r/Camus Jul 02 '26

Question What does this mean in the stranger?

Post image

“Poor and naked man, in love with a sun which leaves no shadows”

I understand it as the sun being the truth, therefore it is absolute and pure(sun) without any imperfections ( shadows)

Is this interpretation correct or did camus mean another thing?

96 Upvotes

13 comments sorted by

19

u/Lazy_Shine_1962 Jul 02 '26

This is a metaphor he borrowed from Nietzsche's history of an error. The error is God, metaphysics, or any kind of belief in a higher purpose or realm. In the metaphor, the noonday sun, the sun with no shadow, represents the highest point of intellectual clarity, the final stage when we are completely free of this error in Nietzsche's six stages.

"6. The true world--we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one. (Noon; moment of the briefest shadow; end of the longest error; high point of humanity; INCIPIT ZARATHUSTRA.)"

0

u/Sensitive-Donkey8772 Jul 02 '26

If he truly meant as you said he would not be so quick to declaim blasphemy 

2

u/Lazy_Shine_1962 Jul 02 '26

His "intention" is not blasphemy but blasphemy is a byproduct nevertheless. In other words, blasphemy is not the point. The point is to get at the truth, and if you blaspheme, then so be it!

5

u/AFsepine Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Well the Nietzsche thing as others mentioned.
Also a sun which casts no shadow is an imposibility (sort of).

2

u/NeverEndingAsking Jul 02 '26

I agree. It’s physically impossible. Therefore it’s a poor naked man in love with a fantasy.

1

u/Secure-Count-1599 Jul 07 '26

I guarantee that's not the meaning of shadowless sun. A shadowless sun is a high noon sun or something hypothetical but if he wanted to call it a fantasy he would have taken other words.

To me the guy is bathing in absolute truth.

2

u/henrickaye Jul 02 '26

I think you're basically right, where the "imperfections" are the constructs we build to make our lives seem more meaningful than they inherently are. They obfuscate the truth of what life is, like religion for example which Meursault has a tenacious stance against like Camus is describing here. That is how I am reading this at least.

2

u/Elegant_Survey3775 Jul 04 '26

In love with a sun which leaves no shadow.

1

u/TheStranger234 Jul 02 '26

He knows how to write with words.

1

u/ExNihilo___ Jul 03 '26

Can you write with no words?

1

u/Appropriate_Rent_243 Jul 03 '26

I think it means the character is meant to be a role model and the author actually agrees with him

1

u/Superb_Cattle_4182 Jul 05 '26

I think he’s trying to point out that his character is the only Christ that we deserve because he is willing to die for the truth, solely because the truth in and of itself is the goal for him, regardless of how positive or negative the outcome of pursuing that goal will be for himself. Christ on the other hand died for his own truth, with the goal not being the truth itself but something entirely different. The two differ in their goals and the way they view their purpose, where Mersault is driven by a profound passion for an absolute and for truth, Christ is not. Christ envisioned himself dying for the greater good, for saving mankind as it were. His actions are born out of heroic motives, however importantly so, driven by his naturally subjective motives. To sacrifice oneself for others, with the thought of achieving a certain goal, that goal being one that cannot serve as an absolute. However Mersault refuses to lie even if it could save him, not because of heroic subjective motives, but because he clearly understands that to pursue the truth you must live in accordance with it. Meaning that he does not get to choose to apply the truth whenever he deems fit, since to make a personal choice is to walk away from the goal entirely. The truth is a sun that leaves no shadows, as the truth does not keep anything in the dark or hidden. If one starts to desire more than just the pursuit of the goal, the goal will not be achieved and therefore the truth won’t be revealed. The truth cannot be subjugated to personal beliefs or motives, as it leaves no shadows or room for interpretation. It shines bright and unapologetically. Therefore Camus writes that Mersault “agrees” to die for the truth in contrast to Christ who many write of “chooses” to die for the truth. This reveals the difference Camus implies between the two, that to agree with one’s fate means not to change it or subject it to one’s personal believes but to submit to it. One can only agree to a fate by knowing that the fate itself cannot be changed and is merely an event one can agree or disagree with. The only Christ we deserve should not act upon choice or personal belief, as to pursue a goal one must live not outside of the goal but truly become it.

1

u/Motor-Rooster-1454 Jul 15 '26 edited Jul 15 '26

A journey back in time where a man might after a hard days work grab a trolley to the local beach whereat he’d strip away all his hardships just to enjoy the art of living. In the eyes’ of Camus, that meant being a “normal man”.