspects of European modernity, which fuelled the excesses of these otherwise divergent creeds. Such a notion of revolt does not by itself permit of any significant moral differentiation, and in the ultimate analysis it also involves the acceptance, however defiant, of one's fate.

All these limitations come to the fore in Camus' portrayal of the conqueror in Trie Myth, as the latter cannot significantly transcend them despite his invocation of fraternity and his heroic defence of lost causes. Help Center Find new research papers in: His earlier notion of revolt rooted in these premises provided no clear refutation of the legitimacy of murder.

How does this content violate the Lulu Membership Agreement? By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

You might also like: WORD SMART FOR THE NEW GRE PDF

In the French Revolution, for instance, this was achieved through the execution of Louis XVI and subsequent eradication of the divine right of kings. Should a properly filed counter notification be filed, you will be notified and have 10 business days within which to file for a restraining order in Federal Court to prevent the reinstatement of the material.

In a sense, it is indeed my life that I am staking here, a life that tastes of warm stone, that is full of the signs of the sea and the rising song of the crickets.