• كل المواضيع تعبّر عن رأي صاحبها فقط و ادارة المنتدى غير مسؤولة عن محتوياتها

Nobel Prize in Literature

Votramos

عضو فعال
إنضم
22 ديسمبر 2017
المشاركات
561
مستوى التفاعل
1.050
Everybody knows Alfred Nobel and everybody knows the Nobel Prize. What not everybody knows is maybe that today at 13:00 the Swedish Academy will be actually handing two Nobel Prizes in Literature (from now on: NPL) not only one. Let us have a look at NPL and some facts about it. Of course from the Votramos perspective

There will be two Nobel Prizes in Literature this year because of a series of scandals which struck the Swedish Academy last year. The scandals meant that no NPL was handed out last year. People have different opinions on whether there should be one or two NPLs this year. Some people claim that it is about highlighting one specific person every year (not two) whereas some others believe that this is about highlighting important literary works not about the writers themselves

Among the sevens Arabs who won the Nobel Prize only one of them won the NPL and that was Naguib Mahfuz in 1988 who, according the the Swedish Academy, "has formed an Arabian narrative art that applies to all mankind". Mahfuz had been writing for more than 50 years when he won the Prize. He was 77 years old at that time.

Born in Arabia, you are Arab. That is how I see it. And for that reason I want to say that there was actually another Arab winner of the NPL and that was Albert Camus in 1957. Camus was born in Algeria to French parents. He grew up in Algeria and he had a very special relationship to Algeria. His most important novels were inspired from his time in Algeria, and highlighted real problems which residents of the colonised countries faced with the coloniser, France. Unlike Mahfuz who won the NPL when he was quite old, Camus was the second youngest recipient of the NPL throughout history. Camus was just 44 when he won it. The youngest winner of NPL was the English writer Rudyard Kipling who won it at the age of 41

Well, both Naguib Mahfuz and Albert Camus deserve a special text for them and about them. I will try to do that sometime in th future inshAllah

Now, back to 2019. There are some good candidates for this year and last year's NPL. One of them is American novelist and professor Jamaica Kincaid who said that

they should give the prize to everyone who wants it [...] I don't want it [...] because it is not water or oxygen

This actually reminds me of Bob Dylan who won the NPL in 2016. He didn't care about it and even though he claimed that he felt honoured, it was actually quite clear that he didn't see it as a big thing. It took more than a year for him to finally accept to come to Stockholm and receive the Prize. Dylan has a troubled relationship to his own fame just like many other celebrities. Not everyone likes to be famous

Finally, according to the Swedish Academy, there are three important things for writers to think about if they want to ever win the NPL. These factors are

Do not limit yourself by any time and place

Let your text be philosophical

Write so honestly about your hard life if you had one
 
International Organizations such as: World Trade Organization, Human Rights Watch, United Nations, IMF… the list is too long of organizations controlled by minority of people hidden behind the scenes, who guide the world as per their plans for the rest of mankind, maybe the Rothschild family maybe the freemasonry maybe the Bilderberg group.. the Nobel Prize (NP) is considered in the same category

Sure there are many who won this prize and deserved it but they were not the only genius in their fields , you mentioned Naguib Mahfouz who as far as I know never wrote neither against the Egyptian political system nor the international (this doesn't mean he is not a very brilliant writer)

We can ask why it's obvious to remark that the majority of the NP laureates are from Developed Countries especially US the answer is simple :you have to approve the American political, military and economic… policies in the world to get the prize

This prize was granted to the most controversial people in the world:

On one hand

-Rabin , Perez and Begin from Israel won the NP in peace although they killed Palestinians

- Aung San Suu Kyi won the NP in peace although she killed Rohingya

-Fritz Haber who his invention killed millions in WW I won the prize

On the other hand:

-John Nash failed to get the prize although his brilliant economics theories because of his anti-Semitic ideas

-Sartre who has apparently refused the prize but in reality was not granted it because he was somehow supporting the communism in the world

-Rachid Yazami was not granted the prize in 2014 although an English inventor Stanley Withingham and another Japanese Akira Yoshino did the same invention in 2019 and won the NP in Chemistry

Finally I can presume that this prize or any other from the same category has the clear image which is supporting important fields: medicine, peace… but the hidden is that the World Order is paying tribute to whom has great loyalty
 
Thank you for passing by. I can only agree with most of what you said. I personally haven't read Children of Gebellawi (honestly, mainly to keep the image I have of Naguib) but both Camus and Mahfuz have "shaped" me when I was young, and I have learned principles from them. Now we are grown up and can easily filter out the bad principles and ideas, and keep the good ones. Both of them have written so good and beautiful texts about life and its meaning. I usually say that all the world is waiting for is simply a "Muslim Albert Camus" E

When it comes to Nobel Prize, there is actually unfortunately no conspiracy as you are trying to say. Tunisia won it. An Ethiopian won it yesterday. All people from different nations and colours have won Nobel Prizes in different fields. But of course it remains as you say a pro-western institution and prize. And when we say the West we say Israel. How many times have I said on this site that there are no conspiracies when it comes to the three religions? Q

I really hope people understand what I mean. Most of the world's trouble is due to the war between the three religions, but there is no conspiracy because no one is hiding anything. Muslims love to take the victim role but that is so wrong. Jews and Christians are working hard whereas Muslims are crying because the world is "secretsly plotting against them". What do you expect from the West? To love and respect Muslims whom they see as the most obvious threat to the liberal Western lifestyle? Isn't it a bit childish to expect anything else than fear and hate combined with efforts to keep Muslims weak? Q

Everything is clear and Muslims should work instead of talk. We can blame only ourselves instead of keeping deminishing hard work of people just because we don't understand it. Islam is up there. Untouchable. So is God. But science is real also. And Islam encourages us to know things to the smallest details and to continuously think about life and existence (tadabbur). There is absolutely nothing wrong with becoming a great chemist or a great doctor and being awarded for that
 
The Ethiopian leader won Nobel Prize
Congratulations Ethiopia


Flag-Ethiopia - Copie.gif
 
I knew Camus since I was a teenager, when first I read " The Myth of Sisyphus" and "The Stranger " these books grabbed my attention since that young age, when the writer triggered the obvious thought :after those hard burdens as a rock on the back of this painful life which will end by death, do we expect eternity?, do we aim the paradise? Or happiness or fame or fortune?…none of them for sure, we get only the absurdity and the absence of meaning
This absurdity is not a source of defeat and retreat from the battle but in contrast it's the will to continue again the eternal struggle
Absurdity makes you in anxiety and asking questions, but this is full of meaning and energy to restart when you are broken and fight fate with bare hands
Existentialism is not a mere philosophy it's a whole humanity, encompassing the will to learn , to explore ,to rise and fall knowing that you will perish one day
We think that existentialism ended with Sartre and Camus.. but I think that this philosophy will endure as far as there's a man on earth asking and wondering about his fate and future and existence and the meaning
(same account as Fethi99)
 
So, the thing with Camus and other absurdists is that they are neither full existentialists nor full nihilists but rather a combination of the two. And this is actually exactly what I was speaking about in my al-qada and al-qadar thread. I mean, there is one part of our being which we shape by ourselves (existentialism) and one part on which we have zero control (nihilsim). This is not only logical, this is also empirical. In other words, it is something that every single person is experiencing every single day

Many people didn't understand my al qada and al qadar thread despite the fact that it was so simple, logical, empirical and clear. What I meant there was that I know that I have taken a million decisions in my life and acted upon them, but I know at the same time that my life story is being written and that I have little to no control on it. That is the case for all people and that is exactly what absurdism is. Unlike what many people think, absurdism does not mean that life has no meaning. That is nihilism which means that, but absurdism is about the fact that is not easy to differentiate between what is meaningful and what is meaningless

I am almost sure that if Camus hadn't died quite young, he would become religious at the end. Only religion makes sense. Unfortunately, not every religion makes sense. Only Islam makes sense. Islam makes sense because it is about absurdism. That is to say, people should care about the part on which they have control and that's it. Try always to do the right thing, avoid always to do the wrong thing, leave the rest to Allah. In this, Islam differs clearly from the two other monotheistic religions but that is not the topic here

I have decided to add a fourth paragraph to explain the third one. Nothing except punishment and reward can make any sense. If not for the afterlife, this life has really NO meaning. Think about it. If I am not to be accountable for my deeds, why should I even be alive? Why should I be a good person if not for fear of punishment and longing for reward? How can morality - that is not based on punishment and reward - make any sense? If not for punishment and reward, why should people keep on suffering throughout their life? Q

Let me stop here, but have no idea how much I love the fourth paragraph, and how much more I can and want to develop the ideas in it. I will definitely do that in the coming days or weeks inshAllah
 
أعلى