Not sure how I feel about this book so far. It’s a lot of really big claims that feel like they’re reaching, so hoping it doesn’t end up going the route of Sapiens, where they’re held together with tape and rubber bands. The discussion between mental illness and technology stands out. Like yes, there may be links but also we’re also a lot more open about discussing mental health openly, and the process of diagnosing it has changed. Curious to see if this will be acknowledged or if it’s just going to be him trying to hit the reader over the head with “INTERNET BAD” the entire time

I think moral responsibility it's very complicated. Listening to Raymond attack his girlfriend feels different from hearing him tell a story about something that already happened. We tend to judge our responsibility depending on how serious and close a situation feels, and also according to our own moral code. For some people, seeing someone mistreat a dog could feel worse than hearing a couple screaming at each other; for others, it would be the opposite. In this case, it feels like Meursault actually could have done something because the situation was happening right there.

Meursault is basically confirming that Raymond felt betrayed. Again, he doesn't make a moral judgment about what Raymond said. Judgments are natural and necessary for us because they guide our actions. If Meursault doesn't make those judgments, he doesn't really have his own moral compass. He just goes along with whatever is happening around him. Where's the line where "I don't judge" stops being neutral and becomes complicity? And this is soooo complicated to answer because our morality depends so much on the time and place we live in. Is there something inside us that gives us a sense of morality? Maybe we can think about biology. We're social beings who have always needed each other to survive, so maybe traits that helped us avoid harming our own group were more likely to survive too? Or maybe there's some kind of connection with something beyond ourselves. For some people that could be God, for others the universe. I don't know. Religions and laws were created just to regulate human behavior, so I think not everybody is very succeful doing it by themselfs.

On the other side, Marie di a judgment, but she doesn't do anything either. And that takes me back to the question from the previous chapter: why are we so focused on whether someone has the "correct" emotional or moral reaction if it doesn't change their behavior?

With Salamano, I think Meursault shows that he isn't necessarily completely indifferent to other people. He gives him practical information about the dog instead of offering the emotional comfort we would normally expect. So maybe his way of caring, when he does care, is much more practical than emotional.

On a scale of one to seek therapy, how much will this book hurt me?

Damn it did not realise this was book 3 in a series. But I love it too much. I’m going to have to finish this and back track. This is a first for me

As someone who knows very little about the great migration because I am not American, I am very curious. This book is up my alley: history and memoir/biography. And already the book feels like a very powerful re collection of the sacrifices made by brave every day people.