There are many ways that people can bring objections to Camus ideas in relation to absurdity and revolt. One of the claims suggests that human should not accept reconciliation during their struggle (Lyon, 178). This claim can be objected because, in order to live peaceful during struggles, humans have to reconcile. Reconciliation can be defined as a way in which different parties who have wronged each other come together and solve their issues in order to live peacefully. It is hard for human beings to live without struggles. People keep struggling from day to day looking for employment and doing other activities in order to earn a living. In order for people to work peacefully with other people during the struggle, reconciliation must be there. Struggles bring people of different characters together and one of the basic struggles experienced by human beings is work. With the current population increase, there are a number of industries that have been established to provide employment to individuals. Diversity is significantly enhanced which means people from different cultural backgrounds have to know how to relate to each other. Any place with a group of people working together, there must be conflict from time to time. Given the current economic situations and the need for jobs, when people collide at work, they end up reconciling since that is the only solutions because they will still need to work together in order to earn a living.
Another claim in relation to reconciliation is that the more people rebel, they continue to live in oppression because revolts always prevail as reconciliation becomes minimal. The objection to this claim is that when people are oppressed by the most influential individuals in a given region, and they have nothing to do because they are powerless, they end up not revolting any more. When looking at the history of the world especially during the colonial periods, the colonizing nations used to oppress the colonized people and because those people had no power, they had to agree with anything that they were forced to do. Some of the bad laws of tax payments were introduced and people were forced to work in the plantations and mines (Liu " Felicia, 261). This is a good example to show how the above claim about oppression and revolt can be objected. The only way that people revolt is when they are united or they have support from other influential sources. When looking at the society, the rich people always oppress the poor because the poor have nothing to defend themselves. The poor need jobs and they end up doing any jobs and working in poor conditions without revolting because they have to where to go. This objection shows that revolting is not always applicable when people rebel because they end up being oppressed even more. Camus claims that in such situations, reconciliation is minimal but this can be objected because when people rebel and they get oppressed, there is no room for reconciliation since the oppressed have no say. Reconciliation can only occur when the two parties agree on some agendas.
Camus states that the people who are aware that they are subject to their own decisions are considered as "absurd hero". This claim can be objected because an absurd individual is a person who is considered to be ridiculous or unreasonable. There is no way individuals who are able to make their own decisions can be considered as absurd heroes. This title should be given to those people who are more into ridiculous things. When looking at society, those people who are a subject to their own decisions in most cases are those who are in leadership positions. This is because they can be able to make decisions and no one can object to those decisions because they are in power. Those people who are in power are the once who should be given the title absurd hero because they make decisions that no one can go against. A good example, those nations that are democratic, people have the right to choose their own leaders but the moment those leaders are in place, they end up making decisions which favor them and not considering their citizens. This is because they are subject to their own decisions. A hero is a person who can be remembered for doing something that other people were not able to do. There is no way that the revolting individuals can become heroes and yet they are still rebelling from one or two things. In most cases, people rebel from certain kind of leadership and if the leadership is still in place, those who revolt end up suffering more. This implies that power is the determiner of absurd heroism and not being a subject to own decisions.
Another claim from Camus is that people always have power in their actions. This can be objected because sometimes actions are not considered in any way and people end up suffering no matter the kind of actions which they take. An example, which can be used to prove this objection are the strikes which are carried out from time to time by different professions and other workers. People always go for strikes so that their problems can be solved. The strike, in this case, can be considered as the action. Many are the times that workers go for strikes due to poor payments and still end up the same way with no increment. This is an indication that their actions of striking have no power which brings a conclusion to the objection that people always have power in their actions. Not all people can have power in their actions. As mentioned earlier, wealth is the determiner of actions and that is why those people from higher social classes can be considered to have power in their actions (Dubois et al., 436). Anything that they do no matter how bad it can be, it still has some impacts simply because they money to impact on an action.
What Camus is trying to reflect across his work is that to have power is being able to overcome one's destiny at will. This can also be objected because a number of people have been able to overcome their destinies but they still don't have any power in place. When a person accomplishes his/her destiny, this only brings joy and satisfaction but not power. An example, a person may desire to own his/her own business and they end up accomplishing that desire. This can be referred to their destiny. They might own their businesses and be their own bosses but with no power. Power is being in control and not about destiny.
Works cited
Dubois, David, Derek D. Rucker, and Adam D. Galinsky. "Social class, power, and selfishness: When and why upper and lower class individuals behave unethically." Journal of personality and social psychology 108.3 (2015): 436.
Liu, James H., and Felicia Pratto. "Colonization, Decolonization, and Power: Ruptures and Critical Junctures Out." The Oxford handbook of social psychology and social justice (2018): 261.
Lyon, Antony. "Albert Camus and the Political Philosophy of the Absurd: Ambivalence, Resistance, and Creativity. By Bowker Matthew H.. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2013. 201p. $85.00. Rethinking the Politics of Absurdity: Albert Camus, Postmodernity, and the Survival of Innocence. By Bowker Matthew H.. New York City: Routledge, 2014. 132p. $130.00." Perspectives on Politics 13.1 (2015): 177
