“II. Zealots Of Stockholm” – The Existentialist Theme Song

Heathen, it's a struggle just to keep breathing
“II. Zealots of Stockholm (Free Information)” by Childish Gambino

By definition, existentialism is defined a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. While we’ve explored the lot of existentialist ideals worked into our readings of Albert Camus’ The Stranger, I believe one of the most profound pieces of existentialist media is Donald Glovers “Because The Internet”, specifically his song titled “II. Zealots of Stockholm (Free Information). The overall story of the song follows Glovers relationships with his parents which evolves into the overall questioning of life and death. Throughout the song many lines allude to the overall existential meaning of the song, such as the final line of the first verse reading “F*ck him, I just really wanna feel something,” making reference to a girl pursuing her own individuality through cheating on her significant other for satisfaction. While I won’t cite the lines in full due to their explicit nature, it’s worth highlighting Glover’s notes of existentialist ideals throughout the rest of the track. During the second verse, Glover makes reference to the un-importance of sexual relationships being heavily romantic, the human race being in a constant race to achieve artificial power, as well as the fragility and insignificance of the human life. While Glover is known for plenty works displaying commentary on the worlds issues through music and film, some of his work being categorized as that of the theater of the absurd/existentialist type deserves more exploration and further attention in the media.

Albert Camus Anatomy of the Philosophy of Absurdism

In the novel “The Stranger,” by Albert Camus, confronts an important issue and uses the singular viewpoint of the narrator Meursault to develop his theme of absurdism. Camus managed to to bring on a subject of humanity that is not often talked about. Absurdity is, in philosophy, the conflict to find meaning to something that essentially doesn’t have a meaning. Meursault shows this throughout most of the novel. In the very first sentence of the novel Meursault starts off by stating, “Mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I can’t be sure” (Camus 4). Meursault fails to mourn of his mother’s death. Camus perceives life itself absurd, life is meaningless; but even more absurd that humans struggle to find meaning to something that meaningless. There is no meaning to life and therefore people should perceive life in there own way.

Don’t Shoot the Messenger

In both The Stranger by Albert Camus and the movie Trust (1990), the characters seem unaffected by the norms of the world around them. Meursault of the former appears to be detached and unconcerned with the happenings of society, and the actors in the latter portray their characters with deadpan expressions and unrealistic dialogue. As both of these pieces of media are commentaries on the restrictions of societal norms, the unrealistic and often unemotional appearance of the characters amplifies the social mores that are being critiqued.

In The Stranger, Meursault does not value the things that society tells him to value. The character of the people he surrounds himself with does not concern him, nor does the expectation that one should cry at one’s mother’s funeral. He does not follow the widely accepted way of living and does not care about what people think others should care about. His seeming indifference to the world is received harshly by his peers. During his court case, he is persecuted mostly for the abnormal way in which he acts. Through the harsh contrast between Meursault’s unemotional and uncaring nature and society’s (as shown through the jury) expectations of others, we see the ridiculous nature of imposed societal norms.

In Trust, the actors deliver their lines in a way that is lacking emotion that may make viewers cringe. This muted unrealistic performance of some is matched by heightened unrealistic performance of others in the film. The absurd behavioral patterns of Michael’s father and Maria’s mother compared to Michael and Maria’s subdued and abnormal approach to the world illuminates the strangeness of societal patterns and norms.

Misogyny in The Stranger and Trust (1990)

Both pieces of media, The Stranger and Trust (1990), center around men, these being Mersault and Matthew. These men both have love interests, the love interests being Marie and Maria, with Maria being more of the main character. My main issue is with Marie from the novel The Stranger. In the book, Marie is never a fleshed-out character, despite being an important character for the events within the novel. 

Marie is seen as merely an extension of Mersault, not as a unique individual. Furthermore, most descriptions of Marie are when he is having sex with her or thinking about having sex with her, illustrating that Mersault likely just sees her as a sex object. 

Trust is different in that regard, with Maria being a more fleshed-out character. However, Maria is also an extension of the male main character, albeit in a more subtle way. Maria’s development centers around Matthew, constantly trying to prove to him how smart and mature. Even conflicts with her mother heavily center around men in the story, that being her dad, her (ex) boyfriend, and Matthew. Matthew, on the other hand, has his character development rely not only on Maria but also on the events of his job and conflicts with his father.
 

In the end, Trust  is not a movie that criticizes the misogynistic troupes, leading to said troupes not being challenged and an overall misogynistic mi

Marie is Happy too

Albert Camus’ The Stranger exhibits the way that societal expectations serve to uphold a system in which everyone’s aim is to reach an ideal and is, therefore, never satisfied. These ideals are merely constructs, however; irrational and absurd. Camus asserts that the only way to truly seek happiness is to avoid seeking control over what is random and to embrace one’s agency to determine their own fate. 

Of the characters through which Camus demonstrates the theme of his novel, Marie acts as somewhat of a contradiction. She chooses to follow societal norms, unlike characters like Meursault and Salamano, who are disconnected from judgment and expectations. Marie illustrates what is expected of a romantic relationship when she asks Meursault if he wishes to marry her (41). The motivation behind this as well as her subsequent questioning of whether he loves her seems to be because Marie assumes this is what should happen in a romantic relationship like theirs. The widely accepted image of love that she embodies merely serves to establish a need for perfection in the construction of an expected passion for romance.

Despite striving to follow in the image of society, Marie is the most joyful character in the novel. This is in part because of her naivety, but also because she is the most open-minded and accepting. When Meursault responds to her question, he is contradictingly dispassionate. Marie is not upset by this, but comes to understand Meursault’s seemingly shallow view of her. While one might argue that this only proves her naivety, it also allows her to fully enjoy her relationship with Meursault because she is not overly attached to any one idea or expectation.

Meursault and Matthew: One in the Same?

Upon reading the novel The Stranger and watching the movie Trust, the similarities of two important characters in these two different stories are hard to ignore: Meursault and Matthew. Their own names bare a resemblance (both starting with “M”) as does the names of the women they take a liking to: Marie and Maria. They also both play a significant role in the lives of those around them. Meursault getting Marie to fall in love with him and propose to him, and Matthew showing up in Marie’s life and changing her outlook on her future and what she wants to do with it.

Despite their similarities, they also have their differences. Meursault doesn’t seem to fall in love or have a desire for love with Marie the way that Matthew does towards Maria, Matthew even going as far as wishing to marry her on a whim. Matthew also seems to be more expressive and emotional, showing frustration and anger towards Marie’s mother taking advantage of her. Meanwhile, Meursault lacked the ability to cry at his own mother’s funeral or show any emotion at all.

This demonstrates the various ways that lifestyles can differ from person to person throughout fiction and real life, no two people being exactly the same.

Perspective in The Stranger

One of Camus’ central arguments is that perspective towards events in one’s life determines the meaning one receives from life. Examples of different perspectives are shown throughout the story.

Marie eventually asks Meursault if he wants to marry her and he responded that  “it didn’t make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to” (p.41). Meursault’s perspective toward his and Marie’s relationship is indifferent. Meursault is not affected by a proposal of marriage; he is not affected in life at all. Futhermore, when asked if he felt any sadness the day of his mother’s funeral, “I probably did love Maman, but that didn’t mean anything” (p.65). Meursault didn’t feel anything after his mother’s death. His indifferent perspective causes him to feel nothing in life, he receives no meaning from the happiness of marriage or death of a loved one. Camus brings to light an important question for us all to examine in our own life: how does our own perspective contribute to the way we feel and experience life?

The exact moment Meursault finds happiness.

“And I felt ready to live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself — so like a brother really — I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (122).

In Albert Camus’ The Stranger, the main character, Meursault rejects the traditional societal structures that many people value. For example, he doesn’t want to marry his girlfriend, Marie, he doesn’t cry at his mother’s funeral, and he doesn’t believe in God. Meursault believes these relationships create false hope for people that death isn’t certain. People don’t want to face the meaninglessness of death and death itself, so they grasp onto these societal structures to escape it.

In the last chapter of the novel, Meursault rises above these societal structures and realizes the indifference of the world. After waiting in his prison cell, hoping for the appeal to his eviction to come back positively, Meursault finally grasps the certainty and reality of death. “Everybody was privileged. There were only privileged people. The others would all be condemned one day. And he would be condemned too” (121). No matter what anyone did in their lives, they were all elected to the same fate. During their lives, people are never satisfied because they always try to reach greater success.

Through Meursault, Albert Camus argues that one isn’t truly happy until they face the certainty of their death. They can live their lives with meaning once they accept their inevitable fate. In The Stranger, once Meursault accepts his appeal will never come back positive, he spends every waking hour appreciating his last days. The guards were going to take him away to be exiled at night, so he takes peace when dawn comes around knowing that he will live another day.

Once Meursault accepts death, he finds happiness.

Camus’ Theory Applied to Us

Tre B

The Stranger gives us a very unusual perspective on an idea most people think they know the answer to, but according to Meursault and Camus they are doing everything wrong. The idea in question is the answer to life or what is the purpose of existing. To most people things like sports, music, cooking, and family are reason enough to live for because they enjoy having it in their life. Camus’ theory would only work if you were the only person livng on earth because you have no one else to interact with, but because there’s more than one person on earth social interactions and problem will occur no matter what. This means that lifes true purpose isn’t just to feel existence itself and do nothing but take what life gave you and make yourself and those around you the happiest for the time we have to live. If all you did was focus on the future then you would never live in the moment for which you truly said you wanted too. Just because death is inevitable doesn’t mean you should throw away the people or things you that gave you joy even if it’s not forever.

The Importance of Family “Trust” and “The Stranger”

Family is a constantly recurring theme in both the film “Trust” and Albert Camus’s “The Stranger”. In both”Trust” and “The Stranger” family is seen as a value that many side characters hold highly while the main characters, Maria and Meursault, either dislike or choose to disregard. In “Trust” Maria is constantly being pulled into a traditional family dynamic by her mother, who wants her to live at home and provide by doing chores and participating in the family. Matthew also constantly urges Maria to participate in a traditional family dynamic by asking her to marry him and raise her child with him, despite it not being his child. In “The Stranger” Meursault is told by Salamano that he should be upset that his mother died and he no longer has a family. He is also urged by Marie to marry her and participate in the family in that way. Meursault disregards both these conversations and feels as if he is not wrong for feeling nothing toward his mother and her death. He is later prosecuted on the basis of this and made to seem cold-hearted for not caring about his family. Maria similarly is made out to seem like a bad person for getting an abortion, as represented by when the nurse discusses how her car is vandalized, there for ending her traditional family. Both characters later have their family destroyed in some way. Meursault, who realizes how his mother was content with her newfound family, Perez, and Maria who has Mattew physically pulled away from her by police.

Morality differences in “Trust” and “The Stranger”

When we watched the film, “Trust” after reading Camus’ “The Stranger”, I think myself and a lot of my peers were probably struck by many of the parallels that seemed to exist between the book and the film. After all, the movie has a very mundane and depressing tone for a lot of its duration, just like “The Stranger”, where lot of events seem to happen that would be best explained through an absurdist world devoid of meaning. For example, at the beginning of the movie, Maria’s dad just suddenly collapses and dies. It is explained as a result of many problems her dad had, but it is presented in the movie as a totally inexplicable, random event that happens to occur at just the right moment for Maria’s mother to unleash all of her wrath onto Marie. The whole film takes on a gray, monotonous sort of feeling while details like Matthew having a grenade and a baby being kidnapped seem to be presented rather bluntly; there are things that just happen or exist and are portrayed in a rather straight forward way not unlike moments in “The Stranger” where domestic violence and murder are also described as something that just sort of happens and is experienced by Meursault; not in a particularly emotional way, just as a reality of the absurd world he lives in.

Despite these similarities, an interesting difference I saw between the two, especially towards the end of “Trust”, comes in the form of how some of the morals or ethics shown in both. Something I found striking is that although Matthew is a very smart guy and can fix all kinds of electronics, part of the reason he keeps quitting/has difficulty coming to terms with his job is because he sees it as unethical. The company he works for makes defective products so that they will get clients to come back and pay for them to be fixed. The company wants Matthew to keep his head down and just do his job, but it becomes clear that Matthew feels strongly against this so much that he keeps quitting. When reflecting about this moment I thought this showed an interesting divergence from “The Stranger”. If this were Meursault’s job, in my opinion, Meursault would absolutely not care if he was scamming people or not. We see that Meursault barely has a moral pulse throughout the entire book, for example when writing the letter for Raymond or when murdering someone.

In contrast, in “Trust”, the movie actually ends with Matthew and Marie sharing a genuine moment at the computer-repair shop where their love for each other is evident and Marie saves Matthew from his own suicide attempt. Marie and Matthew don’t really have much in terms of power or money to gain by loving one another, but over the course of the movie they seem to find that they really do genuinely love and understand one another. Meursault doesn’t really ever feel that emotional towards other characters, usually valuing people in a more materialist sense. While the movie ends in uncertainty for Marie and Matthew, it is clear that they have broken through the mundane world with their genuine emotions for one another, creating a world between the two of them that is dynamic enough to dispel any ideas about an absurdist existence. Ultimately, one story features a man arrested, contended, and alone on death row with another also arrested but clearly discontented and wanting to be with Marie. Despite many of the apparent similarities between the novel and the film, “real”, emotional, love is responsible for revealing some very stark differences between “Trust” and “The Stranger”.

Theme in “The Stranger” Goes Beyond Existentialism

In Albert Camus’s The Stranger, Mersault experiences what many can’t wrap their heads around, the idea that nothing matters and all concepts in society are really social constructs worth nothing. The theme of Camus’s The Stranger is that life is what you make of it and experiences throughout life only have meaning if meaning is given to them. Meursault’s character represents this idea as he navigates through different, dramatic life experiences in an unconventional way. The reader learns about Mersault through his relationships, like his mother and Marie, as well as his experience in prison. By putting little value into these experiences, it could actually be a good thing, because he lacks pain. Although some might criticize him and say a life lived like this is sad and that the highs and lows are what bring meaning to life, one could also argue that simplicity and stability are the keys to happiness. Emotional highs and lows often bring overwhelming thoughts and feelings, causing distress, but Meursault’s life reflects a life of peace, and therefore, happiness. This mindset is also reflected in “Myth of Sisyphus” because Sisyphus lives a life of happiness even though he is forced to live a life many would deem boring and painful. By accepting his life for what it was and getting used to it, he finds peace in the cards that were dealt to him.

The Murderer and the Priest: Meursault and Chesterton

"But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had. But at least I had as much of a hold on it as it had on me. I had been right, I was still right, I was always right. I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another ... Couldn't he, couldn't this condemned man see...And that from somewhere deep in my future...All the shouting had me gasping for air. But they were already tearing the chaplain from my grip and the guards were threatening me. He calmed them, though, and looked at me for a moment without saying anything. His eyes were full of tears. Then he turned and disappeared." (122, Camus, The Stranger)
"Then when this kindly world all round the man has been blackened out like a lie; when friends fade into ghosts, and the foundations of the world fail; then when the man, believing in nothing and in no man, is alone in his own nightmare, then the great individualistic motto shall be written over him in avenging irony. The stars will be only dots in the blackness of his own brain; his mother's face will be only a sketch from his own insane pencil on the walls of his cell. But over his cell shall be written, with dreadful truth, 'He believes in himself.'" (G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy)

G.K. Chesterton was a British Catholic author and social commentator in the early 20th century. I finished reading Orthodoxy by Chesterton a while ago, and found what he said, even though it was written long before the rise of existentialism to the mainstream, to be applicable to a lot of the themes in The Stranger. The egoist philosophers who Chesterton criticizes, who believe in nothing but themselves, are strikingly similar to the existential philosophers who reject all systems of life but their own, especially including Meursault, of The Stranger, and may even be defined in the same statement.

"For the sake of simplicity, it is easier to state the notion by saying that a man can believe that he is always in a dream. Now, obviously there can be no positive proof given to him that he is not in a dream, for the simple reason that no proof can be offered that might not be offered in a dream. But if the man began to burn down London and say that his housekeeper would soon call him to breakfast, we should take him and put him with other logicians in a place which has often been alluded to in the course of this chapter [the insane asylum]. The man who cannot believe his senses [the egoist], and the man who cannot believe anything else [the materialist], are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth. Their position is quite reasonable; nay, in a sense it is infinitely reasonable, just as a threepenny bit is infinitely circular. ...When [these philosophers] wish to represent eternity, they represent it by a serpent with his tail in his mouth. There is a startling sarcasm in the image of that very unsatisfactory meal. The eternity of the material fatalists, the eternity of the eastern pessimists, the eternity of the supercilious theosophists and higher scientists of to-day is, indeed, very well presented by a serpent eating his tail, a degraded animal who destroys even himself." (Orthodoxy)

The main argument against this view is of course that there is a vast difference between the egoist and the existentialist, which is true, at least from a sympathetic perspective, but it could certainly be argued that both philosophies view the world in a similar, or at least comparable way. Chesterton’s criticism applies to both, since both philosophies essentially reject all counter-arguments by saying they don’t matter or don’t actually exist. They cannot be reasonably disproven, but this does not mean that they are correct.

I ended up putting the two pieces (The Stranger and Orthodoxy) together after reading the man referring to Meursault as the antichrist, and especially during the climactic final pages with his interaction with the priest, because it contrasts the vastly different realities these two men lived in, and how they were almost like oil and water to each other. For me, the priest seemed to be the human living his life with care and compassion, and Meursault living like a dead man, as if nothing mattered, so it struck me when Meursault himself saw the exact opposite. I don’t mean to push a religious message here, only that it seems like most human beings can probably see Meursault as the antithesis to humanity, if they look hard enough. Since he lives without emotion, morality, or any other basic human connection to reality.

Inside The Mind of Meursault

The Stranger written by Albert Camus is largely a flow of consciousness into a character, Meursault. Things happen in the plot, events that would change someone’s life permanently, but the narration is so distant that it brings the focus away from the plot and to the mind of the character.

With Meursault as well as Camus’ portrayal of Sisyphus in “The Myth of Sisyphus”, the characters that are attached to existentialism aren’t very deep thinkers. Sisyphus goes from sad to happy, Meursault is more complicated in that he isn’t necessarily feel happy or sad, or important even in his own head. He finds some enjoyment in daily activities like eating and napping, and finds conversations interesting, but he feels neither unhappy or content.

For a lot of the story, Camus seems to throw problems and events at Meursault to see how he reacts. And for the most part, Meursault’s lifestyle is stagnant. The eleven months that pass of his questioning have virtually no effect on his mental state, and his five months in prison only act as recovery from things like going to the beach and smoking. Meursault values life for the sole purpose of being able to live, but there’s no reason for him to value time. The reader knowing the internal thoughts of Meursault shifts changes their views on a character like Meursault and allows for many different perspectives of him to be found.

Existentialism is Scary

In Albert Camus’ novel “The Stranger”, The main story we follow is of Meursault’s life. A man who sees the world differently through a perspective that is tragic yet enlightening. Through this enlightenment however, comes dreadful existence. Is life truly meaningless if you find happiness? I believe life is what you make it.

Someone with disdain for existence is going to have a hard time facing the reality of their own philosophy. In the case of Meursault, he is never truly fulfilled in his life and has no problem with throwing it away for the expense of his sanity. Would you rather know so much that it is unbearable to your mind or live a life of blissful ignorance making you at peace with the world. The universe that we live in is shown to give only partial answers.

Meursault may find pleasure to be the end all be all but life is more than that. That doesn’t have to mean the infinite pursuit of knowledge, but some things are worth studying and practicing because as far as we know we don’t know what happens beyond the grave. I may not be religious but I understand the use of religion, the existence of faith has created order in the human population. That order may be good or bad but if society was told all the answers, and we never could theorize, the walls of civilization would come tumbling down depending on what we hear.

Does The Stranger Covery True Happiness

In life people believe that happiness is from aspects of life like love, family, and being successful. But in life the real things that exist are pain and suffering which creates these other aspects like love and family. Although the aspects of life create a shadow over the real things that exist in the world. And because of this achieving true happiness is much more difficult than understand how it works. Because one of the ways to achieve true happiness is understanding one’s life and what they are made to do in the world. But also being able to be contempt with themselves and how they live in this world which is a very terrible one to live in because of the hardships. So being able to do these things and make this realization creates one true happiness.

In The Stranger by Albert Camus he portrays the main character Meursault as someone with no feelings and is a weird individual. In the beginning of the story Meursault’s mother dies and he has a hard time dealing with it, but does not feel remorse in the moment or even later in the story until the end. When he makes his realization that the world is a cruel place and his feelings about certain aspects of life are more twisted than what one would expect from a “normal person”. Through the story there are different aspects of life that are made in different ways but are fully developed through the pain and suffering in life which are the main aspects of how life is lived and figuring that aspect out is how to achieve happiness in the accursed world. Towards the end of the story he makes a realization that the death penalty is what he deserved and what his position is in the world and what his purpose was in this world. Because he died happy understanding the his life and how the world works and how his life played out and his fate was set and his realization allowed him to achieve true happiness.

This explains how The Stranger expresses true happiness and how when the main character Meursault finally achieves true happiness because he makes the realization of his life and his purpose in this life. Once he made the realization of the pain and suffering that this world brings on people he lived in. He was able to understand his purpose and what his life played out for him. Which allowed him to die happy because of the way he was able to understand the true aspects of life.

Who is the ‘Robot Woman’ from The Stranger?

After having read and discussed The Stranger, for an extended period of time, one character that has stood out to me is the ‘Robot Woman’ from the restaurant, and later, the trial. While both keep to themselves, the contrast between them is striking. One instance that stood out to me was when she sat across from Meursault at the restaurant. He recounts how she “ordered her whole meal all at once, in a voice that was clear and very fast at the same time. While she was waiting for her first course, she opened her bag, took out a slip of paper and a pencil, added up the bill in advance, then took the exact amount, plus tip, out of a vest pocket and set it down on the table in front of her” (43). While she seems to have everything figured out for her, in meticulous detail, none of that makes her any more satisfied or better off than anyone else.

Although it cannot be said that she tries to conform to societal systems like love or religion, every action in itself seems to follow a routine. The purposelessness of her routine parallels the futility of clinging to societal systems, and similarly, she doesn’t have any more control over her life than anyone else– she can’t stop Meursault from following her after her meal. However, she is so different from any normal person that she too is an outsider like Meursault. In effect, I feel the ‘Robot Woman’ gives Meursault a binary that he can define himself against, something that represents everything he is not. As a result of their differences, it is likely that Meursault is more content with his life as he doesn’t try to change his circumstances in any way, while the ‘Robot Woman’ is bound to her never-ending routine. 

Meursault is The Villain, not The Hero.

Meursault is a murderer. A murderer!! I feel like this fact got lost throughout the story and class discussion of the theme. But Meursault is literally a horrible person. Yes, he may have discovered how to “unlock the key to happiness”, but at what cost? I agree that there is much to be impressed about Meursault and the way he lives his life, however, let’s not take it too far. The line between existentialism and sociopathy is not that thick. What I mean by this is although Meursault is able to be content by the end of the novel, the philosophy he embraced to accomplish this ultimately was harmful to those around him. Meursault is incapable of acknowledging the feelings of others. The most obvious case is the Arab whom he shot not once but four separate times. And what about the religious man whom he brought to tears at the end of the novel? It is these instances that suggest Meusault embraced his philosophy a little too much. I think it is okay to live as Meursault does but with the condition that you are careful not to inflict your practices on other people as Meursault does. Camus writes the novel encouraging sympathy for Meursault from the readers as it is beyond Meursault’s ability to act any different. Also because the story is told from Meursault’s perspective, we are given more insight into his thought process and ultimately made to feel as if we understand him more. But if we did not have all this insight, the simple circumstances surrounding the murder would lead most to conclude Meursault is just plain evil. Although I fell victim to what Camus tried to do as I did feel sympathetic towards Meursault, after much reflection I have concluded he is in fact a murderer and did deserve the death he got…unpopular opinion?

Is Meursault truly happy?

In Albert Camus’s novel The Stranger Meursault the main character thinks vastly different than the average person in society does. He does not value relationships, emotions and bonds the same most of us do. He doesn’t put as much meaning in relationships and lives his life without trying to create them. We see this with Marie who wants to further her relationship with Meursault while he does not want what he thinks are pointless ideas of love and marriage. While there are good parts of his way of life like him being able to live in the moment and cope with difficult situations there are downsides to his ideology.

To many outsiders like those at the funeral and pastor at jail he seems sociopathic. He is apathetic to almost everything, has littler motivation and drive and does not connect with others.

I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone” (123).

If one has to question if ones is happy and only says yes so, they feel less alone, are they happy? I don’t believe that Meursault is happy, and he realized in prison he truly isn’t but as to not admit his life was wasted, he claims he was. He just simply lived one day to the next hardly striving for anything and didn’t have anyone. While some may claim that these ideas are concepts to most, they do bring true happiness. Most people would not be happy if they were in Meursault’s position, and I believe Meursault was not either

The Myth of Meursault

Camus’ argument about Sisyphus is about the existential outlook on life. He references the myth as a way to connect how Sisyphus pushing a boulder for eternity demonstrates how some people are in control of their fate, while others are merely a pawn in it. Before being condemned to push the rock, Sisyphus was able to see the beauties of the world, like the sparkling sea and smiles of the Earth. And when the rock descends to the bottom, it reminds man of the joys of life and depresses him further, this is how the rock wins. But in contrast, Sisyphus’ motivation to go down to the bottom and try again, knowing it’s pointless, shows how strong-willed he is. Camus argues that everyday people have the same conditions as Sisyphus, but Sisyphus is happy because he knows the extent of his life and can therefore recognize himself as the controller of his destiny. As Camus says, “his fate belongs to him.”

When you examine Camus’ essay on Sisyphus alongside The Stranger, it would be difficult to figure out which one came first if you didn’t know already. The stories are interconnected because Meursault’s story is one where he was in control of his fate, and Sisyphus took control after laboring aimlessly for 10,000 years. If it were a competition, Meursault would definitely have the bragging rights since he figured it out way faster. Meursault was proactive instead of reactive to his surroundings, and didn’t succumb to the expectations of his peers. And overall, I feel the most powerful takeaway from Camus’ writing was its emphasis on autonomy, and how when humans eliminate outside distractions and embrace our own values is when we can truly dictate our destiny.