Comments

• Jared

  There seems to be a reccuring theme. Dostoyevsky also speculates about two plus two equals four. Dostoyevsky says that it is desirable think that two plus two equalls five, meaning that it is important to be romantic, meaning using your feelings against reason. Meanwhile, Camus says that occasionally the ration man falters.

  3/10/2009 12:26:56 PM
• Michael S.

  Excuse the length..."The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad." I absolutely agree with this quotation and am actually going to use it as the foundation of this response. Think back to the very beginning of the book when the authorities ignored the growing threats of the plague. Most would classify the plague as a perfect definition of evil and this evil was brought about, inevitably, as a result of ignorance. Despite man's ignorance, though, he is more good than bad. Clearly, ignorance is a common theme here! One thing that I would like to talk about is man's tragic flaw, which IS ignorance/pride. Counter acting to modesty, too much of either of these things leads to a bad ending. As a result of too much pride, man gets to learn a lesson. One question that I have been asking throughout this entire book so far is, "What is the point of this book? We already know, some more than others of course, what a terrible experience the plague must have been, and also the devastating and detrimental effects that the plague had on the human population, so what makes this book, although it is entertaining, any more relevant than any other book about death and disease?" My solution to this question is as follows: In order to keep the scale balanced, man must have an understanding of his good intentions, which is what the quotation is trying to convey. Man's good intentions are to keep the scale balanced, but man must have a reason and thorough understanding as to WHY he must maintain balance and have these good intentions and the point of this novel is to remind man of the struggle and turmoil that man had to face the last time that his pride outweighed his modesty. From Rambert and his struggle as to whether or not he should leave the plague and it's victims behind, to Castel and his challenging objective to create a serum, to the giant scope of the term "struggle," the fact that there is a plague that is virtually wiping out an entire population, the book clearly convinces man that this is not a desirable route. Thanks for reading if you did.

  3/11/2009 8:27:55 PM
• Kelsey

  Probably the strongest part of the book, I find, is when Rieux and Tarrou are talking about the plague and what needs to be done about it. After a long discussion, Tarrou finally stops and asks the doc., "Who taught you all this, doctor?" "Suffering" (118). That is the entire book in a nutshell. Suffering is the teacher to Rieux, the people of Oran, and anyone who choses the read this book. It shapes everything Camus tries to say. I have yet to find a better example.

  3/12/2009 10:44:28 AM
• Anna (the coolest!)

  Going back to what Jared was saying...this part reminded me so much of the book 1984, where, towards the end, they torture a man until he admits that 2 plus 2 equals 5. But the man has to believe it not just say it. In this case they use the breaking of reason for the breaking of man and man's will. What does this say about us? That without our reasoning, without our ability to have some measure of control and understanding of the world around us, we cannot be human? I agree with both Dostoyevsky (sorry for the spelling) and Camus, that there are times when reason only can fail, and that a world made only of logic can break man's spirit. Interesting that Orwell (1984) uses this same theory but twists it to make it work in the opposite direction. Which one is correct? I kind of lean both ways. I think my answer would be that the world cannot be only made of reason for reason fails, and when reason fails humanity is challenged by its own humanity. For example, the people experiencing the plague...good people, young and old, women and children, everyone without discrimination or consideration is dying. Where's the logic in this? The people here are experiencing a situation without logic and thus there humanity and civility is being challenged. Look at Lord of the Flies, for example.
  
  

  3/25/2009 12:47:39 PM
• Patrice

  I found Dr. Rieux's opinion of heroism to be the most optimistic view of humanity that Camus has given the reader thus far in this novel, and by far the least existential as I see it. In the previous section of reading the narrator declines from giving praise to those volunteers responsible for making up the sanitary groups as he thinks it will give the impression that doing good for one's fellow man is out of the ordinary and thus would show that "callousness and apathy are the general rule," (pg. 120). This coincides with what Dr. Rieux states about the effort that is being made by these groups, "there's no question of heroism in all this. It's a matter of common decency," (pg. 150). Rieux believes so much that man is more good than bad that he denies the existence of heroism even though he himself exhibits, by most people's standards, the very qualities of a hero. He makes it clear that he believes it is a matter of common decency and of one's responsibility to one's fellow man to make all possible efforts to help them. In my opinion this is quite different from the themes of man's ignorance and life's absurdity which are such vital points to the existentialist view in that it makes an argument for the goodness of mankind and the importance of a human connection. This optimistic view goes strictly against the existential idea that the effort made toward human connection is futile as it is absurd to attempt to know others as one knows ones self. Despite this Rieux believes in the importance of human connection. While an existential point of view would see Rieux's fight against the plague as absurd as it is "a never ending defeat," (pg. 118), Rieux and the narrator stress the importance of humanity's goodness without a need for heroes to fight what may be a losing fight.

  3/25/2009 5:03:11 PM