This seemingly contradictory statement is not Camus's cunning "dialectics", but that resistance appears to be something negative on the surface, "in fact, it expresses what people should always defend. Therefore it becomes absolutely certain.” For example, a slave is a rebel when he says "no" to his master. But at the same time, he is a person who says "yes" because when he resists, he actually affirms the existence of the boundary between master and slave. A true rebel does not change from a slave to a new master. The coexistence of affirmation and negation can truly construct the value of resistance, that is, the value of human existence. Camus first sorted out and refuted two kinds of "resistance": "metaphysical resistance" and "historical resistance". Historically, the first wave of powerful resistance was accomplished by a few fashionable literary figures. First came Sade, the extreme rebel who issued the harshest "no." Although his 27 years in prison did not give him the thought of compromise, he demanded "absolute" from the world while destroying the world's "yes" with a monotonous tone. "The world treated him cruelly, and he responded cruelly to the world." The romantic poet Baudelaire created an "aesthetics" and art became the only morality. However, this is a strange kind of negative aesthetics. They are dissolute, but they are inseparable from individualistic hedonism. Lautréamont and Rimbaud are the heirs of the Playboy aesthetic. Camus was full of respect for Rimbaud as a poet, "The admirable poet, the greatest poet of his time, the authority of lightning, this is Rimbaud." But when thinking of this magician of poetry, through The spirit man talked about money and gains in the letter from Harald. You will never be able to relax again if you always carry eight kilograms of gold in the belt around your belly. "Is this the mythical hero we recommend to young people?" Camus said when summarizing "resistance in history" that most acts of resistance in history eventually degenerated into "revolutionary actions." Revolution is nothing more than killing. Whether it is slave riots, peasant uprisings, beggars' wars, or bumpkins' resistance, they all follow the equivalence principle of "a life for a life." The Spartacus Rebellion is an example of this. Spartacus led the gladiators to rise up and gallop throughout Italy. When the holy Roman walls were in sight, the slave army stopped and then retreated back to Sicily where they originally set out. Why retreat? Camus said: "If this city is destroyed, what will replace it?" You know, it is the desire for justice and the love that becomes crazy because of being hurt that make these unfortunate people Hold on until this point. But faced with the principles of the gods and the great city of Rome, they retreated. What they wanted was "equal rights" and they wanted to be the same people as their masters. If the slave legions captured the city of Rome, their former masters would become their slaves. The so-called victory is just to reverse the position and kill more people. The retreating Spartacus began to rout. He had a Roman civilian hanged on a cross to let his men know what was waiting for them, while he kept rushing forward, hoping to follow the principle of equivalence and die together with Crassus, who commanded the Roman legions. He never got close to Crassus, but died under the sword of a mercenary who was also a slave. The death of a Roman citizen was ultimately rewarded with six thousand crosses erected along the road from Capua to Rome. Using "revolution" as the key word, Camus also examined all the revolutionary movements since 2001. He not only refuted Saint-Just's "guillotine style", but believed that it was Rousseau's "Social Contract" that first untied the guillotine's cables ("Everything that once belonged to God has since been handed over to Caesar."), and expressed his opinion. Criticize all revolutionary actions and "noble murderers" in history. The final conclusion is that once the balance of "no" and "yes" of the resister is destroyed, resistance will evolve into a cyclic game of murder. And all modern revolutions will eventually bring about an era of widespread murder: the 2000 revolution brought Napoleon, the 2000 revolution brought Stalin to power, Italy in the 1990s was controlled by Mussolini, and the Weimar War brought about the rule of … The true rebel must return to the balance of “no” and “yes.” Resistance is both a dignity of life and a creation of life. But any resistance is not simply saying "no", because just saying "no" may become new and unfair. "Resistance exists because lies, injustice and violence partly constitute the living conditions of the resister. If he wants to persist in resisting, he must make up his mind not to kill or lie at all, and never agree to all murderous and murderous actions. He also We cannot allow ourselves to kill and lie.” That is to say, resistance is not about killing for the sake of our own existence. On the contrary, it is about “living to create our current existence and let others live.” In the last chapter of "The Resistance", Camus proposes a "Southern thought", which is also his core idea: a Mediterranean thought as opposed to the dark and violent European spirit. Camus grew up in the countryside of Algiers, where the sea can be seen from every street corner, the sound of birds flapping their wings is everywhere, and people have a great sense of natural beauty, just like living in a healthy ancient Greece. The same world.

Camus always considered himself a countryman, a provincial, a Mediterranean neighbor to Augustine and Plotinus. He liked the static side of ancient Greek culture. If the European spirit is controlled by Hegel's phenomenology of spirit and historical dialectics, then Mediterranean thought is bathed in the spiritual light of Plato and St. Augustine. "Southern Thought" is clear, temperate, and balanced; it is humane, optimistic, and rational. —————————————————————————————————————— It can mean “This kind of thing has gone on for too long. ", "It's okay so far, but it won't work beyond this", "You've gone too far", maybe it also means "there is a limit that cannot be crossed". In short, this "no" affirms the existence of a boundary. The idea of ??this boundary can also be found in a certain feeling of the rebel. This feeling is that he wants to extend his rights beyond this limit, but beyond this limit there is another right that restrains him. Therefore, the act of resistance is at the same time an unequivocal rejection of what is considered an intolerable violation. Dimly convinced that he had a legitimate right. Rather, the rebel now harbors the impression that he has "rights to...". To a certain extent, the resister would not resist if he did not have the feeling that he was justified. Because of this, the rebellious slave says "no" and "yes" at the same time. While he affirmed the above limits, he also affirmed everything he doubted and wanted to keep it within this limit. He stubbornly asserts that there is something about him that is "worthy of..." and demands attention. He asserted in some way that he could not be subjected to more than he recognized, and used this right to defy his orders. People hate intrusions on themselves. At the same time, in all resistance, he completely adheres to a certain will in himself, so he must firmly believe in a value judgment and remain firm in times of crisis. Until then, he had remained silent, mired in despair, accepting the injustice of his situation. Silence will make people think that he does not judge and has nothing, and in some cases he really wants nothing. Despair, like absurdity, generally judges everything and desires it. But in the specific situation, there is no judgment and nothing to be desired. The silence made this clear. However, when he speaks, even if he says "no," it shows that he is judgmental and needy. A rebel, in the etymological sense of the word, is a 180-degree change. He marched boldly under his master's whip, resisted, and opposed everything he disapproved of with everything he approved of. Not all values ??provoke resistance. But all acts of resistance are self-evidently based on a sense of value. Is there at least one value involved? From the act of resistance comes the awakening of consciousness, however hazy it may be. He suddenly realized that there was something in a person that should belong to him, even if it was short-lived. This autonomy had not until this moment been truly felt by him. Slaves suffered all kinds of oppression before revolting. He even then often yielded to his master's orders with perfect submissiveness, although these orders should have inspired more resistance than those which now provoked his rejection. He accepted it submissively, perhaps unwilling to accept it in his heart, but he was more concerned about the immediate interests and had not yet realized his rights, so he remained silent. When he loses patience and becomes impatient, he begins to act on everything he has accepted in the past. This impulse has actually occurred quite often in the past. When the slave refuses the humiliating command of his master, he simultaneously denies his own status as a slave. The act of resistance takes him further than mere refusal, even beyond the boundaries established for his opponents. Nowadays, we are required to treat ourselves as equals. This unstoppable initial resistance gradually integrates people with the resistance, making all their words and deeds reflect resistance. He wanted people to respect this part of him, to put it above all else, to love it more than anything else, even life. This part became the supreme wealth to him. The slave, previously in a compromised position, now suddenly demands "everything" or "nothing." His consciousness awakened with resistance. It is seen that this kind of consciousness wants both everything that is still quite vague and "nothing", which means that it is possible to sacrifice oneself for "everything". The rebel wants to be everything, to be the complete owner of this wealth of which he is suddenly aware, and wants people to recognize this wealth in him and pay tribute to it, otherwise he will have nothing, that is, ultimately be deprived of everything by the forces that dominate him. If he were deprived of what he called sacred, he would accept death as the final outcome. I would rather die standing than live on my knees. Values, according to some eminent authors, "often represent a movement from fact to right, from what is desired to what is desirable (generally speaking, through what is universally desired)." We see that the struggle for rights from resistance is obvious. It also happens that "this must be so" leads to "I demand this". Not only that, but there is also the emergence of a concept of transcending the individual for the common good in the future. Not "everything" means "nothing", which shows that although rebellion arises from the extremely strict personal characteristics of people, it is contrary to popular opinion and casts doubt on the concept of the individual. If an individual accepts death in defiance and finally dies for it, it shows that he is sacrificing himself for a good beyond his own destiny.

He would rather die than be denied the rights he defended. This is so because he places this right above himself. He then acted in the name of value. Although this value concept was still vague, he at least felt that it was the same as that of everyone. It is seen that this concept contained in all acts of resistance makes it transcend the individual, it frees the individual from his loneliness and provides rationality for his actions. This idea of ??something that precedes all action refutes historical philosophies that hold that values ??are acquired at the end of action. It is important to note this. It is at least doubtful that there is human nature to resist resistance, and the Greeks believed so. It is also contrary to the insights of contemporary thought. Since there is nothing eternal in you that can be maintained, why should you stand up and resist? The slave rebels for the sake of all his contemporaries, because he believes that this order denies something in him, and this thing not only belongs to himself, but is also shared by all people, even including Insulting those who are associated with him. Two facts support this judgment. The first thing one notices is that acts of resistance are not inherently selfish. No doubt it contains some selfish considerations. But what people resist is both true and false. Moreover, notwithstanding these scruples of the rebel, he, with the strongest emotions, gave away everything and withheld nothing. He strives for respect for himself, but also believes that all of humanity deserves it. Secondly, it should be noted that resistance does not only arise from the victim. People will also resist when they see others becoming victims. So in this case, he sees others as himself. It should be made clear that this is not a psychological identification or an imaginary feeling that one has been violated. On the contrary, it may happen that we do not resist when we ourselves are insulted, but we cannot tolerate the insult when we see others being humiliated. When he saw his companions being whipped in a convict prison, he committed suicide in order to continue. This is sufficient to illustrate the above insights. Nor is it a matter of having identical interests. Resistance can also arise when we see injustice being done to people we view as opponents. This is simply due to having the same fate. The values ??an individual defends therefore belong not only to him alone. This value is formed by all people. When people resist, they transcend themselves by thinking of others. From this point of view, people's mutuality is innate. But in the current situation, this mutuality is created in chains. Resistance and Resentment The positive aspect of this value, which is inferred from all resistance, can be made clear by comparing it with a completely negative concept such as resentment. Thaler once defined the concept of resentment. Indeed, resistance is not simply the act of demanding something back. Resentment is clearly defined by Thaler as self-poisoning, languishing in isolation. On the contrary, resistance inspires life, helps it escape from the status quo, and makes waves roll in the still water. Thaler himself emphasized the negative aspects of resentment, noting that resentment occupies a large place in a woman's psyche. They are addicted to desire and possession. On the contrary, when it comes to the origins of resistance, the rule is overactivity and energy. Seiler says, not without reason, that envy greatly arouses resentment. People envy what they don't have, while rebels defend what they have. He does not simply claim wealth that he does not possess or has been deprived of, but his goal is to be recognized for what he does possess. In almost every case, he considers this thing to be more important than anything he might envy. Resistance is not realism. Still according to Thaler, resentment becomes ambition or vitriol in a strong or weak character. But in both cases, people would like to be someone else. Resentment is always self-pity and self-blame. On the contrary, the rebel, in his initial action, refuses to be touched by his current situation. He fights for the integrity of his personality. What he sought first was not conquest, but acceptance. Finally, resentment seems to enjoy seeing the object of its hatred suffer. Nietzsche and Thaler saw a wonderful illustration of this sentiment in a passage from Tertullian's work in which he tells his readers that the greatest joy of the happy people in heaven is to watch the Roman emperors languish in hell. Honest people also take pleasure in watching someone being executed. On the contrary, resistance is in principle limited to the rejection of humiliation and does not require the humiliation of others. It is even willing to suffer as long as its personality is respected. People therefore do not understand why Thaler equates defiance and resentment absolutely. His critique of resentment in humanism (which he saw as an unorthodox form of human love) might apply to some forms of human idealism, or to the technology of terror. This criticism is wrong if it points to people's resistance to the status quo. This kind of resistance enables individuals to stand up for the common dignity of all people. Thaler wants to point out that there is an element of world-hating in humanism. People love humans in general, not necessarily anyone in particular. In some cases, this is true. Thaler's insights are better understood when one considers that he saw humanism as represented by Binsam and Rousseau. However, the love people have for each other does not come entirely from calculation of interests or trust in human nature, and this nature is only theoretical. There is a logic embodied by Dostoevsky in Ivan Karamazov when it comes to utilitarianism and Emile's tutor.

Can be applied to acts of resistance and metaphysical resistance. Thaler understood this well and summarized it in the following assertion: "There is not much love in the world, and it can only be applied to people and not to other things." Even if this statement is true, it means Expressions of desperation should not be looked down upon either. In fact, he underestimated the shocking nature of Karamazov's defiance. On the contrary, Ivan's tragedy arises from the fact that although he has too much love, he has no love object. Since this love had no outlet and God was denied, it was decided to pour love back into humanity in the name of generous companions. In short, in the rebellious actions we have discussed so far, people did not choose an abstract ideal because of poverty of soul, nor did they choose it out of unnecessary demands. People long for those things in themselves that cannot be attributed to thoughts to be valued. This is the part that is only useful to life. Does this mean that any resistance does not have an element of resentment? Not so. In the age of hatred, we see quite a lot of this. However, we should understand this concept in its broadest terms, otherwise we will misinterpret it. In this regard, resistance surpasses resentment in all aspects. Heathcliff proposes in "Wuthering Heights" that he values ??love more than God. As long as he can be combined with the woman he loves, it doesn't matter even if he goes to hell. This is not only the cry of his humiliated youth, but also the expression of the tragic experience of his entire life. It was the same sentiment that led Eckart to utter a shockingly outrageous statement: He would rather go to hell with Jesus than live in heaven without Jesus. This is the outpouring of love. Contrary to Thaler, one cannot overemphasize the affirmative element in the act of resistance that distinguishes it from resentment. Resistance does not create anything, and it appears to be a negative thing on the surface. In fact, it expresses something that should always be defended in people, and therefore it becomes a positive thing. The Meaning of Resistance Yet isn’t this resistance, and the values ??it conveys, relative? As times and cultures change, people's reasons for resistance do change. Obviously, the untouchables of India, the warriors of the Inca Empire, and the primitive or original people of Central Africa did not have the same motivations for resistance. It is even asserted with great probability that the concept of resistance has no meaning for these definite situations. Yet a Greek slave, a serf, an Italian Renaissance cavalry captain, a Regency Parisian gentleman, an early twentieth century intellectual and a contemporary worker. Even though the reasons for their resistance are different, there is no doubt that their resistance is justified. In other words, the problem of resistance only acquired its precise meaning within the confines of Western thought. Our view becomes even clearer if we note, like Thaler, that in extremely unequal societies (the caste system in India) or, on the contrary, in absolutely equal societies (some primitive societies), it is difficult to express ideas of resistance. . In society, only when theoretical equality covers up the great inequality in fact can a spirit of resistance emerge. The question of resistance thus has meaning only within the context of our Western society. It can then be concluded that this problem is related to the development of individualism, if we do not object to this conclusion because of the previous insights. The conclusion that can be drawn from Thaler's discussion is that in our society, from a theoretical perspective, people's conceptual awareness of people is increasing, but from this actual situation, it is far from it. Satisfactory. The reality has not increased proportionally with the increase in people's awareness. From this we can draw the following conclusion: Resistance is the action of people who are aware of their rights and have awakened. But we must not say that resistance involves only individual rights. On the contrary, in the light of the mutuality already pointed out above, resistance manifests a growing awareness of humanity in its own activities of existence. In fact, the question of resistance was not raised by the common people of the Inca Empire or the untouchables of India because before they asked it, it had been settled by tradition and the answer was sacred and untouchable. In a world ruled by gods, the question of resistance does not exist because it never occurs to anyone to ask the question; it already has all the answers. Metaphysics is replaced by myth, and there are no longer any questions, but only eternal answers and interpretations, which may be metaphysical. However, after people enter or emerge from the realm ruled by God, there is questioning and resistance, so that they enter and exit with joy. The rebel exists only after entering the realm of God or emerging from it. He is committed to demanding a system that respects people, and all answers should be humane, that is to say, expressed rationally. From this point on, all questioning and all speech become resistance, but in God’s realm, all speech is an act of gratitude. It can be said that there are only two possible worlds in human thought, the world of God (in the language of Christianity, the world of grace) and the world of resistance. The disappearance of this world is the emergence of that world. Although another world appears, its form is confusing. At this point we are dealing with "everything" or "nothing" again. The reality of the problem of resistance is simply due to the desire of some societies today to move away from the realm of God. We now live in desacralized times. Of course, man cannot be reduced to resistance. But today’s history and its various controversies force us to say that resistance is one of the basic aspects of human existence. This is the reality of our history. Unless we escape reality, we should find our value in resistance.

Can rules of conduct be found when people turn away from God and His Absolute Values? This is exactly the question that resistance raises. We can already identify the nebulous value that arises within the context of resistance. We should now consider whether this value can be rediscovered in the various manifestations of contemporary resistance thought and action. If it can be found, its content should be clarified, but before going any further, it should be noted that the basis of this value is resistance itself. Human mutuality is based on acts of resistance, which in turn find their basis in this interactive relationship. We therefore have reason to say that any resistance that is intended to deny or destroy this mutuality can no longer be called resistance. In fact, it is no different from agreeing to kill. Also outside the realm of God, this mutuality comes to life only on the level of resistance. This is the true meaning of the idea of ??resistance. People must resist in order to survive, but this resistance should not cross a limit discovered by themselves, which is when people gather together to survive. The rebellious thought thus cannot escape memory: it is always in tension. When we consider its actions and achievements, we should consider whether it was true to its original noble principles or whether, on the contrary, it had forgotten its noble principles through fatigue or impulsiveness and indulged in tyranny or servitude. This is the initial progress made by using the idea of ??resistance to think deeply about the absurdity and superficial desolation of the world. In the experience of the absurd, the pain is personal. Once it enters the act of resistance, the pain becomes collective and becomes the experience of everyone. The initial development of a kind of peculiarity thought is therefore to admit that all people have this peculiarity, and Human reality as a whole suffers from alienation from such ideas and worlds. A disease that afflicts an individual becomes a plague that infects the collective. Resistance plays a role in our daily sufferings just as the cogito plays a role in the categories of thought. It is the first obvious fact, and yet this fact frees man from his state of loneliness. It makes all people accept the first value. I resist, therefore we exist.