Existentialism

Existentialism – A Definition
Existentialism in the broader sense is a 20th century philosophy that is centered upon the
analysis of existence and of the way humans find themselves existing in the world. The notion is
that humans exist first and then each individual spends a lifetime changing their essence or
nature. 

In simpler terms, existentialism is a philosophy concerned with finding self and the meaning of
life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. The belief is that people are searching
to find out who and what they are throughout life as they make choices based on their
experiences, beliefs, and outlook. And personal choices become unique without the necessity of
an objective form of truth. An existentialist believes that a person should be forced to choose and
be responsible without the help of laws, ethnic rules, or traditions.

Existentialism – What It Is and Isn’t

Existentialism takes into consideration the underlying concepts:

 Human free will

 Human nature is chosen through life choices
 A person is best when struggling against their individual nature, fighting for life
 Decisions are not without stress and consequences
 There are things that are not rational
 Personal responsibility and discipline is crucial
 Society is unnatural and its traditional religious and secular rules are arbitrary
 Worldly desire is futile

Existentialism is broadly defined in a variety of concepts and there can be no one answer as to
what it is, yet it does not support any of the following:

 wealth, pleasure, or honor make the good life

 social values and structure control the individual
 accept what is and that is enough in life
 science can and will make everything better
 people are basically good but ruined by society or external forces
 “I want my way, now!” or “It is not my fault!” mentality

There is a wide variety of philosophical, religious, and political ideologies that make up
existentialism so there is no universal agreement in an arbitrary set of ideals and beliefs. Politics
vary, but each seeks the most individual freedom for people within a society.
Existentialism – Impact on Society
Existentialistic ideas came out of a time in society when there was a deep sense of despair
following the Great Depression and World War II. There was a spirit of optimism in society that
was destroyed by World War I and its mid-century calamities. This despair has been articulated
by existentialist philosophers well into the 1970s and continues on to this day as a popular way
of thinking and reasoning (with the freedom to choose one’s preferred moral belief system and
lifestyle). 

An existentialist could either be a religious moralist, agnostic relativist, or an amoral atheist.

Kierkegaard, a religious philosopher, Nietzsche, an anti-Christian, Sartre, an atheist, and Camus
an atheist, are credited for their works and writings about existentialism. Sartre is noted for
bringing the most international attention to existentialism in the 20th century. 

Each basically agrees that human life is in no way complete and fully satisfying because of
suffering and losses that occur when considering the lack of perfection, power, and control one
has over their life. Even though they do agree that life is not optimally satisfying, it nonetheless
has meaning. Existentialism is the search and journey for true self and true personal meaning in
life. 

Most importantly, it is the arbitrary act that existentialism finds most objectionable-that is, when
someone or society tries to impose or demand that their beliefs, values, or rules be faithfully
accepted and obeyed. Existentialists believe this destroys individualism and makes a person
become whatever the people in power desire thus they are dehumanized and reduced to being an
object. Existentialism then stresses that a person's judgment is the determining factor for what is
to be believed rather than by arbitrary religious or secular world values.
Character of Meursault
Albert Camus wrote The Stranger during the Existentialist movement, which explains why the
main character in the novel, Meursault, is characterized as detached and emotionless, two of the
aspects of existentialism. In Meursault, Camus creates a character he intends his readers to relate
to, because he creates characters placed in realistic situations. He wants the reader to form a
changing, ambiguous opinion of Meursault. From what Meursault narrates to the reader in the
novel, the reader can understand why he attempts to find order and understanding in a confused
and mystifying world. 

 
Camus writes in a simple, direct, and uncomplicated style. The choice of language serves well to
convey the thoughts of Meursault. The story is told in the first person and traces the development
of the narrator's attitude toward himself and the rest of the world. Through this sort of simple
grammatical structure, Camus gives the reader the opportunity to become part of the awareness
of Meursault. In Part I, what Meursault decides to mention are just concrete facts. He describes
objects and people, but makes no attempt to analyze them. Since he makes no effort to analyze
things around him, that job is given to the reader. The reader therefore creates his own meaning
for Meursault's actions. When he is forced to confront his past and reflect on his experiences, he
attempts to understand the reasons for existence. At first, Meursault makes references to his
inability to understand what's happening around him, but often what he tells us seems the result
of his own indifference or detachment. He is frequently inattentive to his surroundings. His mind
wanders in the middle of conversations. Rarely does he make judgments or express opinions
about what he or other characters are doing. Meursault walks through life largely unaware of the
effect of his actions on others. 

  

Meursault is distant from set plans, ambitions, desires, love, and emotions in general. He has a
difficult time with emotions such as regret and compassion. The reader sees the nature of his
personality in the first few lines of the novel: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't
know." When he hears of the death of his mother through a telegram, he is unattached, and can
be considered uncaring. His mother's death serves to interrupt the flow of Meursault's life, a life
dedicated to appreciating tangible things. He wished she had not died, but her death made no real
impact on his life other than temporarily disturbing his daily lifestyle. The discomfort on the bus
and the overbearingly hot burial were caused by her death. He recalls this discomfort as he
shoots the Arab. But Meursault does not force himself to fake emotions, which is probably why
he harbors so little resentment. His apparent lack of emotion is what lands him in trouble in the
courtroom, for people think his nature to be that of a heartless murderer. He does have some
relatively good characteristics, such as his honesty. Meursault also possesses the ability to
logically evaluate a situation without becoming panic-stricken. Everything he does and says is in
such a nonchalant manner that one wonders what it takes to make him tense. 

  
Camus's way of creating a contrast between the two faces of Meursault is by separating the book
into parts. The first part describes Meursault as an indifferent character, the second as a changed
and intellectual man. This separation is helpful in understanding the changing nature of
Meursault. Part I of the novel is just Meursault's commentary on the events going on around
him.. Part II is Meursault's commentary on his life in which he attempts to understand existence
and what it stands for. He is conscious of every aspect of his experience, both past and present.
In Part I, the reader sees that Meursault is devoid of emotion and lacks the sort of emotion that
makes a person vulnerable. However, in Part II, he has little choice but to reflect on his past
because in his jail cell, that is the only thing he can do. He learns to do without the experiences
he loves and he sleeps much of the time. However, he does suffer a great deal thinking about the
executioner and his blade. For the first time in his life, he thinks about his relationship with
society. The final encounter with the chaplain forces him to articulate his ideas on life and death.
He is faithful to his beliefs, though they are limited. The confrontation with death causes
Meursault to open up his heart to the indifference of the universe. The only thing that could make
his death happy is to maintain his beliefs and set a standard for those to come. 

  

As a thoughtful reader, my response to Meursault is that he is a very interesting character. His

character is interesting for several reasons, the most important being his contrast to members of
conventional society. At the beginning of the book he is an almost completely indifferent
character. This is definitely different from the image of a well-rounded person that society puts
forth. Meursault cares only for the physical world. He does not dwell on other things, such as
knowledge or intelligence. He is also indifferent to many things that conventional society is
emotional about. He cannot find anything in his life worth making an effort for.
Significance of the Title 

The French title of Camus' work, called The Stranger in most English translations,
is L'Étranger. This has been variously translated as The Estranged One, The Outsider, and The
Foreigner. These translations do have opposing nuances of meaning. The
Stranger suggests social isolation. The Foreigner suggests cultural difference. The
Outsider suggests the personal behavior of an idiosyncratic person who acts in such a way as to
be set apart from others. The Estranged One suggests one who has had a
natural relationship severed.
You can see that each option holds a different light to the main thematic element of the story. My
personal preference is for The Outsider as it relates to a person's behavior and its results, which
is what the novel is most about: How Meursault acts in an absurd world and the consequences of
his actions, this in a world where even the Sun behaves absurdly while at one time being helpful
and at another time being destructive.
With this said so as to give a deeper perspective into Meursault as a character and Camus as a
novelist, we'll examine Meursault as a stranger. It is difficult to argue that he is a stranger
to himself since he is so keenly aware of every sensation he has and so bitingly honest and direct
about his desires and intentions and emotional feelings:
he asked me a last question: Did I regret what I had done?
After thinking a bit, I said that what I felt was less regret than a kind of vexation—I couldn’t find
a better word for it.
Yet, it may be said he is a stranger to himself if one takes the position that morality and
emotional empathy are innate qualities (something author William Golding contests). In this
light, he is a stranger to himself because he is isolated from his social obligations and moral
duties, as was demonstrated at the vigil for his mother.
It is easier to argue that he is a stranger to society in that he does not hold with, believe in, follow
with society's traditions, rules, mores, or expectations. For example, he does not mourn his losses
since he doesn't feel them other than intellectually. He does not love with yearning, which he
reveals by explaining that he would agree to marry any girl he liked and who might ask him:
I said I didn’t mind; if she was keen on it, we’d get married. ... she asked me again if I loved her.
I replied, ... I supposed I didn’t. ... but, if it would give her pleasure, we could get married right
away. ...
“Suppose another girl had asked you to marry her—I mean, a girl you liked in the same way as
you like me—would you have said ‘Yes’ to her, too?”
“Naturally.”
Again, it is harder to argue that he is a stranger to his environment since it is his environment that
he feels so keenly and that influences him so profoundly: "the glare of the morning sun hit me in
the eyes like a clenched fist." Yet it might be argued that he is a stranger to his environment in
that he has no way within his coping devices to control or mitigate the raw effect of his
environment upon himself. In other words, it might be said that had he not been a stranger to his
environment, he would have known and understood more fully the impact the sun and heat and
glare and hot wind had upon him and taken measures to protect himself from his environment.
I was conscious only of the cymbals of the sun clashing on my skull, ... scarring my eyelashes,
and gouging into my eyeballs. ... a fiery gust came from the sea, ... a great sheet of flame poured
down through the rift.

Note*** Also see the article in pdf file named as “Stranger Thesis”