1.
Is the modern world developing as much it is considered?
Did the western civilization overcome its orthodox medieval attitude towards the unexplained entities that had been rejected through the Renaissance they claim?
Even the standardized concept of conscience and rationality that people are being taught from the very childhood in the developed world, is it sufficient to form or explain a human mind?
All these questions may appear to the learned readers as an intellectual pretention, more precisely, a pretention of a writer to show her/his range of reading, mastery over literary theories and second language. Because, a rational being need not to be so tensed in this modern life, where highways and high speed internet access getting broader day after day by shortening distances, neo-tech generation has blessed all to lead a better life by fulfilling every want of her /his life.
Moreover, they are paid a smart salary in the end of the month according to their talent and labour. So, one must not waste the valuable time spending behind these backdated hypothetical questions.
Reversibly, the aforesaid attitude might be an indifference towards the complexities that draws the life backward, a cognitive psychological defence mechanism. Well, let the following queries that raise after reading Camus and Lawrence simultaneously left for a tea party discussion.
2.
A question raised in my mind after reading Albert Camus’ ‘The Outsider’ - what was the actual sin of Mearsault /ᵐᵊ ͬʃ ͤ ͥ / who remained totally apathetic towards his mother’s death and enjoyed a comedy movie and excellent bedtime with his beloved just a day after his own mother’s burial? Obviously, it was against normal human behaviour. Moreover, the trial scene persuades me to blame Mearsault, not only for murdering the Arab hooligan, rather his coldness towards his mother’s death that nakedly proves him as a heartless man.
On the other hand, Paul,(the protagonist of ‘Sons and Lovers’ by D H Laurence), whose unexplained love affairs had become a popular ambiguity in the world literature, even sometimes willingly misinterpreted to avoid answering time consuming ‘unnecessary’ questions even in the class rooms that often forces a teacher to recite the ‘fraudulences’ of Sigmund Freud.
Once again, Paul’s stance towards personal life is no doubt against the normal human behaviour also.
A concern reader would notice in both cases warmth and coldness of a human mind is decided by the social laws, more precisely by the externally attributed norms and values made by a certain group, not by the particular person.
3.
The society had implemented law and order, taboos and totems to establish a rational and peaceful life for the freedom of humanity.
Paradoxically, all these are shaping emotions into a plastic dice, at the same time giving punishment for the lack of traditional response towards social stimulations. It seems that every passion and conscience must have a concrete social form that could be judged by a particular authority.
Why? Perhaps social authority fears of facing something standing out of its conventional practice. Or simply because- it would be more logical and more acceptable to us- that this is the best way of sustaining a peaceful life. Nevertheless, the question rises “Then what is the individual existence of a human being in this system?”
Lawrence showed the traumatic survival of a youngster who was haunted by the ambition to be more humane unlike his father, to be an ideal ward of the family, and a more social being. Lawrence’s protagonist from that point of view could secure a laudable social life, at the same time, a traumatic personal life. And it was exactly a similar vice versa for Camus’ Mearsault who wanted to lead his life according to his own wish.
4.
So is this confused writing neither says anything new, finds anything philosophically shivering that does not differ from traditional notes of Dr Sen or Ramjilal Kaka, nor a rich reference might help the scholars to secure a better grade in the exams.
Actually, the ‘outsiders’ made me to ask myself whether the final destination of human life is achieving social perfection repressing ailing inner traumas or being oneself fulfilling every urges of personal satisfaction eliminating the social bondage.
In that case we have choose the life of mid-walkers securing a good CGPA, 8 to 5 office hours, a smart salary, a happy family and so on. But at the end of the day during the years of retirement do we find the meaning of the years we have passed with passionate gigantic work spirit? Certainly we must wait for the death when suddenly we become familiar with the emptiness and loneliness of life.
Both the heroes of Camus and Lawrence led a life without significance, without climax, without any heroic approach to change their fates. Perhaps they unearthed the essence of life before the time and apathetically chosen the path of euthanasia after all Death does not care about king and vagabond.
Is the modern world developing as much it is considered?
Did the western civilization overcome its orthodox medieval attitude towards the unexplained entities that had been rejected through the Renaissance they claim?
Even the standardized concept of conscience and rationality that people are being taught from the very childhood in the developed world, is it sufficient to form or explain a human mind?
All these questions may appear to the learned readers as an intellectual pretention, more precisely, a pretention of a writer to show her/his range of reading, mastery over literary theories and second language. Because, a rational being need not to be so tensed in this modern life, where highways and high speed internet access getting broader day after day by shortening distances, neo-tech generation has blessed all to lead a better life by fulfilling every want of her /his life.
Moreover, they are paid a smart salary in the end of the month according to their talent and labour. So, one must not waste the valuable time spending behind these backdated hypothetical questions.
Reversibly, the aforesaid attitude might be an indifference towards the complexities that draws the life backward, a cognitive psychological defence mechanism. Well, let the following queries that raise after reading Camus and Lawrence simultaneously left for a tea party discussion.
2.
A question raised in my mind after reading Albert Camus’ ‘The Outsider’ - what was the actual sin of Mearsault /ᵐᵊ ͬʃ ͤ ͥ / who remained totally apathetic towards his mother’s death and enjoyed a comedy movie and excellent bedtime with his beloved just a day after his own mother’s burial? Obviously, it was against normal human behaviour. Moreover, the trial scene persuades me to blame Mearsault, not only for murdering the Arab hooligan, rather his coldness towards his mother’s death that nakedly proves him as a heartless man.
On the other hand, Paul,(the protagonist of ‘Sons and Lovers’ by D H Laurence), whose unexplained love affairs had become a popular ambiguity in the world literature, even sometimes willingly misinterpreted to avoid answering time consuming ‘unnecessary’ questions even in the class rooms that often forces a teacher to recite the ‘fraudulences’ of Sigmund Freud.
Once again, Paul’s stance towards personal life is no doubt against the normal human behaviour also.
A concern reader would notice in both cases warmth and coldness of a human mind is decided by the social laws, more precisely by the externally attributed norms and values made by a certain group, not by the particular person.
3.
The society had implemented law and order, taboos and totems to establish a rational and peaceful life for the freedom of humanity.
Paradoxically, all these are shaping emotions into a plastic dice, at the same time giving punishment for the lack of traditional response towards social stimulations. It seems that every passion and conscience must have a concrete social form that could be judged by a particular authority.
Why? Perhaps social authority fears of facing something standing out of its conventional practice. Or simply because- it would be more logical and more acceptable to us- that this is the best way of sustaining a peaceful life. Nevertheless, the question rises “Then what is the individual existence of a human being in this system?”
Lawrence showed the traumatic survival of a youngster who was haunted by the ambition to be more humane unlike his father, to be an ideal ward of the family, and a more social being. Lawrence’s protagonist from that point of view could secure a laudable social life, at the same time, a traumatic personal life. And it was exactly a similar vice versa for Camus’ Mearsault who wanted to lead his life according to his own wish.
4.
So is this confused writing neither says anything new, finds anything philosophically shivering that does not differ from traditional notes of Dr Sen or Ramjilal Kaka, nor a rich reference might help the scholars to secure a better grade in the exams.
Actually, the ‘outsiders’ made me to ask myself whether the final destination of human life is achieving social perfection repressing ailing inner traumas or being oneself fulfilling every urges of personal satisfaction eliminating the social bondage.
In that case we have choose the life of mid-walkers securing a good CGPA, 8 to 5 office hours, a smart salary, a happy family and so on. But at the end of the day during the years of retirement do we find the meaning of the years we have passed with passionate gigantic work spirit? Certainly we must wait for the death when suddenly we become familiar with the emptiness and loneliness of life.
Both the heroes of Camus and Lawrence led a life without significance, without climax, without any heroic approach to change their fates. Perhaps they unearthed the essence of life before the time and apathetically chosen the path of euthanasia after all Death does not care about king and vagabond.
Comments
Post a Comment