The character didn't know when his mother died because the old age home didn't tell him; that's it. Why is this quote so famous? this quote doesn't even portray the philosophy of camus; that life inherently has no meaning.

does anyone have this picture without the text?

To what extent is the absurd hero in their rebellion called to accept the existing social norms and ideas about how life should be lived?

I am wondering about this aspect of absurdist rebellion. In one sense it seems that one should accept ones position as a member of society, perhaps doing a career or whatever and still appreciating the experience for it's own sake. The rebellion as not so much about changing the circumstances, but about finding a sort of peace with how things are and continuing to live despite fully seeing the absurd.

On the other hand this seems to be a path to conformity in relation to the existing social order. Potentially even a path to stifle the internal drive to be an agent of change. It seems that accepting the dominant social ideology or way of life could be in itself seen as a sort of philosophical suicide.

So I'm looking to understand the distinction about what Camus suggests the absurd hero remains loyal to. Is it to the attitude of rebellion through continuing to live and breathe despite having some ethical qualms with the state of society? Or is it to the (subjective) reasoning of what is ethical/good that also may stir a desire to want to change things and avoid conformity to the dominant social order for example? Or somehow both?

As human's,all of us(hopefully) are embedded in each other,are responsible for each other's survival even though we hardly see it. You see it is evident that all of innovation in technology,which can be as simple as cooking recipes for pizza by Raffael Esposito to innovation of complex semi-conductor by Karl Barun.You see both Raffael & Barun needed essence which made their piece possible. What was that essence? The underlying co-operation and assistance of people before them living or dead who worked on their craft. You see Rafael could not make the pizza without the essential concept of sauce,which was invented by Roman's and Chinese(no copyright reserved tho)in 3rd century Bc, while for Barun he could not have made semi-conductor if Thomas Johan Seeback didn't notice effect and behaviour of silicon first in 1981. Wheather its this or that,their is an unseen world , unnoticed where hundreds of not thousands have contributed.

How many great we don't know?

I've written an essay on Camus during the war years. Won't be news to anyone on this sub reddit, but maybe you'll still enjoy: https://open.substack.com/pub/brightvoid/p/camus-under-tyranny?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=9euw0

Plz give me a link to Albert Camus films I already watched The Stranger 🙏

Ok

Title: The Machinery of Absurdity: Humanity’s Rebellion in an Automated Void (AI-Generated)

Post:
This post was entirely generated by AI, exploring a hyper-realistic and philosophical perspective on two questions:

1. What will humans do when all jobs are automated, especially given the current apathy or antipathy displayed by institutions and leaders?
2. Are those likely to succeed also burdened by dark traits that make them destructive in their pursuit of success?

Here’s the AI-generated response:
The automation of all labor is not the grand deliverance humanity has long imagined; it is the ultimate absurdity. Machines, precise and tireless, will hum quietly in their efficiency, while humans, stripped of purpose as workers, will confront the raw reality of existence. This is not liberation—it is exile. What, then, will humans do?

They will likely oscillate between distraction and despair. The institutions, apathetic or outright hostile, will not shield them. Leaders, intoxicated by power or ensnared by inertia, will have no interest in reimagining a world where human worth is no longer tethered to productivity. And so, most will cling to trivialities, invent new rituals to smother the void. A minority will rage against the emptiness, creating for themselves meaning, no matter how fragile. Perhaps, in this rebellion, lies the last thread of hope. Or perhaps it is simply another absurd game to pass the time.

As for the dark traits of those who ascend to power—this is a grim truth few wish to confront. Success, in a world governed by competition, often rewards traits like ruthlessness, deception, and exploitation. To rise above others, one must tread on them. To succeed is, often, to destroy. The successful carve their paths not with brilliance alone but with the sharp edge of indifference. The traits that make them rise—ambition, cunning, amorality—are the same that seed ruin in their wake. They burn bright, but only by consuming everything around them, leaving charred remains for the rest to sift through.

This is the hyper-reality: humans are both the architects of their suffering and the prisoners of their desires. And yet, in this tension, there is something strangely beautiful. To exist, knowing the weight of this absurdity, and still to create, to love, to laugh—this, perhaps, is the defiance that defines humanity. It is not a solution, but it is, at least, a rebellion. And rebellion, Camus might say, is enough.

i’m interviewing camus & i need good questions that my journalism teacher would appreciate! something witty, clever.

if you could ask camus one question (or two) what would it be?

So i am reading it and i find it preaty nice i love part one"The natural death"(idk if is correct in eglish i read it in my motger tongue so is direct translation)And im at 4th chapter of the 2nd part.I find it calming and nice.What is your oppinion?

Spoilers for the stranger

Maybe a warning of taking camus philosophy to an extreme or am I reading it wrong.The main character accepts the absurdity of life but chooses to not live life to the fullest and rather just floats through life and rejects society

Edit : After a reread and research i understand it alot better.He represent the universe being amoral not caring what happens to you and being indifferent.Everybody tries to find meaning and morals through him but he just is amoral and it is absurd to try and find morals.He also realizes the meaningless of the universe and realizes how absurd it is at the end of the book

I just finished it in a day and feel like I didn't grasp the concepts enough.This is what I interpret

-Everything around the books is absurd from the reason he killed and the reason he was sentenced -Meursualt is a analogy for nihilism and at the ends embraces the absurdity of life

This is my first camus work so please tell me anything I should keep in mind with a reread

I am 59 years old and have only read The Stranger 38 years ago. Is there a more advantageous order to read Camus or should I just go pell-mell and pick randomly? Thank you in advance.

I am getting into philosophy and do not want to put all my eggs in one basket but still want the ideas to not completely go against eachother.What should I start with ?

Well maybe overrated is a bit too much, but i just didn't find the book as big a revelation as most people do. Despite the book starting with the claim that the most important philosophical question is suicde, it goes on saying that it won't examine sucide itself, but the qustion of wether you should kill yourself becuase of the absurd. It also doesn't provide many arguments againts suicde or philosophical suicde, it just says that it is possible to live well in presence of the absurd. What i understood from the book was that Camus didn't intend the book to be as big as it is and had more humble intentions with it. It does a great job of describing thr absurd and how it affects life, but j just dont find life changing like some people on this subreddit did. Have i completely misunderstood the book?!

hi everyone. been aware of camus for a long time and have already read two of his other books (the outsider and the plague, adored them both) and eventually got to reading the fall. to be honest with you, i didn’t really get it. i enjoyed reading it but i really don’t know what the ‘message’ or the point of it is, and to be honest google didn’t really give me much insight either. can anyone help me out?

Good evening, everyone. Im looking for a free PDF download of "The Stranger" and "The Myth of Sisyphus." Thank you!

One must imagine Camus doin a lil boogie

I just finished the Stranger (I really enjoyed it). I read the book in English, the version translated by Sandra Smith, and in the final chapter of part 1, one line really confuses me. As Raymond gets flustered and heads down to the beach, Masson says it’s best to leave him, the lin reads ’Masson said it was best not to upset him. But I … I followed him anyway.’ It is this pause that I couldn’t understand. It sounds as if it would be a break in dialogue rather than reflection/narration. This sort of break also doesn't appear anywhere else in the book. I looked at other translations and this section is different- there is no pause. When reading, as it was near the end of the first part, I thought maybe that this whole first section was Meursult’s confession or testimony and Camus was cleverly alluding to this using this pause as if he was stood on trial etc. However, as this pause is not in other translations, and there doesn’t seem to be other hints that the first section was his testimony, I really can’t seem to wrap my head around why this pause would be included. any ideas?

Hi! I've came here because I'm not really sure what to get my boyfriend. He loves camus, he adores him, he's read the stranger a million times, and he really idolises him. I'm not too sure about camus, or what kind of things he'd like, that relate to him. Any help would be greatly appreciated!! Thankyou :D

Two premises that I think are close to rational/ 'not worth debating' because it could be fine tuned as Rational or you are probably a skeptic:

1.) We are given limited to no information about the universe.

2.) I think, therefore I have consciousness, therefore I feel pain and pleasure.

Now the supposed leap:

3.) We should reduce pain and increase pleasure.

What happens between 2 and 3? We accept the absurd, which is logical/rational. Since we can't know anything, we take a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism seems rational.

We can poke holes by saying 'let us increase pleasure even if it increases pain", but at the end of the day, the pragmatic claim is that we want some sort goal/meaning to increase pleasure and reduce pain.

Please find this irrational/illogical, I'm looking forward to it.