The unfeminine. “Stupid as a man,” say the women; “Cowardly as a woman,” say the men. Stupidity in a woman is unfeminine.
Reading this, we immediately grasp the following: that stupidity is a masculine trait. And who is brave enough to disagree? Does this not explain one of the greatest memes ever? “Hold my beer,” the meme says. But it means, “I’m about to do something stupid.”
It’s how men have fun.
Think of your friends now, my man. The manliest is the one who’s willing to unleash his inner stupidity in order to have a good time.
“Let’s do something stupid,” great men say all the time.
The man who’s never willing to make an ass of himself is unmasculine. He is half-man and half-loser. Chances are he doesn’t have a lot of friends.
Any man who has had “guy time” or has used the phrase “out with the boys” instinctively knows this. Stupidity is what fuels the good time men have when they’re at a safe distance from women.
They crack open a cold one, and the good times begin.
On the first day of creation, God enabled repetition. Prior to (the initiation of) repetition, the earth was formless and engulfed in darkness. There was no time; there were no days. Without the spirit (or essence) of repetition, time and space could not have existed — or, more specifically, spacetime and everything in it could not have been activated. God said, “Let there be light,” and that was when time began. He liked what He saw. From then on, light had its turn, and darkness had its turn. He called the former Day and the latter Night, and they were set to repeat: night to day, day to night, night to day, day to night, ad infinitum. Accordingly, (a representation of) repetition was the start of creation. On the first day, the day was created.
Then, on the fourth day, God commanded more lights to appear in the heavens. These lights, the stars and the moon, did not only illuminate the world and the universe, but they made time observable, (referential), and measurable. They gave us days, seasons, years, et cetera — (cycles of) units of time. [There’s a correlation between time and light, but does that mean anything?] God planted repetitions within repetitions, cycles (of days) within cycles. And when He created all living things, he planted the seed of multiplication in them and commanded them to multiply — i.e., to bring forth repetitions. Furthermore, God made man in His own image; and in that sense, man is a repetition of God programmed to repeat. [But does that mean that man is equal to God? No, not necessarily… because repetition = the repeated subject/object + difference. And difference can be negative, positive, or equal to zero.]
Let us evoke Gilles Deleuze here and accept repetition as a process that generates difference. We can also quote Richard Dawkins who, in The Selfish Gene, wrote that, if he wanted to guess (and put his money on) one fundamental principle, it would be this: “that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” In other words, the spirit of repetition provides an ecosystem in which difference gets a chance to actualize its potential. So, it is only natural for repetition (and difference) to be at the core of the fundamental principle(s) of the universe and, therefore, at the core of the story of creation.
[In The Selfish Gene, Dawkins (who, let’s not forget, is probably the most famous atheist in the world today) says that “the only kind of entity that has to exist in order for life to arise, anywhere in the universe, is the immortal replicator.” And I ask myself here, “Is this not God, the enabler of the spirit of repetition?” Who wrote the code of the immortal replicator?]
The spirit of repetition allows copy-pasting and, more importantly, it is the source of the nested loops and adaptive algorithms of the universe. A universe without repetition is unperceivable. Perceiving already involves the act of repeating the perceived object in one’s mind. Moreover, without repetition, God would not have rested on the seventh day because he would have to keep creating new, unrepeated things and beings until the end of time. The spirit of repetition puts chaos in a system then lets it unfold automatically (and purposively) without the interference (or piloting) of the Creator. Repetition is the power that tames chaos, guiding it with laws and systems, (although chaos cannot be tamed absolutely). [Note: The spirit of repetition “automates” the universe but does not turn it deterministic. Man, like anything else in the universe, is chained to the repetitions allotted to him but is simultaneously free thanks to the irregular, uncontainable bursts of chaos.]
Can we remove the spirit of repetition from the code of the universe? No. What happens when we remove it? We already have the answer. We’ll go back to square one. We’ll go back to (timeless) chaos. The absence of repetition eliminates the possibility of a systematic universe; therefore, it eliminates the possibility of living organisms; hence, to make all things possible, God enabled repetition on the first day and made it the first day.
In The Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus writes that “all great deeds and all great thoughts have a ridiculous beginning.” This is what I have in mind when I read A Happy Death, which I consider to be the ridiculous beginning of his later works, especially The Stranger and The Myth of Sisyphus.
Summary of Albert Camus’s A Happy Death
A Happy Death is a short novel by Camus that was published posthumously in 1971, 11 years after the author’s death. It is about a man actively chasing happiness. His name is Patrice Mersault. He is driven by his will to happiness, and he is prepared to do anything to attain his goal, even kill. He believes that once he has time and money, he can finally be happy. The day-to-day stuff, like his work, is keeping him from actualizing his happiness. He wants to be free. Mersault says vehemently, “I have my life to earn. My work — those eight hours a day other people can stand — my work keeps me from doing it.” (And isn’t this, at least subconsciously, the hypothesis of Everyman? Everyone I’ve ever met who works a traditional nine-to-five job has a plan or a dream to become a free man one day. These men can (or will) only be happy when they have enough money to finally own themselves, when they become free to spend their time and energy the way they desire. But the majority of these men are money worshippers who lack faith. They pray but don’t believe. They are not willing to do everything to be free; they can stand the “eight hours a day” and, therefore, will never be free.) Mersault’s “will to happiness” leads him to kill a rich man and take his money, which enables him to live a happy life. “Like warm dough being squeezed and kneaded, all he wanted was to hold his life between his hands.” And he gets what he wants.
(Patrice Mersault is a go-getter who can be gently compared to Daniel Lugo from Pain & Gain, the 2013 movie directed by Michael Bay, in which a gang of bodybuilders spoil themselves with the riches of a man (they think) they killed.)
We can summarize A Happy Death as follows: the protagonist wants to be happy but doesn’t have the means (time and money), so he kills a rich man, takes his money, and basically opts for an early retirement. He takes regular swims and long walks along the beach and spends a lot of time with women. He builds a happiness routine and, at one point, talking to one of his girlfriends, he says, “Yes, I’m happy, in human terms.” And, of course, the book ends with Mersault’s death, which is — the title of the book — a happy death.
The Working Class Man’s Fantasy
What is A Happy Death? It is the working-class man’s fantasy: you’re suddenly rich (because you won the lottery or robbed a bank or whatever), and now you can do whatever the hell you want. You don’t have to sell your time anymore. You don’t have to work. You can now exit the matrix. You are finally free.
One character called Celeste, although he is a restaurant owner and not technically a working-class man, when he is asked what he would do if he suddenly got a lot of money, says, “I’d buy myself a hut out in the country, I’d put some glue in my navel and I’d stick a flag in there. Then I’d wait to see which way the wind was blowing.” Although he is being funny, isn’t what he is saying the big dream a lot of us share? Being (financially) independent, being (absolutely) free, et cetera.
Yes, it is the dream, but it’s also a mistake.
For the mistake is thinking that that quantity of experiences depends on the circumstances of our life when it depends solely on us. Here we have to be over simple. To two men living the same number of years, the world always provides the same sum of experiences. It is up to us to be conscious of them. Being aware of one’s life, one’s revolt, one’s freedom, and to the maximum, is living, and to the maximum.
— Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
Sisyphus Brings Happiness to the Working-Class Man
Patrice Mersault has “become aware of the essential and immoral truth that money is one of the surest and swiftest means of acquiring one’s dignity.” Money is the means by which one actualizes his inner self, i.e., externalizes it to make it part of the physical world.
In his book on identity called Identity: Contemporary Identity Politics and the Struggle for Recognition, Francis Fukuyama writes:
The foundations of identity were laid with the perception of a disjunction between one’s inside and one’s outside. Individuals come to believe that they have a true or authentic identity hiding within themselves that is somehow at odds with the role they are assigned by their surrounding society.
And to clarify it further, Fukuyama adds: “Oftentimes an individual may not understand who that inner self really is, but has only the vague feeling that he or she is being forced to live a lie.”
Mersault felt like he was being forced to live a lie. “My work keeps me from doing it,” he says. His work keeps him from earning his life, and the only way to actualize his inner self, to unchain his “will to happiness,” is by acquiring money.
In the first part of the book, in a conversation with Zagreus (the rich man Mersault ends up killing), we observe how lost Mersault is. Like many of us who nurse pints of beer in bars after working hours, he feels trapped and doesn’t know what to do. He says, “I feel like getting married, or committing suicide, or else subscribing to L’Illustration. Something desperate, you know.” Zagreus smiles and blames it on Mersault’s poverty. Then Zagreus compares himself to Mersault. Zagreus has all the resources, but he is crippled and cannot enjoy life. Mersault, on the other hand, is his opposite: he has the body to enjoy life but not the resources. “Your one duty is to live and be happy,” Zagreus tells Mersault, and the latter laughs. He says he cannot do that because of his eight-hour shifts and that it would be different if he were free. And here, it becomes crystal clear for us readers why Mersault ends up killing Zagreus to take his money and why it is “okay” to kill Zagreus (because he cannot live anyway).
But is being financially free a prerequisite to happiness? That is the question we need to ask after reading A Happy Death. Can the man who sells his time for money — the employee — never be happy? If so, then happiness is not accessible to the working-class man, not even to the middle-class man. Only the millionaire or the billionaire who chooses to abandon the business world can be free and, therefore, happy. That’s what we conclude from reading A Happy Death. In The Myth of Sisyphus, however, Camus changes everything. He writes, “One must imagine Sisyphus happy.” This is the sentence that undermines A Happy Death. When we are allowed to imagine Sisyphus — “the futile laborer of the underworld” — happy, we can finally also see that the working-class man can eventually attain happiness.
Of course, this does not mean that we must cease rebelling. It does not mean we must stupidly embrace (fake) stoicism. It does not mean that we must surrender our freedom. But maybe we’ll talk about this another time… I will give you the quotes now and go crack open a cold one.
Quotes from A Happy Death by Albert Camus
In this flowering of air, this fertility of the heavens, it seemed as if a man’s one duty was to live and be happy.
— Albert Camus, A Happy Death
‘Only it takes time to be happy. A lot of time. Happiness, too, is a long patience. And in almost every case, we use up our lives making money, when we should be using our money to gain time.’
— Albert Camus, A Happy Death
‘Don’t think I’m saying that money makes happiness. I only mean that for a certain class of beings happiness is possible, provided they have time, and that having money is a way of being free of money.’
— Albert Camus, A Happy Death
He knew now that it was his own will to happiness which must make the next move. But if it was to do so, he realized that he must submit to time, that to come to terms with time was at once the most magnificent and the most dangerous of experiments. Idleness is fatal only to the mediocre.
— Albert Camus, A Happy Death
There must be a minimum of ignorance in order to perfect a life in happiness. Those who lack such a thing must set about acquiring it: unintelligence must be earned.
Bored Absurdist 