The Stranger and History

What is most curious about Albert Camus' The Stranger is the extreme lack of history.
As the book is read hardly anything is known about the main character Meursault, which is extremely significant whether one realizes it or not.
When someone reads a book they judge characters based on their past, and on their actions. But with Meursault all of that is taken away, and all that we have to judge him by is from the actions of his present. We cannot assume that he had a bad childhood, or was abused or somehow was changed to become to emotionless, for all we know he could have been born like that. We have no idea if he had a good relationship with his mother or father or what kind of man he was before the funeral.

He is the stranger.

It's almost like randomly meeting a person and knowing them for only a day. You know little to nothing, and therefore cannot assume anything but can imagine everything.
There are many interpretations of Meursault, one that he is completely heartless is disconnected from the world. There are some that say he lives a simple life and has a passion for the absolute truth. However, I personally cannot agree with either interpretations. I cannot say that Meursault is completely heartless and I cannot say that he has a passion for the truth. I would say that Meursault can feel, he just chooses not to and he doesn't have a passion for the truth but is more so cursed (or blessed) with the inability to lie.
But again, I could very well be wrong. I could find all kinds of evidence from The Stranger to support this view, however, the fact that I know little to nothing about the character still remains. Perhaps it is to send the message to readers that who you think a person is may not be who they are. Perhaps it's to say that history is pointless to tell people as one can never really know someone. Perhaps it is to show how society shuns those who are truly individuals.
What makes a person an individual? Some who thinks differently than society? But what about the statistics that say that no one can have an individual thought? With the amount of people in this world there is bound to be at least a handful of people with the same idea. But what about the thought that society's ways were once individual thoughts? Can anyone be an individual in this world of copiers?

On another note this story begs the question of whether or not we can really know someone. Or how about this: are our actions purely our own? For instance a person could argue that the sun made Meursault kill the Arab but others could argue that he himself chose to take the gun and go back to where the Arab was. But also, Meursault never would have agreed to marry Marie if she hadn't brought it up. Can people make decisions without the conscious or subconscious influence of those around them?

So many questions! So little answers! As is life.

Yes I will be coming back to this one as well.