Camus Albert

Rebellious man

Albert Camus.

Rebellious man

Introduction

I. Rebellious Man

II Metaphysical Revolt

Sons of Cain

Absolute negation

Writer

Rebel dandies

Refusal to save

Absolute approval

The only one

Nietzsche and Nihelism

Rebellious poetry

Lautreamont and mediocrity

Surrealism and revolution

Nihilism and history

III Historical rebellion

Regicide

New Gospel

King's execution

The Religion of Virtue

deicide

Individual terrorism

Rejection of virtue

Three Possessed

Picky Killers

Shigalevshchina

State terrorism and irrational terror

State terrorism and rational terror

Bourgeois prophecies

Revolutionary prophecies

The collapse of the prophecies

Last kingdom

Totality and Judgment

Revolt and revolution

IV. Riot and art

Romance and rebellion

Riot and style

Creativity and revolution

V. Noon Thought

Riot and murder

Nihilistic murder

Historic assassination

Measure and immensity

Midday Thought

On the other side of nihilism

Comments and editorial notes

MAN REBEL

What is a rebellious person? This is a person who says “no.” But, denying, he does not renounce: this is a person who already says “yes” with his first action. A slave who has been fulfilling his master’s orders all his life suddenly considers the last of them unacceptable What is the content of his "no"?

“No” can, for example, mean: “I have endured too long”, “so far - so be it, but then enough will be enough”, “you are going too far” and also: “there is a limit that I cannot cross for you let" Generally speaking, this "no" asserts the existence of a boundary. The same idea of ​​the limit is found in the feeling of the rebel that the other "takes too much upon himself", extends his rights beyond the border, beyond which lies the area of ​​sovereign rights, putting up a barrier to any encroachment on them. Thus, the impulse to revolt is rooted simultaneously in a strong protest against any interference that is perceived as unacceptable, and in a vague conviction of the rebel that he is right, or rather, in his belief that he "has the right to do such and such" . Rebellion does not occur if there is no such feeling of being right. That is why the rebellious slave says both "yes" and "no" at the same time. Together with the mentioned boundary, he affirms everything that he does not clearly feel in himself and wants to preserve. He stubbornly proves that there is something "worthwhile" in him and that it needs to be protected. To the order that enslaves him, he opposes a kind of right to endure oppression only to the extent that he himself sets.

Together with the repulsion of the alien in any rebellion, a complete identification of a person with a certain side of his being immediately occurs. Here, in a hidden way, a value judgment comes into play, and, moreover, so thorough that it helps the rebel to withstand the dangers. Until now, he had at least remained silent, sinking into despair, forced to endure any conditions, even if he considered them deeply unfair. Since the oppressed is silent, people assume that he does not reason and does not want anything, and in some cases he really does not want anything anymore. Despair, like absurdity, judges and desires everything in general and nothing in particular. Silence conveys it well. But as soon as the oppressed speaks, even if he says "no", it means that he desires and judges. The rebel makes a roundabout. He walked, driven by the whip of the owner. And now she stands face to face with him. The rebel opposes everything that is valuable to him, everything that is not. Not every value causes rebellion, but every rebellious movement tacitly presupposes some value. Is it of value in this case goes speech?

In a rebellious impulse, a consciousness, albeit unclear, is born: a sudden vivid feeling that there is something in a person with which he can identify himself at least for a while. Until now, the slave has not really felt this identity. Before his rebellion, he suffered from all kinds of oppression. It often happened that he meekly carried out orders much more outrageous than the last one that caused the riot. The slave patiently accepted these orders; in the depths of his soul, he may have rejected them, but since he was silent, it means that he lived his daily worries, not yet realizing his rights. Having lost patience, he now begins to impatiently reject everything that he put up with before. This impulse almost always has the opposite effect. Rejecting the humiliating command of his master, the slave at the same time rejects slavery as such. Step by step, rebellion takes him much further than simple defiance. He even crosses the line he set for the enemy, now demanding that he be treated as an equal. What formerly was man's stubborn resistance becomes the whole man who identifies himself with resistance and is reduced to it. That part of his being, to which he demanded respect, is now dearer to him than anything, dearer even to life itself, it becomes the highest good for the rebel. Until then, a slave who lived by everyday compromises, in an instant ("because how else...") falls into irreconcilability - "all or nothing." Consciousness arises with rebellion.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Good work to site">

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

• Introduction
• Conclusion

Introduction

The subject of this study is the philosophy of rebellion by A. Camus based on the work “The Rebellious Man”.

The relevance of the study lies in the fact that the "Rebellious Man" is one of the latest works Albert Camus and the top of it philosophical creativity. The book was begun during the war and completed in early 1951. "The birth is long, difficult, and it seems to me that the child will be ugly," Camus wrote about working on this book. "The Rebellious Man" instantly caused a whole storm of criticism, the controversy around Camus's book did not stop for a long time. The writer set against himself both the left and the right. The Communists accused him of propagating terrorist acts against Soviet leadership, in that he is a "warmonger" and sold out to the Americans. The “rebellious man” quarreled Camus with pro-Soviet left-wing intellectuals, but he was supported by anti-authoritarian socialists: anarchists and revolutionary syndicalists.

The purpose of the study is to analyze the philosophy of rebellion by A. Camus.

Research objectives:

To study the philosophical prerequisites for writing "The Rebellious Man";

To analyze the content and philosophical significance of "Rebellious Man" for the philosophy of the 20th century;

Reveal the place of the "Rebellious Man" in the philosophical concept of A. Camus.

The object of the study is the work of A. Camus "The Rebellious Man".

The subject of the study is the philosophy of rebellion by A. Camus based on the work “The Rebellious Man”.

1. Philosophical prerequisites for writing "The Rebellious Man"

Art is not valuable in itself, it is “creativity without tomorrow”, which brings joy to the self-realizing artist, busy with the persistent creation of perishable works. The actor lives many lives one after another on the stage, the dignity of the "absurd asceticism" of the writer (and the artist in general) is self-discipline, "an effective school of patience and clarity." The Creator plays with images, creates a myth, and thus himself, since there is no clear boundary between appearance and being.

All reasoning and sketches of this essay are summarized by the “myth of Sisyphus”. If Nietzsche proposed to humanity that had lost the Christian faith the myth of “ eternal return”, then Camus offers a myth about the affirmation of oneself - with maximum clarity of mind, with an understanding of the fate that has fallen, a person must bear the burden of life, not resigning himself to it - self-giving and the fullness of existence is more important than all peaks, an absurd person chooses rebellion against all gods.

By the time the work on The Myth of Sisyphus was completed, Camus had already accumulated doubts about such an aesthetic self-affirmation. Even in a review of Nausea, Camus reproached Sartre precisely for the fact that the rebellion of the hero, Antoine Roquentin, was reduced to "absurd creativity." In the play "Caligula" he captures the contradiction between absurdity and simple human values. Emperor Caligula from the observation “people die and they are unhappy” made conclusions quite acceptable from the point of view of absurdity and became “the scourge of God”, “plague”. His antagonist in the play, Hereya, kills the emperor in the name of the human pursuit of happiness, but is forced to admit that his choice is no more justified than the atrocities of the tyrant. The “conquerors” have no other scale of values ​​than the fullness of experiencing their titanic efforts, but “everything is permitted” then suits not only for those ennobled by the adventurer Malraux, but also for real conquerors who, as Camus wrote back in 1940, “pretty much succeeded , and for many years a gloomy silence hung over tormented Europe, in lands where there was no spirit. Camus' conclusion in the same essay "Almond Groves" is directly opposite to aesthetic titanism: "never again submit to the sword, never again recognize a force that does not serve the spirit." Nietzsche could furiously denounce the “channel of Socrates” at a time when the highest values ​​were torn off from life and were vulgarized by petty-bourgeois hypocrisy. But today it is precisely these values ​​that need to be defended when the era threatens to reject all culture, and “Nietzsche is in danger of gaining a victory that he himself did not want.” Nietzsche was the prophet of this “brave new world”, Dostoevsky predicted the emergence of a civilization “requiring skinning”, Camus was not a prophet, but an eyewitness of such a civilization that made Nietzsche’s “everything is permitted” common coin.

Participation in the Resistance was a turning point in the work of Camus. In Letters to a German Friend, he settles scores with imaginary like-minded people of the 1930s, who declared that in a world devoid of meaning, it is permissible to make an idol out of a nation, a “master race”, called to command millions of slaves. Such myth-making is quite acceptable, from the absurdity one can also deduce the need to devote one's life to the treatment of lepers and the filling of camp stoves with people. The conscience can be declared a chimera, the spirit a lie, violence extolled as heroism.

Many intellectuals have had to overestimate the significance of Nietzsche's brilliant aphorisms. When Camus was writing Letters to a German Friend in the underground, Thomas Mann, an emigrant, urged intellectuals to put an end to the refined immoralism that had played its part in preparing the nihilism of “iron and blood”: “Time has sharpened our conscience, showing that thought has obligations to life and reality, obligations that are very badly fulfilled when the spirit commits hara-kiri for the sake of life. There are performances in thinking and literature that impress us less than before, seeming rather stupid and blasphemous. The spirit is clearly entering today into a moral epoch, an epoch of a new moral and religious distinction between good and evil.” Now the rebellion must be directed primarily against the mythology that brings with it "dirty horror and bloody foam." The intellectual amusements of the “philosophy of life”, the Heideggerian exaltation about “being-toward-death” and authentic choice have been transformed into political slogans. It is impossible to defend the values ​​of the spirit with the help of nihilistic philosophy. But Camus cannot accept any dogmatically established value system - secular humanism, from his point of view, is groundless. In the essay "The Riddle" Camus speaks of "loyalty to the world", of belonging to the "unworthy, but faithful sons Greece”, who find the strength to endure our age, stunned by nihilism. The world is ruled not by nonsense, but by meaning, but it is difficult to decipher - the key to this elusive meaning is rebellion.

2. The content and philosophical significance of "Rebellious Man" for the philosophy of the XX century

philosophical camus man rebellious

The early philosophy of Camus is the history of the idea of ​​rebellion - metaphysical and political - against the injustice of the human lot. If the first question of The Myth of Sisyphus was the question of the permissibility of suicide, then this work begins with the question of the justification of murder. People at all times killed each other - this is the truth of the fact. The one who kills in a fit of passion is put on trial, sometimes sent to the guillotine. But today, the real threat is not these criminal loners, but government officials who send millions of people to death in cold blood, justifying massacres in the interests of the nation, state security, the progress of mankind, the logic of history.

The man of the twentieth century found himself in the face of totalitarian ideologies that serve as a justification for murder. Even Pascal in his “Provincial Letters” was indignant at the casuistry of the Jesuits, who allowed murder contrary to the Christian commandment. Of course, all churches blessed wars, executed heretics, but every Christian still knew that “Thou shalt not kill” is inscribed on the tablets, that murder is the gravest sin. On the tablets of our age it is written: "Kill." Camus in Man Rebel traces the genealogy of this maxim of modern ideologies. The problem is that these ideologies themselves were born from the idea of ​​rebellion, transformed into a nihilistic "everything is permitted."

Camus believed that the starting point of his philosophy remained the same - this is an absurdity that calls into question all values. Absurdity, in his opinion, forbids not only suicide, but also murder, since the destruction of one's own kind means an attack on the unique source of meaning, which is the life of each person. However, the absurd setting of the Myth of Sisyphus does not result in a rebellion that affirms the self-worth of the other. The riot there gave a price individual life- this is “the struggle of the intellect with a superior reality”, “a spectacle of human pride”, “refusal of reconciliation”. The fight against the “plague” then is no more justified than the Don Juanism or the bloody willfulness of Caligula.

“Of course, man is not reduced to rebellion. But today's history, with its strife, forces us to recognize that rebellion is one of the essential dimensions of a person. It is our historical reality. And we should not run away from it, but find our values ​​in it.” That rebellion, which is identical to life itself, does not coincide with the desire for general destruction: after all, it grows out of the desire for order and harmony, which do not exist in the world. Therefore, “rebellion is the force of life, not of death. Its deepest logic is not the logic of destruction, but of creation.” According to Camus, rebellion is a way of being a person, a way of fighting against the absurd.

After the publication of The Rebellious Man, the paths of Camus and the French left-wing intellectuals diverged completely. This book, the main work of Albert Camus, examines the history of European nihilism, from the Marquis de Sade and the Jacobins to Nazism and Stalinism. The book begins with the "revolt theorem". A riot begins when a slave says "no" to his master. But this “no” also means “yes”. The slave proves "that there is something worth protecting in him." Consciousness is born in rebellion: "a sudden vivid feeling that there is something in a person with which he can identify himself at least for a while." This “something” transcends the individual himself and unites him with other people. Already in the first chapter, Camus is an opponent of Sartrean existentialism: “... This pre-existing value, given before any action, conflicts with purely historical philosophical teachings, according to which value is won (if it can be won at all) only as a result of action. The analysis of rebellion leads at least to the conjecture that human nature really exists, according to the ideas of the ancient Greeks and contrary to the postulates modern philosophy". Human nature is what unites the rebel with all the oppressed and with all mankind, including the oppressor who betrayed solidarity. “I rebel, therefore we exist,” says Camus.

But there is always a temptation to betray the balance of rebellion and choose either total agreement or total denial. Camus considers the temptations of metaphysical, historical and literary rebellion.

Metaphysical rebellion is a crime against measure. This is not a slave's rebellion against his master, but a man's rebellion against his destiny. “Everyone says: “There is no truth on earth.” But there is no higher truth." The archetype of metaphysical rebellion is Prometheus. But the hero of Greek mythology does not rebel against the all-powerful God of Christianity, but against Zeus. Zeus is just one of the gods, and his days are numbered. For the Greeks, any rebellion is a rebellion against injustice in the name of nature. Metaphysical rebels are the children of Cain, not Prometheus. Their enemy is a ruthless God Old Testament. The origins of metaphysical rebellion are the same as those of rebellion in general. "... The garden and the romantics, Karamazov and Nietzsche entered the realm of death only because they wanted true life." They fought abstractions and in the name of abstractions. Anarcho-individualist Stirner rejects any abstractions, any ideals in the name of a free individual, the One. But Stirner's Unique is itself, in this case, a bare abstraction. Nietzsche denies the Christian "morality of slaves" and says "yes" to everything earthly. But to say yes to everything is to say yes to both murder and injustice. Absolute rebellion ends in absolute conformity. In the name of the realm of the superman, Nietzsche's disciples will create a bloody regime of subhumans. Prometheus will turn into Caesar. Metaphysical rebellion in literature, from the Marquis de Sade to the Surrealists, degenerates into empty posturing and, again, reconciliation with dictatorship and injustice.

Spawned by the Great French Revolution the historical rebellion is a logical continuation of the metaphysical rebellion. The Jacobins killed people in the name of abstraction, which they called virtue. The Bolsheviks do not recognize virtue, but recognize only historical efficiency. The present is sacrificed for the future.

It turns into a denial of all values ​​and results in brutal self-will, when the rebel himself becomes a “man-god”, who inherits from the deity he rejected everything that he so hated - absolutism, claims to the last and final truth (“truth is one, there are many delusions”), providentialism, omniscience, the words "make them in." This degenerate Prometheus is ready to drive into the earthly paradise by force, and at the slightest resistance arranges such terror, in comparison with which the fires of the Inquisition seem like child's play.

Metaphysical rebellion de Sade, dandies, romantics, damned poets, surrealists, Stirner, Nietzsche, etc. - these are the stages of European nihilism, the evolution of "human deity". Together with the cosmic almighty, the God-slayers also deny any moral world order. The metaphysical rebellion gradually merges with the historical rebellion. Louis XVI is still executed in the name of the triumph of the “general will” and virtue, but along with the princeps, all the former principles are also killed. “From the humanitarian idylls of the 18th century and the bloody scaffolds, there is a direct path,” Camus wrote in “Reflections on the Guillotine,” and, as everyone knows, today’s executioners are humanists.” One more step - and the rebellious masses are led by human gods completely freed from human morality, the time of “Shigalevism” comes, and she, in turn, elevates new Caesars to the throne.

3. The place of the "Rebellious Man" in the philosophical concept of A. Camus

This connection of the metaphysical rebellion with the historical one was mediated by the “German ideology”. At the height of his work on The Rebellious Man, Camus said that “the evil geniuses of Europe bear the names of philosophers: their names are Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche ... We live in their Europe, in a Europe created by them.” Despite the obvious differences in the views of these thinkers (as well as Feuerbach, Stirner), Camus combines them into a “German ideology” that gave rise to modern nihilism.

To understand the reasons why these thinkers were included in the series “ evil geniuses”, it is necessary, firstly, to recall the socio-political situation, and secondly, to understand from what angle their theories are considered.

Camus wrote The Rebellious Man in 1950, when the Stalinist system seemed to have reached the apogee of its power, and the Marxist doctrine had turned into a state ideology. AT Eastern Europe there were political trials, information about millions of prisoners came from the USSR; as soon as this system spread to China, the war in Korea began - at any moment it could break out in Europe. The political views of Camus changed by the end of the 40s, he no longer thinks about the revolution, since tens of millions of victims would have to pay for it in Europe (if not the death of all mankind in the world war). Gradual reforms are needed - Camus remained a supporter of socialism, he equally highly placed the activities of trade unions, Scandinavian social democracy and "libertarian socialism". In both cases, socialists seek to free a living person, and do not call for sacrificing the lives of several generations for the sake of some kind of earthly paradise. Such a sacrifice does not bring closer, but moves away the “kingdom of man” - by eliminating freedom, planting totalitarian regimes, there is no access to it.

Camus admits many inaccuracies in interpreting the views of Hegel, Marx, Lenin, but such a vision of the works of the "classics" is quite understandable. He considers precisely those of their ideas that were included in the Stalinist "canon", propagated as the only true teaching, used to justify bureaucratic centralism and "leaderism". In addition, he argues with Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, who undertook to justify totalitarianism with the help of Hegel's Phenomenology of the Spirit, the doctrine of the "totality of history." History ceases to be a teacher of life, it becomes an inexorable idol to which more and more sacrifices are made. Transcendental values ​​dissolve into historical development, the laws of economics themselves draw mankind to heaven on earth, but at the same time they require the destruction of all who oppose them.

The subject of consideration by Camus is the tragedy of philosophy, which turns into a “prophecy”, into an ideology that justifies state terror. History became the deity of the “German ideology”, propagandists and investigators became the priests of the new religion. "Prophecy" has its own logic of development, which may have nothing to do with the good intentions of a rebel philosopher. However, the question of the responsibility of thinkers is posed by Camus quite justifiably: neither Marx nor Nietzsche would approve of the deeds of their “disciples”, but from their theories it was possible to draw conclusions suitable for new Caesars, while from the ethics of Kant or Tolstoy, political theories Locke or Montesquieu is a necessity mass murder do not withdraw.

But the recognition of a certain responsibility of thinkers for their ideas, words should still not be confused with responsibility for deeds, while Camus sometimes lacks a clear separation of them. Any developed ideological system presupposes such a rethinking of history that not only modern, but even ancient thinkers turn into forerunners and even “fighters”, become indisputable authorities. Interpreters are responsible for interpretation, and they need only those thoughts that correspond to the political situation. It is not created philosophical theories and not even the ideologies themselves. Totalitarian regimes appeared in Europe as a result of the First World War, which neither Marx nor Nietzsche, nor all the metaphysical rebels, poets, anarchists listed by Camus, prepared in the least. The moral and political principles of European civilization collapsed into the trenches of the war, which was justified from ambos and university pulpits, referring not to some nihilists at all, but to Christian commandments, moral and political values. Had it not been for this war, Hitler would have remained an unsuccessful copyist artist, Mussolini would have edited a newspaper, one could only read about Trotsky and Stalin in the notes to some extremely meticulous work on the history of the labor movement. The history of ideas is important to understand European history in general, but the second is not exhausted by the first.

In parallel with changes in philosophical and political views Camus also changed his understanding of art. In his youth, comprehending his first artistic experiments, Camus considered art to be a beautiful illusion, which, at least on short time gives oblivion to pain and suffering. He even talked about music in the manner of Schopenhauer, although she never occupied a large place in the spiritual life of Camus (in addition to literature and theater, which he was engaged in professionally, sculpture and painting were close to him). But very soon Camus comes to the conclusion that an aesthetic escape from reality is impossible, “barren twilight dreaminess” should be replaced by art as “evidence” - a bright light artwork highlights a life that needs to be accepted, to say “yes” to it, knowing neither anger at the world, nor satisfaction. Camus' closeness to Nietzscheism is limited to this life-affirmation, he does not recognize anything "superhuman" except for the beautiful nature. Acceptance of life as it is is not Rimbaud's "unbridled feelings" taken up by the surrealists. In addition to the beautiful face of life, there is also its wrong side - social reality belongs to it. Reflections on how to combine the service of art and political activity began as early as the 30s, when Camus played in the “Labor Theater” and organized a “Culture House” for workers.

This theme comes to the fore in the 40s and 50s, when Camus abandons the absurd "self-overcoming" through artistic creativity. Any "art for art's sake" is unequivocally condemned by him: aestheticism, dandyism in art inevitably go hand in hand with hypocrisy. In the ivory tower, the artist loses touch with reality. “Mistake contemporary art” he considered focusing all attention on technique, form - means are put before ends. But sterility threatens the artist even when he becomes an "engineer of souls", an ideological "fighter". Art dies in apologetics.

Both in art and in politics, Camus urges not to leave a person at the mercy of the abstractions of progress, utopia, history. There is something in human nature that is permanent, if not eternal. nature in general stronger than history: turning to his own nature, to the unchanging in the stream of changes, a person is saved from nihilism. It is clear that this is not about the Christian understanding of man. Jesus Christ for Camus is not the Son of God, but one of the innocent martyrs of history, he is no different from millions of other victims. People are united not by Christ, not by the mystical body of the church, but by real suffering and revolt and solidarity born from suffering. There is one truly catholic church, uniting all people who have ever existed; its apostles are all the rebels who affirmed freedom, dignity, beauty. Human nature has nothing in common with divine nature, one must limit oneself to what is given by nature, and not invent God-manhood or man-deity.

We are dealing with a variant of secular humanism, the main source of which is antiquity. The immensity of the “Faustian soul” Camus contrasts with the “Apollo soul” - with the ideals of harmony, measure, limit. Europe is the heir not only of Christian monotheism and "German ideology", but also of solar paganism, Mediterranean "clarity of vision". The Mediterranean civilization for Camus is Athens, not the "non-commissioned civilization of Rome." It is no coincidence that he refers to the "invincible sun" (Sol. Invictus) of Mithraism, which coincides with the light of reason, is compared with the image of the sun in Plato's "cave myth".

Thus, it is not a matter of historical Ancient Greece, which knew not only the Apollonian light - Camus creates his own solar myth, in which Sisyphus, Prometheus, and Socrates take their places. Nietzschean Dionysianism now fades into the background, Camus' ethics is directly connected with Socratic: “The evil that exists in the world is almost always the result of ignorance, and any good will can bring as much damage as evil, if only this good will is not sufficiently enlightened. People - they are more good than bad, and, in essence, that's not the point. But they are in varying degrees in ignorance, and this is called virtue or vice, and the most terrible vice is ignorance, which considers that everything is known to it, and therefore allows itself to kill. The soul of a killer is blind, and there is neither true kindness nor the most beautiful love without absolute clarity of vision” (“The Plague”). The Socratic ethics of “seeing” and “knowledge”, the Stoic “courage to be”, defined by Tillich as “the courage to affirm one’s own rational nature in spite of everything that is accidental in us”, prevail in later work Camus.

Accordingly, the titanic revolt of Prometheus, which has become in Western European thought a symbol of both technological utopia and revolutionary practice, is also reinterpreted. The rebellion of Prometheus does not promise either final liberation or salvation. This protest against the human condition is always doomed to defeat, but it is always renewed, like the work of Sisyphus. You can improve some specific circumstances and reduce suffering, but you cannot get rid of mortality and forgetfulness. The rebellion is not aimed at destruction, but at a partial improvement of the cosmic order. Man is corporeal, the flesh connects us with the world, it is the source of both earthly joys and suffering. There is no original sin on the flesh, but aggressiveness and cruelty are also rooted in our nature. We are not in a position to cancel it by some kind of “authentic choice” of the existentialists. Our freedom is always limited and comes down to choosing between different passions and impulses. Such a choice requires clarity of vision, which helps to overcome all that is base in ourselves. It is clear that this kind of "austerity" has little in common with Nietzscheism, from which only the ideal of "self-overcoming" remains; however, for all the merits of such an ethics, in comparison with nihilism, it has a limited and formal character. It imposes a ban on the murder and enslavement of another, but the most complex forms of relationships between people remain outside of it. Orna requires "absolute clarity of vision", but such is not available to a person, and rebellion can always develop into self-will. Heroic ancient morality did not know the prohibition of either murder or suicide, it is in best case requires “leading”, but not all-human solidarity. However, Camus did not set himself the task of creating a new ethical system. It is hardly possible to derive all ethical values ​​from rebellion, but it is clear what it is directed against. “I hate only executioners” - this is perhaps the shortest and most accurate definition of Camus's social and moral position.

Conclusion

Thus, the philosophy of rebellion A. Camus can be formulated as follows: Camus is trying to find an answer to the great question, in all its sharpness put before man modern era: what should I do and is it possible to live if there is no God, the world has no meaning, and I am mortal? For Camus, absurdity, the original pre-human and extra-human senselessness of the universe, is the element human existence, and therefore the worthy response of man to this absurdity is precisely a continuous, hopeless and heroic rebellion. To know about one's death without running away from this bitter knowledge, and yet to live, to contribute to meaningless world mine human sense- it already means "to rebel". In such a rebellion, all human values ​​are born: meaning, freedom, creativity, solidarity. According to Camus, the absurd begins to make sense when it is disagreed with. Rebellion is initially doomed to defeat, for it is mortal and individual person and humanity in general.

It is in rebellion that man - the only animal capable of rebellion, of realizing his mortality, freedom and responsibility - asserts both his personal individuality, and universal human solidarity, and the human meaning expressed by Camus in a laconic formula: “I rebel, therefore I exist ". Thus, the category of "rebellion" from a metaphor or a narrow political concept turns into an important characteristic of human existence.

In the work “The Rebellious Man”, Camus changes the very content of the concepts of “absurdity” and “rebellion”, since from them it is no longer an individualistic rebellion that is born, but a demand for human solidarity, a common sense of existence for all people. The rebel gets up from his knees, says “no” to the oppressor, draws a line that from now on must be reckoned with by those who considered themselves masters. The renunciation of the slave lot simultaneously affirms the freedom, equality and human dignity of everyone. However, the rebellious slave can cross this limit himself, he wants to become a master, and the rebellion turns into a bloody dictatorship. In the past, according to Camus, revolutionary movement"never really torn away from its moral, evangelical and idealistic roots." Today the political rebellion has united with the metaphysical, which has liberated modern man from all values, and therefore it results in tyranny. The metaphysical rebellion itself also has a justification, while the rebellion against the heavenly omnipotent Demiurge means a refusal to reconcile with one's destiny, the affirmation of the dignity of earthly existence.

List of used literature

1. Velikovsky S.I. In search of lost meaning. - M., 1979.

2. Velikovsky S.I. Edges of unhappy consciousness. - M., 1973.

3. Zotov A.F., Melville Yu.K. Western philosophy of the twentieth century. - M. "Prospect", 1998.

4. Camus A. A rebellious person. - M.: Politizdat. - 1990.

5. Kushkin E.P. Albert Camus. early years. - L., 1982.

6. Ryabov P. V. A rebellious man - the philosophy of rebellion by Mikhail Bakunin and Albert Camus // Revival of Russia: the problem of values ​​in the dialogue of cultures. Materials of the 2nd All-Russian scientific conference. Part 1. Nizhny Novgorod, 1994. S.74-76

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

The theme of absurdity and suicide, ways to overcome the absurdity of being in the work of Albert Camus. The essence of a rebellious man and the analysis of the metaphysical, historical rebellion in the philosophical essay "The Rebellious Man". Camus' reflections on art as a form of rebellion.

abstract, added 11/30/2010


The unity of object and subject (man and the world) at the basis of existentialism as a philosophical trend of the 20th century. The essence and features of the existentialist philosophy of Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. The influence of the philosophy of existentialism on human life.

abstract, added 09/23/2016


The problem of absurdity and consciousness. Camus' idea of ​​the absurd. Comparison with Dostoevsky's understanding of the absurd. Camus' idea of ​​suicide. The illogicality of logical suicide. The attitude of Dostoevsky and Camus to religion and God. Metaphysical, nihilism and historical rebellion.

term paper, added 11/06/2016


Existentialism as a philosophical direction. The influence of the absurd on human existence. The story "The Outsider" by Albert Camus, based on the author's philosophical outlook, awareness of the absurdity of life and the unreasonableness of the world, which is the root cause of rebellion.

abstract, added 01/12/2011


Biography of Albert Camus, his work and the center of existentialist philosophy. The life-affirming nature of the concepts of absurdity and rebellion. A person's reassessment of his life as the primary source of struggle against the meaninglessness of existence through everyday activities.

abstract, added 01/04/2011


Existentialism as a special direction in philosophy, focusing its attention on the uniqueness of human being. Contribution to a deep understanding of the spiritual life of man Albert Camus. The struggle of man for gaining freedom through misfortunes and overcoming them.

essay, added 05/27/2014


Albert Camus - French writer and philosopher, "Conscience of the West". The focus of Camus's works on social phenomena. The willingness of people to commit suicide for the sake of ideas or illusions that serve as the basis of their lives. The connection between absurdity and suicide.

essay, added 04/29/2012


Existentialism as the mindset of a person of the 20th century who has lost faith in the historical and scientific reason. "The Myth of Sisyphus" by Albert Camus, the place of the theme of suicide in the work. Life and death, the meaning of life as eternal themes art and existentialist philosophy.

presentation, added 12/16/2013


Attitude to voluntary death as freedom in the teachings of the ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca. A look at the problem of suicide by Albert Camus. His awareness of life as an irrational chaotic flow. The possibility of human realization in the world of absurdity.

abstract, added 05/03/2016


Positivism. "Philosophy of life" as an opposition to classical rationalism. Existentialism. Fundamental ontology of Heidegger. "Philosophy of Existence" Jaspers. "Philosophy of Freedom" by Sartre. "Rebel Man" Camus. Philosophical hermeneutics of Gadamer.

Awakened consciousness shows a person the absurdity of life, the incomprehensibility and injustice of the human condition. This gives rise to a rebellion, the purpose of which is transformation, and therefore action. The main motive of the rebellion, according to Camus, is that "man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is."

Most meaningful work Albert Camus, which reveals the idea of ​​rebellion, is the book "Rebel Man" (or "Rebel"). This book is the history of the idea of ​​rebellion against the injustice of the human condition. The rebellion appears as a demand for human solidarity, a common sense of existence for all people. The rebel gets up from his knees, says "no" to the oppressor, draws a line with which from now on the one who considered himself a master must be reckoned with, and through which he previously allowed the penetration of negative circumstances into his life.

Starting the study of the concept of rebellion, Camus compared rebellion and the concept of murder. He questions the justification for the murder. Camus believed that the starting point of his philosophy remained the same - this is an absurdity that calls into question all values. Absurdity, in his opinion, forbids not only suicide, but also murder, since the destruction of one's own kind means an attack on the unique source of meaning, which is the life of each person. Rebellion, on the other hand, carries a creative principle. Thus, rebellion and murder are logically contradictory. Having committed a murder, the rebel splits the world, destroying the very community and unity of people.

Rebellion certainly implies a certain value. First, the rebellious person contrasts everything that is valuable to him with what is not. Citing the example of a slave's rebellion against his master, Camus concludes that the slave is rebelling against the old order, which denies something inherent in the community of all oppressed people. By itself, the individual is not the value that he intends to protect. This value is made up of all people in general.

At the same time, Camus is distinguished by the concepts of rebellion and bitterness. Anger is caused by envy and is always directed against the object of envy. Rebellion, on the contrary, seeks to protect the individual. The rebel defends himself as he is, the integrity of his personality, seeks to force respect for himself. Thus, Camus concludes, anger is negative, rebellion is positive. With this thought, the author expresses his disagreement with some philosophers who identified the rebellious spirit and bitterness.

In his work, Camus notes that rebellion is impossible in societies where inequality is too great (such as caste societies) or equality is absolute (some primitive societies). The author emphasizes that rebellion is possible in those societies where theoretical equality hides huge actual inequality.

Awareness of the absurdity of being and the unreasonableness of the world is the root cause of rebellion. However, if in the experience of the absurd suffering is individual, then in a rebellious impulse it is conscious of itself as collective. It turns out to be a common lot, writes Camus.

Exploring the concept of rebellion, Camus identifies a number of varieties of rebellion and defines characteristics each of them.

1. Metaphysical (philosophical) rebellion is a man's rebellion against his destiny and against the entire universe. A striking example- a slave who rebelled against his master and his slave position. That is, the metaphysical rebel rebels against the lot prepared for him as a separate individual. He seems to express in such a way that he is deceived and deprived by the universe itself.

Camus points out one interesting feature. The slave, protesting against the master, thereby simultaneously recognizes the existence of the master and his power. Similarly, the metaphysical rebel, opposing the force that determines his mortal nature, at the same time affirms the existence of this force. So such a rebellion does not deny higher power, and, recognizing it, challenges it.

2. Historical rebellion - a rebellion, the main goal of which, according to Camus, is freedom and justice. The historical rebellion seeks to give man a reign in time, in history. Camus argues that today's history with its strife forces people to recognize that rebellion is one of the essential dimensions of a person. It is the historical reality of mankind, from which one should not run away.

Camus immediately shares the concepts of rebellion and revolution. He believes that revolution begins with an idea, while rebellion is a movement from individual experience to an idea. Studying historical facts, he says that rebellion is a phenomenon in which a person spontaneously tries to find a way out of his "Sisyphean position." Therefore, the writer does not recognize an organized, prepared revolution, considering it contrary to his concept. He also considers illusory any hope that the revolution can really provide a way out of the situation that caused it. In addition, the writer believes that humanity has not yet known revolution in its true meaning, since a true revolution aims at universal unity and the final completion of history. The revolutions that have taken place so far have only led to the replacement of one political system others. Even if it started as an economic one, any revolution eventually became political. And this is also the difference between revolution and rebellion.

In addition, revolution and rebellion haunt various purposes. Revolution involves the use of man as material for history. Rebellion affirms the independence of man and human nature. Rebellion comes from negation in the name of affirmation, and revolution from absolute negation.

Thus, rebellion (as mentioned above), unlike revolution, is creative. He suggests that humanity must live to create what it is.

3. Revolt in art is a rebellion that includes creativity. This rebellion manifests itself in the simultaneous denial and affirmation: creativity denies the world for what it lacks, but denies in the name of what the world at least sometimes is.

Revolt in art, according to Camus, is the creator of the universe. Any creator with his works transforms the world, as if pointing to the imperfection of this world. According to Camus, art argues with reality, but does not avoid it. However, the writer also points to the inevitability of the existence of creativity: "If the world were clear, there would be no art in it."

Camus finds the limits of rebellion in the person himself, who has emerged from suffering and brought rebellion and solidarity out of them. Such a person knows about his rights, expresses in rebellion his human dimension and awareness of the inevitability of the tragedy of human existence. A protest against the human condition is always doomed to partial defeat, but it is just as necessary for a person as his own work is for Sisyphus.

A -4 B-3 C-1 D-2

A -3 B-1 C- 2 D-4

9. The statement: “To exist is to be perceived” expresses the essence of ...

A) materialism

B) Objective idealism;

AT) subjective idealism;

D) mysticism.

10. D. Locke owns an aphorism:

BUT) "Man to man is God";

B) "Man is a wolf to man";

C) "Man is a friend to man";

D) "Man is a brother to man."

11. Find a match:

Philosopher The main concept of his philosophy

A) Hegel 1) Socio-economic formation;

B) Fichte; 2) Man;

B) Marx 3) "I";

D) Feuerbach. 4) Absolute idea.

12. Hegel developed the basic laws ...

A) mechanics;

B) Anthropology;

B) Religions;

G) Dialectics.

13. "Thing in itself" in the philosophy of I. Kant means ...

B) Manifestation hidden meaning of things;

AT) the essence of the thing;

D) chance.

14. In the pre-critical period of I. Kant's philosophical activity, problems are of interest to ....

A) ethical;

B) Anthropological;

AT a) Philosophy of nature;

D) metaphysical.

15. Hegel's philosophical system is ...

A) dualistic;

B) materialistic;

B) pragmatic;

G) Idealistic.

16. F. Engels owns the work ....

A) "Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences";

B) "The world as will and representation";

C) "The Essence of Christianity";

G) "Dialectics of Nature".

17. According to Kant, the only sound way cognitive activity performs…

A) skepticism

B) dogmatism;

AT ) Criticism;

D) scholasticism.

18. According to L. Feuerbach, social development is determined by ....

A) debt

B) Thinking;

C) objective laws;

G) Love.

19. The religion of L. Feuerbach is based on the recognition ...

A) God as a being taken out beyond the limits of man himself;

B) God dissolved in nature;

AT) God in man himself.

20. K. Marx considered the main factor in the development of society ...

BUT) Economic;

B) Political;

B) Geographic;

D) Psychological.

Formation and development of non-classical philosophy. The main directions of philosophical thought of the XX century

1. “Science does not need any philosophy standing above it” - a thesis characteristic of philosophy ...

A) existentialism;

B) pragmatism;

AT) positivism;

D) hermeneutics.

2. The founder of the school of psychoanalysis was ...

A) Ch. Pierce;

B) Z. Freud;

C) E. Fromm;

D) Teilhard de Chardin.

3. Match:

Philosopher Philosophical direction

A) O. Comte; 1) Existentialism;

B) E. Husserl; 2) Pragmatism;

C) J.-P. Sartre; 3) Positivism;

D) D. Dewey. 4) Hermeneutics.

A) M. Heidegger;

B) A. Camus;

C) E. Fromm;

D) K. Jaspers.

A) S. Kierkegaard;

B) E. Husserl;

C) E. Fromm;

G) K. Jung.

6. Complete the definition:

"Irrationalism is a philosophical direction, the basis of the worldview of which is ___________."

7. The ideas of "revaluation of all values", "will to power", "superman" introduced into circulation ...

A) K. Marx;

B) S. Kierkegaard;

AT) F. Nietzsche;

D) G. Marcel.

A) A. Camus; 1) "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus";

B) M. Heidegger; 2) "The myth of Sisyphus";

C) L. Wittgenstein; 3) "To have or to be"?

D) E. Fromm; 4) "Being and Time".

Awakened consciousness shows a person the absurdity of life, the incomprehensibility and injustice of the human condition. This breeds rebellion, the purpose of which is transformation. The main motive of the rebellion, in the words of Camus, "Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is."

The concept of rebellion, the value and significance of rebellion in the fate of man and mankind

A rebellious person, according to Camus, is first of all a person who says "no". But the first thing he does is say yes. Protesting against the former order of things, a person at the same time recognizes the existence of a certain limit, to which he allowed negative circumstances to interfere in his life.

Rebellion certainly implies a certain value. First, the rebellious person contrasts everything that is valuable to him with what is not. Developing, the rebellion of one person begins to determine a certain good, which matters more than the individual's own destiny. Citing the example of a slave's rebellion against his master, Camus concludes that the slave is rebelling against the old order, which denies something inherent in the community of all oppressed people. By itself, the individual is not the value that he intends to protect. This value is made up of all people in general. At the same time, Camus distances the concepts of rebellion and bitterness. Anger is caused by envy and is always directed against the object of envy. Rebellion, on the contrary, seeks to protect the individual. The rebel defends himself as he is, the integrity of his personality, seeks to force respect for himself. Thus, Camus concludes, anger is negative, rebellion is positive. The author argues with this thesis with some philosophers who identified the rebellious spirit and bitterness.

Approaching the concept of rebellion from a social standpoint, Camus notes that rebellion is impossible in societies where inequality is too great (for example, caste societies) or equality is absolute (some primitive societies). Camus emphasizes that revolt is possible in societies where theoretical equality hides huge actual inequality. In addition, rebellion is the work of a knowledgeable person. He must clearly understand his rights. It follows from this that a rebellious person cannot be present in a sacralized society where myths and traditions reign, and where answers to all controversial questions are given in the concept of the sacred.

Moreover, the primary source of rebellion is not only the individual. In the course of historical development, humanity as a whole is becoming more and more fully aware of itself. Camus argues that today's history with its strife forces people to recognize that rebellion is one of the essential dimensions of a person. It is the historical reality of mankind. And one should not run away from this reality, but find values ​​for humanity in it.

One of the main values ​​of rebellion is that it presupposes a human community, and free from any kind of holiness. In order to live, a person must rebel, but without violating the boundaries that he has discovered in himself, the boundaries beyond which people, united, begin their true being. Awareness of the absurdity of being and the unreasonableness of the world is the root cause of rebellion. However, if in the experience of the absurd suffering is individual, then in a rebellious impulse it is conscious of itself as collective. It turns out to be a common lot, writes Camus. By bringing the individual out of loneliness, rebellion is the basis of value for all people. If initially the meaning of rebellion for an individual can be expressed by the phrase “I rebel, therefore I exist,” then the further creative development of rebellion will make it possible to say: “I rebel, therefore we exist.” Exploring the concept of rebellion, Camus identifies several of its categories and determines the characteristic features of each of them.