A philosophy student's analysis of 'The Stranger' by Camus 

I really liked your analysis. I finished the stranger and had read "a happy death" as well. Reading the stranger caused me frustration because Meursault is asked on repeated occasions to respond, to react, or to defend himself. Your analysis made it all clear, he won't defend himself, because it makes no sense to fight for a life that has no meaning. It is a really good book, and I am happy to have come across your analysis.

I think he explores the idea of bottling up our emotions in the final scene, I think this could mean that camus is suggesting an outlet for emotions and effort, I think he's similar to voltaire in that way

4:30 I wouldnt say he rejected anything. he simply doesn't care enough to conform to it. Its meaningless to change, nor does he see reason tp.

Just finished the book. This is a great video.

Just finished the book yesterday at the request of a friend. She really enjoyed it but I didn’t personally find it very interesting. There were a few interesting angles, but overall it just seemed to be a proclamation of indifference. Maybe I’m missing the value in it, but as of now it doesn’t feel like much

No one could have explained it this good. 🙌

Finished the book a few hours ago, great video!

Great video essay! I love melancholy aesthetic and your voice. What is the soundtrack playing throughout the vid?

love the aesthetic, I hope you do more of these

No words amazing explanation

Not "Al-bert". T is silent.

Just finished this book. Loved this video!!

Great analysis, simplistic and concise, just like the novel itself haha

very good video, concise narration and good aesthetics

This is so well made...

where can i find the narrator from the start of the video?

Showed up on recommended. Here to spread the love. Great video

great vid!

slayy ty for the vid

magnificent video, sorry to see that you didn't continue with the channel :(

what movie is this in the beginning?

Albert Camus did not know the notion of innocence of existing permanently (this is not a pious joke, but a real point of view that philosophy and even society should study closely), which is due to the fact that we have all been forced to exist, imperfectly manufactured by our parents with the agreement of society, imperfectly educated by parents and society, and forcibly introduced into society, which is in fact a real jungle of humans in permanent competition. If I had been in the place of the lawyer of the young man, the Stranger, I could have said many things to Justice, starting with this permanent innocence of people which is due to the fact that society is associated with our birth and our education therefore with all our physical and mental defects, and therefore of course it is responsible for our behavior. Society desires us, but then once we are manufactured it demands that we make ourselves desired just to survive. Isn't that absurd? Isn't that absurd? And I'm not talking about the doubt that benefits the accused when the universe is most likely deterministic and free will has never been demonstrated... Why does Justice have so much trouble listening to scientific truth, and so much trouble agreeing with its own ethics? Life does not have more meaning because it would have an extension in the afterlife, it is just longer... Life does not have more meaning because a god created it, the meaning that any entity gives to my life is not the meaning that I give to it, and whether he is a god or a human changes nothing. No one should be able to impose his own ideas on other people. The meaning of my life and the meaning of another's life are not the same, and it is not because this other gives meaning to his life that he must impose life on another person who does not have to accept ideas that his parents or society will impose on him (parents rarely have the same ideas on this subject and any other). _