welcome everyone to the next episode of
the humanist emigre. Very often
in previous episodes
we would express, towards the end,
the following statement
that one day we will return to
such and such a writer, but today
unless I am mistaken, we are returning
no - you've already returned
but
we did so consciously, for instance with Plato
no, but to (who did we return to?)
who's three books are we now exploring? (Nietzsche)
so we returned to Nietzsche
oh, you're right
ok, so what now? a new beginning I guess...
today we're returning to a different philosopher
namely to
Camus
and today we will discuss
his essays
on the subject of
the phenomenon of rebellion
and I would like to make clear right away that
we will not get through all of his essays
not even because there is
so much of it, but rather
because it is very thick
full of content?
yes, full of content
and I feel that it will be wiser
to split our considerations of rebellion
into at least two parts
Camus underlines that rebellion
in his language, in French
revolte, is
fait volte face
which would literally translate into
the active rotation of your face
I only indicate this because for the author
this has a certain
symbolic level to it
he undertakes
a type of explanation or
a first approach to the subject of rebellion via
a comparison
he compares rebellion to silence
in Camus' view allows for
the belief
that we do not judge
the reality which
surrounds us and even
suffocating us, if we
accept this reality in silence
then even if it
pains us
then the fact that we are silent
is an external indication of acceptance
whereas rebellion
differs in that
we externalise
that which internally pains us
except that Camus indicates that rebellion
is not, at least in his understanding
a phenomenon which consists of actions
on behalf of the immediate interest
of the individual
to use very simple examples
a slave
receives food
and a place to sleep
one never knows what awaits him if he succeeds
in liberating himself, one does not even know
if
death does not await him if
he makes such an attempt
in his immediate interest
it is better to remain a slave
unless he likes
to test the bounds of the unknown
yes, this is a very good point
but testing the boundaries of the unknown
would already, it seems to me, according to
Camus, Camus would say that this is already
a type of rebellion because
the silence which he contrasts with rebellion
is precisely
a disinclination towards the unknown, that is
we bear the burden of the known because we fear
the unknown
the unknown
apropos the unknown
Camus claims that rebellion gives rise to awareness
of the natural ideal
as opposed to
the convention which surrounds us
that is, here the concern is not even to reach for
the unknown
but about something more, about reaching for the state
which we imagine to be a better and more just state
compared to the existing state
which, as Camus indicates is
almost identical to
the approach of the Ancient Greek philosophers
to the subject of natural law
as contrasted with
conventional law
this approach is also, of course, reflected in
Christian thought
concerning natural or Divine law
however, of course
a question remains when we are talking about
rebellion against
existing conditions: is it ever
possible to do something like
rebel against
nature itself?
and here I would of course highlight
the dual meaning of the word nature
in the first instance when we spoke of
rebellion in favour of a natural ideal
which brought to mind natural law
in this case we are talking about nature
in the sense not of the natural world
not in the sense of our surroundings, but
that which is within our nature, that which is
essentially a property of our own being
this is the Greek idea that everything has
its telos
its potential towards which it aims
if we as human beings
imagine to ourselves the ideal
of the human being
as being in accordance with his nature
while existing reality
appears to be pushing us to go against our nature
in a direction contrary to our nature
Camus would then
uncover that here we see the rise of
rebellion
so rebellion is a veto of one's nature?
no, no, rebellion is...
the desire to discover one's nature?
no, in the philosophical sense in Ancient Greece
nature
is that for which a human being is made
just as all things in nature...
that I understand
so rebellion is the uncovering of the awareness
of the natural aim
of the essence of human beings
I don't understand
what's this rebellion against?
if a human being is born - I am trying to explain
no, you're just interrupting which one ought not do
what is this a rebellion against? because I understand
that in order to rebel, you must rebel against something
this is an act of valuation
against our surrounding reality
which we conclude to be, to some extent,
unsatisfactory or unjust
improper and unwanted
in discovering our own nature we conclude
that the world around us is not
the kind we would have wanted
relative to our nature?
more than that, it's not that it's not the way we want
it's not what it ought to be
but not the way it ought to be according to who?
according to nature, to natural law
how do we know what the natural law is?
how do we know
what the natural law is if it doesn't exist?
this is an excellent question
so don't interrupt me any more
have you anything more to add?
no
well then, of course in classical philosophy
we discover natural law
through a dialogue
in which we compare various conventions to each other
we mentioned this earlier; Plato's Laws
the discussion between the Athenian Stranger and
two citizens of two non-Athenian cities
one is from Crete I think
the second somewhere else - they compare their laws
when we compare various different legal conventions
or different human traditions, we see that human beings
live in different ways
and the question arises: which of these ways of living
is the best way?
and in the process of this comparison
it turns out that in order to answer this
question we must make reference not to
yet another convention, but to
something which is
essential or natural to all human beings
and philosophy is the quest for the answer to this very
question which you asked
this is the Greek
the ancient and philosophical
concept of nature, but there is
a different concept of nature
we could call it pre-
pre-philosophical, likewise Greek
I somewhat don't understand this
nature - so nature...
in the beginning I understood that
nature is
some predisposition we have, a natural
predisposition to something
but
am I to understand that a rock also has its nature?
yes, of course, all things in the natural world
has its - the name for this is
teleology, not theology, but
teleology from the Greek telos
telos is
the aim of a thing
so the assumption is that you do not have to be
alive to aim towards something
everything aims for some goal
but the assumption is you needn't be alive
no need to be alive, this is not limited to the living world
of course
it is a bit more difficult to discuss the aim of
a rock, but
unless you're a rock
no, no need to be abstract
it is enough to see the thing from the atomist view
it is clear that at the level of atoms
different atoms react variously
in a given environment and
though we are not able to speak of the telos
of the rock itself
we are able to
break it down into atoms
yes, to first principles and a mineralogist will be able to
tell us something about the history of these rocks
how they came to be and the like
but history is not nature
the problem with human beings is that
insofar as
trees, plants
or other animals
have a specific cycle
and go through specific phases of life and
grow and die
the one thing which disrupts their
cycles is accident
an accident of fate
and of course this is true with regard to humans as well
accident sometimes interrupts his life cycle
fate
or literal accident - but we also have
will
you're saying we can break ourselves, yes?
we can break ourselves and we are also aware
and can imagine making choices
about when we want to break ourselves
more than that, maybe
we are assuming a simple
situation that it is either
here is the right and correct path or the wrong one
the whole problem, and it's a constant living problem
and the whole aim of philosophical search is
we aren't quite able to answer the question
what is the nature of the human person?
Aristotle, for example, claims that
humans aim for happiness
well that's nice, but what is happiness?
exactly, yes, and
Socrates would say the question is eternally open
the main reason why we ought to philosophise
bu there is a different...this word
to be clear is physics
for ancient philosophy
what we translate as nature in the sense of
natural law
is physics
however there is another
definition
pre-philosophical
which functioned in Ancient Greece
particularly in poetry
wait a moment, I'm going to make noise
I didn't get any cards
no problem, shall I give you some? I have quite  a few
where? there? no need
rustling is
the proper introduction to poetry
nature in Ancient Greek poetry
can be translated into our language as fate
and insofar as
one can imagine, as Camus writes
that humans rebel in pursuit of an ideal
or some vision
of a natural aim of human beings,
it is harder to imagine a rebellion against fate
why?
because fate is, how to put it,
no, I think that rebelling against fate is the basic form
of rebellion, a person sees his fate
and rebels against it!
Camus does indeed agree with you, but we'll get there
but he calls this rebellion against fate
a metaphysical rebellion
literally...it is something quite different
well, this jump we've made, let's explain it...
let's do it this way...
if we acknowledge that there is something called
natural law
and
the correct direction for a human being
which can in some measure, though not fully
be discovered through philosophy
then
what if we don't like what we've discovered?
we can continue to rebel
yes, but then we are in rebellion against our fate
we are like a tree
which doesn't like...
or we rebel against our discovery and claim it isn't
very good, I would like to discover something else
here, before going deeper into this
and we shall
go into the metaphysical rebellion, but let's slow down
in order to follow
Camus' thought process
in full
we'll get back to this
in a moment, but Camus, before
going into the metaphysical rebellion
there's this writer
a fantastic
German
philosopher, Max Scheler
here is one of his books: resentment and morality
this book was written
as
a counter-argument against Nietzsche
from a Christian point of view
but very well
done, very powerful and competent, and Camus
reaches for or references Scheler
asking the question
my Daemon immediately went
after Camus' main point
and we shall certain return to it
to the metaphysical rebellion, but Camus
asks whether rebellion is the same as
sense of resentment
because
in Nietzsche's work
and to some extent in Scheler's work
whether it is a rebellion
in the name of an ideal or a rebellion
against one's fate
Nietzsche claims that
rebellion as such is an expression of resentment
the facade of rebellion sounds
high minded, romantic and
positive
but in reality, according to Nietzsche
the morality of the rebel is always
about
not accepting his place in the universe
and expressing disgust and hatred
relative to
all which is placed higher than he is
and we recall, and I invite you
to watch our previous
episode about Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals
we recall that the good is
the self-identification of good people
who are pleased with themselves
like the lion in the jungle
lions in the jungle
lions don't live in jungles
forgive me then
where do they live?
on the savannah
lions on the savannah
it is like the lion on the savannah
the lion in the savannah does not have
a resentment towards the universe that
it is not an eagle and cannot fly
and we know this?
we can presume it
and our presumption is highly probable
it doesn't try to fly so we can conclude it doesn't want to
and a noble human in Nietzsche's view
is happy with
being himself
he doesn't desire to be something else
he identifies himself as good, while
a rebellious person, even if he references
some ideal - you see Nietzsche
asks the same question that my Daemon asks:
how does he know the basis of this ideal?
and an answer of this sort -
oh, well, we must eternally seek the ideal
through philosophy..for Nietzsche this is
a kind of
really bad cop out
which hides beneath it: resentment
hatred
Camus
agrees with Nietzsche
and even references the Genealogy of Morals
to the extent that we are speaking of
characters like Tertulian
the Christian thinker
who Nietzsche referenced
and quoted as
enjoying
the prospect of poets, artists
and philosophers and everyone he doesn't like will
burn in Hell - that this is indeed
a rebellion which expresses
resentment
but Camus does not believe that all rebellion
let alone true rebellion is rooted in this
Camus is more inclined to the opinion
that true rebellion is rooted in
the same basis of what Daemon spoke of
that we rebel against our fate
Camus - and here the last word on Scheler -
Camus quotes Scheler
I will read this quote; Scheler wrote:
in the world, there is too little love
for us to feel free to
waste it on anything beyond the human person
you mean we can't love our dog?
to little love
does not mean that
this is Scheler's view yes?
yes and it's taken out of context, so here I would
warn against
jumping to
what is this quote trying to tell us?
Camus answers this referencing
Dostoyevsky - and I hope you forgive me
for taking the long route
but it is my habit that a thing results from
a dialogue and not
that a thing is a prior to a dialogue
Camus writes that the drama of Ivan
the key person in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov
the drama of Ivan is precisely this that
there is too much love without a subject
that is
of course to an extent my Daemon is right
that perhaps both Scheler
and Dostoyevsky's Ivan
just needed to have a dog
and if they just had a dog everything would be fine
although
we have that book
about that dog
and the fate of that dog is not the best, however
the point here is rather that
a rebellion which
refers to nature
rejects humiliation
including the humiliation of the opponent
and in this sense Camus claims that rebellion
is not an expression of resentment
because contrary to Tertulian and Saint
Thomas who also described
the joy of Christians who were saved
looking on as their enemies burn in Hell
in contrast to them, the rebel
who rebels in pursuit of an ideal
does not rebel in pursuit
of his direct interest
but in favour of justice as such
and this means justice even
for his opponents
and justice is never, even
in the case of evil people, identical with
their humiliation
and
for Scheler, love ought to be directed
relative to the human person
because there is too little of it anyways
in the world, that is
it would be lovely if there were so much of it
that humans, not unlike
God would be
overflowing love, that is to say
this Divine love which
is so huge that it overflows
into the universe itself
however, human love is
delicate and limited
and perhaps here what
Scheler is getting at is that
we would be fortunate if at least
men loved one another
let alone their dogs
while in the case of Dostoyevsky's Ivan
here we have a man who
is overflowing with love, but without
a subject
he has no one to love
he does not love God, he does not
love humanity, and he hasn't got a dog
insofar as I recall
and Camus brings up these examples as if to show
that rebellion need to arise
out of resentment or hatred
towards that which is
better or higher
one last point with regard to
let us call it the topography of rebellion
according to Camus, rebellion does not arise
or is not born of
all conditions
for example in primitive human societies
in which there is some level of equality
rebellion is
well, there is less of a tendency for people to rebel
because they haven't got
any visible
point of reference insofar as comparing
the better and the worse
ah, so it is not that when everyone is worse off
but when everyone is equal, yes?
yes, ergo the talk of primitive societies
I'm not sure people are worse off in primitive society
well perhaps when we arrive at Rousseau
then we can discuss the matter more in depth
it's Rousseau who has
this concept of the noble savage
rebellion is likewise not something
which is expressed
in conditions where everything is explained
for instance in a Christian society
and speaking of Christian community
Camus is thinking of a society of faith
in the sense that indeed
the life of man, even of a Christian
is filled up by
pain and difficulties
but in a society of faith
all of these pains and difficulties can be explained
and understood
they are unpleasant, we would like to avoid them
but
we do not fear them
we know that the end
which awaits us is the best of all possible
and so there is nothing to rebel against
so in what kind of societies
according to Camus, does rebellion take place?
Camus argues that rebellion takes place
in societies
in which there is a precipice between the ideal
of equality and its' reality
that is to say: in democracy
in contemporary democracy or
in Western civilisation
a civilization in which
certainly at this time, under conditions
of democracy, but also earlier always
found itself under the rule of a certain dualism
between that which was the ideal
and that which was the reality
and because we have such a strong sense of the ideal
we are constantly dissatisfied with our reality
which gives birth to rebellion
fine, in this case now we move fully
towards the concept
which Daemon brought up towards the beginning of our
discussion, namely to something which
Camus calls the metaphysical rebel
we talked about
or Daemon mentioned
a person who
desires to rebel against his fate
Camus calls this
a rebel or person
who feels that the world has let him down
and speaking of "the world," he means
being or existence itself
not only
society, the state, the community, but
the entire construction
of the universe
everything - he does not accept this
the very shape of life
that is very difficult to rebel against
something like that
I am trying to imagine being angry with
the sun rising in the east, to give an example
It would do well to recall that Camus
argued - well no, Daemon is
laughing, but this is a very good
comment, because it reminds us
and explains rather well
rather clearly
that of which we spoke earlier
namely that rebellion, according to Camus
in contrast to Nietzsche, is not an expression of
resentment; so it is not that I
stamp my foot
because the sun does not set or rise
where I would like it to
that kind of rebellion is a sign of resentment
it is not that I hate the universe
it is that I do no accept it
as it is
because it seems to me to be unjust
ergo this lack of acceptation is with a view to
to justice and to a sense of
to natural right stretched to the
limits of what is possible, that is
because
Camus takes this up in a moment
so
I will explain this in a moment, but first a quote
from Camus, alright?
Or no - alright - let's explain first
natural law as it was understood
by the Ancient Greek philosophers
leads to moderation
because this ideal of natural law
this thing towards which we ought to aim
this human happiness and justice
part of the teaching which results from
the philosophy of natural right
is the notion of accepting
that
existence is something different
from that in which
we find ourselves, which is becoming
here I refer directly to Plato
justice is an idea
at best humans can
participate in this idea, be closer
or further relative to justice, but
he will never reach its perfection
and, jumping here into Aristotle,
we come to the claim that virtue is not an absolute
it is not that a virtuous man is identical to
the idea of virtue
which is somewhere above, beyond our reach
rather a virtuous man is the one
who achieves
a state of moderation
between two
extremes
one extreme is evil
while the other extreme, the opposite of evil,
is not evil - the opposite
of evil is
excessive
or
extremism in the pursuit
of perfection; that is utopianism
and a virtuous man is the one who
does not reach for utopia
nor agree to evil, but rather tries to
given the existing framework of reality
to do good in appropriate measure
to what is possible
ergo moderation
this is Greek virtue (in Polish "measured" action has the same word for its root as "moderate action", thus this explanation is more coherent in Polish)
the metaphysical rebel
does not accept this
and in this sense
his is not only a rebellion for natural right
but against it
because to accept
this
Greek vision of virtue as moderation
is, in the end, tied up with
in the mind of the metaphysical rebel, with
the acceptation of
the horrible injustice of the universe
however it is quite interesting, because
there is a very interesting quote
from Camus about this metaphysical rebel
and it will explain a lot for us
Camus writes: "The metaphysical rebel...
is therefore certainly not
an atheist
as one might presume
rather, by force of logic, he is a heretic
however
in the beginning he commits heresy in the name of
order
seeing in God the father of death
and the highest scandal
this is quite important because
this
metaphysical rebellion is neither
a rebellion born of resentment; because "I don't like it!"
so I'm turning my back
and stamping my feet like a child
nor according to Camus is the metaphysical rebellion
identical to
the claim that there is no God
this is rather literally a rebellion against God
who we conceptualise as the creator of
this whole mess
that is the father of
death
and the greatest scandal - and already in this statement
we see that the thing against which
the metaphysical rebel in the end
rebels against is injustice understood as
death
and all things which
in a sense one could say
orbit death
suffering
but how is one to rebel against death? what is that?
by not dying you'll show death a thing or two?
we'll get to that
that is...we'll get to that
but as I noted in the beginning
this is very rich in content
and
because it is rich in content
kind of like the cows
as Nietzsche says
Camus is a loyal student of Nietzsche here and
attempts, I think, to be a cow
and wants us to become cows, to chew on things a bit
Camus asks the same question
but in a different form, he asks
is it even possible to rebel against
a fate like this? does this make any sense?
please recall that
Camus wrote that the one place where
rebellion does not take place is indeed
in a community of faith
so how can one rebel against death?
through Christ.
if faith
in Christ is the path
to eternal life, then there you are
there you have just rebelled and conquered death
but we shall discuss this more in a moment
because right now
Camus is not going down this path, that is
we have this somewhere
in the back of our minds and the implication is
obvious, yes? that
Camus himself writes that in a community of faith
rebellion does not take place, now
we perhaps understand why if this rebellion
is directed against death
then a Christian society
does not fear death
however
certainly in our world
the modern world
that is in a world of people
who even if they are people of faith
in Christ
then they have more faith in the ideal
of democracy
of course we do have rebellion
especially given that our modern faith is not firm
our doubts however do not extend to democracy
we have absolute faith in democracy
we are free to doubt the divinity of Christ
it's almost required of modern life to doubt Christ
but its' quite difficult for modern man to doubt
the god of democracy and the democratic ideal
it's obvious to us that this is how things ought to be
and not
what is
and Camus
writes something very interesting here
another quote from him
"in the historical world with which we are threatened...
there are no longer any errors...
there are only crimes, of which the greatest is
moderation"
what is the historical world?
the historical world according to Camus is the world
in which we no longer believe in
Christ as saviour
or at least we have
severe doubts
with regard to salvation
in other words we do not believe that
there is a path
through which we might conquer death
but at the same time we do not accept
the comportment of the ancient Greeks
of moderation
which
accepted
the limits and imperfections
of the universe
and from this acknowledged the highest virtue
as moderation rather than some utopia
the historical world is quite literally a world
in which
we seek within history
for a means to conquer death
that is
we see history as a chain
of events
tied together by the philosophy of progress
in history
as a battle of the human race for
the defeat of death
and nature
ceases to be
that which for the Greeks was an ideal
to which we refer to or
which is the subject of our explorations
in philosophy - instead it becomes
something over which
human thought attempts to take
control through modern science
and gradually
over time in history
we master nature
in order to transform it according to
our will
and in this sense, Camus writes that
we are threatened by
history
and in history there are no longer any errors,
for the Greeks you see
to go down the wrong path was
a coincidence, an accident, an error
but in history there are no errors, only
antitheses
here I am thinking of Hegel
and those who are interested
are invited to our three episodes
on the subject of Hegel
within this philosophy of history
that which seems to be an error or a cruel event
or even an evil or a crime
is not a crime, but a necessary stage
of progress
and
in this sense, the rebellion against nature
understood as fate is something
done in the name of will
Camus
of course indicates that
this rebellion
or, forgive me, this kind of rebellion
only becomes fully possible when
fate
becomes personal
that is when we move from
the phase of thinking about the universe
and fate and nature as something
impersonal
with which
humanity
must struggle - towards thinking
of fate and nature
as persons
or a person: God
and then, and only then, because it is a person
it becomes easier to rebel because
God as a person
God as a person
of whom we are a reflection
appears closer to us
and just as we would rebel against
a cruel father, so
it is easier to rebel against
something we conceptualise as a cruel God
this is no longer a battle against windmills
as per Don Quixote
but rather a battle against some person
some person who
attacks us by way of his very being
and who is responsible
for all evil because he is
the creator of this evil
and now we shall discuss rocks
my Daemon is indeed here
the precursor
that is
one ought to appreciate Daemon
because Daemon sees far ahead, yes?
and indeed Camus
now moves to the matter of rocks
of which Daemon asked
at the very beginning
the essence of rocks, according to
Epicurus, the ancient
Greek philosopher is that
rocks do not feel pain
and the definition
well, a rock does not feel anything
but above all it does not feel pain
pain is the highest sensation - here
we return to Levinas, yes,
we had as we recall an episode about Levinas
we recall
that Levinas
claimed that
pain is the only
experience
which definitively proves that we exist
because - we used this
example...of course we mean physical pain...
yes - that is hurt
we used this example that
if
someone is going through emotional pain because
their relationship has fallen apart
then he can get through it and it might turn out
that his feeling wasn't real to begin with
that it was an illusion
but there is never such a thing as the illusion
of physical pain
and in this sense, Epicurus of course
defines human happiness
as a life which is to the maximum extent
free of pain
and this is why
in some sense the ideal
of Epicurianism is being
like a rock because a rock
feels no pain
and this is why, according to the Epicurians
and the Greek atomists
the end of our path is a return
to our original state as particles
and this is a kind of thinking according to which
we were once particles which coincidentially
came together
into a living and feeling being
conscious of pain and
not completely
knowing the purpose of its existence
and we should live in such a way
as to consciously move towards
the path which is our fate - namely
return to the state of
atoms
and this is why, according to Epicurus, the essence
quote: "the happy essence does not aim for anything"
Camus, writing about Epicurus
writes the following:
"it was the great and unceasing
effort of this
above average mind to
build walls around the human person
to strengthen the castle and blunt
out of the unconquered screams
of human hope"
please note
Epicurianism
which is a philosophy of happiness
is based upon silencing the screams of human hope
this is something completely
familiar to Camus
I invite listeners to
our previous episode on the subject of
the philosophy of the absurd
of Camus which
speaks to
the idea that hope
is in fact something evil
it is an escape from truth
and escape
into illusions which
give rise to only more pain
bitterness and disillusionment
and the Epicurian philosophy of happiness
which we most clearly associate with
the idea of the Epicurian garden
that is Epicurus
proposes to humanity that
it resigns from taking part in
that which
we consider to be
normal human life and to close ourselves
in our gardens
behind the walls which defend us
against hope that by taking part
in normal human affairs
might lead us towards some happiness
whereas Camus here
sums up Epicurianism in a sense
writing that
the comportment of Epicurus
uncovers
when intelligence discovers that
in order to free mankind from fate
means to give him up to chance
which is why he attempts to restore to man fate
albeit this time historical fate
that is
we seem to be moving away
we become like Monks
in a sense
so that
this world might not be
able to hurt us because we don't expect
anything from it
or plan anything
only then
we are surrendered to chance
ergo what remains is
something against which
we might be inclined to rebel
and because
we can not be saved by
the ancient philosophy of moderation
or faith in Christ as saviour
ergo in modern times
particularly when Camus wrote
it is the philosophy of history
which contains within itself the idea
of historical progress
which in a sense replaces
God the saviour with this vision that
though we will not experience Heaven
after death, humanity will experience
Heaven on Earth - if not
during our lifetime, then some time
some time
and this is the promise of history
which Camus of course
claims threatens us
it is an open question as to whether it still does?
Camus notes that
that which distinguishes the
metaphysical rebel
with the Old Testament idea of God
that is a personalised or
personal fate or universe against which
we rebel as it he is the father
of unhappiness
and Greek politheism
is that the Greeks
in reeling against their gods
aimed to achieve an equality
with their gods
while
not rebelling against - unless
we refer to Prometheus, yes?
they did not rebel
so fundamentally as the rebel who
conceptualises God
in the Judaic sense
and here we move to
something which Camus calls the first
rebellion
Cain
in the Old Testament, in the Book of Genesis
we find the story of Cain and Able
and Camus
here I even allowed myself
to look into the Book of Genesis
this is Genesis 4
/5
that's not how we say it
Genesis
Genesis
you have 4-5?
chapters 4 and 5
no, it's chapter 4 line 5 or something like that
verse?
Genesis 4:5 - this is from Deon
God looked upon Able
and upon his sacrifice
upon Cain, however, and his sacrifice
He did not wish to look upon
this saddened Cain greatly
he walked with a sad face
and for Camus
Cain rebelled
why did God
not wish to look upon his sacrifice?
why did He look upon his brother's sacrifice
but not upon Cain's sacrifice? this is indeed a kind of
primal, first rebellion
this is the essence of the metaphysical rebellion
why is the universe constructed in such a way
that no one looks upon my sacrifice?
and of course
to be clear
Camus is not a passionate enthusiast of this rebellion
Camus writes that the first
rebellion coincided with
the first crime
that is why, all the time this is
a feeling of
danger
which goes hand in hand
with certain hopes
awoken by the comportment of the rebel
and thus the teaching of Epicurus
and to some extent Camus' teaching
to perhaps accept the absurdity of the universe
and not follow the path of hope and rebellion
nevertheless
nevertheless, Camus indeed
teaching something which
is partially difficult for us
to accept
for Camus
the God of the Old Testament is perhaps
a just God
but this justice is
cruel
and
this is why
here we return to what Daemon said
in the beginning and what we talked about then
that you can  rebel against
death, cruelty and injustice
through faith in Christ and indeed Camus
writes that Christ comes
to solve the fundamental
of death and pain
which are born alongside the faith
in the Old Testament God
and here is a meaningful and beautiful quote
the night of Golgota
is of great meaning because
in the history of mankind
in that darkness, the essence of God
clearly dispensed with
traditional privileges
and experienced through to the end, the fear
of death and sorrow as well
this way one can explain Lama Sabachthani?
and the horrible doubt of Christ
in the moment of agony
the agony would be light
were it underpinned by eternal hope
in order for God to become Man
He must experience sorrow
He must, if even for a time, abandon all hope
this ending is my own addition
and
this in a sense ends this first part
of Camus' refections. He
indicates that
rebellion in the modern world is
above all possible only
because we reject
the divinity of Christ
because
if
the night of Golgota was not
God experiencing
in full the
death and suffering of man in order to defeat it
then, writes Camus
it turns out that Christ
was just one in a line of innocent victims
of an unjust universe and
he refers to - this is a beautiful quote
apropos - we started from saying that Camus wrote
that rebellion is not atheism, but rebellion is
heresy
Camus references Master Ekhart
who was
a Dominican who lived in the Middle Ages
who towards the end of his life
when he was accused
by the Grand Inquisition of heresy
God
saved him
from the situation by
having him die before
they were able to condemn him to death
and thanks to this in a sense
God saved the Church from embarrassment because
when
some decades ago there was an attempt to rehabilitate
Master Ekhart, the Vatican
concluded he cannot be rehabilitated because
he was never condemned for anything
so his reputation is without a blemish, however
Camus references
a quote of Master Eckhart
which is the following
"to love Christ
to be Christian means
that
I prefer to go to Hell with Christ
than the idea of a Heaven without Christ"
and what was Ekhart's point and why
does Camus reference this?
because
for Camus it is clear that Christ is a figure
who is fully good
fully virtuous
and He is good and virtuous because He loves
He loves in spite of
in spite of pain, sorrow
hopelessness - He loves to the end
and if
He is not God
then Master Ekhart says that
this is what distinguishes Christian faith
this is what distinguishes the Christian from
someone who
believes in some creator God but
not necessarily in Christ
the Christian so loves
the comportment of this person
that he sees it to be divine - and if he is wrong
and it is not divinity, then nevertheless
he remains faithful to Christ
this is why, according to Camus
in order for rebellion to continue
and the reason why rebellion continues
in the modern world
is because we do everything
possible to
separate Christ from God
because then
this entire suffering and evil
has no explanation
and the metaphysical rebellion continues
in the future
in the next - because this is not the end of this subject
Camus has much to
write about this subject
we will take up more modern
versions of rebellion because here we spoke about
antiquity, the Greeks, the philosophers
of Christianity an Judaism
and Greek mythology
that is the sources of rebellion in our culture
in the next episode, at least in this series
we'll discuss Camus' further thoughts
on this subject
and traditionally
we have not come to conclusions only
asked more questions
that said I would note
that again we see - to sum up at the end
I think again we see the great
influence
on the thought of Camus
with regard especially to Christianity
and rebellion that Dostoyevsky had
so certainly
in the future we should also
discuss Dostoyevsky
we'll dedicate a separate episode to him
to some themes from Brothers Karamazov
well, Daemon and I would like to thank you
we're happy you're watching us, please like us
every like makes us happy
and of course we invite you to comment
and see you in the next episode of the emigre humanist
