Part 1: The Rebel

Ok, I wrote out an entire entry with quotes and everything, and of course I lost it. Livejournal > Blogger.

Basically, rebellion is based on an affirmation of the universal rights of man. It's a turning away from enslavement in the present with freedom in the future for the dice throw that is solidarity with man. He also attests that you cannot be a rebel without respecting this solidarity, and that you lose your rebel status if you contradict that by restricting another's rights to it. Then you just "acquiesce" to murder. It is firmly about abandoning future angst and going for socialization, an attempt to bridge youreself with a human idea greater than you are. He finishes: "I rebel, therefore I exist." It is deeply human, and therefore innate. Innate? That's not the existentialism I know. Here I thought all bets are off, but he's really being just as axiomatic as Descarte, and deliberately. Is there some sarcasm here I'm not getting? I guess I thought of existentialism as not JUST a withdrawl of faith in god, but in humanity in general. Instead it's about a very purposeful, even affectionate, turning to the temporal. It's not the hereafter, but the here and now. That's where the good times are. It's about negation, but so clearly about affirmation as well.