Socrates
2013-04-13 04:21:58 UTC
"Mankind’s common instinct for reality has always held the world to be
essentially a theater for heroism." William James
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters
of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods."
Arthur Schopenhauer
Metaphysical (intellectual-philosophical) rebellion is the movement by
which man protests against his condition and against the whole of
creation. It is metaphysical because it contests the ends of man and of
creation.
The slave protests against the condition in which he finds himself
within his state of slavery; the metaphysical rebel protests against the
condition in which he finds himself as a man. The rebel slave affirms
that there is something in him that will not tolerate the manner in
which his master treats him; the metaphysical rebel declares that he is
frustrated by the universe. For both of them, it is not only a question
of pure and simple negation.
In both cases, in fact, we find a value judgment in the name of which
the rebel refuses to approve the condition in which he finds himself.
The slave who opposes his master is not concerned, let us note, with
repudiating his master as a human being. He repudiates him as a
/master/. He denies that he has the right to deny him, a slave, on
grounds of necessity. The master is discredited to the exact extent
that he fails to respond to a demand which he ignores. If men cannot
refer to a common value, recognized by all as existing in each one, then
man is incomprehensible to man. The rebel demands that this value
should be clearly recognized in himself because he knows or /suspects/
that, without this principle, crime and disorder would reign throughout
the world. An act of rebellion on his part seems like a demand for
clarity and unity.
The most elementary form of rebellion, paradoxically, expresses an
aspiration to order.
This description can be applied, word for word, to the metaphysical
rebel. He attacks a shattered world in order to demand unity from it.
He opposes the principle of justice which he finds in himself to the
principle of /injustice/ which he sees being applied in the world.
Thus, all he wants, /originally/, is to resolve this contradiction and
establish the Unitarian reign of justice, if he can, or of injustice if
he is driven to extremes. Meanwhile, he denounces the contradiction.
Metaphysical rebellion is a claim, motivated by the concept of a
complete unity, against the suffering of life and death and a protest
against the human condition both for its incompleteness, (thanks to
death), and its wastefulness, thanks to evil.
If a mass death sentence defines the human condition, then rebellion, in
one sense, is its contemporary.
At the same time that he rejects his mortality, the rebel refuses to
recognize the power that compels him to live in this condition. The
metaphysical rebel is therefore not definitely an atheist, as one might
think him, but he is inevitably a blasphemer.
Quite simply, he blasphemes primarily in the name of order, denouncing
God as the father of death and as the supreme outrage. The rebel slave
will help us throw light on this point. He established, by his protest,
the existence of the master against whom he rebelled.
But at the same time he demonstrated that his master’s power was
dependent on his own subordination and he affirmed his own power: the
power of continually questioning the superiority of his master. In this
respect, the master and the slave are really in the same boat: the
temporary sway of the former is as relative as the submission of the
latter. The two forces assert themselves alternately at the moment of
rebellion until they confront each other for a fight to the death, and
one or the other [temporarily] disappears.
In the same way, if the metaphysical rebel ranges himself against a
power whose existence he simultaneously affirms, he only admits the
existence of this power at the very instant that he calls it into
question. Then he involves this superior being in the same humiliation
adventure as mankind’s, its ineffectual power being the equivalent of
our ineffectual condition. He subjects it to our power of refusal,
bends it to the unbending part of human nature, forcibly integrates it
into an existence that we render absurd, and finally drags it from its
refuge outside time and involves it in history, very far from the
eternal stability that it can find only in the unanimous submission of
all men.
Thus, rebellion affirms that, on its own level, any concept of superior
existence is contradictory.
And so the history of metaphysical rebellion cannot be confused with
that of atheism. From a certain point of view it is even confused with
the contemporary history of religious sentiment. The rebel /defies/
more that he denies. Originally, at least, he does not suppress God; he
merely talks to Him as an equal. But it is not a polite dialogue. It
is a polemic animated by the desire to conquer.
The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a
crown. He must dominate in his turn. His insurrection against his
condition becomes an unlimited campaign against the heavens for the
purpose of bringing back a captive king who will first be dethroned and
finally condemned to death.
Human rebellion ends in metaphysical revolution. It progresses from
appearances to acts, from the dandy to the revolutionary. When the
throne of God is overturned, the rebel realizes that it is now his own
responsibility to create the justice, order, and unity that he sought in
vain within his own condition, and in this way to justify the fall of
God. Then begins the desperate effort to create, at the price of crime
and murder if necessary, the dominion of man.
Albert Camus (The Rebel)
essentially a theater for heroism." William James
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters
of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods."
Arthur Schopenhauer
Metaphysical (intellectual-philosophical) rebellion is the movement by
which man protests against his condition and against the whole of
creation. It is metaphysical because it contests the ends of man and of
creation.
The slave protests against the condition in which he finds himself
within his state of slavery; the metaphysical rebel protests against the
condition in which he finds himself as a man. The rebel slave affirms
that there is something in him that will not tolerate the manner in
which his master treats him; the metaphysical rebel declares that he is
frustrated by the universe. For both of them, it is not only a question
of pure and simple negation.
In both cases, in fact, we find a value judgment in the name of which
the rebel refuses to approve the condition in which he finds himself.
The slave who opposes his master is not concerned, let us note, with
repudiating his master as a human being. He repudiates him as a
/master/. He denies that he has the right to deny him, a slave, on
grounds of necessity. The master is discredited to the exact extent
that he fails to respond to a demand which he ignores. If men cannot
refer to a common value, recognized by all as existing in each one, then
man is incomprehensible to man. The rebel demands that this value
should be clearly recognized in himself because he knows or /suspects/
that, without this principle, crime and disorder would reign throughout
the world. An act of rebellion on his part seems like a demand for
clarity and unity.
The most elementary form of rebellion, paradoxically, expresses an
aspiration to order.
This description can be applied, word for word, to the metaphysical
rebel. He attacks a shattered world in order to demand unity from it.
He opposes the principle of justice which he finds in himself to the
principle of /injustice/ which he sees being applied in the world.
Thus, all he wants, /originally/, is to resolve this contradiction and
establish the Unitarian reign of justice, if he can, or of injustice if
he is driven to extremes. Meanwhile, he denounces the contradiction.
Metaphysical rebellion is a claim, motivated by the concept of a
complete unity, against the suffering of life and death and a protest
against the human condition both for its incompleteness, (thanks to
death), and its wastefulness, thanks to evil.
If a mass death sentence defines the human condition, then rebellion, in
one sense, is its contemporary.
At the same time that he rejects his mortality, the rebel refuses to
recognize the power that compels him to live in this condition. The
metaphysical rebel is therefore not definitely an atheist, as one might
think him, but he is inevitably a blasphemer.
Quite simply, he blasphemes primarily in the name of order, denouncing
God as the father of death and as the supreme outrage. The rebel slave
will help us throw light on this point. He established, by his protest,
the existence of the master against whom he rebelled.
But at the same time he demonstrated that his master’s power was
dependent on his own subordination and he affirmed his own power: the
power of continually questioning the superiority of his master. In this
respect, the master and the slave are really in the same boat: the
temporary sway of the former is as relative as the submission of the
latter. The two forces assert themselves alternately at the moment of
rebellion until they confront each other for a fight to the death, and
one or the other [temporarily] disappears.
In the same way, if the metaphysical rebel ranges himself against a
power whose existence he simultaneously affirms, he only admits the
existence of this power at the very instant that he calls it into
question. Then he involves this superior being in the same humiliation
adventure as mankind’s, its ineffectual power being the equivalent of
our ineffectual condition. He subjects it to our power of refusal,
bends it to the unbending part of human nature, forcibly integrates it
into an existence that we render absurd, and finally drags it from its
refuge outside time and involves it in history, very far from the
eternal stability that it can find only in the unanimous submission of
all men.
Thus, rebellion affirms that, on its own level, any concept of superior
existence is contradictory.
And so the history of metaphysical rebellion cannot be confused with
that of atheism. From a certain point of view it is even confused with
the contemporary history of religious sentiment. The rebel /defies/
more that he denies. Originally, at least, he does not suppress God; he
merely talks to Him as an equal. But it is not a polite dialogue. It
is a polemic animated by the desire to conquer.
The slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a
crown. He must dominate in his turn. His insurrection against his
condition becomes an unlimited campaign against the heavens for the
purpose of bringing back a captive king who will first be dethroned and
finally condemned to death.
Human rebellion ends in metaphysical revolution. It progresses from
appearances to acts, from the dandy to the revolutionary. When the
throne of God is overturned, the rebel realizes that it is now his own
responsibility to create the justice, order, and unity that he sought in
vain within his own condition, and in this way to justify the fall of
God. Then begins the desperate effort to create, at the price of crime
and murder if necessary, the dominion of man.
Albert Camus (The Rebel)