The Rebel

Jan 17, 2008 Eric rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: childhood

Although I've always been temperamentally skeptical of Utopias, I'm thankful to Camus for completely inoculating me, as a 15-year-old, against the various postures of chic revolt so common among the teenagers of bored, affluent nations. There was no silk-screened Che across my bosom. Revolutions aren't secular versions of the Rapture, in which the "bad" government disappears, to be replaced by a new, "good" one. Revolution is generally a social calamity, a nightmare of inhumanity: one regime dis...more

like 17 likes · see review

Mar 09, 2011 Venus rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: novel

کامو با انتشار رسالۀ «انسان طاغی» در سال ۱۹۵۱ راهش را از یاران پیشین خود در مکتب اگزیستانسیالیسم جدا کرد.او به رهنمودهای ایدئولوژیک بدگمان بود. وعده‌ی «فردای بهتر» را فریب و دروغ سیاستمداران می‌دانست.
کامو به «مصلحت» معتقد نبود. برای او اخلاق و سیاست یکی بود. در دوران تسلط آرمان‌های چپ، او به روشنفکران نهیب زد که رؤیاهای «ایدئولوژیک» تنها به یأس و ماتم منجر خواهد شد. نظام‌های تمامیت‌خواه از چپ و راست، با وعدۀ بهشت‌های واهی، روی زمین جهنم‌های واقعی به پا می‌کنند

like 4 likes · see review

Jul 20, 2007 Javier rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: collegeleisuretime, anarchism

I must confess that I didn't find much that was especially insightful in Camus' account of rebellion, revolution, and nihilism here while reading it, but now that I look back on it, I see that he actually has much to say--and that much of it is worthwhile.

Camus begins by defining the rebel as one who affirms by negating, who says yes in saying no--one who decries absolute freedom in establishing limits to acceptable behavior. He thus immediately counterposes the rebel with the nihilist, who, in...more I must confess that I didn't find much that was especially insightful in Camus' account of rebellion, revolution, and nihilism here while reading it, but now that I look back on it, I see that he actually has much to say--and that much of it is worthwhile.

Camus begins by defining the rebel as one who affirms by negating, who says yes in saying no--one who decries absolute freedom in establishing limits to acceptable behavior. He thus immediately counterposes the rebel with the nihilist, who, in denying that anything has meaning, valorizes a conception of life which is dominated by mere facts--power. He takes issue with revolutionary movements as they have existed in the twentieth century, claiming most of them to have betrayed the origins of rebellion by replacing it with an absolutist--even, totalitarian--ethic. He sees much to be respected in the efforts of the Russian 'revolutionaries' of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (a group from which he of course excludes Lenin), who rebelled against tsarism and tyranny often violently. Camus finds their nobility partly in the fact (which he posits) that these revolutionaries, unlike many of their counterparts of the twentieth century, were often quite consumed by doubt and engaged in murder and assassination only with much reluctance and much moderation. He laments, then, the disappearance of such doubt and moderation in the nihilism that gripped much of the twentieth century, nihilism that gave rise to the uncompromising ideology of Marxism-Leninism and, not unrelatedly, Nazism, and denounces its consequences.

Camus also roundly criticizes many of his intellectual contemporaries for their undying faith in Marxism, claiming, for one, that Marxism reproduces some of the central problems of religious faith (ie, in relegating justice, etc., to the "Later On," as he puts it--that is, post-capitalist society) and entails the negation of much that is defensible and good in humanity by reducing human obligation to the promotion of revolution. I think he's certainly on to something here, but I think his reading of Marx is also somewhat flawed, in that Camus seems to disregard Marx's concern with emancipation and free conscious activity in his efforts to discredit the approach of the "prophet of justice." Camus posits a different approach to social change, claiming that rebels/revolutionaries, in their efforts to combat injustice, should never lose sight of the importance of beauty within the conception of human dignity.

It seems that many so-called revolutionaries, though (probably more of the socialist-Marxist bent), would reject Camus' analysis as sentimental and, in fact, supportive of the status quo. Does Camus then break with the predominance of Marxist thought in his day and accept something close to anarchism? He certainly seems to reject revolutionary society (at least, the revolutions demonstrated thus far by history), but he remains highly critical of bourgeois society as well. Contemplating these tensions is crucially important, and Camus's The Rebel certainly represents an important contribution to this debate.(less)

like 7 likes · see review

Jan 27, 2009 Al Bità rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This is the sort of book that gives intellectuals a bad name. I approached it with some expectation as a book which looked seriously at the idea of the Rebel, but found out that in his 'history' of 'rebellious' events Camus quite deliberately defines the word to represent only what he wants it to mean, and conveniently dismisses any other views as either immaterial to his thesis, or as a subject for some other work.

I found myself disagreeing with just about ever second statement he makes. Camus...more This is the sort of book that gives intellectuals a bad name. I approached it with some expectation as a book which looked seriously at the idea of the Rebel, but found out that in his 'history' of 'rebellious' events Camus quite deliberately defines the word to represent only what he wants it to mean, and conveniently dismisses any other views as either immaterial to his thesis, or as a subject for some other work.

I found myself disagreeing with just about ever second statement he makes. Camus pontificates. He 'philosophises' his subject to within an inch of its life. He is presumptuous. And in the end I find him pretentious.

By calling this book an 'essay' (can a book of 270 pages really be called an 'essay'?) he can avoid the normal scholarly approach which would require appropriate references which one might follow up for oneself (or use them to 'check' whether Camus is interpreting them correctly) and he also doesn't need to provide an index (try to find out where in his 'essay' Camus' thoughts on a particular subject might be!)

The central argument appears to be that rebels and rebellions are always undertaken in order to improve or provide a more perfect world, but end up providing more of the same, sometimes even worse than before. One would think that this fits in with the general philosophy of nihilism with which Camus is associated. On the one hand Camus seems to be saying that rebels don't improve anything; and on the other hand, he seems to be saying that we really have no choice: a kind of 'rebellion for its own sake', so long as we don't make the 'mistake' of thinking that we will improve things when we do. One can't be more nihilistic than that... And in so doing, Camus gives succour, in my opinion, not so much to the rebels among us, as to those who dismiss rebels as mere trouble-makers, preferably to be contained and controlled as much as possible. This is probably one of the reasons that fundamentalist Christians, for example, might enjoy his 'demolition' of those 'rebels' he chooses to demolish, starting with the Enlightenment.

To be fair, perhaps Camus is responding in the only way possible to him to the sheer havoc and devastation of the two World Wars that effectively destroyed 'Europe' and pointed out the depravity that that civilisation, which considered itself to be the best and most superior the world had even seen, had descended to; and that somehow, that was a 'consequence' of the Enlightenment and the liberal thinkers it engendered. Be that as it may, my objection to this conclusion is that it is examined only by limiting his discourse to specific instances of 'rebellion', and by suggesting that such 'rebellions' are based on a desire to 'improve' the world.

It should be pointed out that 'rebellions' which set out to 'improve' anything are based, not so much on the Enlightenment, but on the promises made by Christianity that there is such a better world ('heaven') to which we might aspire, but which we might only achieve only after we are dead. This 'desire' for the Second Coming' of Jesus to usher in the New Millennium, where everything will be 'perfect' is the true cause for dissatisfaction in the people, especially those used and abused by the hierarchy of the Middle Ages. The 'promise' of the Enlightenment period merely posited that the old way of a dominant hierarchical theocratic society was NOT the only way one could live, and that something could be done OUTSIDE the constraints Mediaeval Society could offer.

Camus is useful is pointing out that revolutions based on such utopian dreams are bound to failure in the real world; but that does not mean that the benefits of reason, knowledge, science and technology (some of the children of the Englightenment) have, indeed, improved our way of life in ways which would be appreciated immensely by someone from the Middle Ages. One can argue about the extent of such 'progress', or indeed whether such things as radio, television, the automobile, education, medicine, surgery, etc etc are 'really' progress or not (after all, anything, anywhere, had both good and bad elements) but one cannot argue successfully that these things merely reiterate the evils they are supposed to replace.

All 'rebellions' which attempt to 'improve' things derive their impetus from religious sentiments based on the imagined reward proffered to the 'perfect' and the elite. It may even be 'true' that such rebellions, in searching for their perfection, end up being 'just as bad': but from the perspective of the rebels, in general, the people who are suffering are not the same as the ones who were suffering before. They may end up being just as immoral, and just as cruel and murderous, but they are doing it to someone else; it is not happening just to them. And it is here that I believe Camus misses the point. Rebels rebel to relieve themselves from an intolerable situation. They may well replace it with another type of intolerable situation, but it is in THEIR control, not the other way around. Further, they may well ultimately 'fail' in the 'other' objective of providing for a better world for themselves, but in reality, things after the rebellion HAVE changed. The world moves on to another phase.

Thus I believe the role of the rebel and of rebellion is just as much, if not primarily, motivated by the desire to remove pain and misery. It 'follows' that as a result, there is the hope that things will improve, but to say that rebels are motivated only to 'improve' the situation is simplistic to say the least. Certainly, Camus has 'shown' us that such 'objectives' may result only in 'failure', but that failure is a relative concept.

While ever there is injustice, unfairness, abuse, poverty, etc then whenever these things become unbearable, rebels will arise whose first concern is to minimise that unbearability, whether or not the result is overall 'better' than before.

(less)

like 3 likes · see review

view all 8 comments

Al Bità Dear Jim

Thanks for your input. Your comments on the historical importance of 'The Rebel' are, of course, most relevant; and perhaps reading the book w...more Dear Jim

Thanks for your input. Your comments on the historical importance of 'The Rebel' are, of course, most relevant; and perhaps reading the book within this context may even be essential. I would even go so far as to suggest that all "apologists" for ANY 'ism' should be made aware of the futility of their work in trying to justify their 'improving' of humanity.

I suppose it is just my peculiar streak of anarchy that tends to find the work of 'rebels' more important than their apologists (I think I have a sneaking admiration for rebels: they seem to represent that somewhat admirable quality of humanity which refuses to succumb to the tyranny of those who wish to control or dominate it).

Perhaps what we need today is a contemporary Camus who will take on the isms of our modern world (taking on the apologists for postmodernism might be a good start!). My cynicism (perhaps derived from Camus' influence?) tells me that it won't do much good (after all, the apologists for religion seem to go on thriving despite millennia of criticism) but I defend all those who continue to rebel against any external imposition of ideas through power. The work of the apologists for the rebels is not as important as there being rebels (those who continue to reveal that the emperors have no clothes) in the first place. This is, of course, what Camus himself did; so he is a true 'rebel' in that sense. I am aware of the paradoxical problem this creates; but this itself is a general criticism I find against such circular 'philosophising' about paradoxes. I just feel that the (necesssary, considering the time of its writing) restrictions of Camus' criticisms limits the work's pertinence to one of specific historical import. I may be unfair in saying this, but that is the impression the book left with me.

I still maintain that the rebel will always remain wherever there are human beings in groups, and more power to them; criticising the work of apologists who try to see some 'good' in the consequences of rebellious actions seems by comparison besides the point.

Once again, though, thanks for your input. Placing a work in context does help other readers see a different side to a complex human 'problem', and that can only be good!(less)
Jul 24, 2009 02:18am

Tommy Great comment stream! This has been on my bookshelf for a while now, and I've never gotten around to starting it. On a whim I looked this up while dec...more
Aug 10, 2009 12:02pm

Sep 05, 2007 Jen rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

this was way harder to read than it should have been for someone who a] actually likes camus, b] is fascinated by social movement theory, and c] has nothing to do on the train but read. however, i found myself putting it down to stare out the window far too often to say i really enjoyed it. he seemed almost too self-conscious about his own theory - and too hung up on other people's theories - to really make it a compelling read.

like 5 likes · see review

Dec 20, 2012 Leonard rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

In The Rebel, Albert Camus, the master of existentialism, analyzed the spirit of rebellion from the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution. The Jacobins, rebelled against King and God and by making their principles divine, introduced the Reign of Terror.
Nihilism went further and eliminated absolute principles and its rise during the second half of the nineteenth century created terrorists who renounced virtue and principles and who rebelled against reality and history by destroying them. F...more

like 3 likes · see review

Apr 09, 2011 محمود أغيورلي rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

الانسان المتمرد - ألبير كامي -
------
ثمة جرائم ترتكب بدافع الهوى .. واخرى استنادا الى محاكمات عقلية .. ان مجموعة القوانين الجزائية تميز بينهما تميزا ملائما الى حد كاف .. إستنادا الى مبدأ سبق التصور والتصميم .. وانا لفي زمان سبق التصور والتصميم .. في زمان الجريمة الكاملة .. فلم يعد مجرمونا هؤلاء الاطفال العزل يتذرعون بالحب انهم بالعكس راشدون .. ولا سبيل الى دحض ذريعتهم : الفلسفة التي تُستخدم لكل شيء ؛ حتى لتكويل القتلة الى قضاة
-----
ان التمرد ينشأ عن مشهد انعدام المنطق امام وضع جائر مستغلق ولكن ت...more

like 2 likes · see review

Nov 11, 2008 J. rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: nerds like me

On metaphysical rebellion...and the only section I have read so far:

Camus' study of the revolting man appropriately begins with man's rebellion against god...or, more accurately, man's rebellion against the notion of god. To Camus, the root of such metaphysical rebellion lies w/ man's growing opposition to the nature of his existence. On the surface, man opposes the existence of suffering and death. Dig a bit deeper and find that, more precisely stated, man opposes meaningless suffering and deat...more On metaphysical rebellion...and the only section I have read so far:

Camus' study of the revolting man appropriately begins with man's rebellion against god...or, more accurately, man's rebellion against the notion of god. To Camus, the root of such metaphysical rebellion lies w/ man's growing opposition to the nature of his existence. On the surface, man opposes the existence of suffering and death. Dig a bit deeper and find that, more precisely stated, man opposes meaningless suffering and death. Creation is imperfect and fallible..even horrible...down right fucked up. Such a monstrocity could not be the work of an almighty deity...or so the logic goes. Ivan Karamazov (Of Dostoevsky"s The Brothers Karamazov) goes so far as to proclaim that even if there were a god behind the whole scene, he would condemn him, proclaim him and his creation unjust.

The problem w/ the work of the metaphysical rebels is w/ how quickly the condemnation of the existence of atrocity leads to a social order which justifies the very same atrocity. "Nothing is" swiftly becomes "all is justified."

Enter Nietzsche. When Nietzsche showed on the philosophical underground, metaphysical rebellion and atheist sentiment was old news. Thus, Nietzsche's proclamation "God is dead" acts less as an assault on religion and more as a matter-of-fact assessment of the state of intellectual thought at the time. Nietzsche opposes Christianity, and religion in general, only in so far as it represents morality. For Nietzsche, the great folly of all philosophy before him was its attempt to bottle and package morality. Morality condemns the world as it is, in preference of an imaginary future world. Morality, any morality, either denies or fails to see, what is. Nietzsche's remedy: amor fati..."A Dionysian affirmation of the world as it is, without subtraction exception or selection." For Nietzsche man must live as the artist...w/o a divine creator, man becomes creator. He creates his own life. The only good is to create the most epic, grand existence possible...

For Camus', the error of Nietzsche is his susceptibility to passive acceptance. Such passivity is not Nietzschean philosophy. However, one can comprehend such misinterpretation. W/ this in mind, and in the wake of the atrocities of early 20th century Germany, we must, according to Camus, becomes advocates of Nietzsche.

(less)

like 1 like · see review

Nov 25, 2007 Clear_enGlish rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Thinkers

Shelves: politics-philos-ethics

Oh wow, that was an exciting trip. I feel like I've just spent the last few weeks driving at high speed through the desert in an unsuitable vehicle.
I got lost a few times, misplaced my map, ran out of water and my vehicle broke down almost every day; sometimes I feared that I'd never find my way out of the wilderness (or to the end of the chapter). There were some frightening experiences, a bumpy ride (I feel mentally beaten up) and occasional views of the big picture (more beautiful, breathtaki...more Oh wow, that was an exciting trip. I feel like I've just spent the last few weeks driving at high speed through the desert in an unsuitable vehicle.
I got lost a few times, misplaced my map, ran out of water and my vehicle broke down almost every day; sometimes I feared that I'd never find my way out of the wilderness (or to the end of the chapter). There were some frightening experiences, a bumpy ride (I feel mentally beaten up) and occasional views of the big picture (more beautiful, breathtaking, scary and profound than I had imagined).

Albert Camus was very worried by the course of Russian Communism when he wrote this book in 1951. Many Western thinkers of the day seemed to be instinctively drawn to communism and the contemporary Russian experience.
Many overlooked the “Terror” and mentally excused the Russian elites authoritarian repression and murder of it's own citizenry.
Camus worked from first principles trying to understand what was so obviously immoral and why the Revolution was so murderous.
We are taken on a tour of Rebellion and Revolution... the thoughts, mental constructs, “principles” and history. We meet key players and thinkers from history. We visit historical revolutions and mull over their aftermaths, comparing and contrasting and trying to comprehend why they comprehensively loose their way and end up oppressing the very people that give them their only legitimacy.

This was not an easy read for me, if I was to try to properly follow Camus' reasoning I had to take side trips to other books and the internet to get a handle on characters and concepts. Camus wrote this at a pretty high level and directed it at the high flying intellectuals of the day, intellectual shorthand that Camus threw onto the page in a sentence took me hours (or days in some cases) to understand.

What did I get from this experience?
Well, it boils down to something that is a great philosophy for life.
If you believe anything so strongly that you want to make others understand, then you will end up oppressing, coercing and murdering. If you believe anything founded on unshakeable principles and follow it to its logical conclusion, then you will end up oppressing, coercing and murdering.
Don't force your world view on others, live morally, don't hurt others, be strong in defence of the weak, if you are strong be gentle, if you are gentle be strong. If it feels wrong then it probably is.

I found this a difficult but worthwhile book. Your mileage may differ.(less)

like 4 likes · see review

Wayne Really enjoyed reading about your journey with and through this book.
And your very wise conclusion is a balanced and humane one.
I will keep your revie...more
Jan 31, 2009 06:17pm

Clear_enGlish Wayne wrote: "Really enjoyed reading about your journey with and through this book.
And your very wise conclusion is a balanced and humane one.
I will k...more
Feb 01, 2009 01:47pm

Wayne Clear_enGlish wrote: "Wayne wrote: "Really enjoyed reading about your journey with and through this book.
And your very wise conclusion is a balanced a...more
Feb 01, 2009 05:50pm

May 29, 2007 Renée rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: those who like to think

Shelves: philosophy, favourites

Although Camus is remembered more as a literary author than a philosopher, I think this work is fantastic. It's influenced me and my thinking more than any other author (apart from perhaps Nietzsche and George Steiner). Because Camus is such a wonderful author it is also not a particularely difficult read, as opposed to, say, Sartre's philosophical works (I do like Being and Nothingness, but he's really overdoing it), which makes it accessible for those who have not been educated in philosophy a...more

like 8 likes · see review

Sep 15, 2007 Brendan rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: existentialist philosophy, revolution

i think camus' ambitions far outdistanced his abilities in this work. he's a great novelist, but not really a philosopher. this book seems to be an attempt to place himself alongide of sartre in french philosophy of his time. camus attempts to create a coherent philosophical system to address revolution and it just comes across as ramblings. the book doesn't make much sense and isn't really any good. camus addresses the human condition much more effectively in his novels and the myth of sysyphus...more

like 2 likes · see review

Mar 15, 2013 A.J. rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: religion-philosophy

On page 303 of Albert Camus's windy, long-form essay on the nature of rebellion, the failures of religion, Nihilism and Marxism, he approaches the point:

"Man can master in himself everything that should be mastered. He should rectify in creation everything that can be rectified. And after he has done so, children will still die unjustly even in a perfect society. Even by his greatest effort man can only propose to diminish arithmetically the sufferings of the world. But the injustice and the su...more On page 303 of Albert Camus's windy, long-form essay on the nature of rebellion, the failures of religion, Nihilism and Marxism, he approaches the point:

"Man can master in himself everything that should be mastered. He should rectify in creation everything that can be rectified. And after he has done so, children will still die unjustly even in a perfect society. Even by his greatest effort man can only propose to diminish arithmetically the sufferings of the world. But the injustice and the suffering of the world will remain and, no matter how limited they are, they will not cease to be an outrage. Dimitri Karamazov's cry of 'Why?' will continue to resound; art and rebellion will die only with the last man."

My gripe with this book has less to do with any specific disagreement with its content than an inability to justify why Camus needed three hundred pages to state the obvious. I'm aware the danger of this critique lurks in anachronism or an under appreciation for philosophy in general. For me, the mark of genius is not only the possession of knowledge, though that's a part of it. It's the ability to transmit that knowledge in a way that illuminates something about the universe––and to do it in a coherent, timely fashion (i.e. utility). I'll bet students working on an MA in philosophy might get some miles out of this. For the rest of us, try a Kindle Single.

As I waded section to section, it usually felt like I understood the basic point. How the sprawling asides fit together is anyone's guess; Camus has much love for the trees but very little for the forest. He will rarely if ever reiterate a point, or demonstrate how it in conjunction with a previous subject advances his thesis. This kind of obfuscation is typical of academic writing, a mutated subset of Standard English someone (I think it might have been David Foster Wallace, or if not, it should have been) called Academicese. You'll be hanging on to the bloated prose by your fingernails when all of the sudden you'll hit a sinkhole like:

"A revolutionary action which wishes to be coherent in terms of its origins should be embodied in an active consent to the relative. It would express fidelity to the human condition. Uncompromising as to its means, it would accept an approximation as far as its ends are concerned and, so that the approximation should become more and more accurately defined, it would allow absolute freedom of speech. Thus it would preserve the common existence that justifies its insurrection." -The Rebel 290

What, if anything, the above passage is meant to convey is, as before, anyone's guess. And if there is some enlightened soul out there who can offer a simple explanation, please do, but expect my ready reply: "Why didn't Camus say that?"

I have a soft spot for absurdism but a very limited understanding of Camus, which in spite of everything I hope to fix. In fairness, there are some very profound moments in this work, mostly when Al lets himself go a little and serves his philosophizing with a side of the transcendent. These occasional moments of illumination are almost worth the slog.

"The world is divine because the world is inconsequential. That is why art alone, by being equally inconsequential, is capable of grasping it. It is impossible to give a clear account of the world, but art can teach us to reproduce it––just as the world reproduces itself in the course of its eternal gyrations. The primordial sea indefatigably repeats the same words and casts up the same astonished beings on the same seashore. But at least he who consents to his own return and to the return of all things, who becomes and echo and an exalted echo, participates in the divinity of the world." -The Rebel 73

(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Jan 06, 2011 Keiron Curtis rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is one of the most intellectually demanding, starkly original and enthralling books of any genre, from specialised academic paper to the Anglo-Gaelic-Gallic circumnavigation of Finnegan’s Wake I have ever had privilege to read. A sure sign of its potent impact, its enduring legacy and appeal, I have just realised, requires no more than a cursory glance at the above first sentence, home to my suddenly-developed-therein, reverting to overly-dramatic language. All this in vain tried, in an att...more

like 1 like · see review

Jul 21, 2009 Jim Coughenour rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: essaysforautodidacts, thinkingcap

I admit – when I first picked up The Rebel in this artful Penguin edition, I was picturing beatniks with berets and cigarettes contesting over existentialist espressos about the absurdity of man and the imperative to resist. Instead I found myself pounding through pages of difficult, beautifully-phrased polemic, never quite sure what was being argued for or against. It's not so much that Camus meanders as that he seems to take a very long, philosophical-historical route to reach the most obvious...more

like 2 likes · see review

Feb 22, 2011 Jason rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed, french

The Rebel is a series of philosophic examinations of rebellion, which is a bit on the unusual side for Camus. I'm more familiar with him relying on creative narrative as a means to stir the critical faculties of his reader, leaving ambiguity intact. There's the rub: every time I read something about rebellion, I can never convince myself to trust the author. I think received ideology is an act of supreme immaturity.

Idly I think that Camus might have been pleased at my reaction to this book, name...more

like · see review

Mar 31, 2011 David Spencer rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: best

This might be the best book I've ever read. I need to re-read my top 3 (of which The Myth of Sisyphus was already one) to assess this. I can't even formulate a review right now, I'm just so blown away. I wept reading this, I had soaring moments of hope and wonder...I feel like it's changed my life, changed my mind, and reinforced in me a desire to live authentically. And, like all the greatest books, it has given me the tools to do that even better than I already was. This review will be deleted...more

like · see review

Jul 22, 2007 Jonathan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Very dense. The kind of book that you really need to concentrate on to understand it. Best read in a quiet place. Also, helps if you know French history. Still, very enlightening intellectually.

like 2 likes · see review

Nov 23, 2009 Kirk rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I really liked The Rebel. (And it is made even better by reading the Myth of Sisyphus)

This novel builds off of Camus' developing notion of the absurd, and represents a transition from individual to social responsibilities via artistic creation. His point of departure in the piece is justified murder. The author continues to critique ideas that embrace a sort of historical purpose or unity, like Marxism and historical materialism, eventually endorsing the idea that unity comes from artistic creat...more

like · see review

Sep 17, 2009 Tommy rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This book took me a while to read. At times there were great points but these were spread out with complex - at times overly wordy - thoughts and condemnations of obscure - to me at least - historical revolutionary characters that had me logging extra hours on wikipedia. This was altogether tiring and detracted from the work. I don't think he's a great philosopher and don't think it's aged too well, but I realize how the times he lived in and things he experienced would have pushed him to feel a...more

like 1 like · see review

May 04, 2009 Eric rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: Anyone interested in social change

Recommended to Eric by: ?

Each time I go back to this book, it's as though I never read it. Yes, it does say that the refusal to be complicit in oppression -- one's own or anyone else's -- is a prerequisite to true liberty. It discusses the ultimate futility of the drive to power for its own sake, as exemplified in the thought of the Marquis de Sade -- all ideas that fascinated me upon first reading it and which have stuck with me since. But there's much, much more. . . Good as it reads in the Anthony Bower translation,...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 16, 2009 John Huizar rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Incredible discussions of Sade, Robespierre, Saint-Just, Marx, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Lenin, Hitler, and more, scattered throughout a historical overview of revolution from an existentialist perspective. Camus warns of the dangers of 'metaphysical rebellion' when a revolution loses its way: it is easy to go from warring against your condition as a slave (material and political inequality) to warring against your condition as a human being (mortality, suffering, lack of meaning, etc). As usual, C...more

like · see review

Feb 25, 2011 Wealhtheow rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I hated the Stranger, but found the Rebel rather easier to engage with. Perhaps it was the lack of faux-narrative. Perhaps I'm just older and wiser. There are sections here that read more like Wilde than philosophy--more focused on writing cute witticisms than exposing the truth of the world--but it's nevertheless an interesting collection of thoughts. I've found it useful in explaining how non-theists can have a sense of morality, a concept that is strangely difficult for many people of my acqu...more

like 2 likes · see review

Jan 15, 2013 Matthew Quest added it · review of another edition

Albert Camus's The Rebel is an amazing book. It is not an easy read, thought it begins in an accessible way. Discussing rebellion in historical and philosophical terms, it begins with his existential "all or nothing" premise. That the enslaved or alienated must choose to live.

But then he takes the reader on a journey in the history of philosophy and historical revolutions. In concise anecdotes, covering the French Revolution to the Russian Revolutions, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Nietzsche, T...more

like · see review

Feb 01, 2013 Maria Stancheva rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Прочетох яяяя! Най-трудната за разбиране книга, която е попадала в ръцете ми. Много ми хареса,след първоначалния шок и свикването с мисълта, че няма да разбера всичко, а за осмисляне остана още по-малък процент.
Камю прави невероятни паралели и всяка страница бъка от енциклопедични познания, които не са представени като просто изреждане факти за мислители, произведения, школи, течения във философията, изобразителното изкуство, музиката, математиката и изобщо каквато сфера от човешкото познание с...more

like · see review

Dec 16, 2012 Jonathon rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Jesus, I have never read someone who contradicts himself so much. The rebel actually is the one who wants to be enslaved the most??? What the fuck is this dude talking about?? I get tid bits here and there of this shit, but clearly I am not trained in the art of philosophy; Im trained in the art of being a lazy asshole who bitches about famous books and is jealous because he knows deep down in his dark, withered heart, he will never amount to anything. With this said, I cant stop reading this fu...more

like · see review

Aug 21, 2012 Jeruen Dery rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I rarely read non-fiction. And when I do, sometimes I hate it, sometimes I like it. No surprise there. But sometimes, I wonder, what did the author eat to allow him to write prose like this?

The Rebel makes me think about this, big time. Really, what did Albert Camus eat that pushed him toward writing a dissertation about rebellion? Because seriously, this is heavy-duty brain work.

The Rebel tackles the issue of rebellion and revolution, from various angles. It begins with tackling it from a meta...more I rarely read non-fiction. And when I do, sometimes I hate it, sometimes I like it. No surprise there. But sometimes, I wonder, what did the author eat to allow him to write prose like this?

The Rebel makes me think about this, big time. Really, what did Albert Camus eat that pushed him toward writing a dissertation about rebellion? Because seriously, this is heavy-duty brain work.

The Rebel tackles the issue of rebellion and revolution, from various angles. It begins with tackling it from a metaphysical level, where he deconstructs Sade and other writers. I wasn't a big fan of this section. After that, however, he tackles historical rebellion, mostly from the European perspective. He discusses how the French Revolution of 1789 was rather exceptional, because the people didn't just want to kill Louis XVI and replace him with another king, but the people wanted to kill Louis XVI and replace monarchy altogether.

There is an important difference between the two, which he brilliantly points out. In the first scenario, people would still believe in monarchy, in the idea that the king is divinely appointed and has the right to rule the people. However, by eliminating the monarchy altogether, that was an instance of rebellion, and therefore was more important and significant. I tend to agree, by doing so, the people have proved that they were willing to think outside the box and move on, progress, and change.

I also liked the section where Camus discusses Communism, from the context of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. I liked Camus' treatment of Communism, in the sense that this is a failed rebellion. Camus points out that Communism is in essence a Utopian idea, as Marx failed to comprehend the human nature of being inherently selfish. For Marx, he wanted a classless society, where everyone in theory can do any type of work. But with the advent of technology, that was not possible. There will emerge a subset of people who have more skills than others. There will be people who will manage, oversee, and direct other people. In short, there will still be the divide between managers and workers, and social class will still exist. By trying to eliminate that, Marx was simply delusional. Camus correctly pointed that out.

The last section dealt with rebellion in art. This part I did not like as much. I felt that Camus was at times appropriating ideas to artists, when he had no way of checking whether the artists actually felt or thought that way. How can he know that they were indeed producing those works of art in the spirit of rebellion?

Anyway, this book impressed me. It made me wonder how there can be people who spend a lot of time thinking about issues like these. For me, I read The Rebel just as entertainment, but there are people, like philosophers, who spend their whole lives working with these ideas and making a career out of it. I don't think I can do that with this topic.

So there, I read another non-fiction work. I give it 3 out of 5 stars.

See my other book reviews here.(less)

like · see review

Apr 14, 2012 Chris added it · review of another edition

A few pages in, I realized I was over my head with references to Marquis de Sade, Nietzche, Hegel, and then a bunch of philosophers I've never heard of. Naively, I thought I'd pick it up as I went along. WRONG.

I made my way through it because I'm stubborn (and I loved "The Stranger" so much!!!!!). First I made a rule that I couldn't read any other fun books until I finished this. Not surprisingly, that rule didn't exactly have a motivational effect. Fearing that I may never read for pleasure ag...more

like · see review

Nov 04, 2009 Henry added it · review of another edition

Shelves: psychology

more and more despair. even his conclusion, which he titles "Beyond Nihilism," is so very nihilistic in that its only hope is in limitations and moderation (reactionary to the extremes of nihilism), which doesn't actually mean anything but more relativity:

"At this meridian of thought, the rebel thus rejects divinity in order to share in the struggles and destiny of all men. We shall choose Ithaca, the faithful land, frugal and audacious thought, lucid action, and the generosity of the man who un...more more and more despair. even his conclusion, which he titles "Beyond Nihilism," is so very nihilistic in that its only hope is in limitations and moderation (reactionary to the extremes of nihilism), which doesn't actually mean anything but more relativity:

"At this meridian of thought, the rebel thus rejects divinity in order to share in the struggles and destiny of all men. We shall choose Ithaca, the faithful land, frugal and audacious thought, lucid action, and the generosity of the man who understands. In the light, the earth remains our first and our last love. Our brothers are breathing under the same sky as we; justice is a living thing. [. . .:] All may indeed live again, side by side with the martyrs of 1905, but on condition that it is understood that they correct one another, and that a limit, under the sun, shall curb them all. Each tells the other that he is not God; this is the end of romanticism. At this moment, when each of us must fit an arrow to his bow and enter the lists anew, to reconquer, within history and in spite of it, that which he owns already, the thin yield of his fields, the brief love of this earth, at this moment when at last a man is born, it is time to forsake our age and its adolescent furies. The bow bends; the wood complains. At the moment of supreme tension, there will leap into flight an unswerving arrow, a shaft that is inflexible and free."

couched in the eloquence is a despair and contrary attempt to celebrate the repetition and thus nullification of all things. the cases of historical and metaphysical rebellion in the book demonstrate the supreme tension that now causes our release toward a moderation somewhere in the middle (who can imagine the world allowing another Hitler ever again?), but that Camus ends here without indicating to what the arrow points unswervingly is indicative of his having no answer and of his hope being only illusory or yet unguessed.

on an unrelated note, though, I found this passage about the appeal of novels as rebellion (and not escapism) particularly edifying and articulate:

"The contradiction is this: man rejects the world as it is, without accepting the necessity of escaping it. In fact, men cling to the world and by far the majority do not want to abandon it. Far from always wanting to forget it, they suffer, on the contrary, from not being able to possess it completely enough, estranged citizens of the world, exiled from their own country. Except for vivid moments of fulfillment, all reality for them is incomplete."(less)

like · see review

Nov 03, 2009 Matt rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Thus the rebel can never find peace…His only virtue will lie in never yielding to the impulse to allow himself to be engulfed in the shadows that surround him and in obstinately dragging the chains of evil, with which he is bound, toward the light of good. pg. 285-286

Camus is far from a rigorous logician. The Rebel gives the illusion of structure, but tends to float among ideas. Within each paragraph, Camus writes passionately and methodically though the book as a whole lacks a general cohesiv...more

Thus the rebel can never find peace…His only virtue will lie in never yielding to the impulse to allow himself to be engulfed in the shadows that surround him and in obstinately dragging the chains of evil, with which he is bound, toward the light of good. pg. 285-286

Camus is far from a rigorous logician. The Rebel gives the illusion of structure, but tends to float among ideas. Within each paragraph, Camus writes passionately and methodically though the book as a whole lacks a general cohesiveness.

However, this stylistic flaw matches well with Camus’ ideas. Methodical, plodding, logic is part of what Camus is in rebellion against. Without reaching into religious sentiment, Camus seeks to tap the inherent positive impulse in humanism to counteract the self-destructive, self-glorification, nihilistic thinking of the early 20th century.

How to live without grace-that is the question that dominates the ninteenth century. “By justice,” answered all those who did not want to accept absolute nihilism… But the [Utopian:] kingdom has retreated into the distance, gigantic wars have ravaged the oldest countries of Europe, the blood of rebels has bespattered walls, and total justice has approached not a step nearer. The question of the twentieth century… has gradually been specified: how to live without grace and without justice. Only nihilism, and not rebellion, has answered that question. pg. 225

Camus reacts to the horrors that logic will permit. The rationalized murders of revolutionaries and States. Camus seeks something more holistic in humanity other than the one-dimensional attribute of nihilistic based reason. He taps into the impulse which I equate with what Chomsky termed years later as our “instinct for freedom.”

But this instinct for freedom is not the juvenile freedom of nihilist anarchy. “Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other.” pg. 291. This appreciation for freedom has no logical foundation. It is a belief Camus holds for himself and humanity despite its ultimate absurd consequences.

“What is a rebel?” Camus asks in the opening lines.

“A man who says no, but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes, from the moment he makes his first gesture of rebellion… Thus the movement of rebellion is founded simultaneously on the categorical rejection of an intrusion that is considered intolerable and on the confused conviction of an absolute right which, in the rebel’s mind, is more precisely the impression that he “has the right to…”pg. 13

To define this “confused conviction”, the book meanders from the Promethean rebellion of Greek drama, through Christian founding and the rebellion against Christianity by Sade, then the Romantics, proceeding to those rebelling against State royalty and subsequently Rousseau’s civil faith. The nature of Camus’ modern rebel becomes apparent as he strives to overcome the insatiable self-indulgence of Nietzche and the twisted Marxist ideals institutionalizing itself in the eastern Communist states. Rebellion is distinguished from the ambitions of revolution. Camus rejects the historical reasoning employed by revolutions that seek to establish some historically dictated end. Rebellion serves as a creative force whereas revolution seeks total submission to its goals. “Rebellion’s demand is unity; historical revolution’s demand is totality.” pg. 251. The rebel does not seek to establish a new world order. The rebel only seeks to carve out a world in which to maximize his or her individual creative capacity and not infringe on others.

The Rebel’s indictment of nihilism may be easily dismissed as pseudo-intellectualism lacking the force of reasoned conviction. But for those drawn to Camus, the appeal rests in his recognition that our human experience consists in more than mere stale logical connections and rationality without subordinating oneself to religious mystification. The draw of recognizing our own power while recognizing the need for humility. As Camus ends:

“They…give us as an example the only original rule of life today: to learn to live and to die, and, in order to be a man, to refuse to be a god.

At this meridian of thought, the rebel thus rejects divinity in order to share in the struggles and destiny of all men. We shall choose Ithaca, the faithful land, frugal and audacious thought, lucid action, and the generosity of the man who understands. In the light, the earth remains our first and last love. Our brothers are breathing under the same sky as we; justice is a living thing. pg. 306

(less)

like · see review

Mar 12, 2010 Jason Williams rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: consciousness, macrohistory-and-theory

I feel like The Rebel turned out more academic than Camus originally had in mind. But I also feel like this is an important part of literary culture that transcends the absurd 'iron curtain' mentality that was often made to characterize the world that produced Camus's writing. He's so much more interesting and nuanced than Sartre, and much more difficult to pigeonhole, which The Rebel demonstrates clearly. He also sets a great many readers straight--both right- and left-of-center--on what Marx's...more

like · see review

title link	preview: The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt
avg rating	preview: The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt Goodreads rating: 4.07 (3870 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13590154-the-rebel?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1333987278l/13590154.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13590154-the-rebel?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt by Albert Camus[/url]

The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (41)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Albert Camus

Books by Albert Camus

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About El Hombre Rebelde

Quotes from The Rebel: An Essay on...