Paper Title

[3.3] The Absurd: Another Doctrine of Morality?

Location

Arts & Education Building 208, Moderated by Dr. Bruce Baugh

Start Date

18-1-2019 3:30 PM

End Date

18-1-2019 4:45 PM

Disciplines

Philosophy

Presentation Type

Presentation

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to examine the main characters in two of Camus’ novels, The Outsider and The Fall, with respect to the outline of the absurd man—which Camus also provides in his book, The Myth of Sisyphus. The author depicts a very unique type of man as the primary subject of each (Meursault for The Outsider and Clamence for The Fall). While both men certainly fit Camus’ standards for the absurd man, it is generally the belief that Meursault is the more respectable of the two. I would like to propose that the very idea of the absurd negates this notion. Meursault is a murderer; Clamence is generally repellent; in life, both men are guilty. But in terms of the absurd, there can be no guilt. The notable shift in character then between Meursault and Clamence is not due to moral imbalance, but to Camus’ own take on trials in his life; particularly those involving his friend, Jean-Paul Sartre. Life is absurd but that does not mean that it is always pleasant. And it certainly does not make the absurd man into a moralist. Meursault and Clamence are two very different examples of the absurd man. It is left to question, whether or not one is more fitting of the title than the other and, therefore, if living with a consciousness of the absurd necessitates a moral way of life.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

Import Event to Google Calendar

COinS
 
Jan 18th, 3:30 PM Jan 18th, 4:45 PM

[3.3] The Absurd: Another Doctrine of Morality?

Arts & Education Building 208, Moderated by Dr. Bruce Baugh

The purpose of this paper is to examine the main characters in two of Camus’ novels, The Outsider and The Fall, with respect to the outline of the absurd man—which Camus also provides in his book, The Myth of Sisyphus. The author depicts a very unique type of man as the primary subject of each (Meursault for The Outsider and Clamence for The Fall). While both men certainly fit Camus’ standards for the absurd man, it is generally the belief that Meursault is the more respectable of the two. I would like to propose that the very idea of the absurd negates this notion. Meursault is a murderer; Clamence is generally repellent; in life, both men are guilty. But in terms of the absurd, there can be no guilt. The notable shift in character then between Meursault and Clamence is not due to moral imbalance, but to Camus’ own take on trials in his life; particularly those involving his friend, Jean-Paul Sartre. Life is absurd but that does not mean that it is always pleasant. And it certainly does not make the absurd man into a moralist. Meursault and Clamence are two very different examples of the absurd man. It is left to question, whether or not one is more fitting of the title than the other and, therefore, if living with a consciousness of the absurd necessitates a moral way of life.