GoodPersonEffed
Brevity is my middle name, but my name was TL
- Jan 11, 2020
- 6,727
The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion. -- Albert Camus
This quote bugs me because it's spoken as a deep truth and inspires feelings of getting high on truth and righteousness, but rhetoric is meant to motivate and convince, and this statement is based on a rhetorical fallacy, and I am not convinced.
It bugs the fuck out of me when I am lied to with the intention of me buying that it's for my benefit. Propaganda does that. Cultural myth does that. Manipulation does that. It could be that Camus and his statement have some illegitimate power over me or it wouldn't bug the fuck out of me (which makes me fully at fault or, at the least, complicit for my being bugged), or it could also be that my response is telling me that a boundary is under attack and to defend it. As the latter, my response tells me to not let that shit in, because it smells like bullshit and is therefore bullshit, no matter how much it seems like it's there to fertilize a flower. That flower of supposed "absolute freedom," when I sniff it, is going to make me high and lose my faculties of critical thinking and self-protection.
If one is free, then there is no need for rebellion. If one's existence is defined as rebellion, than it is still being defined by that which attempts to, or actually does, limit or deny its freedom. It's still all about the observer, the one in power and control, and not the one being observed. Camus's rhetoric reinforces, legitimizes, and reifies the power and control of the observer or whoever/whatever makes the world unfree. That tells me myth is functioning here (thank you, Roland Barthes). Camus plays with the means of restraint, but he doesn't get rid of the prison or the jailers.
"I'll show you motherfuckers I'm free" is not freedom. It's reaction. It's rebellion. Again, when one is free, there is no need to rebel. Absolute freedom gives no fucks, not out of rebellion, but because there is nothing to give fucks about -- there is literally nothing that can control or remove freedom, even if it tried. It is free even of impunity. True freedom has no vulnerabilities because there are no threats.
Camus is saying that the jail is inescapable; therefore, logically, I respond that if this is true, then it is inherently and permanently fuck-giveable, and that he's saying the best way to deal with it is to shake off the shackles and become the free person in the jail (yeah, that'll show 'em!). Then one will feel better and more free when there. But it is a fallacy to say that one can become absolutely free; they can only become less restrained and then personally freer.
The quote is a mindfuck. It is insists it is right. It tells me I am wrong for fighting it, that I do not want freedom, that I am not free, that I'm buying into the bullshit. But goddamnit, the quote is the bullshit. My reaction to the quote and to the argument triggered by my rejection, tells me there's a myth at play that's targeting my emotions and desires in order to override my reason (again, thank you, Roland Barthes). The myth of the absolute freedom Camus promotes is not a key that unlocks the door to the prison. It's not a bomb that blows up the prison and its walls. It takes away some of the power of the jailers so that the soul is not chained, but as long as the body is in the prison and the jailers have power, the self can never be "absolutely free" as Camus' rhetoric exhorts that it can. If the self can learn parkour and get out, and can outrun all pursuits, now we're getting somewhere.
But death is the only way out of this unfree world as long as it is unfree and one is not empowered to make it free, and I think Camus was more on it when he asserted that suicide was the key question of philosophy -- is life worth living? Relating that to the quote I'm scrutinizing, the question may be, "Do you feel like you have enough freedom, reward, or personal motivation within this prison that life is worth living for you?"
This quote bugs me because it's spoken as a deep truth and inspires feelings of getting high on truth and righteousness, but rhetoric is meant to motivate and convince, and this statement is based on a rhetorical fallacy, and I am not convinced.
It bugs the fuck out of me when I am lied to with the intention of me buying that it's for my benefit. Propaganda does that. Cultural myth does that. Manipulation does that. It could be that Camus and his statement have some illegitimate power over me or it wouldn't bug the fuck out of me (which makes me fully at fault or, at the least, complicit for my being bugged), or it could also be that my response is telling me that a boundary is under attack and to defend it. As the latter, my response tells me to not let that shit in, because it smells like bullshit and is therefore bullshit, no matter how much it seems like it's there to fertilize a flower. That flower of supposed "absolute freedom," when I sniff it, is going to make me high and lose my faculties of critical thinking and self-protection.
If one is free, then there is no need for rebellion. If one's existence is defined as rebellion, than it is still being defined by that which attempts to, or actually does, limit or deny its freedom. It's still all about the observer, the one in power and control, and not the one being observed. Camus's rhetoric reinforces, legitimizes, and reifies the power and control of the observer or whoever/whatever makes the world unfree. That tells me myth is functioning here (thank you, Roland Barthes). Camus plays with the means of restraint, but he doesn't get rid of the prison or the jailers.
"I'll show you motherfuckers I'm free" is not freedom. It's reaction. It's rebellion. Again, when one is free, there is no need to rebel. Absolute freedom gives no fucks, not out of rebellion, but because there is nothing to give fucks about -- there is literally nothing that can control or remove freedom, even if it tried. It is free even of impunity. True freedom has no vulnerabilities because there are no threats.
Camus is saying that the jail is inescapable; therefore, logically, I respond that if this is true, then it is inherently and permanently fuck-giveable, and that he's saying the best way to deal with it is to shake off the shackles and become the free person in the jail (yeah, that'll show 'em!). Then one will feel better and more free when there. But it is a fallacy to say that one can become absolutely free; they can only become less restrained and then personally freer.
The quote is a mindfuck. It is insists it is right. It tells me I am wrong for fighting it, that I do not want freedom, that I am not free, that I'm buying into the bullshit. But goddamnit, the quote is the bullshit. My reaction to the quote and to the argument triggered by my rejection, tells me there's a myth at play that's targeting my emotions and desires in order to override my reason (again, thank you, Roland Barthes). The myth of the absolute freedom Camus promotes is not a key that unlocks the door to the prison. It's not a bomb that blows up the prison and its walls. It takes away some of the power of the jailers so that the soul is not chained, but as long as the body is in the prison and the jailers have power, the self can never be "absolutely free" as Camus' rhetoric exhorts that it can. If the self can learn parkour and get out, and can outrun all pursuits, now we're getting somewhere.
But death is the only way out of this unfree world as long as it is unfree and one is not empowered to make it free, and I think Camus was more on it when he asserted that suicide was the key question of philosophy -- is life worth living? Relating that to the quote I'm scrutinizing, the question may be, "Do you feel like you have enough freedom, reward, or personal motivation within this prison that life is worth living for you?"
Last edited:
