In part two, Camus examines the lives of metaphysical rebellions.

The rebellion is what makes one free- “in order to exist, man must rebel.” Camus then moves on to a deeper analysis of the metaphysical rebellion. This rebellion is like Nietzsche’s ressentiment, but is a swift and surprising act of freedom. In turn, Camus argues that before ethics, politics, or any metaphysical claim, there is a rebellion by the rebel seeking to create affirmation in the world. Because the rebel always acts ethically, any idea, belief, or ethical claim begins as a rebellion- “with rebellion, awareness is born”. That worth is considered good by the subject, and thus the rebel is always ethical. It is a statement that something about existence is worth fighting for. When we rebel, we are acting out the affirmation of life. The act of living is an affirmation of existence-our life adopts a positive value. The book begins in section one, with posing the seemingly basic question: what does it mean to rebel? While we normally think of this as physical action, Camus offers an existential view instead. The Rebel, therefore, is best interpreted not as an ethical guide but as an existential instruction manual for how we navigate the universe. I argue that while Camus makes an interesting case for purpose in life through a well-constructed historical lens, he ultimately provides a nebulous position on what it means to be ethical. In this paper, I will summarize the arguments laid forth in his book, as well as provide my own thoughts.

Primarily centered around Western Europe, Camus adopts a riveting existentialist position on why man rebels. In 1951, Albert Camus published The Rebel, a book-length essay aimed at diagnosing the metaphysical significance of rebellion and revolution.

The rebel camus