Methods for diagnosing contact network supports. Contact network

The theme of the absurd and the theme of rebellion is discussed by Albert Camus in his book “The Rebel Man.” Man is the bearer of reason, writes Camus. The mind encourages him to set certain goals and try to achieve them. It encourages him to look for logic and meaning in the world. Trying to understand the world. And the world, by and large, turns out to be alien to these efforts. A person can never reduce reality to his own thinking; there is always a gap, a discrepancy. The world is irrational.

"For what? and why?" - these are human questions with which he approaches the world, but in the world outside of man there is no purpose or meaning. While living, he creates them for himself, but the biggest nonsense is that man is mortal, and death nullifies any projects of existence.

And this discrepancy between human expectations of purpose and meaning—the meaninglessness of the world—is what Camus calls “absurd”: “The world itself is simply unreasonable, and that’s all that can be said about it. The clash between irrationality and the frenzied desire for clarity, the call of which reverberates in the very depths of the human soul, is absurd.».

Camus views the problem of suicide as a fundamental philosophical problem. A person who commits suicide does not do so under the influence of passion (some kind of strong feeling may, perhaps, serve as the “last straw”), by his action he admits that life was not worth living, that human existence is meaningless.

The suicide understands the absurdity human existence and comes to terms with it. He says, “yes, life was not worth living,” and removes the absurdity by eliminating his own existence. The suicider admits defeat.

Camus contrasts the position of a suicide riot. Camus' "Rebel Man" also knows that the world is irrational and his existence absurd (his mind is awakened enough to realize this; he does not live out of habit; and he does not try to remove this absurdity in any imaginary way). But he does not agree with the absurdity.

The revolt that Camus speaks of means life with a consciousness of the absurd(a glaring discrepancy between my mind’s claim to meaning and the meaninglessness of reality itself). To live and be able to enjoy life, despite the absurdity that is impossible to come to terms with. " For a man without blinders,- Camus writes, - there is no more beautiful spectacle than the struggle of the intellect with a reality that surpasses it».

A. Camus, “Absurd Reasoning” (chapter from the book “The Rebel Man”).

_____________________________________________________________________________

Subject another in existentialism.

Existentialism views man (and man's world) as based on himself. Excluding any pre-given points of view (considered as objective, that is, absolute), he considers man as a subject creating his own world, inventing his own project of being.

And therefore (in a sense) the existentialist person remains alone, closed within the framework of his thinking, his constitutive, world-mastering activity.

Earlier it was said that this loneliness of an existentialist person does not mean arbitrariness, about how he overcomes this loneliness with his mind, building a certain rational model of humanity, presupposing his own good and evil. But only with the mind.

Can a person crawl out of the shell of his own subjectivity and break through, in fact, to another? The most obvious answer is: no, it can't.

But with all this, Sartre notes that another plays an irreducible role in my creation of myself as a bodily being actually existing in the world. To constitute myself I need another's gaze.

My model of the world, as I create it as a subject, presupposes me, seen from the outside. In the absence of an absolute point of view (God, as has been said, is absent), the other knows who I am. The other holds the secret of who I really am. For me to really exist, another must confirm my existence.

And at the same time, I am aware that, just as the other is given to me primarily as a certain body (thing, object), which can threaten me or interfere with me, which I can use in one way or another, in the same way I am (first of all) given to another.

That's why people are embarrassed. A person feels naked and defenseless before the gaze of another person, because he understands that the other may not recognize for him the unconditional and enduring significance that he assumes for himself.

You can remain for him just a thing, a means, while you would like the other to recognize your irreducible significance. This, writes Sartre, is the meaning love(as one of the projects of human existence): you need another to love you, to recognize you as the center and highest value of the universe. To love means to want to be loved (this is a paradox and a contradiction). /After all, a lover, wanting to “make another fall in love” with himself, does not intend to fall in love with him and become part of his project/.

At the same time, the lover himself embarks on an adventure: he tries to seduce, he risks becoming an object for another (an object of admiration), so that he may recognize for him the importance of the central, constitutive subject of the world. The lover wants to become a deity for the beloved, giving him his peace; in this act of giving he would find himself.

The lover needs the loved one to do this voluntarily, but at the same time not entirely voluntarily. He wants to be chosen, and, at the same time, necessarily and unconditionally chosen. After all, the “key” to his own existence lies with someone else. If he changes his mind, he will disappear. /He needs to voluntarily tie his loved one to himself so that he does not change his decision/.

This is impossible? Yes. In this sense, the project called "love" always fails. Because even if now the other recognizes this central significance for me, then in the future he may change his mind. He is free (and if his choice were not free, it would have no constituent value).

That is, with the help of the “love” project, a person fails to finally affirm (protect from all worldly, random circumstances) the truth of his existence. However, one should not be deceived by Sartre’s attitude towards this “failure”. It is worth considering that the existentialist Sartre deals with contradictions not like Hegel (with Hegel all contradictions should be removed), but like Kierkegaard: if we were to follow the further logic of “Being and Nothingness,” we would see that he describes human existence as stretching from one irremovable contradiction to another.

The third part of Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness” is dedicated to this topic (the part is called “For the Other”).

“...we, in fact, attribute as much reality to the body-for-others as to the body-for-us. More precisely, the body-for-another is the body-for-us, but incomprehensible and alienated. It appears to us when another performs for us a function of which we are not capable and which, however, lies with our responsibility: to see ourselves as we are.” J. P. Sartre, “Being and Nothingness,” part 3, “The Third Ontological Dimension of the Body.”

“Thus, it seems to us that loving is in its essence a project of making oneself loved. Hence the new contradiction, and new conflict; each of the lovers is completely captivated by the other, since he wants to force himself to be loved to the exclusion of everyone else; but at the same time, each demands from the other love, which is not at all reducible to the “project of being loved... Love demanded in this way from the other cannot demand anything; it is pure involvement without reciprocity. But precisely this love could not exist otherwise than as a requirement of the lover..." J. P. Sartre. “Being and Nothingness,” part 3, “The first attitude towards the other: love, language, masochism.”

____________________________________________________________________________

Albert Camus"The Rebellious Man" / Trans. from French; General ed., comp. preface and note. A. Rutkevich - M. Terra - Book Club; Republic, 1999 ISBN 5-300-02665-4 ISBN 5-250-02698-2

Albert Camus The Rebel Man 1

INTRODUCTION 3

I THE REBEL MAN 6

II METAPHYSICAL REVOLT 9

SONS OF CAIN 10

ABSOLUTE DENIAL 12

LITERATOR 13

REBEL DANDIES 16

REFUSAL OF SALVATION 18

ABSOLUTE STATEMENT 21

ONLY 21

NIETZSCHE AND NIHILISM 22

REBEL POETRY 27

LAUTREAMOND AND MEDIOCITY 27

SURREALISM AND REVOLUTION 29

NIHILISM AND HISTORY 32

III HISTORICAL REVOLT 34

REGICIDE 36

NEW GOSPEL 36

EXECUTION OF THE KING 37

RELIGION OF VIRTUE 38

MURDER 42

INDIVIDUAL TERRORISM 47

REJECTION OF VIRTUE 48

THREE OBSESSED 49

CHICKY KILLERS 53

SHIGALEVSHCHINA 55

STATE TERRORISM AND IRRATIONAL TERROR 56

STATE TERRORISM AND RATIONAL TERROR 60

BOURGEOIS PROPHECIES 60

REVOLUTIONARY PROPHECIES 63

THE FAILURE OF PROPHECIES 67

THE LAST KINGDOM 72

TOTALITY AND JUDGMENT 74

REVOLT AND REVOLUTION 78

IV REVOLT AND ART 81

ROMAN AND REVOLT 82

REVOLT AND STYLE 86

CREATIVITY AND REVOLUTION 87

V AFTERNOON THOUGHT 89

RIOT AND MURDER 89

NIHILISTIC MURDER 90

HISTORICAL MURDER 91

MEASURE AND IMMEASURENESS 93

AFTERNOON THOUGHT 95

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF NIHILISM 96

REBEL MAN 98

Introduction 98

Rebellious Man 98

Metaphysical Riot 99

Historical riot 103

Riot and Art 109

Midday Thought 109

TO JEAN GRENIER

And my heart openly gave itself to the harsh Suffering land, and often at night in the sacred darkness I swore to you to love her fearlessly to death, without giving up on her mysteries. So I made an alliance with the earth for life and death.

Gelderlt "The Death of Empedocles"

Introduction

There are crimes caused by passion, and crimes dictated by dispassionate logic. To distinguish them, the criminal code uses, for convenience, such a concept as “premeditation.” We live in an era of masterfully executed criminal plots. Modern offenders are no longer those naive children who expect to be forgiven by loving people. These are men of mature minds, and they have an irrefutable justification - a philosophy that can serve anything and can even turn a murderer into a judge. Heathcliff, hero of Wuthering Heights * , is ready to destroy the entire globe just to have Katie, but it would never even occur to him to declare that such a hecatomb is reasonable and can be justified by a philosophical system. Heathcliff is capable of murder, but his thoughts do not go further than this. The strength of passion and character is felt in his criminal determination. Since such love obsession is a rare occurrence, murder remains the exception to the rule. It's kind of like breaking into an apartment. But from the moment when, due to weak character, the criminal resorts to the help of philosophical doctrine, from the moment when the crime justifies itself, it, using all kinds of syllogisms, grows just like thought itself. Atrocity used to be as lonely as a cry, but now it is as universal as science. Prosecuted only yesterday, today the crime has become law.

Let no one be outraged by what was said. The purpose of my essay is to comprehend the reality of logical crime, characteristic of our time, and carefully study the ways of justifying it. This is an attempt to understand our modernity. Some probably believe that an era that in half a century has dispossessed, enslaved or destroyed seventy million people must first of all be condemned, and only condemned. But we also need to understand the essence of her guilt. In the old naive times, when a tyrant for the sake of greater glory swept away entire cities from the face of the earth, when a slave chained to a victorious chariot wandered through foreign festive streets, when a captive was thrown to be devoured by predators in order to amuse the crowd, then in the face of such simple-minded atrocities the conscience could remain calm , and the thought is clear. But pens for slaves, overshadowed by the banner of freedom, mass extermination of people, justified by love for man or craving for the superhuman - such phenomena, in a certain sense, simply disarm the moral court. In new times, when evil intent dresses up in the garb of innocence, according to a strange perversion characteristic of our era, it is innocence that is forced to justify itself. In my essay I want to take on this unusual challenge in order to understand it as deeply as possible.

It is necessary to understand whether innocence is capable of refusing murder. We can only act in our own era among the people around us. We will not be able to do anything if we do not know whether we have the right to kill our neighbor or give our consent to his murder. Since today any action paves the way to direct or indirect murder, we cannot act without first understanding whether we should condemn people to death, and if so, then in the name of what.

It is important for us not so much to get to the bottom of things as to figure out how to behave in the world - such as it is. In times of denial, it is useful to determine your attitude towards the issue of suicide. In times of ideologies, it is necessary to understand what our attitude towards murder is. If there are justifications for it, it means that our era and we ourselves fully correspond to each other. If there are no such excuses, this means that we are in madness, and we have only one way out: either to conform to the era of murder, or to turn away from it. In any case, we need to clearly answer the question posed to us by our bloody polyphonic century After all, we ourselves are in question. Thirty years ago, before deciding to kill, people denied a lot, even denied themselves through suicide. God cheats in the game, and with him all mortals, including myself, are therefore no better. Should I die? The problem was suicide. Today, ideology denies only strangers, declaring them dishonest players. Now they kill not themselves, but others. And every morning, murderers hung with medals enter solitary confinement: the problem has become murder.

These two arguments are related to each other. Or rather, they bind us, so tightly that we can no longer choose our own problems. It is they, the problems, who choose us one by one. Let us accept our chosenness. In the face of riot and murder, I want to continue my thoughts in this essay, initial topics which were suicide and absurdity.

But so far this reflection has led us to only one concept - the concept of the absurd. It, in turn, gives us nothing but contradictions in everything related to the problem of murder. When you try to extract the rules of Action from the feeling of absurdity, you find that as a result of this feeling, murder is perceived as best case scenario indifferent and therefore becomes permissible. If you don’t believe in anything, if you don’t see the meaning in anything and can’t assert any value, everything is permitted and nothing matters. There are no arguments for, no arguments against, the murderer can neither be convicted nor acquitted. Whether you burn people in gas ovens or dedicate your life to caring for lepers - it makes no difference. Virtue and malice become matters of chance or caprice.

And so you come to the decision not to act at all, which means that you, in any case, put up with the murder that was committed by another. All you can do is lament the imperfection human nature. Why not replace action with tragic amateurism? In this case human life turns out to be a bet in the game. One can finally conceive an action that is not entirely aimless. And then, in the absence of a higher value guiding the action, it will be focused on the immediate result. If there is neither true nor false, neither good nor bad, the rule becomes the maximum efficiency of the action itself, that is, force. And then it is necessary to divide people not into righteous and sinners, but into masters and slaves. So, no matter how you look at it, the spirit of denial and nihilism gives murder a place of honor.

Therefore, if we want to accept the concept of the absurd, we must be prepared to kill in obedience to logic, and not to conscience, which will appear to us as something illusory. Of course, murder requires some inclination. However, as experience shows, they are not so pronounced. In addition, as is usually the case, there is always the possibility of committing murder by someone else's hands. Everything could be settled in the name of logic, if logic were really taken into account here.

But logic has no place in a concept that alternately makes murder acceptable and unacceptable. For, having recognized murder as ethically neutral, the analysis of the absurd ultimately leads to its condemnation, and this is the most important conclusion. The final result of the discussion of the absurd is the refusal of suicide and participation in the desperate confrontation between the questioning person and the silent universe 1 . Suicide would mean the end of this confrontation, and therefore reasoning about the absurd sees suicide as a denial of its own premises. After all, suicide is an escape from the world or getting rid of it. And according to this reasoning, life is the only truly necessary good, which alone makes such a confrontation possible. Outside of human existence, an absurd bet is unthinkable: in this case, one of the two parties necessary for the dispute is missing. Only a living, conscious person can declare that life is absurd. How, without making significant concessions to the desire for intellectual comfort, can one preserve for oneself the unique advantage of such reasoning? Recognizing that life, while it is good for you, is also good for others. It is impossible to justify murder if you refuse to justify suicide. A mind that has internalized the idea of the absurd unconditionally accepts fatal murder, but does not accept rational murder. From the point of view of the confrontation between man and the world, murder and suicide are equivalent. By accepting or rejecting one, you inevitably accept or reject the other.

Therefore, absolute nihilism, which considers suicide a completely legal act, recognizes with even greater ease the legality of murder according to logic. Our century readily admits that murder can be justified, and the reason for this lies in the indifference to life inherent in nihilism. Of course, there were eras when the thirst for life reached such strength that it resulted in atrocities. But these excesses were like the burn of unbearable pleasure; they have nothing in common with the monotonous order that compulsory logic establishes, putting everyone and everything into its Procrustean bed. This logic has nurtured the understanding of suicide as a value, even reaching such extreme consequences as the legalized right to take a person’s life. This logic culminates in collective suicide. Hitler's apocalypse of 1945 is the most striking example of this. Destroying themselves was too little for the madmen who were preparing a real apotheosis of death in their lair. The point was not to destroy ourselves, but to take the whole world with us to the grave. In a certain sense, a person who condemns only himself to death denies all values except one - the right to life that other people have. Proof of this is the fact that a suicide never destroys his neighbor, does not use the disastrous power and terrible freedom that he gains by deciding to die. Every suicide is done alone, unless it is done in revenge, in a generous way, or filled with contempt. But they despise for the sake of something. If the world is indifferent to a suicide, it means that he imagines that it is not indifferent to him or could be so. A suicide thinks that he destroys everything and takes everything with him into oblivion, but his death itself affirms a certain value, which, perhaps, deserves to be lived for. Suicide is not enough for absolute denial. The latter requires absolute destruction, the destruction of both oneself and others. In any case, you can live in absolute denial only if you strive in every possible way towards this tempting limit. Murder and suicide represent two sides of the same coin - an unhappy consciousness that prefers the dark delight in which earth and sky merge and are destroyed to endure the human lot.

The same is true if you deny arguments in favor of suicide. You won’t find them in favor of murder either. You can't be half a nihilist. Reasoning about the absurd cannot simultaneously preserve the life of the one who reasons and allow the sacrifice of others. If we have recognized the impossibility of absolute denial - and living means, be that as it may, recognizing this impossibility - the first thing that cannot be denied is the life of our neighbor. Thus, the line of reasoning that led to the idea of the indifference of murder then removes the arguments in its favor, and we again find ourselves in the contradictory situation from which we tried to find a way out. In practice, such reasoning convinces us at the same time that it is possible to kill and that it is impossible to kill. It leads us to a contradiction, without providing any argument against murder and without allowing us to legitimize it. We threaten and we ourselves are threatened; we are in the grip of an era gripped by feverish nihilism and at the same time alone; with a weapon in his hands and a constricted throat.

But this basic contradiction entails many others if we strive to stand among the absurd, without suspecting that the absurd is a life transition, a starting point, the existential equivalent of Descartes' methodical doubt. The absurdity itself is a contradiction.

It is contradictory in its content, because, in an effort to support life, it renounces value judgments, but life, as such, is already a value judgment. To breathe is to judge. Of course, it is a mistake to say that life is a constant choice. However, it is impossible to imagine a life devoid of all choice. For this simple reason, the concept of absurdity brought to life is unthinkable. It is equally unthinkable in its expression. The whole philosophy of meaninglessness is alive by the contradiction of the fact that it expresses itself. Thus, it introduces a certain minimum of coherence into incoherence; it introduces consistency into that which, according to it, has no consistency. The speech itself connects. The only logical position based on meaninglessness would be silence, if silence, in turn, meant nothing. Completely absurd. If he speaks, it means that he admires himself or, as we will see later, considers himself a transitional state. This narcissism, self-esteem clearly shows the deep ambiguity of the absurd position. The absurdity, which wants to show a person in his loneliness, in a sense forces him to live in front of a mirror. The initial emotional anguish thus risks becoming comfortable. A wound that is treated with such diligence can ultimately become a source of pleasure.

We have had no shortage of great adventurers of the absurd. But ultimately, their greatness is measured by the fact that they refused to admire the absurd, retaining only its demands. They destroy for the sake of more, not for the sake of less. “My enemies,” says Nietzsche, “are those who want to overthrow rather than create themselves.” He himself overthrew, but in order to try to create. He glorifies honesty, scourging the "pig-nosed" zhuirs. Discussion about the absurd contrasts narcissism with the rejection of it. It proclaims the renunciation of entertainment and comes to voluntary self-restraint, to silence, to a strange asceticism of rebellion. Rimbaud, singing the praises of “the pretty criminal meowing in the dirt of the streets,” flees to Harar to complain only about his familyless life. Life was for him “a farce in which everyone, without exception, plays.” But this is what he shouts out to his sister at the hour of death: “I will rot in the ground, and you, you will live and enjoy the sun!”

So, absurdity as a rule of life is contradictory. Is it surprising that he does not give us those values that would legitimize murder for us? However, it is impossible to justify a position based on any particular emotion. The feeling of absurdity is the same feeling as the others. The fact that during the period between the two wars the feeling of absurdity colored so many thoughts and actions only proves its strength and its legitimacy. But the intensity of a feeling does not mean its universal character. The delusion of an entire era was that it discovered, or imagined that it was discovering, universal rules of behavior, based on a feeling of despair that sought to overcome itself. Both great torments and great joys can equally serve as the beginning of reflection; they drive it. But it is impossible to experience these feelings again and again and maintain them throughout the entire discussion. Consequently, if there is a reason to take into account susceptibility to the absurd, to diagnose a disease discovered in oneself and in others, then in such susceptibility one can only see a starting point, criticism based on life experience, the existential equivalent of philosophical doubt. This means you have to end the game mirror reflections and join in the unstoppable self-overcoming of the absurd.

When the mirrors are broken, there is nothing left that can help us answer the questions posed by the era. The absurd as methodical doubt is a blank slate. It leaves us at a dead end. At the same time, being doubt, it is capable, turning to its own essence, to direct us to new searches. The discussion then continues in a known way. I scream that I don’t believe in anything and that everything is meaningless, but I cannot doubt my own scream and must at least believe in my own protest. The first and only evidence that is given to me in this way in the experience of the absurd is rebellion. Deprived of all knowledge, forced to kill or put up with murder, I have only this evidence, aggravated by my inner harmony. Rebellion is generated by the awareness of the senselessness seen, the awareness of the incomprehensible and unfair human lot. However, the blind rebellious impulse demands order in the midst of chaos, longs for wholeness at the very core of what slips and disappears. Rebellion cries out, rebellion desires and demands that the scandal stop and the words that are continuously written with pitchforks on the water are finally imprinted. The purpose of rebellion is transformation. But to transform means to act, and action tomorrow may mean murder, while rebellion does not know whether it is legal or not. Rebellion gives rise to precisely the kind of actions that it should legitimize. Consequently, it is necessary that rebellion seek its foundations in itself, since it cannot find them in anything else. Rebellion must examine itself in order to know how to act correctly.

Two centuries of rebellion, metaphysical or historical, give us the opportunity to reflect on them. Only a historian can tell in detail about successive doctrines and social movements. But you can at least try to find some kind of guiding thread in them. On the following pages, only some historical milestones will be noted and a hypothesis will be proposed, which, however, is not able to explain everything and is not the only possible one. Nevertheless, it partially explains the direction of our time and almost completely its excesses. The extraordinary story examined here is the story of European pride

Be that as it may, it is impossible to understand the causes of the rebellion without examining its demands, its mode of action and its conquests. In its deeds, perhaps, lurks that rule of action that absurdity could not reveal to us, at least an indication of the right or duty to kill and, finally, hope for creation Man is the only creature that refuses to be what it is. The problem is to find out whether such a refusal can lead a person to the destruction of others and himself, whether every rebellion must end in a justification for universal murder, or, on the contrary, without pretending to impossible innocence, it can reveal the essence of rational guilt

1 See: “The Myth of Sisyphus.”

Camus Albert

Rebellious man

Albert Camus.

Rebellious man

Introduction

I. A rebellious man

II Metaphysical Revolt

Sons of Cain

Absolute denial

Writer

Rebellious dandies

Refusal of salvation

Absolute statement

The only one

Nietzsche and Nigelism

Rebellious poetry

Lautreamont and mediocrity

Surrealism and revolution

Nihilism and history

III Historical revolt

Regicide

New Gospel

Execution of the King

Religion of Virtue

Deicides

Individual terrorism

Refusal of virtue

Three possessed

Picky Killers

Shigalevshchina

State terrorism and irrational terror

State terrorism and rational terror

Bourgeois prophecies

Revolutionary prophecies

The collapse of prophecies

The Last Kingdom

Totality and judgment

Riot and revolution

IV. Riot and art

Romance and rebellion

Riot and style

Creativity and revolution

V. Midday Thought

Riot and murder

Nihilistic murder

Historical murder

Measure and immensity

Midday Thought

On the other side of nigelism

Editorial comments and notes

MAN REBEL

What is a rebellious person? This is a person who says “no.” But while denying, he does not renounce: this is a person who, with his very first action, says “yes.” A slave, who has carried out 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’ve been patient for too long,” “so far, so be it, but then that’s enough,” “you’re going too far,” and also: “there’s a limit that I don’t want you to cross.” I will allow" Generally speaking, this "no" asserts the existence of a border. The same idea of a limit is revealed in the rebel’s feeling that the other “takes too much upon himself,” extends his rights beyond the border, beyond which lies the area of sovereign rights that put a barrier to any encroachment on them. Thus, the impulse to revolt is rooted simultaneously in a decisive protest against any interference that is perceived as unacceptable, and in the rebel’s vague conviction that he is right, or rather, in his confidence that he “has the right to do this and that.” . Rebellion does not happen if there is no such sense of rightness. That is why the rebellious slave says both “yes” and “no” at once. Together with the mentioned border, he affirms everything that he vaguely senses in himself and wants to preserve. He stubbornly argues that there is something “worthwhile” in him and it needs to be protected. He contrasts the order that enslaved him with a kind of right to endure oppression only to the extent that he himself sets.

Along with the repulsion of the alien in any rebellion, a person immediately becomes fully identified with a certain side of his being. Here a value judgment comes into play in a hidden way, and, moreover, so fundamental that it helps the rebel to withstand the dangers. Until now, at least, he had remained silent, plunged into despair, forced to endure any conditions, even if he considered them deeply unfair. Since the oppressed person 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 person speaks, even if he says “no,” it means that he desires and judges. The rebel makes a roundabout turn. He walked, driven by his master's whip. And now she stands face to face with him. The rebel opposes everything that is valuable to him with everything that is not. Not every value causes rebellion, but every rebellious movement tacitly presupposes some value. Is it about value in this case goes speech?

In a rebellious impulse, a consciousness, albeit unclear, is born: a sudden, bright feeling that there is something in a person with which he can identify himself, at least for a while. Until now the slave had 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, which caused the riot. The slave patiently accepted these orders; deep down, he may have rejected them, but since he was silent, it means that he lived with his daily worries, not yet realizing his rights. Having lost patience, he now begins to impatiently reject everything that he previously put up with. This impulse almost always backfires. Rejecting the humiliating command of his master, the slave at the same time rejects slavery as such. Step by step, the rebellion takes him much further than simple disobedience. He even oversteps the boundaries he has set for his opponent, now demanding to be treated as an equal. What was previously the stubborn resistance of man becomes the whole of man, who identifies himself with the resistance and is reduced to it. That part of his being, for which he demanded respect, is now dearer to him than anything else, dearer even to life itself; it becomes the highest good for the rebel. Having lived hitherto by daily compromises, the slave suddenly ("because how could it be otherwise...") falls into irreconcilability - "all or nothing." Consciousness arises along with rebellion.

Albert Camus

Rebellious man

TO JEAN GRENIER

And heart

Openly gave in to the harsh

Suffering land, and often at night

In sacred darkness I swore to you

Love her fearlessly to death,

Without giving up on her mysteries

So I made an alliance with the earth

For life and death.

Gelderlt "The Death of Empedocles"

INTRODUCTION

There are crimes caused by passion, and crimes dictated by dispassionate logic. To distinguish them, the criminal code uses for convenience the concept of “premeditation.” We live in an era of masterfully executed criminal plots. Modern offenders are no longer those naive children who expect to be forgiven by loving people. These are men of mature minds, and they have an irrefutable justification - a philosophy that can serve anything and can even turn a murderer into a judge. Heathcliff, hero " Wuthering Heights", is ready to destroy the entire globe just to have Katie, but it would never even occur to him to declare that such a hecatomb is reasonable and can be justified by a philosophical system. Heathcliff is capable of murder, but his thoughts do not go further than this. The strength of passion and character is felt in his criminal determination. Since such love obsession is a rare occurrence, murder remains the exception to the rule. It's kind of like breaking into an apartment. But from the moment when, due to weak character, the criminal resorts to the help of philosophical doctrine, from the moment when the crime justifies itself, it, using all kinds of syllogisms, grows just like thought itself. Atrocity used to be as lonely as a cry, but now it is as universal as science. Prosecuted only yesterday, today the crime has become law.

It is important for us not so much to get to the bottom of things as to figure out how to behave in the world - such as it is. In times of denial, it is useful to determine your attitude towards the issue of suicide. In times of ideologies, it is necessary to understand what our attitude towards murder is. If there are justifications for it, it means that our era and we ourselves fully correspond to each other. If there are no such excuses, it means that we are in madness, and we have only one choice, either to conform to the era of murder, or to turn away from it. In any case, we need to clearly answer the question posed to us by our bloody, polyphonic century. After all, we ourselves are in question. Thirty years ago, before deciding to kill, people denied many things, even denied themselves through suicide. God cheats in the game, and with him all mortals, including myself, so wouldn’t it be better for me to die? The problem was suicide. Today, ideology denies only strangers, declaring them dishonest players. Now they kill not themselves, but others. And every morning, the murderers, hung with medals, enter solitary confinement cells: murder has become the problem.

These two arguments are related to each other. Or rather, they bind us, so tightly that we can no longer choose our own problems. It is they, the problems, who choose us one by one. Let us accept our chosenness. In the face of riot and murder, in this essay I want to continue the thoughts whose initial themes were suicide and absurdity.

But so far this reflection has led us to only one concept - the concept of the absurd. It, in turn, gives us nothing but contradictions in everything related to the problem of murder. When you try to extract rules of action from the feeling of absurdity, you find that as a result of this feeling, murder is perceived at best with indifference and, therefore, becomes permissible. If you don’t believe in anything, if you don’t see the meaning in anything and can’t assert any value, everything is permitted and nothing matters. There are no arguments for, no arguments against, the murderer can neither be convicted nor acquitted. Whether you burn people in gas ovens or dedicate your life to caring for lepers - it makes no difference. Virtue and malice become matters of chance or caprice.

And so you come to the decision not to act at all, which means that you, in any case, put up with the murder that was committed by another. All you can do is lament the imperfection of human nature. Why not replace action with tragic amateurism? In this case, human life becomes the stake in the game. One can finally conceive an action that is not entirely aimless. And then, in the absence of a higher value guiding the action, it will be focused on the immediate result. If there is neither true nor false, neither good nor bad, the rule becomes the maximum efficiency of the action itself, that is, force. And then it is necessary to divide people not into righteous and sinners, but into masters and slaves. So, no matter how you look at it, the spirit of denial and nihilism gives murder a place of honor.

TO JEAN GRENIER

And heart

Openly gave in to the harsh

Suffering land, and often at night

In sacred darkness I swore to you

Love her fearlessly to death,

Without giving up on her mysteries

So I made an alliance with the earth

For life and death.

Gelderlt "The Death of Empedocles"

INTRODUCTION

There are crimes caused by passion, and crimes dictated by dispassionate logic. To distinguish them, the criminal code uses for convenience the concept of “premeditation.” We live in an era of masterfully executed criminal plots. Modern offenders are no longer those naive children who expect to be forgiven by loving people. These are men of mature minds, and they have an irrefutable justification - a philosophy that can serve anything and can even turn a murderer into a judge. Heathcliff, the hero of Wuthering Heights, is ready to destroy the entire globe just to have Cathy, but it would never even occur to him to say that such a hecatomb is reasonable and can be justified by a philosophical system. Heathcliff is capable of murder, but his thoughts do not go further than this. The strength of passion and character is felt in his criminal determination. Since such love obsession is a rare occurrence, murder remains the exception to the rule. It's kind of like breaking into an apartment. But from the moment when, due to weak character, the criminal resorts to the help of philosophical doctrine, from the moment when the crime justifies itself, it, using all kinds of syllogisms, grows just like thought itself. Atrocity used to be as lonely as a cry, but now it is as universal as science. Prosecuted only yesterday, today the crime has become law.

It is important for us not so much to get to the bottom of things as to figure out how to behave in the world - such as it is. In times of denial, it is useful to determine your attitude towards the issue of suicide. In times of ideologies, it is necessary to understand what our attitude towards murder is. If there are justifications for it, it means that our era and we ourselves fully correspond to each other. If there are no such excuses, it means that we are in madness, and we have only one choice, either to conform to the era of murder, or to turn away from it. In any case, we need to clearly answer the question posed to us by our bloody, polyphonic century. After all, we ourselves are in question. Thirty years ago, before deciding to kill, people denied many things, even denied themselves through suicide. God cheats in the game, and with him all mortals, including myself, so wouldn’t it be better for me to die? The problem was suicide. Today, ideology denies only strangers, declaring them dishonest players. Now they kill not themselves, but others. And every morning, the murderers, hung with medals, enter solitary confinement cells: murder has become the problem.

These two arguments are related to each other. Or rather, they bind us, so tightly that we can no longer choose our own problems. It is they, the problems, who choose us one by one. Let us accept our chosenness. In the face of riot and murder, in this essay I want to continue the thoughts whose initial themes were suicide and absurdity.

But so far this reflection has led us to only one concept - the concept of the absurd. It, in turn, gives us nothing but contradictions in everything related to the problem of murder. When you try to extract rules of action from the feeling of absurdity, you find that as a result of this feeling, murder is perceived at best with indifference and, therefore, becomes permissible. If you don’t believe in anything, if you don’t see the meaning in anything and can’t assert any value, everything is permitted and nothing matters. There are no arguments for, no arguments against, the murderer can neither be convicted nor acquitted. Whether you burn people in gas ovens or dedicate your life to caring for lepers - it makes no difference. Virtue and malice become matters of chance or caprice.

But logic has no place in a concept that alternately makes murder acceptable and unacceptable. For, having recognized murder as ethically neutral, the analysis of the absurd ultimately leads to its condemnation, and this is the most important conclusion. The final result of the discussion of the absurd is the refusal to commit suicide and participation in the desperate confrontation between the questioning person and the silent universe. Suicide would mean the end of this confrontation, and therefore reasoning about the absurd sees suicide as a denial of its own premises. After all, suicide is an escape from the world or getting rid of it. And according to this reasoning, life is the only truly necessary good, which alone makes such a confrontation possible. Outside of human existence, an absurd bet is unthinkable: in this case, one of the two parties necessary for the dispute is missing. Only a living, conscious person can declare that life is absurd. How, without making significant concessions to the desire for intellectual comfort, can one preserve for oneself the unique advantage of such reasoning? Recognizing that life, while it is good for you, is also good for others. It is impossible to justify murder if you refuse to justify suicide. A mind that has internalized the idea of the absurd unconditionally accepts fatal murder, but does not accept rational murder. From the point of view of the confrontation between man and the world, murder and suicide are equivalent. By accepting or rejecting one, you inevitably accept or reject the other.