What does it mean to be rebellious? Regarding the birth of Albert Camus

In November 1913, the philosopher of the absurd was born in Dréan, Algeria: Albert Camus. The importance of his thought is not minor, since it seeks to provide an explanation to the “fundamental question of philosophy”: whether life is worth living. However, it also contributed significantly to criticizing an aspect of the left of the 20th century: Rebellion. In this text, we will present, for me, its essential contributions. Contributions that in the current situation in Latin America are more than necessary.

For a long time, the left (with its variants) perceived itself as a mainly ethical-reactionary movement against the power of the economic and political elites, where rebellion or being a rebel was constituted not only as a condition ontological of the left, but also, in the banner and moral pride of the entire movement; They intended to place this being, declared as a rebel of the status quo, on a higher ethical rung than the aligned capitalist individual.

However, when one carries out a coherent philosophical analysis of what rebellion is and what “being” rebellious means in practice, one can reveal certain metaphysical and ontological contradictions that expose the left and, I dare to say, affirm, annuls one of its essential postulates: the revolution.

For the philosopher of the absurd, the rebellious man is the man who says no[1]; the man who recognizes and becomes aware of a situation that, at that moment, he can no longer bear and, therefore, sets a limit.

Let us remember that for Camus, the absurd is born from the attempt to find answers to certain aspects of life that do not make much sense; the absurd is the eternal dichotomy between: (i) the constant bombardment of questions from the individual, about the rationality and/or meaning of existence and its derivatives and (ii) the non-response of a reality that maintains a cold silence (this Camus calls “metaphysical silence”). The logical consequence of continuing to search for answers in the face of this silence of the universe constitutes the breakdown of the individual. (this falls into absurdity) and its consequence is intellectual suicide first, and then material suicide (the voluntary loss of life). That is, in the absence of answers about life, existence and its ontological aspects, it (life) loses all meaning and falls into the depths of nihilism, where nothing can be good or bad and where everything can be good and bad, at the same time.

So, if nothing makes sense and everything is permitted, man is the builder of his own meaning in life; man legislates for himself, dice Sartre in “Existentialism is a humanism”. Consequently, man regulates what is good and bad, starting from a supposed metaphysical freedom that, a priori, and encouraged by silence in the face of existential questions, does not determine what is good and bad. Absurd, replies Camus.

For the philosopher of the absurd, the consequence of falling into the absurd is falling into crime. We explain, falling into the absurd is falling into that desperation of the eternal and unanswered search for questions about our existence and meaning of life. Meaning of life that we long for is transcendental to us as individuals. So, if we fall into absurdity, suicide is the logical response. Of course, death ends that existential void that causes absurdity. Therefore, life becomes worthless, where death is more bearable and valuable.

The question is not minor, because if life has no value in the absurd and crime being the logical consequence of suicide, then the death of other human beings is valid, ethical and even necessary in cases where the man who legislates like this itself without greater meta-value than nothingness. Well, this meta-value on which the value of individuals’ lives will be determined is established by the ideology, religion, or dogma that is adopted as self-regulation.

The solution to such a crazy conclusion, for Camus, is rebellion. It happens that if one rebels against the absurd; If one rebels against the metaphysical silence of existential questions, one says no to suicide, since the logical consequence of this rebellion against the absurd is the valuing of one’s own life. Let us understand that by rebelling, we are recognizing that life has no greater meaning and we say no to the creation that does not respond to us and we rebel against existence, consequently taking control of our individual life. Rebellion brings with it an individual act of recognition of value in our existence. We exist, we consider that our existence has value for us, therefore we say no to suicide and we seek our meaning in life from the meta-value of being alive.

This is lapidary for the leftist rebel, who affirms and understands that the life of everyone who opposes the party, the will of the majority, the tribe, the race, the nation, the revolution, does not may have greater value than these. Well, understand, nothing makes sense, therefore they give it a meaning and their daring is greater, because they intend for that meaning to be transcendental to us and regulate our life and our existence accordingly. They do not understand that they incur a metaphysical contradiction that nullifies all possible ethics and coherence in their statements.

Let us understand that by initially rebelling against that metaphysical silence, against that instrument, object, system that oppresses us, we are recognizing the value of our life and, consequently, we tacitly affirm that the lives of others have equal value. Therefore, we affirm that there must be solidarity among all human beings, solidarity that is based on the recognition of the inherent value of human life and the freedom that this human being needs to be able to develop his or her life.

Finally, revealing the contradiction of the left in its rebellious morality, beyond the fact that, today, the left is the status quo, Camus reveals the bad faith that the left has in its desire to be a rebellious defender of the less favored. They are neither coherent rebels nor do they defend the less favored. The left has demonstrated a Machiavellian construction that only seeks power and material wealth for its leaders, using the less fortunate as cannon fodder and forgetting about them when it suits them.