There is no end to the amount of philosophies that exist in society. From humanism to darwinism, every person that ever lives has his or her own philosophy on life and its meaning. For example, Albert Camus, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, shares his philosophy of absurdism and existentialism throughout his novel, The Stranger. Using his main character, Meursault, Camus expresses absurdism within every line in the novel. In the beginning of the story, Meursault is an average man who just cannot seem to grasp the need for rationale behind his every action like society has pressured him to believe. Consequently, he does not feel grief when his mother, “Maman,” dies; they had nothing left to talk about anyway. Additionally, he shoots …show more content…
Before and even during his court hearing, various men are sent to his jail cell to try to help comprehend his beliefs and reasoning behind him killing a man. Despite these efforts, Meursault has no reason for this action, only causing them more frustration. During his trial, the prosecutor asks him again “whether he had gone back to the spring by [himself] intending to kill the Arab man” (88), to which he responds, “no.” Since he was armed and returned to the very spot of conflict, continues the prosecutor, what was his motive? Meursault continues to express how he did not have motive to kill the Arab other than to try to escape the blistering heat. In order to establish a negative character bias against Meursault, the prosecutor also questions him on his actions after his own mother dies, demonstrating that he lacks empathy. Upon stating that he spent the day with Marie and together, they saw a comedy show, the prosecutor causes the entire courtroom to become even more confused about the mysterious Meursault due to his lack of mourning. “‘Gentlemen of the jury,’” the prosecutor declares, “‘the day after his mother’s death, this man was out swimming, starting up a liaison, and going to the movies, a comedy, for laughs” (94). At this statement, the courtroom becomes silent; no one knows what to make of this information. Without hesitation, the jury obviously finds the man with no motive nor remorse guilty. Even after the charges are announced, however, a chaplain is sent to his cell for one last attempt to understand Meursault; however, he ends up leaving, crying, without
What is equally absurd is that Meursault remains passive and detached over the course of a year of interrogations, and despite the pessimistic nature of his situation, he is able to feel a sense of comfort and belonging within the system trying to condemn him. Ironically, those witness testimonies that sought to free him prove to be the most damaging, and the religious people who surround him and purport to love all men unconditionally persecute him for his lack of belief. Everyone is astonished that Meursault has no emotions about the murder --no sense of remorse or desire to repent. Most men in his position find
2. If you were a jury member -- and therefore were not a reader of Meursault's own narration of his behavior -- would you find the prosecutor's story about Meursault convincing? Would you buy his defense attorney's story? Explain.
During the course of the trial Meursault seemed very emotionless, like he was at his mother's funeral which was used against him while on trial. Meursault hardly payed attention to what was happening during the trial and was spacing and did not help his case at all. Meursault no longer finds comfort in the sun, it gives him nothing but anxiety and fear. “As the sun gets hotter, things get worse”. (82).
The prosecutor then goes on to talk about how Meursault is supposedly a heartless man who didn’t care about his mother and wanted to be rid of her. In this scenario society, the prosecutor, is manipulating the jury. The prosecutor spends so much time talking about Meursault’s mother because everyone has a mother and it makes them upset to hear about how she was “treated.” However it’s as if Meursault is on trial for killing his mom and not the Arab. On page 99 the prosecutor rambles about how he was a terrible son, going to the movies with his “mistress” the day after his mother’s death.
Camus published “L'Etranger” or “The Stranger” during World War II, and it became one of his most discussed works in Europe (Rhein). The popularity of Camus’ work can be attributed to the overall feelings in Europe brought by the havoc of war that had left the lands marred. Many people throughout Europe were hurt by the war and began to question the point of life amidst such destruction. This resonates with the modern audience as well because “The Stranger” continues to play on themes that can be seen in the horrifying occurrences that fill the media today (Rhein). Many atrocities allow a modern audience to relate to the events of WWII, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Haitian earthquake, which leave many questioning
Consequently, Meursault was put in jail and given a lawyer, but before given a lawyer he states how “I admitted I hadn’t hired an attorney and inquired whether it was really necessary to have one” which explains how indifferent this situation was to him (Camus 36). While if he felt any sadness the day Maman died, Meursault answers with “I probably did love Maman, but that didn’t mean anything” therefore upsetting his lawyer because his answer was too truthful (Camus 65). After that answer it was apparent that his lawyer was upset and even asks Meursault if “he held back his natural feeling” which Meursault said no too, making the lawyer seem disgusted with Monsieur Meursault. This little dispute made Meursault conclude that “I made him feel uncomfortable” which isn’t unusual with Meursault and his way of communicating with others (Camus 66). After Meursault’s trial for cold blooded murder, he is sentenced to an execution, and that is when he realizes he can finally
Meursault is truthful, therefore not only is his guilt dealt with at the murder trial, but his personal views and opinions come out as well. In fact, during the trial his lack of emotion about his mother’s death seemed to be of more importance than the murder he committed. From this it seems that truth is a crime and
Coco follows Miguel Rivera’s journey to becoming a musician. Miguel, a young boy, comes from a family of shoemakers that started with his great-great-grandmother Imelda Rivera. The Rivera family hates music as Imelda’s husband left her to pursue music. However, Miguel loves music which creates a rift between him and his family. He idolizes Ernesto De La Cruz the world’s most popular musician that came from his home town.
In the novel, The Stranger by Albert Camus, Meursault the protagonist, becomes drawn into a “senseless” murder that has to face the absurdity of life and because of his actions, Meursault is presented as a danger due to his lack of “morality” to society. Meursault who is not able to take control of his life but respond to what life offers him believes in the simplicity of life. He tries to understand the living through logic and objectivity, which ultimately turns futile, as he himself cannot maintain proper control over his thoughts and emotions. From the interactions between Marie, to the murder of the Arab, and the meeting with the Chaplain, Meursault overcomes his indifferent views to form an opinion about what life really means. The central theme presented by Camus is how the threat of mortality becomes a catalyst for understanding the significance of life.
This easy-going, pleasant hedonism is interrupted permanently by Meursault's murder of the Arab on the beach. Not only is he incarcerated, but also he must examine the reality behind the illusion of his trial and, ultimately, of his life. Introspection has not been his metier. It takes him a while to realize that the judge, the jury, the journalists, even his own lawyer, do not wish him well. Meursault finally realizes that he is going to be convicted, not because he killed an Arab but because he did not mourn his mother's death.
Meursault was introduced as a young man whom recently found out his mother, Maman, died. He was not the most emotional person, but he dealt with his feelings the best he knew how. Meursault lived his life on the verge of truth and honesty. He was honest within every aspect of life, from women to freedom. He was never certain about anything in life ,but one thing he was sure of, death was inevitable. After murdering an Arab, he was on trial in front of many people being interrogated with many questions about why he did what he did, but also to evaluate his psyche about the situation. Unlike others, Meursault did not hide from the truth and that is what others could not cope with. Living his life the way others were afraid to, Meursault was the outcast in his society.
Meursault's character is the determining factor in his conviction and sentencing. His social rebellion is deemed immoral and abominable. The reader and the novel's characters both try to rationalize Meursault's actions in order to give his life meaning. But according to Meursault, life is meaningless and consequently needs no justification.
When he returns home to Algiers, Meursault carries on with life as normal. Over dinner one evening, his neighbor Raymond tells of his desire to punish his mistress for infidelity, and asks Meursault to write a letter to the mistress for him. Meursault agrees, saying "I tried my best to please Raymond because I didn’t have any reason not to please him" (32). While Raymond is a man of questionable morals, he acts with purpose. Meursault, on the other hand, acts with mostly passive indifference, doing things simply because he doesn’t have a reason not to do them.
The answer is simple: it does not relate to the murder of the Arab. Being the representative of society, the jury opposes Meursault and accuses him of not conforming to society's natural ways, and being what we nowadays refer to as the "odd one out". They exclude him from society for his odd clear-cut and sincere demeanor, and for his manifestation of an inexpressive character. Another example is the moment in which the magistrate, a local member of the judiciary having limited jurisdiction, especially in criminal cases, questioned Meursault.
The courtroom portrays Meursalt as an appalling man for enjoying himself the day after his mother’s funeral. The broad statement said by the prosecutor shows that society does not allow one to have any entertaining moments after a time of repentance because it is thought to be disrespectful. A quick rebuttal by Meursalt’s lawyer helps realign the trial so that it is actually focusing on why they are having the trial in the first place by saying, ““Come now, is my client on trial for burying his mother or for killing a man?” The spectators laughed.” (96). The trial never focuses on why Meursalt killed the Arab man and no one ever bothers to make any real efforts to discover his motives. This reveals that the courtroom is more interested in the type of person Meursalt is and how he can be a danger to society than the death of the Arab. The courtroom judges Meursalt as a heartless man with the only intention of killing a man because he felt like it, yet neither ever proves the killing of the Arab, not even in their closing speeches.