The Stranger Blog Post #2

Adressing the Stranger-Part 2

The following is a continuation of my previous post discussing the question of, Can detachment lead one to happiness?
Can detachment lead me to happiness?

Albert Camus says yes and my teacher says no. Like any other I am stuck in between without knowing the right path to follow. But did Meursault really know what path to follow, or was he simply walking without destination? Is it truly necessary to understand life in order to live it? I don't think so.

Reading part 2 of the stranger with this set of mind allowed me to actually relate to the main character, Meursault. In my life I have leant about the meaningless theory. Similarly to the one mentioned in the movie I love huckabees, it discusses how everything around is actually meaningless. I used to wonder how we possible could attain happiness from emptiness. But it made sense. As I witnessed people practicing this theory in their daily lives and witnessed the great things they achieved it made reconsider my original thoughts, the ones my main teacher, society, had taught me about my life.

Indeed Meursault characterization is described as extremely detached which led others to misunderstand him, especially in part 2 of the book. After killing a man Meursault is sent to prison and then questioned about his actions. Showing no feelings of regret or guilt was actually a self sabotage due to the fact that in order to be truly forgiven one must be sorry. Meursaul was just as the judge described him, "I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours. The criminals who have come before me have always wept at the sight of this image of suffering (p. 69)". This quote does not only represent his detachment and practical suicide, but his authenticity. If Meursaul has no feelings of guilt then he is not going to show them, and if he is asked a question he will answer accurately to his thoughts otherwise he would just remain quiet.

After a long period of time Meursault grew used to the environment in prison. He did not like it, but he was not unhappy. He is described to be in indifferent with what is going on around him, even in the moment before his death. However, surprisingly enough even at this moment he still said, " I felt I had been happy and that I was happy again" (p. 123).
To conclude this situation, his extreme detachment caused him to lose the case and be executed, which is not the ideal ending for someone who lived happily and satisfied most of his life.

Furthermore, seeing the consequences of detachment illustrated by the author made me question of my theory regarding detachment leading to happiness. This is because I consider the most important part of life to be when we look back at our entire life and feel satisfied about what we did. In other words, it is not how we live our lives but what we achieve before death what really counts for us. And looking at Meursault life, he did not really achieve anything in his life but he was still satisfied with it; which once again contradicts my original beliefs. However, he still claims to have something right before his death, and that being aware that he was still alive. "I was sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had. But at least I had as much of a hold on it as it had on me. I had been right. I was still right. I was always right. I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another. I had done this and I hadn't don't that. I hadn't done this thing but I had done another" (p. 212). In other words, despite Meursault's situation he still believes that he had lived the right way, and there was nothing to regret. Even when he spent the last years of his life in prison on an execution expected him, it was right. This puzzles me because it contradicts my original idea of what really matters in my life. I cannot fully state what truly matters in his life therefore I cannot relate to this character in this part of the book. It could be the air in his lungs or/and simply the ability to identify life as perfect despite the situation what truly matters. In other words what we did or didn't do in our lives does not matter. Every person's life is as important as another's, therefore there is no need to value unnecessary things that are known to bring happiness. Because of this, I consider Meursault as someone more advanced than any of us. However, being advanced is not always an advantage.

We are taught to belief that we must work towards happiness as opposed to living happily right now. Money, possessions and prizes are considered as life achievements, ad if one did not get these before his death, the he is considered a failure regardless is he was happy or not. So maybe what our society values is not truly happiness, but that which supposedly attains it. Looking at it this way makes me understand Meursault characterization even more. I too want to feel satisfied with what I have and how I am, and Meursault may be an actual role model in my life.

However, role models are not always right. After reading this book I consider Meursault life to have no sense of balance. As previously mentioned his detachment is too extreme to be understood by others, and being understood is something essential in our lives even if we claim not to need that understanding. I think that there are levels of detachment one can practice in order to be happy. In my life I have been practicing this detachment at some extent and I can state that I am not unhappy with my life. Of course dominating this "advantage" and being present every moment of our lives takes too much practice. Similarly to Meursault I am also realizing that life itself limits us to live, therefore I need to find to find a way in other to cope with it.

In conclusion, I do believe that detachment can lead a person to be happy therefore, being detached is actually an advantage. I have witnessed it and experienced it. By not being attached, I am not emotionally affected, which allows to me to see everything clearer. There are indeed levels on which a person can experience detachment. Being too extreme about it can lead you to be seen as someone cold and insensitive and would cause others not to find a way to relate to you. You must find a sense of balance that will keep you from suffering about insignificant things, such as failing, and keep people close to you for when you need them. It is possible to live happily and satisfied! It really is!

Who is this Guy?! -Response to "The Stranger"

Who is this guy?! Who is he indeed.

Can detachment lead us to happiness? Adressing The Stranger-Part 1

Meursault is the most detached character I have ever encountered in my literary experience. This extreme detachment and his perspective towards life make him one of the most unique characters I have come across. As a reader I cannot say I fully understand this character's motivation however, I can relate to his reasoning at some extent. I believe that the author of this book, Albert Camus, was aiming to base his book on one of the biggest questions we all have, how can we achieve happiness? Therefore by searching for that answer myself, reading this book gave me a number of things to re consider about my own happiness, and all thanks to the intriguingly round characterization of Meursault. After reading part one of this book and analyzing the main character and his life I have come to the conclusion that perhaps it is possible of attain happiness by being emotional detached.


Emotional attachment is “a connection that fastens things together"(Free dictionary). It is important to understand what detachment is in order to understand Meursault characterization better. Based on my experience as a reader you must be very open minded when reading the stranger, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand how detachment might actually lead us to experience happiness and satisfaction in our lives. I am aware of this because ever since the first lines of the book, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe. I don't know. I got a telegram from the home...that doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday", I have been bias considering Meursault as a cold and detached character throughout part one. It was not until I had to re read some of the chapters that I understood that he was something beyond my original judgment of him. Then I grew more and more interested on his perspective on life and considered this theory.

Throughout part one Meursault mentions that he has happy life. If seen from a general point of view, his life is pretty standard. He is portrayed as a regular man with a regular job without outstanding anyone around him. However according to his statement, "I wasn't interested in a change of life...people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and I wasn't dissatisfied with mine at all", this could be somewhat interpreted as an actual happy life by the audience. This is not only a contradiction to our society’s' beliefs but something we cannot wrap our minds around. Since when having a "repetitive common life" makes a person happy and most of all satisfied?! The author of this book understood something most of us cannot. Emotionally attaching ourselves may actually cause us to be depressed and this is because we are attached to failing as well as succeeding which is why we cannot succeed to be happy. Depression is something Meursault was never described to experience. And reading this book could actually be an opportunity rather than a lesson. However, easier said than done. Living detached is one of the most if not the most things to practice. We have been taught to attach ourselves ever since the beginning of our lives, to our mothers; the ones who gave us birth and natured us. How could we possibly live by saying "it occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed" like Meursault did? How could we possibly become that detached to not be "dissatisfied" with our lives?

At the end of part one Meursault experienced a change from his usual monotone life to a unusual emotional experience that led him to live differently. Even though he constantly claims that in life and in a man there is no actual change, it was clear that his life had changed, even if he didn't intend for it to happen. In the book Meursault killed a man. But the reason of why he did it is not actually explained by the author. It was not self defense and it was not that Meursault was threaten by the Arab either. Therefore, as a reader I had to analyze his reasoning. And I came to the conclusion that Meursault is not an irrational character but an unreasonable one. He did not need a reason to not cry for his mother as he did not need one for killing a man. To him he did not do anything wrong but those around him instead the opposite. In this last chapter, when Meursault describes leaving his world of happiness and "knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness" he is aware that things will ever be the same. However, Meursault perspective did not change. Which causes me to think that his perspective is not actually based on what he experiences but a continuously practice ever since a change. I believe that what led Meursault think this way is when he realized that life itself killed ambitions. As he stated, "when I was a student, I had lots of ambitions like that. But when I had to give up my studies I learned very quickly that none of it really mattered" and for some reason killing a man is the same, it doesn't really matter. And this could be because Meursault is actually too focused on himself and his surroundings to a point that those who come across in his life are nothing more than that, people who come an go, and all in a non emotional way.

This reminds me of the movie I <3 huckabees. In this movie LIFE and how to live it in order to be happy is also discussed. One of the methods to live happily is by considering life as something meaningless. For example, even when Meursault considered the death of his mother as meaningless he still stated that he was not unhappy with his life. So what does this tell us? Looking at this situation from an outside perspective it is "sick" to be that cold. You are not only utterly misunderstood by everyone around you but there is no way to be able to relate to someone else when you consider everything as meaningless. And even if you encounter someone who shares a similar point of view wouldn't that bond be meaningless as well? According to our definition of happiness it is important to value people and things around us and cherish and protect them for as long as we can. Therefore we can create good memories and these will accumulate in a way that would make us think that we had a happy life. However if these memories are not enough, then that person would consider most of his life as miserable and not be happy in the present. Therefore seen this way Meursault method actually makes sense. If we life by being g present every single moment of our lives, not remembering the past or planning the future, then these memories not really matter and we can finally enjoy living and not simply the thought of living that the future holds.

In conclusion for part one, as a reader I was able to gain so much from this character. I think that Albert Camus is someone who has too much to teach to the society, and writing this book was a great way to communicate his thoughts on life. Even though we cannot relate to it or even understand it is possible that the way he sees life might actually be a door towards happiness. In other words living detached may actually be a unbreakable promise to ourselves to be happy and satisfied exactly with the way our lives are, even if we are in prison.