Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by mveldeivendran1
Reflections on the Guillotine by Albert Camus, Richard Howard
4.0
When I first read Albert Camus' discussion of the only serious philosophical problem, I felt like this guy is using complicated words to get realising even complicated thoughts which emerged from primitive ideas can become simple when questioned in the proper hierarchy. Pretty sure the world has seen many others with the same qualities but here, in my case, those many others are just 'others'. This essay about capital punishment was written in January 1957, the year which took him around the globe with his Nobel prize. Many alleged sources state it was this essay (having had spoken against France who practiced the guillotine till late 1970s) that got him the prize and I wouldn't be surprised if it was the case. The essay is a mixture of logic, uncertainty, humanism and a bit of empathy with statistical records from the late happenings.
Recently, I remember to have written an essay about advocating how laws should be enacted based upon objective facts irrespective of the facets of the problem as a part of applying for the apprentice opportunity to a member of the parliament locally. Now that after reading this essay of Camus, I sounded like a extreme radicalised individual in the essay of mine waiting to be deported intentionally so that I could ask countries like Canada or Sweden for Political Asylum. I wanted the human beliefs and emotion not interfering the laws but if only I have had a sober and diversified look at the problems not only just the environmental and economical issues but also the psychological and sociological issues. Now that I realise maybe it's never possible to outcast belief systems and emotions from lawmaking when it's an integral innate part of us. At the end of the day, its always better to be a humanitarian rather a totalitarian.
Maybe Science and Humanity studies should've taken together as a single manifestation for making life better; for having a balanced intellectual discussion on anything. Maybe never meant to be separated as they are now, and if it hadn't we might have had a better chance around us and beyond.
"There is a solidarity of all man in error and aberration. If justice has any meaning in this world, it means nothing but the recognition of that solidarity. It cannot, by its very essence, diverse itself from compassion."
Humans are messy ourselves, how come our law would be? This isn't an attempt to try go into nihilistic aberration of the things that we cherish but acknowledging that we have flaws so that we can try to make better realistic versions of our whims and reflect them outwards appropriately.
Recently, I remember to have written an essay about advocating how laws should be enacted based upon objective facts irrespective of the facets of the problem as a part of applying for the apprentice opportunity to a member of the parliament locally. Now that after reading this essay of Camus, I sounded like a extreme radicalised individual in the essay of mine waiting to be deported intentionally so that I could ask countries like Canada or Sweden for Political Asylum. I wanted the human beliefs and emotion not interfering the laws but if only I have had a sober and diversified look at the problems not only just the environmental and economical issues but also the psychological and sociological issues. Now that I realise maybe it's never possible to outcast belief systems and emotions from lawmaking when it's an integral innate part of us. At the end of the day, its always better to be a humanitarian rather a totalitarian.
Maybe Science and Humanity studies should've taken together as a single manifestation for making life better; for having a balanced intellectual discussion on anything. Maybe never meant to be separated as they are now, and if it hadn't we might have had a better chance around us and beyond.
"There is a solidarity of all man in error and aberration. If justice has any meaning in this world, it means nothing but the recognition of that solidarity. It cannot, by its very essence, diverse itself from compassion."
Humans are messy ourselves, how come our law would be? This isn't an attempt to try go into nihilistic aberration of the things that we cherish but acknowledging that we have flaws so that we can try to make better realistic versions of our whims and reflect them outwards appropriately.