On the Stranger (Camus)

spoilers, very obviously

Camus portrays a man who is absurd – or, at least, his worldview is that of an absurdist[1]. Mersault does not really have an opinion on things and it could seem he lives life monotonically – everything is gray and every minute is the same length of time. This is not my opinion – how can you live life monotonically? Really, you can just live!

I think Mersault is just a man who has no imposition on his world view from other people. Because there is no imposition from other people, he is not like other people (the ones we might know). This is not a cringe "we are all unique" statement but I'm talking about types of people. Is he a bright person? A funny one? Well he's not like any archetype so... maybe he's gray? Mersault's only constraint on reality is the physical, not psychological. Thus, we end up with a rather unease of what this guy thinks. His only direct statements are those about the world and those about death. On physical sensation, Camus makes Mersault mention tiredness and the heat almost continuously – the standout quote is where he attributes his homicide to the sun. The world – not people – binds Mersault to the Earth.

"It was because of the sun."

Really, in life, we are only confined by the physical – the weather, your family's health, your health, the chance you meet a significant other. These are physical things (chances, probabilities) that must have an impact on your life.

Psychological constraints are those imposed by the Ministry of Truth[2]. Mersault has no psychological constraints. This is the heart of the book, or at least what it made me think about. Here, you have a man that lives life so absurdly that he abides by no traditional French archetype – he is neither the standup son nor the immoral murder because he literally just is. Society now has no idea of how to judge this man because the judicial (and psychological) process is designed around archetypes. More accurately,

  1. people's perception of ethics is vastly a marketing campaign of the favorable morals of the time
  2. the judicial system requires a vote from the population
  3. it follows that the judicial system is biased

In the book, the prosecution (the portrayal of 'moral man') and his lawyer (the portrayal of 'immoral man') lay out their cases almost in the first person.

"And it was at that same moment I noticed that my lawyer was speaking in the first person. I can't say I really understood his reasons or what he was talking about. But suddenly I was struck by how seriously he was taking all this, as if he believed it was actually his life at stake."

Either side assumes the position of the defendant to speak about what an immoral/man might say. What is the character we are judging for this will color the actions? But what they leave out is that the make of our action set is hypercritical. You need to follow the set or risk tainting the color. I.e. you didn't say something a moral man might say and now we are confused as to what you are.

Are you good? Did you eat your breakfast today? It's important because it's the first meal! Did you make your bed? Have you phoned your parents? Have you started a school in the developing world? Have you made your daily activist social media post? You haven't? I have bad news for you.

We have these societal constraints because it is immensely difficult to figure out what is right and what is wrong without the archetype. If people had to actually think about what constitutes a good and bad world, it might end half the population. Not because we don't possess this level of thought but by the fact that it will be 90% of the population's first realization of who they are – what their thoughts might be; the clothes they want to wear and the people they actually want to spend time with.

Unfortunately, if you step out of line you will be outside of an archetype. It is then extremely hard for the character-judgement-judicial-process to judge who you are. Are you good or bad? I don't know because you have some actions on my good list and some on my bad list; it is impossible for me to know. Outside of the line, your ethical outcome is a role of the dice. It is up to your lawyer to make you look like a good or bad person. It is up to whoever can deliver the best speech, the best facts, to determine your destiny. The judicial system is a meme – always has been – but I believe this is why. You have to pray your crime is committed at a time in history when it is in fashion.

This has ended up being a hit piece on the law, which I didn't intend, but it's important to remember that the law is man.[3] Your lawyer might be your mate who you've said something questionable to – they are now trying to figure out whether you are up or down. The court might be a dining table. The Stranger might be you.

The Stranger is a man we do not know. A man we have not met and a man we refuse to meet.