O Homem Revoltado (Em Portuguese do Brasil) [Albert Camus] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Publicado originalmente em , este. Albert camus o homem revoltado pdf. Free Download e-Books zip package as follows I just went to the MSFT store at Pentagon City in Virginia. 5 or 2x. Publicado originalmente em , este livro de Albert Camus permanece em evidência. Os crimes contra a humanidade não podem ser ignorados.
|Published (Last):||11 June 2009|
|PDF File Size:||4.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.
O Homem Revoltado: Albert Camus: : Books
Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — O homem revoltado by Albert Camus. O homem revoltado by Albert Camus.
By one of the most profoundly influential thinkers of our century, The Rebel is a classic essay on revolution. For Albert Camus, the urge to revolt is one of the “essential dimensions” of human nature, manifested in man’s timeless Promethean struggle against the conditions of his existence, as well as the popular uprisings against established orders throughout history. And By one of the most profoundly influential thinkers of our century, The Rebel is a classic essay on revolution.
And yet, with an eye toward the French Revolution and its regicides and deicides, he shows how inevitably the course of revolution leads to tyranny. As old regimes throughout the world collapse, The Rebel resonates as an ardent, eloquent, and supremely rational voice of conscience for our tumultuous times.
Translated from the French by Anthony Bower. Paperbackpages. Published by Livros do Brasil first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about O homem revoltadoplease sign up. Did Sade loose his humanity? See 1 question about O homem alebrt. Lists with This Book. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. This is the sort of book that gives intellectuals a bad name.
I approached it with some expectation as a book which looked seriously at the idea of the Rebel, but found out that in his ‘history’ of ‘rebellious’ events Camus quite deliberately defines the word to represent only what he wants it to mean, and conveniently dismisses any honem views as gomem immaterial to his thesis, or as a subject for some other work.
I found myself disagreeing with just about ever second statement he makes. Camus This is the sort of book that gives intellectuals a bad name. He ‘philosophises’ his subject to within an inch of its life. And in the end I find him pretentious. By calling revoltaro book an ‘essay’ can a book of pages really albeft called an ‘essay’? The central argument appears to be that rebels and rebellions are always undertaken in order to improve or provide a more perfect world, but end up providing more of the same, sometimes even worse than before.
One would think that this fits in xamus the general philosophy of nihilism with which Camus is associated. On the one hand Camus seems to be saying that rebels don’t improve anything; and on the other hand, he seems to be saying that we really have no choice: Cajus can’t be more nihilistic than that And in so doing, Camus gives succour, in my opinion, not so much to revoltadl rebels among us, as to those who dismiss rebels as mere trouble-makers, preferably to be contained and controlled as much as possible.
This is probably one of the reasons that fundamentalist Christians, for example, might enjoy his ‘demolition’ of those ‘rebels’ he chooses to demolish, starting with revolttado Enlightenment.
To be fair, perhaps Camus is responding in the only way possible to him to the sheer havoc and devastation of the two World Wars that effectively destroyed ‘Europe’ and pointed out the depravity that that civilisation, which considered itself to be the best and most superior the world had even seen, had descended to; and that somehow, that was a reviltado of the Enlightenment and the liberal homeem it engendered.
Be that as it may, my objection to this conclusion is that it is examined only by limiting his discourse to specific instances of ‘rebellion’, and by suggesting that such ‘rebellions’ are based on a desire to ‘improve’ the world.
It should be pointed out that ‘rebellions’ which set out to ‘improve’ anything are based, not so much on the Enlightenment, but on the promises made by Christianity that there is such a better world ‘heaven’ to which we might aspire, but which we might only achieve only after we are dead.
This ‘desire’ for the Second Coming’ of Jesus to usher in the New Millennium, where everything will be ‘perfect’ is the true cause for dissatisfaction in the people, especially those used and abused by the hierarchy of the Middle Ages. The ‘promise’ of the Enlightenment period merely posited that the old way of a dominant hierarchical theocratic society was NOT the only way one could live, and that something could be done OUTSIDE the constraints Mediaeval Society could offer.
Camus is useful is pointing out that revolutions based on such utopian dreams are bound to failure in the real world; but that does not mean that the benefits of reason, knowledge, science and technology some of the children of the Englightenment have, indeed, improved our way of life in ways which would be appreciated immensely by someone from the Middle Ages.
One can argue about the extent of such ‘progress’, or indeed whether such things as radio, television, the automobile, education, medicine, surgery, etc etc are ‘really’ progress or not after all, anything, anywhere, had both good and bad elements but one cannot argue successfully that these things merely reiterate the evils they are supposed to replace. All ‘rebellions’ which attempt to ‘improve’ things derive their impetus from religious sentiments based on the imagined reward proffered to the ‘perfect’ and the elite.
It may even be ‘true’ that such rebellions, in searching for their perfection, end up being ‘just as bad’: They may end up being just as immoral, and just as cruel and murderous, but they are doing it to someone else; it is not happening just to them.
And it is here that I believe Camus misses the point. Rebels rebel to relieve themselves from an intolerable situation.
They may well replace it with another type of intolerable situation, but it is in THEIR control, not the other way around. Further, they may well ultimately ‘fail’ in the ‘other’ objective of providing for a better world for themselves, but in reality, things after the rebellion HAVE changed. The world moves on to another phase. Thus I believe the role of the rebel and of rebellion is just as much, if not primarily, motivated by the desire to remove pain and misery. It ‘follows’ that as a result, there is the hope that things will improve, but to say that rebels are motivated only to ‘improve’ the situation is simplistic to say the least.
Certainly, Camus has ‘shown’ us that such ‘objectives’ may result only in ‘failure’, but that failure is a relative concept. While ever there is injustice, unfairness, abuse, poverty, etc then whenever these things become unbearable, rebels will arise whose first concern is to minimise that unbearability, whether or not the result is overall ‘better’ than before. View all 8 comments. Unfortunately, very boring book.
I literally forced myself to read it for 40 days thinking it will improve I could not read more than 5 pages per daybecause there were some very few good quotes and it was not a political propaganda.
But at the end I was so upset I gave up at the last 20 pages! J’adore Camus, mais en tant qu’auteur de fiction. The Rebel – review of a man in revolt. Despite that I kept reading, because hey, its Camus! Camus speaks of insurrection against religion and god, none of which is news in the 21st century.
O homem revoltado by Albert Camus (1 star ratings)
Homrm had to rebel to against boredom to finish this essay. Like a woolly mammoth, sans the mammoth. Some thoughts in this book are alright, of course, but it takes a wrong turn right from the start. Why Camus leaves out the possibility that the homme in question simply revolts for himself, for his own dignity and wellbei Like a woolly mammoth, sans the mammoth.
Why Camus leaves out the possibility that the homme in question simply revolts for himself, for his own dignity and wellbeing – that, like the master he is revolting against, he is simply playing the power game, but from the bottom – he doesn’t say.
My guess would be he never even considered it. It’s simply axiomatic for him that the revolt is for a common human cause, and he has written this entire book based on that mistaken premise. Which, as a result, seems to has ended up as pages of misguided and confusing fuzziness. Even if the revolt wasn’t for selfish earthly reasons, but for this mysterious ‘no!
A human right, no different from the inalienable natural rights of the Jacobins. The the same ones Hegel later destroyed, calling the them a Christianity without God. It would be an appeal to a dead God, which Camus knows is useles. So it would mean Camus’s value of revolt is a philosophic regression. Camus is a great writer but too many disagreements for me regarding the author’s views.
The book reads to me like an entitled editorial of an revolado man screaming about the kids albrt his grass without an understanding that the kid may very well be fertilizing it.
Meryem rated it did not like it Sep 15, Patricia rated it did not like it Jun 17, M rated it did not like it Jan 10, Samantha rated it did not like it Sep 09, Garcia rated it did not like aobert Feb 08, Taciturnity rated it did not like it Dec 21, Matthew Gardner rated it did not like it Jul 04, Ad En rated it did not like it May 15, Naziz rated it did not like it Aug 06, Maria VB rated it did not like it Sep 17, Hossein Rasouli rated it did not like it Aug 29, Protester rated it did not like it Sep 30, Nada rated it did not like it Nov 17, Kathy rated it did not like it Aug 03, Ephraim Drennan rated it did not like it Oct 19, Deya Dan rated it did not like it Nov 29, Andronikos Aniketos rated it did not like it May 05, Ryan Hack rated it did not like it Oct 05, Robert O’Donoghue rated it did not like it May 30, Fluffykins rated it did not like it Apr 21,