Caring
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Love Albert Camus

The Plague - Albert Camus (1947)

After a series of events, doctor Rieux and an older collegue discuss what might have causes several patients to die in a short periode of time. The older doctor mentions that it's the "plague" because he recognises the symptoms from an older case that he was involved in. And then the writer treats you to this passage:


The word "plague" had just been uttered for the first time. At this stage of the narrative, with Dr. Bernard Rieux standing at his window, the narrator may, perhaps, be allowed to justify the doctor's uncertainty and surprise, since, with very slight differences, his reaction was the same as that of the great majority of our townsfolk. Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of recurring in the world; yet somehow we find it hard to believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue sky. There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.

In fact, like our fellow citizens, Rieux was caught off his guard, and we should understand his hesitations in the light of this fact; and similarly understand how he was torn between conflicting fears and confidence. When a war breaks out, people say: "It's too stupid; it can't last long." But though a war may well be "too stupid," that doesn't prevent its lasting. Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves.

In this respect our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences.

A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions.

Our townsfolk were not more to blame than others; they forgot to be modest, that was all, and thought that everything still was possible for them; which presupposed that pestilences were impossible. They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague, which rules out any future, cancels journeys, silences the exchange of views. They fancied themselves free, and no one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences.

Moonpenny · F
A brilliant writer and thought-provoking in these times.

I studied Camus at school, La Chute, but I wasn't in a place at the time to fully appreciate his nihilistic style. And I'm not sure I could read his work right now.

Thanks for posting.
SmartKat · 61-69, F
@Kwek00 When I took French in college, I read L’Etranger (in French) and wrote an essay about it (in French.) I still remember how I started off the essay:
“C’est l’histoire d’un jeune homme désagréable s’appelle Meursault.”
Moonpenny · F
@SmartKat Ha ha, funny what you remember. I remember a totally useless quotation I learnt from a German text 😄
Moonpenny · F
@Kwek00 I think you answered Sssslm's question more than adequately.
I don't profess to understand philosophy in depth but have checked the definitions of Humanism and pestilence. All I can quote, which makes a semblance of sense to me, and without rambling on about something I know nothing about, is that....
"The victims of the plague do not believe in the foreshadowing disaster because it contradicts their 'humanism': their ideological beliefs and expectations." (As clear as mud!)

So, from this do we assume that those going about their daily lives, regardless of anyone else, have a higher risk of catching the current 'pestilence' and take the rest of us with them? 🤷🏼‍♀️
SmartKat · 61-69, F
“Stupidity has a knack of getting its way; as we should see if we were not always so much wrapped up in ourselves.”

That’s the part that hurts the most.
Sssslm · F
I never thought of those who treat this plague like nothing as "humanists". It s a new idea to me, to see them in a positive way with virtues.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Sssslm
[media=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSYPwX4NPg4]

This explains a lot... the answer to our question is found around 5:50
Sssslm · F
@Kwek00 thank you for sharing. Maybe it means that people see everything from the perspective of human being the purpose, that everything in the world is serving the human race; pestilence is against human life that s why they don't think it's humanistic?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Sssslm I've been trying to figure it out more... I found a guy called "Paul Sargent" on youtube that has like a 3 part introduction to humanism:

- What Was Humanism? AP Euro Bit by Bit #2
- What Was Secular Humanism? AP Euro Bit by Bit #3
- What Was Civic Humanism? AP Euro Bit by Bit #4

Which closely argrees with: https://www.britannica.com/topic/humanism

It's described as a movement that wanted to distance itself from what they call "the dark ages". Which is a term coined by this new movement to perceive the old as something "dark" and they were the "new" better option. It revived classical literature (like aristotle, plato, and other greek/roman philosophers) which were perceived as being "bad" because they weren't christian. And this new movement is seen as part of the "renaissance". It puts more emphasis on "humans" instead of "God" even though humanists still seem to understand pagan literature true their christian worldvieuw (which seems normal to me, since they grew up in a christian dominated part of the world).

It concerns itself on being "human" and being virtuous as humans. Certain forms of humanism put human beings on top of the food chain sort of speak. The human becomes the unit of which they think and of which they perceive their world. The human can do annything (at least what is physically possible) as long as the human sets it's mind to it. Everything is perceived in human dimension, it's the human that rationalises the world according to his/her understanding.

In this respect our townsfolk were like everybody else, wrapped up in themselves; in other words they were humanists: they disbelieved in pestilences.

A pestilence isn't a thing made to man's measure; therefore we tell ourselves that pestilence is a mere bogy of the mind, a bad dream that will pass away. But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions.

So... if I'm correct, according to the youtube videos and the articles I read... humanists see everything from a human perspective. They are the ones doing the rationalising, and they are the ones that are on top of things. Because they are humans, and they can do annything (which is physically possible) as long as they set their minds too it. They believe they can't be hurt, that only happens to other individuals outside of themselves. In other words, they deny that pestilence is even a thing that they can come across of since pestilence has no human dimention what so ever. It doesn't let itself being rationalised, it doesn't relate to human beings it just does what it does. And what it does is kill people seemingly at random because it just infects what it infects and kills what can't make it trough the ordeal. It's something we can't imagine and never thinkg about because thinking about it could make us feel afraid. While fear is something temporary, it's something you can overcome (see the video that I posted earlier) while pestilence is just part of life. You can't live in fear of it because you can't overcome it, it's always there, lurking in the shadows. At anny time your life can be ripped away by a random occurence (like pestilence). It can be a trombose that formed inside your body and moves up to the brain, it can be cardiac arrest, it can be lightning striking... it's something we can't imagine, because it doesn't hold itself to the human imagination. The humanists Camus talks about put themselves above these random things, as long as they do what they have to do, no one can touch them... but "the plague" doesn't care, and therefore these people can't imagine what will happen, they will just rationalise it and think it won't happen to them.

Since they can't imagine what will happen to them... they won't take precautions. They'll just perceive this as individuals as something that happens to others. And therefore Camus writes:

But it doesn't always pass away and, from one bad dream to another, it is men who pass away, and the humanists first of all, because they haven't taken their precautions.

They feel superior... because they can't grasp it. They just rationalise it away, but the plague doesn't care. They are free, on top of the world, nothing can hurt them... they are the Apex predator, there is nothing that can harm them. They are free from threads.

They went on doing business, arranged for journeys, and formed views. How should they have given a thought to anything like plague, which rules out any future, cancels journeys, silences the exchange of views. They fancied themselves free, and no one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences.
Serkan · 61-69, M
Ik ook la peste l'etranger la mort heureuse
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Serkan "l'homme révolté"

 
Post Comment