a happy death;
albert camus.
Journal [number 2/3] by seth king-gengler:
Finishing part one really embodied something pretty confusing. Mersault kills Zagreus, takes his money and heads around Europe — and stops in Prague. But where he stopped wasn’t the confusing part, to me (this is pretty much the reason why I called this journal 2 and 3, just because I have so much of this concept to think about). In a talk which took place earlier in the book, Zagreus talked about how you CAN bu happiness with money. However, this means that the object money, which allows us to buy other objects, in itself — not the way it is gained. The idea that we have all the money in the world, or at least that we have enough to DO the things we want to, is what is talked about.
This idea (or ideal?) right here is what COMPLETELY CHANGED my thinking on life. Who knew that this little thought would do such a thing to me? Admittedly, I’ve been very influenced by the three books I’ve read this year, so much that it made me think about the important things in life, instead of just giving me something to read and distract myself from the real world. These books, and this one is DEFINITELY no exception, made me FOCUS (not distract!) on the real world.
To think that money buys happiness makes sense, but the second question comes to mind with this, and the idea of Absurdism is explored– humans think that money ITSELF is HAPPINESS. It’s something that came to my mind when I read the end of the first section (oh great, I’m thinking like a crazy guy with a huge, wavy mustache). Why do we believe this? Furthermore, why do we believe that expendable objects give us happiness, too? Sure, we all do it, but is it just simply infatuation? Do we really NEED this? There’s an odd answer to that, in this mind-frame, actually. Similar to the philosophy of Objectivism (my first book I read) you do things that make YOU feel happy, without anybody else’s concerns in mind — at least, if they somehow interfere with your happiness or well-being (cut-throat? yes, but it isn’t something like you’d kill somebody, since it’s a no-no to interfere with other people’s freedom [to live]). So, with that being said, it’s good to sink in to what we are infatuated with. Maybe it’s also not such the great idea to make many commitments, because they could weigh you down and hinder with your well-being.
~~~
The second (maybe this is easier to distinct as two separate journals, now) theme I’d want to talk about, is the one I want to wrap the thoughts of this book up with (at least, for now, and for this stage in my life). Well, there are a few thoughts, really.
The first comes from a quote, inside a quote. In a conversation with Catherine (a girl Mersault meets in part two), Mersault mentions that we [humans] MUST DO things because we are able to do them and that there are conditions for happiness. He says this is a terrible and foolish mistake — all that matters is the will to happiness (an, “ever-present consciousnesses.” he says). Now, AGAIN Camus goes with the confusing part again! ARGH! It makes me so frustrated, but I love that — really I do. That means there’s something important behind this little spot.
I know it is hard for us to think past, “Oh, I can do that? Awesome, I think I will.” Instead of just knowing, or rather, FEELING, and doing what we’ve always wanted to. This is so weird and ordinary. Maybe this is why Mersault felt absolutely “nothing” after he killed Zagreus for his money — it was so weird, odd, funny and just plain out-of-the-ordinary. Once again, by questioning our existence, we look at society and all of it’s “adopted” (or “forced,” possibly?) views, we see that individuals bottle their feelings and human urges.
This moves me to another idea. Why do humans restrict the natural urge and normal thoughts of being powerful or, at all, ultimate? As anybody would research Nietzsche would find out that he has a BIG quarrel with Christianity, among other religions (just with Christianity being HUGE the last several centuries, it’s the most translatable for people to..yeah you get it). Many religious folk say that we have some sort of idea or conception or talk about (even the slightest) “god” that we are god-minded, because we were created by him. If by, using the same argument, have impulsive thoughts about doing things out of normality (and, by saying this, I don’t mean I say go kill people for their money–that’s BAD!! [and a different argument, anyways]) then shouldn’t that be okay to, at least, think about or be voiced? Furthermore, why does society and media and even other people tell us that we MUST be a certain way in order to be happy? I have not come across people, personally, but Mersault triumphs almighty as the Nietzsche’ notion of the “overman.” In him becoming the overman, he did everything he wanted to do to make him happy, and when he died (illness) he felt perfectly happy, no constrictions, no lament. Did he [Mersault] really do things in order to have a happy death?
In one last excerpt, I’ll cite a quote that Mersault said [to Catherine] deep in part two:
“You know the famous formula — ‘if I had my life to live over again’ — well I would live it over again just the way it has been. Of course you can’t know what this means.”
End
