Monday, November 11, 2002
feeney's a friggin idiot. he thinks that camus' "stranger" is an existentialist novel... which i suppose is correct if you're going to go with the masses, but which doesn't really stand up to critiquing. or rather, whenever i point out contradictions in the points he's trying to make, he completely a) ignores the question or b) does a very feeble attempt at answering it and then glosses over the whole issue.

-what IS existentialism? "you'll know by the time we're done with this book"
-how is this existentialist? noam: it has aspects of existentialism, so it's existentialist. feeney: exactly! (now, by that definition, if feeney displays aspects of insanity, is he really insane? wait, don't answer that question....)
-what's the difference between existentialism and nihilism? "nihilists don't believe in anything." ok then, since muersault is indifferent to everything, why do we not classify him as nihilistic instead? doesn't he show characteristics of nihilism?
-apparently, even camus said it's not existentialist. more of a story about the absurd (which I can definitely see).
-yes, muersault focuses on the physical over the spiritual. but does life happen to him? or does he make choices? feeney thinks it's both. *snicker*

i think someone seriously needs to take a course in logic.

i hate that class.
--posted by M @ 8:31 PM | 0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment