Moderator: Only_Humean
Wiki wrote:Psychopathy, sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder[1] characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.
Prismatic567 wrote:I have the book translated by Stuart Gilbert but I have not read it thoroughly, so cannot claim to be a very reliable reviewer.
Generally if one were to study Meursault within the main topic of Psychopathy aka sociopathy via psychiatry and psychology, one could have understood the fundamental theme of the book. [??]Wiki wrote:Psychopathy, sometimes considered synonymous with sociopathy, is traditionally defined as a personality disorder[1] characterized by persistent antisocial behavior, impaired empathy and remorse, and bold, disinhibited, egotistical traits.
There are other themes, e.g. existentialism, morality, etc. but these seem to be secondary.
Chakra Superstar wrote:I read The Stranger decades ago so I’m not sure if I’d change my mind if I reread it today but this is what I got from it at that time.
I don’t see Meursault as a socio/psychopath. Sure, Meursault shares a lack of empathy and morals with sociopaths, but socio/psychopaths have particular nasty traits that steam from being narcissists. Meursault is not a narcissist.
Socio/psychopaths may not have empathy for others but they certainly have powerful emotions when it comes to themselves. One of their classic traits is how they exploit the emotions, beliefs, morals and trust of others -– even to the point of shedding fake tears. Meursault is not like that. He doesn’t show emotions for others nor for himself and he certainly doesn’t try to manipulate people – quite the contrary. If anyone is manipulated, it’s Meursault.
In essence, socio/psychopaths are immoral whereas Meursault is amoral.
Secondly, ....
When most of us hear the word “psychopath,” we imagine Hannibal Lecter.
Kevin Dutton would prefer that we think of brain surgeons, CEOs and Buddhist monks.
In his new book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths: What Saints, Spies and Serial Killers Can Teach Us About Success, the Oxford research psychologist argues that psychopathic personality traits—charm, confidence, ruthlessness, coolness under pressure—can, in the right doses, be a good thing.
Not all psychopaths are violent, he says, and some of them are just the sort of people society can count on in a crisis.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... QiHLrAa.99
Chakra Superstar wrote:I read The Stranger decades ago so I might change my mind if I reread it today but this is what I got from it at that time.
I don’t see Meursault as a socio/psychopath. Sure, Meursault shares a lack of empathy and morals with sociopaths, but socio/psychopaths have particular nasty traits that steam from being narcissists. Meursault is not a narcissist.
Socio/psychopaths may not have empathy for others but they certainly have powerful emotions when it comes to themselves. One of their classic traits is how they exploit the emotions, beliefs, morals and trust of others -– even to the point of shedding fake tears. Meursault is not like that. He doesn’t show emotions for others nor for himself and he certainly doesn’t try to manipulate people – quite the contrary. If anyone is manipulated, it’s Meursault.
In essence, socio/psychopaths are immoral whereas Meursault is amoral.
Secondly, I don’t see the story as being about Meursault or psycho/sociopaths per se. For me, Meursault is just a caricature Camus uses to walk us through a meaningless world. Camus could have used an animal as the amoral protagonist - a cat that plays with a mouse until it is dead or rapes another cat, for instance wouldn't be judged as evil because the animal is intellectually incapable of evil. They’re simply biologically driven behaviours.
Meursault is more like an amoral animal than a narcissistic psychopath; he lives in the moment and flops from one situation to the next as his whims take him. There’s no plan, no deliberation as to what an action might 'mean' or lead to. Even when Meursault kills an Arab on the beach it’s not out of hatred, revenge or even sick pleasure. His friend was going to kill the guy but didn’t so Meursault did. His reason? “Why not?” Meursault is no more complex than that. Why not?
In a way, Camus takes us back to ground zero before we were programmed by society’s ethics, morals and laws. He offers us a fresh look at a world that comes to us empty and devoid of meaning.
Unlike most people, Meursault isn’t driven by fear. He is free. He has absolutely no need to make-believe there’s a purpose behind this absurdity called life. It is what it is and he floats through it acting as one would if he wasn’t handicapped by limiting beliefs or corrupted by narcissism.
At the end of the book Meursault’s facing the death penalty (for killing the Arab) and a priest is bludgeoning him into believing in a world of good and bad, heaven and hell, salvation and punishment. These verbal attacks force Meursault to articulate his nebulous nihilistic vision and, in doing so, it brings Meursault to a deeper acceptance of life. Meursault enters a state of peace and resignation about his life and impending death. He has no guilt, no shame, no fear, no regret and no standard he’s failed to live up to.
Unlike all those who tried to threaten and shame him into being something he wasn't, Meursault integrity stands - his beliefs and his lifestyle are in perfect sync and now, with a clearer understanding of himself, he has come into perfect alignment and peace. A peace that judgmental, fearful believers will never know.
EDIT: The Cure's Killing An Arab - introduced a lot of people to the book back in the 80's. Good stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdbLqOXmJ04
.
WendyDarling wrote:Chakra, can there be one of your reviews for that one too?
I believe there is a continuum with psychopathy.Chakra Superstar wrote:Thanks for your generous responses Angry and Wendy.![]()
Prismatic.... how do I say this politely? Damn it, I can't. The Dutton book/excerpt you posted is the biggest load of garbage I’ve read in a long, long time and remember, I browse ILP quite regularly…It’s pop psychology at its worse – e.g. Psychopaths are detached... Buddhist monks and surgeons are detached… therefore, Buddhist monks and surgeons are psychopathic. WTF?
Psychopathy is as a complex of symptoms. You can’t take one or two traits out of context then label people. Buddhists are known for their compassion. Surgeons detach themselves so they can save lives. Compassion and saving lives are not psychopathic traits. Dutton even made up his own questionnaire rather than follow the standard diagnostic procedures… smh. I could go on, but I wont.
I believe it is the 'old school' view of psychopathy i.e. confined to the clinical definition of psychopathy.If you want academic info on psychopathy then check out Lobaczewski and Hare – perhaps the two most famous researchers on psychopathy. Lobaczewski is considered as the father of ponerology (the study of evil – particularly in the political arena) while Hare is a psychologist who developed the clinical standard for evaluating psychopaths. According to Hare’s diagnostic methods a person must have multiple traits in large enough degrees to be considered clinically psychopathic. Narcissism and intent are key socio/psychopathic traits that Meursault doesn’t have. Interestingly, his neighbours (one wants to terrorize his g/f and the other who abuses his dog then cries for himself when it’s gone) show us real sociopaths traits in the 'normal' population.
Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath
Neuroscientist James Fallon discovered through his work that he has the brain of a psychopath, and subsequently learned a lot about the role of genes in personality and how his brain affects his life.In 2005, James Fallon's life started to resemble the plot of a well-honed joke or big-screen thriller: A neuroscientist is working in his laboratory one day when he thinks he has stumbled upon a big mistake. He is researching Alzheimer's and using his healthy family members' brain scans as a control, while simultaneously reviewing the fMRIs of murderous psychopaths for a side project. It appears, though, that one of the killers' scans has been shuffled into the wrong batch.
The scans are anonymously labeled, so the researcher has a technician break the code to identify the individual in his family, and place his or her scan in its proper place. When he sees the results, however, Fallon immediately orders the technician to double check the code. But no mistake has been made: The brain scan that mirrors those of the psychopaths is his own.
I understand Camus is into existential philosophy and I have taken note of that but I think philosophically we need to take into any other relevant information and thus widen our perspective to the issue.If you want to believe Meursault was a psychopath then that’s your call. I disagree on the diagnostic level but more importantly, because by labeling Meursault as a psychopath you're missing the main thrust of the book. Meursault is not a good or bad person. He’s not right or wrong -- he’s a hollow man... an empty man, empty of ambition and direction and unimpeded by religion, ethics, morals, laws and codes of behaviour. It is through his vacant eyes that we come to see what we normally don’t allow ourselves to see - the abyss.
WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Finished this short book yesterday, a good quick read. It starts out slow but gains steam as you go.
Has anyone read it? If so thoughts?
The main character was disconnected of course, a stranger to life itself it seems. Wading in nihilism when he wasn't in the moment, appreciating the aesthetic of now. He found things interesting, was intelligent, but not intelligent enough to see a minute ahead of him. Not a way to live, yet he did have a point at the end, nonetheless, having a point and living that point isn't really "good" for the character, as he's caught reasoning out, attempting to reconcile his actions and justify them. Rationalizing away his myopia, because it was too late.
Pandora wrote:The French news were talking about Louis Ferdinand Céline today, and it reminded me of this post. Have anyone read him?
Pandora wrote:Apparently his journey to the End of the Night became a French classic that also became controversial due to its antisemitism.
Pandora wrote:He is also being compared to Cioran, but with additional biting black humor. According to his bio, he lived through 2 world wars, and I wonder if the wars had a direct influence on development of literary existential pessimism of this type, especially on sensitive/artistic psychologies.
Number 6 wrote:Ultimately, Meursault is condemned to death not for what he did but for what he did not do: cry at his mother's funeral.
Number 6 wrote:Ultimately, Meursault is condemned to death not for what he did but for what he did not do: cry at his mother's funeral.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users