Reading Albert Camus Rebel from Christian Apologetics

It's a reading of Camus Rebel from Christian Apologetics

What is a Rebel? Camus contradicts by saying that a rebel is a person who affirms and denies existence. Camus is being vague when he says what is meant to be a rebel? What can we rebel? Why should we rebel? Is it God�"the Society�"other people?

Again Camus says that rebellion is an assertion of the Ego. Camus forgets that there is the Freudian ID, Ego and Super Ego. ID is the sea of passion what Freud incarnated as the Libido. Ego is the values and culture accumulated from the family and society. Super Ego is the law of the society. I raise my fist at Freud, a left hook for not integrating these states. From Freudian perspective we have to tight-rope-walk on these states to hold it in a balance. Viewed from a Christian perspective we have a consciousness known as CHRISTANONSCIOUNESS in which the balance is kept intact. I would dare to ask Freud the Question did Christ want to separate these states?  In Christanonsciousness we are whole beings in Christ.

Camus postulates that man’s solidarity is found in rebellion. What is solidarity? It is the feeling of human oneness and the showing of empathy. How can solidarity be birthed out of rebellion. The Indian freedom struggle birthed out non violence against British imperialism by Mahatma Gandhi was a solidarity revolution. 

Solidarity bears allegiance to the Christian maxim: Love: your enemy. If your enemy thrashes you on the right cheek, show him also your left one.

Camus reiterates the idea of the Absurd in Rebel. Absurdism derived from nihilism points out that life has no meaning and it is chaotically absurd. Absurdism is self-negating and defeats the very purpose of life. We are living in reality that is being-processed.  And that is processual ontology. Processual ontology posits existence to be angstual, cathartic and ecstacyual.

Camus again explains metaphysical rebellion which he defines as a rebellion against God and an utter blasphemy. To be pejoratively speaking, does Camus want w***e in front of a Christian altar? From an apologetic viewpoint, Christ as God the Father’s Son came to us as our own being and we did not have to go to him. Man is an emotional being and we simply cannot do away with metaphysics. We can’t calculate the meaning of life in equations. What about the questions of ethics? Ethics and values of the society lie in the metaphysical realm. How can we explain murder, incest, rape and pedophilia? Camus fails to explain how we get our inner-conscience? During the beginning of creation we were made whole and sin has fragmented into the various Freudian psychological states.

Camus is overwhelmingly sympathetic to Sade. Talking from a moral perspective, can Sadism be justified? Is it hunky dory to commit rape, murder, suicide, incest and pedophilia? Even Freud has said that committing these acts won’t lead to the growth of civilization. If we follow Sade’s ingenuous ideas, it will lead to the disintegration of society, and anarchy.

Again Camus goes on to negate Salvation. Sartre the great nihilist and existentialist said that man is condemned to be free. Christ on the other hand said that there is only freedom in me. Both types of freedoms are paradoxical. Christian freedom is a state where your are neither free nor bound. You are in a state of Freeatharsis, coined from freedom and catharsis. Camus philosophy is one of rejectionism. Can an anarchic state where no morals exist be conceived? Is the philosophy each according to his will and each according to his ability be justified? As a Christian apologist, I would like to say we are free to accept Christ and his blood shed on the cross.  The human heart has a peculiar ideological symptom and that is the acceptance of Christ. Being in Christ is joy. Death is only physical as far as the body is concerned. The soul and spirit are anchored to Christ. A being’s monumental realization of eternity and eternal life comes with Christ. Let’s look at Christ’s attitude to the prostitute Mary Magdalene. Christ said:  ‘sin no more’. ‘Who ever in this crowd has no blemish raise a stone against her’? Christ acted out creative-empathy.

I would like to explain the contours of Camus nihilism. a) It involves the rejection of God and Metaphysics. b) It idealizes anarchy. Being in Christ gives a value, purpose and meaning to life. A Civil society does not exist in anarchy. c) It involves a rebellion with the self. I would like to define the self as an organic�"automation, with a free will to choose Christ and be a whole person. The self in this world owing to Adamite sin has to maneuver between ecstasy and angstuality.

Again Camus expostulates Rousseau’s Social Contract. The social contract is a legitimate document for establishing a democratic society. Can the Social Contract be borne out on Nihilism? Why does Camus a self proclaimed Nihilist and Anarchist want to emphasize the Social Contract? Isn’t Camus subversively justifying the need for values in Society? Christian Freedom implies a justice based on responsibility. I would like to develop an antonym for nihilism and that is purposuality (purpose and reality). A purposist exists in realization of life or in a state of valuableization (valuable and realization). Life is valuablelization derived from value and jubilation.