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 rebellious “being” was constituted not only as an ontological condition 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; the man who recognizes and becomes aware of a situation that, at that moment, he can no longer bear and, therefore, sets a limit.

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. 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 are incurring a contradiction.

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 defend rebel of the underprivileged. 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.