Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear, this much is true. There is the fear of death, fear of loss, fear of loosing, and fear of failure, which ties into anxiety, with every ounce of fear there is an equal if not greater stimulation of anxiety, but these are just things in life everyone must face. Fear and anxiety are quite present and relevant in our world, but they do not define what our existence embodies. There is love, and from love; happiness. To say that life is only negative is absurd, because without positive, what is negative? Bad things are only defined as bad because they have their antonym to compare itself to. For example; consider in todays world if someone was at a movie theatre and was handed a bucket of pop corn, in our world this would be seen as a good thing, but imagine a world where popcorn was something that made peoples heads explode, so if someone handed you something that would make your head explode, you would probably view it as a bad thing. This displays the depiction between good and bad, and that it is impossible to only have fear and anxiety, because without happiness, love, joy, relief, fear and anxiety would be meaningless.
Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear, this much is true. There is the fear of death, fear of loss, fear of loosing, and fear of failure, which ties into anxiety, with every ounce of fear there is an equal if not greater stimulation of anxiety, but these are just things in life everyone must face. Fear and anxiety are quite present and relevant in our world, but they do not define what our existence embodies. There is love, and from love; happiness. To say that life is only negative is absurd, because without positive, what is negative? Bad things are only defined as bad because they have their antonym to compare itself to. For example; consider in todays world if someone was at a movie theatre and was handed a bucket of pop corn, in our world this would be seen as a good thing, but imagine a world where popcorn was something that made peoples heads explode, so if someone handed you something that would make your head explode, you would probably view it as a bad thing. This displays the depiction between good and bad, and that it is impossible to only have fear and anxiety, because without happiness, love, joy, relief, fear and anxiety would be meaningless.
“Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear.”
First of all, I do agree with this quote for the most part, as life is, by nature a fairly stressful thing. However, as with most of these existentialist quotes, a negative feeling is portrayed here with this quote (anxiety and fear general bring an unhappy feeling to light). Unlike many of the rest them though, I find this quote has a fairly positive connotation as well that is not as easily seen. Anxiety and fear are natural emotions, as are many, many other feelings, in humans, and they are very necessary life-saving for our survival as a species. Every animal has these innate senses; they are tied to the “fight of flight” aspect of nature in which an animal will naturally attempt to survive and live to fight another day. While we are not out in the wild being hunted as our ancestors were, we still experience these feelings in a similar way. These feelings are brought about in a number of ways (before a big test of sporting event, during a speech, etc.), and they are very important in that they help us perform these difficult tasks at a high level. Without anxiety or fear, extreme apathy would be abound, as nobody would care about completing tasks well and on time. Nobody would have that voice in their head telling them to keep going. Anyway anxiety and fear are feelings I experience on a daily basis, and I am sure everyone, at least to some varying degree, feels them too; it is only natural after all.
“Day to day existence is full with anxiety and fear.”
I agree with this statement completely. Anxiety and fear are in everybody’s everyday life, but it does not mean that they are bad. Fear and anxiety have a negative connotation making this statement sound as if it is sad and depressing, but I don’t think that it is at all, they are natural responses after all. Sometimes it’s nice to have some anxiety and fear in your life. For example, before big tests, games, speeches, new experiences, etc. If you experience anxiety before an event it’s because you care about it, even the slightest bit. The same thing goes with fear, it means that you care enough to be scared if a situation doesn’t go your way. Without anxiety and fear, everything and life would become irrelevant and there would be no motivation to complete necessary tasks at all. In Eugene Oregon, there have been traces of pharmaceutical drugs in the water due to people flushing their unused drugs. This of course has an affect on the environment as fish are being affected by the drugs in the water, especially the anti-depressants. One of the uses for anti-depressants is to help people deal with their anxiety. When fish have anti-depressants, they become less concerned about hiding from bigger fish, and in result putting their life in danger. By blocking of these natural emotions, they are putting their lives in risk. The same thing can be said for people, without anxiety or fear, there would be no will to survive. Personally, I would rather have anxiety and fear and care about things in my life than not to feel anything at all.
Link to the article about the fish (It’s really interesting) : http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-water-pollution-pharmaceuticals-meds-drugs/
Sorry adding on, I don't think this is something that is an opinion, this is a statement. There is no denying that anxiety and fear is in everyday life. I think the question here is whether or not we believe that the anxiety and fear is good or bad.
Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Humans are naturally social beings, and they crave the feel safe and belonged in their lifetimes. With this need for acceptance, each day can cause internal stress with the unknown challenges that lie ahead. I believe most of these challenges will root at a person’s deep fear of not being good enough. Speaking as a teenager, I can say that I have seen and experienced this kind of fear and anxiety on a daily basis. I feel confident in saying that almost every person has been mindful of their actions in order to appeal to the social setting. However, trying to appease everyone else is nearly impossible and the worry of feeling subsequent to one’s peers is enough to arise anxiety. Taking a step back from the social aspect of life, fear can be found in the loss of hope in one’s worthiness for life. Common misfortunes like getting fired, failing a test, losing a friend or constantly being criticized can take a tole on on one’s outlook on the importance of life, and replace that with the feelings of hopelessness and fear of failure. While most people find ways to handle their fears and anxiety, each person experiences it in their own ways, making it an inevitable factor of life.
"Day to day existence is filled with fear and anxiety."
I absolutely agree with the statement above, not only for humans but for all living creatures day to day existence is filled with fear and anxiety. Everyone has different goals that they hope to accomplish in life, from being the greatest athlete in the world to getting a good sale on laundry detergent. Trying to achieve these goals we set in life can cause anxiety, due to not being able to achieve these goals or the roadblocks we face while trying to achieve them. With goals come the fear of not being able to fulfill them as well. Although we all have varying individual goals, every living being has the deep routed will or goal to survive. This will to live produces many fears and causes a great deal of anxiety. The fear of death persists practically every living creature, knowing that your life could potentially expire at any moment, is both frightening to know and but also causes a lot of anxiety as to whether we’ll accomplish our goals in life or not. Anxiety can appear because it's obvious that our time isn’t infinite so we try to make the most of it causing stress.
“Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear.”
The purpose of human existent is to accomplish goals and to always be prepared for the future or even just an outcome. I agree with this statement because in order to accomplish even the simplest goals there is always the possibility that certain factors could go wrong since nobody can see into the future. There is a well-known quote that states, “Do one thing a day that scares you.” Without fear, there is no motivation to do certain tasks, even though fear can be connected with a negative connotation. Examples of this are: the fear of failing a test pushes people to study hard, the fear of not getting into a prestigious university motivates people to take difficult classes and be well rounded. But what makes me agree with this statement the most is the even smaller life tasks that people generally don’t think about. The reason people wear oven mitts to pull out a freshly baked tray of cookies is because of the terror that comes from burning themselves. Additionally, that fear created the motivation for that invention, thus, fear can help motivate an easier existence. Even actions that have become second nature such as crossing the street has fears and possible dangerous outcomes. However, the fear of being late, not getting to the location, etc. overrides the fear that comes from crossing the street, therefore the task is accomplished.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus is used to explain is his thoughts on the absurd. Camus believed that there were three options to get over the absurd, physical suicide, psychological suicide, and acceptance. The option that he believed was the only correct option was acceptance. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus tried to escape death because he enjoyed life so greatly. Unfortunately, Sisyphus was punished for his actions and forced to push a huge stone up a mountain again and again. Every time that he would push the rock up, it would roll back down the mountain. This relates to Camus’ idea of the absurd and that everyone has limitations and barriers to doing what they enjoy and are passionate about, “One always finds one’s burden again,” . We all have our burdens and life, and to enjoy life, we need to accept them and try to find joy within the burdens that we have. This is why Camus still says that we MUST imagine sisyphus as happy even with a task is tortuous. Repeating a task so monotonous as pushing a rock up a hill over and over again is bound to make someone go insane and lose their mind. It is torture to even imagine such a task. This is why he chooses to use the word ‘must’, we must accept the fact that life has its struggles in order to be sane, “He is stronger than his rock,”. We must ‘become stronger’ than our burdens to be able to continue pushing the rock up the mountain and to continue living our lives.
“Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?”
Camus felt the story of Sisyphus to be very absurd, similar to lots of the writings that he himself produced. In this way, he portrays the story as a dark, unending happening similar to life itself. He questions what many other people think about the story (that Sisyphus is a hero of sorts), and provides a new analysis of the situation with this essay. This idea of Sisyphus as a hero ties into his opinion that “We must imagine him happy.” Because people think Sisyphus’ efforts to be more valient than pointless, as Camus thinks of them as, they have have to think of him a happy individual or at least one with a positive outlook on life. With this Camus suggests that human beings are too positive as a people, always looking for a hero to root for even if, in Camus’ opinion, there is not one to be found. This last point is supported by an earlier quote in the passage which reads, “If one believes in Homer, Sisyphus was the wisest and most prudent of mortals.” Homer, being an optimist like everyone else discussed above, portrayed Sisyphus in a very positive light, which only fueled this thinking with the general population. Camus, overall, is very negative in his interpretation of the story, thus suggesting the absurdity of life. In this way, if life was not absurd, then bad things, such as eternally pushing a rock up a hill, would not happen to good people like Sisyphus. Alas, that is not the case here, which provides evidence for Camus’ unique hypothesis.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word “must”? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
The myth describes the philosophy of how human nature is always curious about the meaning/purpose and God’s reasoning for why people are living. This is considered absurd due to the fact that it drives people to live their life a certain way and define their decisions. For example, Sisyphus continues to push the rock up the mountain even though he knows that the rock will roll down the hill every single time, yet he continues to do so every single day. The myth of Sisyphus ends with the imperative statement to show how the struggle of discovering the meaning of man is very important to most if not all people. Sisyphus sacrificed his life for man to understand that life is about hard work and the little things in life that no one appreciates, “Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountains, in itself forms a world". Additionally, that statement supports how Sisyphus’s self-discovery went to help all of humanity understand the meaning and truth of life. Supported by “itself forms a world”, the rock that kept rolling and then shattered into an abundant amount of pieces and then absorbed by the air shows how human kind evolved to absorb those qualities and understand this in a simpler way without the sacrifices Sisyphus had to endure. Also, the word “must” implies the fact that Sisyphus really wanted to understand the purpose of life, and the fact that he helped others do so would most likely make his sacrifices worth the effort even if he didn’t get to experience it.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
The myth Sisyphus was a greek legend of the king of Enarete, who was punished for his deceitfulness and his craftiness by being forced to throw a bolder up a hill, only to watch it come back down, for all of eternity. To think that he is happy is the greatest symbol of optimism, what he would spend his eternity doing would be the most physically and emotionally draining thing mortal men can imagine. But to state that he is happy, is to say that there is no situation that one could look upon negatively. The must is included to state that we as a society must think about this, to not only remember to stay optimistic, but to remember that there is probably someone somewhere who has it worse than we do, but has a smile on their face still.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
In the myth of Sisyphus, a man (Sisyphus) is scorned to eternal torture after disobeying the Gods. He must push a stone up a mountain and watch it roll back down repeatedly throughout his time in the underworld. However when describing his torture, Camus acknowledges the moments in which Sisyphus watches the stone roll down and walks back to roll it up again is the time in which he, “contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon sealed by his death”. This addresses humanity’s natural eagerness when it comes to existence. Despite having been sentenced to this miserable future, Sisyphus still has a purpose to his life and a place to ‘go’. So when Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy”, he is telling people to be content with their misfortunes, as there is a life to be made in each of the worst circumstances. Determination and hard work is sufficient to fill a man’s heart and we must recognize that when all else fails and impending darkness is all we see, we must make light out of the dark and create new forms of happiness when the rest has been lost.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings? The myth of Sisyphus is that, Sisyphus has been condemned to move a rock up a hill for all of eternity. Sisyphus has been punished to move a boulder up a hill. The theme of the myth is that no matter what Sisyphus can never attain his goal of having the rock reach the top of the hill and it will always roll back down, dooming him to spend all of eternity rolling the rock up the hill. Sisyphus' situation is a perfect example of the absurd, an unending contradiction that can never bu fulfilled but can be escaped from. This related back to life which Camus also view as absurd. Camus believes Sisyphus must be imagined happy with his situation, as he has not taken the only step in escaping from it, suicide. In human life death is the escape from the absurd, and suicide is a way to quickly reach it through one's own means. By using Sisyphus as an example Camus is able to discourage people from commiting suicide and escaping the absurd but instead continuously facing it head on like the happy man, Sisyphus.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
Weather has a profound impact on the thoughts and feeling of the main character Meursault. In some cases, it feeds his apathetic nature. Near the beginning of the book, he thinks to himself, “Soon after that, the sky grew dark, and I thought we were in for a summer storm. Gradually, though, it cleared up again. But the passing clouds had left a hint of rain hanging over the street, which made it look darker” (Camus 22-23). Here, and in many other instances, Meursault has an indifferent and seemingly negative outlook on the weather. He constantly dwells on the darkness, which makes sense since he should be in mourning over his mother’s death, although he would never say outright say that he was. It almost seems here that he wants there to be a storm; it sort of feeds his existentialist, life does not matter vibe. Now, he certainly is not a fan of warm days either. At the end of part one, he begins a very dramatic interpretation of what the sun’s effects on him even going as far as to say that the sunlight and warmth was making him drunk and that his forehead was swelling from the heat (57). This page, which comes right he kills the Arab, explains the uncanny, negative effects that adverse weather has on him. It seems to cloud his judgement severely, forcing him into poor, foolish decisions. Of course, for a man who does not really care about life, he probably does not see it this way at all.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
During part one of The Stranger the sun is prevalent mainly during the major events Meursault decides on. The weather in general dictates his emotions and decisions especially when he tends to be outdoors. Meursault seems to be highly affected by the sun. It expresses the major pressure he feels and the injustice of society and the societal punishments. An example of this is when he was hesitant on killing the Arab man and was deciding if he should go through with it or not. The sun was what pushed Meursault to not leave the beach since it was too bright. When, “It occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it. But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back” (58). Without that bright sun, he would have left the beach and never have run into the scenario with the Arab man to begin with. Therefore, it foreshadows that whenever there is sun, Meursault will be pressured into a decision that could be negative, specifically if heat is mentioned. Oddly enough, it’s ironic to how Meursault almost blames the sun for his irrational decisions because usually the sun has a positive connotation. This helps support how Meursault has complete control over his actions and that the author does not believe in fate, but rather free will.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
In Part One of The Stranger, Albert Camus uses weather to influence the emotions and motivations of Meursault. Throughout most of part one, Meursault's actions are often a reflection of the weather, this is very prevalent when Meursault kills the Arab. Leading up to the murder, Meursault made a connection of to the weather, “The sun was the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman, and like then, especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under my skin,” (Camus 58-59). Meursault says the sun is hurting him. Meursault was pressured into murdering this man, and this only confirms that he did not feel comfortable with this decision. The sun also reminded Meursault of the day his mother was buried. This brings back that Meursault feels guilt for the situation, as he remembers the pain he felt for losing a loved one. Also, Meursault is also probably thinking of how ashamed his mother would be of him. The weather continues to reflect Meursault’s emotions, “At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped down over my eyelids all at once and covered them with a warm thick film. My eyes were blinded by the cymbals of the sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife and in front of me,” (59). Again the sun is beating down on Meursault, similar to the guilt beating down in him. The first thing that popped out in the quote was the film of sweat covering his eyes. This symbolizes the blindness of the actions that Meursault is about to commit. One thing that I noticed in both of the quotes, was the mention of the sun and heat affecting Meursault’s forehead. The forehead is actually home to the brain's frontal lobes. One of the functions of the frontal lobes is to be the center for judgement and decision making. It is interesting that the sun and heat had impacts on the part of the brain that controls decision making. This is another example of how weather reflects Meursault’s attitude towards the murder.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
Camus uses weather as the primary control over Meursault's emotions. From the first couple chapters of the book, it is evident that the sun plays a major role Meursault’s life. While he lack many emotional connections to the world, he values physical ones and finds his only real source of life in the physical aspects of his environment, and especially the weather. Meursault's emotion will differ across of large spectrum from joyous to resentful depending on the sun’s intensity. In the beginning of the novel, Camus writes, “The room was filled late-afternoon sunlight. Two hornets were buzzing against the glass roof. I could feel myself getting sleepy” (7). Not only does the sun affect Meursault’s emotional state, but it affects his visceral nature and drains his body to the point of exhaustion. This was Camus’ first indicator to the readers that the sun provides strong influence over Meursault and this foreshadows later him being overtaken by the heat and, in Meursault's mind, excused to kill the Arab. In the moments before he shoots the Arab, Meursault describes the setting and Camus writes, “...my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin. It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward. I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn’t get the sun off of me by stepping forward” (59). Meursault clearly feels heavily influence by the heat of the sun and he allows it to captivate his mind and infect his body, focusing on all the pain it was causing him in that moment. He had convinced himself that stepping forward, in the direction of the Arab, would ‘get the sun off’, and although he recognized this as nonsense, he continues anyway. It was this notion that lead to him murdering the Arab, and while it may have been hot, Meursault’s naturalism and apathy for societal moral standard is the cause that leads him to pull the trigger. After he has done so he says, “I shook off the sweat and the sun” (59). Camus as distinctively written the sun to be Meursault's scapegoat for this situation and it is evident as immediately after the man is killed, the sun and its violent influence is removed from Meursault's mind. His change in demeanor is rapid and it concludes that the weather influences Meursault in a way that is limited to his interpretation of the heat. The temperature of the day did not change from before or after Meursault shot the Arab, yet he felt significantly less violated by the heat after he killed the man. Meursault allows the weather to control his emotions due to his intense infatuation with the physical aspects of the world.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
In The Stranger, the weather, especially the sun has an extremely important role as it seems the sun dominates Meursault's life and his actions. The while at the beach Meursault's would have left if not for the sweltering heat of sun “"But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back.” ( Camus, 58).While Meursault should have the ability to move simply leave the beach the sun’s powerful heat motivates to move towards the spring. It’s as if Meursault can’t control his own actions when he’s pitted against nature, the sun’s heat and his physical need to escape it has a greater impact on him than his own will to leave the beach. When standing in trial for the murder of the arab Meursault states that the murder was because of the sun “My head was spinning with heat and astonishment. I never intended to kill the Arab. I blurted out it was because of the sun” (106). The sun is so incredibly impactful to Meursault that it compels him to murder a man in cold blood. Meursault also fails to feel remorse for his actions, because he honestly believes they weren’t his fault, it was the sun, the same sun that compelled him to abandon his goal of leaving the beach and kill the Arab. When the sun and it’s heat come into play Meursault believes he’s a pawn.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
In the Stranger, Meusault's emotions can be seen in the following quote,
The sky was already filled with light. The sun was beginning to bear down on the earth and it was getting hotter by the minute. I don’t know why we waited so long before getting under way. I was hot in my dark clothes […] it was inhuman and oppressive.
Meursault displays what it is to be a walking contradiction. He takes positive things such as sunlight and spring life and turns it into something negative. This shows Meusaults emotions, as he will take something positive and turn it into something negative, but it could also explore something about who he is as a person, through out the novel, Camus displays Meusault as a rather emotionless man, without empathy. A depiction of this can be seen from when he feels indifferent about his lovers offer to get married, he doesn't care or understand the concept of emotion, he is only instinct.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
Meursault and Salamano both lost important people in their lives (their only friends in a way). However, this is probably their only similarity. Salamano seems to be a foil of sorts to Meursault, specifically with regards to their dog and mother, respectively. Salamano weeps when his dog dies of a horrible disease even though he was constantly cursing and beating the dog when it was alive. This severely contrasts Meursault who seemed to like his mother, as much as an extreme existentialist could at least, but was then indifferent after her death. Salamano is, in general, a much more emotional person than Meursault, and had actual connections with people and more importantly, his dog. He even says, “I hope the dogs don’t bark tonight. I always think it’s mine” (Camus 46). Clearly, Salamano cannot stop thinking of his dog after it passes away. He, like many people, grieves considerably when his loved one dies. He is focused on the dog, as he probably should be. Meursault on the hand, has his mind drift after his mother’s death (although that is not really unusual for him). Two days after her death, he cannot even remember when she died; was it one day, two days, three?; it does not really matter to him. Given all of this information, it seems that Salamano symbolizes the caring and passionate side of people, a side that is never shown by Meursault in any significant way. For this reason, Salamano is definitely a foil of Meursault.
The symbolic representation of each character represents a different emotion that Meusault cannot comprehend. In the first few chapters, he meets a man named Raymond Sintes, to me he represents Sin, as it is even found in his very name. Raymond is a pimp he believes heavily in achieving revenge and getting even. Raymond also never seems to act upon logic or rational thought. Because he had one hunch that his mistress was seeing someone else, he concluded that she was cheating on her, and did not even bother to ask or try to find any other reasonable explanation, which would be the opposite of what Meursault would do, as he would be rational, and probably would not even build up any anger. That being said, one could state that Raymond represents Meursaults Foil character, but only of his anger. Every other character seems to be his foil to every other emotion.
One of the points that the prosecutor in Meursault’s trial brought up was the fact that Meursault did no in fact seem to grieve over his mother’s deceased status. This point was used to portray Meursault as an unfeeling monster because of this seemingly stone-hearted response to his mother’s death which is considered highly abnormal by the society that he lives in. This is because in the religious environment of the town family is considered a very important core value and Meursault not agreeing with that sets everyone who believes that family is especially important at odds with him. Maman then represents the backbone of his connection with the society and humanity. With the death of the backbone of the connection to his society he starts to become more distant from it. She also represents the death of his ignorance to the the absurdity of the world around him. In the description of her relationship with Monsieur Perez it states that it is a pure, innocent love much like that of a child’s. This is similar to this blissful ignorance a child has and the relatively peaceful life of Meursault before he comes to terms with the absurdity of the world around him like Meursault did after his mother’s death.This also makes a statement about parenthood in that the parents that raise and nurture us are often the ones whose actions blocks us from realizing the truth of the absurdity of the world.
One specific character with significant symbolism is Maman. Maman is Meursault’s mother who passed away in the beginning of the novel. For some strange reason, Meursault did not seemed to express much emotion, specifically sadness, to losing his mother. When describing his emotions after her death, Meursault states, “When she was at home with me, Maman used to spend her time following me with her eyes, not saying a thing” (5). This quote explains why Meursault was not saddened by the fact that his mother passed away, instead he was indifferent due to the fact that he was never close to his mother. In general, his relationship with Maman helps represent the fact that Meursault struggles to make and keep relationships with other characters. Additionally, after Meursault’s court case, he thinks, “But now I understood, it was perfectly normal. How had I not seen that there was nothing more important than an execution, and that when you come right down to it, it was the only thing a man could truly be interested in? If I ever got out of this prison I would go and watch every execution there was” (110). Oddly enough, Meursault went unwillingly to his mother’s funeral, however he talked about wanting to see strangers be executed. Taking this into consideration, and the fact that Meursault is an existentialist, most likely, he would want to see people’s death’s for the reason that they did something socially unacceptable. Thus, he would want to see what people were willing to fight for. Whereas his mother, died what was considered a normal death, representing the people in society who are submissive and don’t stand out, which is not something Meursault wants to be associated with.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
The old Salamano and his dog have the most complex relationship of the book. It signifies love after death, mortality equality and a compelling companionship that Meursault failed to conceive in his own life. Salamano and his dog appeared to be an abusive relationship, but the surface of their relationship was deceiving to the strong emotional connection they had. Camus first introduces these characters and says, “He was with his dog. The two of them have been inseparable for eight years. The spaniel has a skin-disease – mange, I think – which makes almost all of its hair fall out and leaves it covered with brown sores and scabs. After living together for so long, the two of them alone in one tiny room, they’ve ended up looking like each other.... They look as if they belong to the same species, and yet they hate each other” (26). After losing his wife, the dog was all Salamano had. His physical appearance is a representation of his emotional deterioration, and the relation to the dog shows that the man’s pain reflects on to the dogs as well, resulting in their mirrored appearances. The abusive side of their relationship most likely is a projection of Salamano’s anger towards the death of wife, yet the survival of this dog. Salamano has used his dog as a surrogate for his lost wife and this suggests reflects Meursault's later realization that all men and creatures are made equal by death. It is still unclear now that he truly does love this dog for it is all he has left of his family. As time goes on in the book, their relationship becomes clear. Camus writes, “From a distance I noticed old Salamano standing on the doorstep. He looked flustered. When we got closer, I saw that he didn’t have his dog. He was looking all over the place, turning around, peering into the darkness of the entryway, muttering incoherently, and then he started searching the street again with his little red eyes” (38). Salamano and his dog have a great companionship that is finally brought to light after the dog becomes lost and Salamano shows vivid signs of distress. This type of worry and discontenment is rooted in Salamano’s love for his dog and only appeared once the dog was missing. With this, Camus is suggesting that dogs can operate on the same level of humans in an emotional stance. The friendship these two have is greatly exaggerated, yet it foils Meursault's character because in his lifetime he failed to ever make a connection as strong as Salamano and his dog.
In the stranger, many characters also act as symbols, Raymond Sintes, possibly the most important character after Meursault and whose actions influence the entire course of the novella, symbolizes morality. Raymond isn’t a moral character, in fact he’s the most immoral character in the entire story. Raymond’s character is utterly despicable, he’s a pimp that abuses his girlfriends and he’s irrationally violent, he gets into a fight with an arab and nearly kills him and uses violence against women. Raymond’s immoral nature contrasts with that of Meursault’s amoral nature, Meursault simply lacks the knowledge of right and wrong, or they don’t necarsily mean as much to him as they would the average person Raymond is purely immoral and his actions go completely against moral standards. Raymond’s immorality and Meursault’s lack of morality are demonstrated when Raymond convinces Meursault to assist him in his plot to punish his mistress and testify to the police for him for cheating on him. Raymond plans on spitting and hitting the mistress, an act he clearly knows is wrong yet proceeds with any, and Meursault agrees to help not because he feel sRaymond is close to him or has been greatly wronged but because he doesn’t see as reason not too. This clearly shows how Meursault is amoral, he doesn’t see the wrong in Raymond’s actions or simply does not care whether they are seen as wrong or right by society while Raymond is doing an action he can truly interpret as wrong.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
In The Stranger, Albert Camus uses The Robot Woman to represent society's standards while acting as a foil to Meursault who does not conform to society.While not a very significant character in the plot of the story, The Robot Woman had a significant role in the overall message of The Stranger. The Robot Woman had an abrupt and random introduction into this story and was only mentioned one other time throughout the novel. When she was first introduced, Meursault was in Celeste’s cafe and she sat at the same table as him. She had strange mannerisms that intrigued Meursault. Camus described the robot woman’s actions as “clear”, “fast”, “feverishly”, “meticulously”, and “robot like” (43). The Robot woman knew what she was doing and what she needed to get done. When she was waiting for her meal, she paid her bill and tip. After her meal, she left , “She had positioned herself right next to the curb and was making her way with incredible speed and assurance, never once swerving or looking around,” (43). The robot woman is concerned with completing her task, this is opposes Meursault, who typically doesn’t have a plan and goes with the flow. This is shown when he decides to follow her out of curiosity and because he had no plans. The Robot Woman is mentioned once more at Meursault’s trial, “I recognized next to him the little woman from the restaurant, with her jacket and her stiff determined manner,” (86). At Meursault’s trial, she is a representative of society as she is judging him for his actions. This is another example of how she is a foil to Meursault. Meursault is on trial and fully accepting his death, whereas the robot woman is watching the trial and an exaggerated example of society. The Robot Woman represents society and the daily routines that people go through.
“How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?”
Death is taken very lightly in this book, probably because everyone in the book is already dead (except the Valet maybe? a ghost or something… the world may never know). Much of the fear associated with death ties into the very common fear of the unknown. In the the case of death, “what happens when one dies?” or something along these lines is the oft-asked question. All of the fear associated with this set of large, unanswerable, philosophical questions is, for obvious reasons, eliminated after death. The characters really do not seem all too angry about their deaths, and in fact, seem contented and accepting. This is understandable because all of them had something that, in their time period or, in some cases, any time period, was objectionable quality. Garcin, for example, had many such traits such as his abusive behavior or his pacifist writing at the time of a great war. Throughout the play, the character get on each other’s nerves, which causes much of the conflict in the story. It is through this tension that the group concludes that they must be in Hell. This seems to align perfectly to Sartre’s, the writer of this play, quote in which he states that, “Hell is other people.” His portrayal of Hell in this play is representative of his nightmare: being locked in a room for all of eternity with a bunch of annoying strangers. This may not be everybody’s hypothetical doom and gloom scenario, but to Sartre, it just could not get worse.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Death is spoken of in terms of denial, especially when Estelle demands herself and the others to use the word ‘absentees’ when describing their current state. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, the characters carry on with a sense of hope as if they didn’t refer to themselves as dead, only absent, their life would still remain. In other ways, the characters also hold on to their past lives by at first not admitting their reasons for being spawn in hell. Estelle evading accepting her true reason for being in hell, and kept up her ‘good girl’ persona even when there was no point to it. Garcin and Inez did the same and neither wanted to be the first to confess their sins. Each was afraid to put to bed their old lives and reflect honestly on the mistake they made during their lives. Refusing their death, it seemed each one of them wanted to appear as if their place in hell was a mistake, and convince themselves and each other of their goodness in order to make up for the sins they had committed in their lives. Death in this play serves as an end to all hope and possibility of forgiveness and it takes most of the play for these characters to realize it. Once they do, they accept their place in hell for the eternity of their stay.
Death is a philosophical topic represented in the play No Exit, due to the fact that it is constantly being questioned and there is not an exact answer that can be given, even at the end of the play. What exactly is hell? This questioning mainly occurs once characters reach the afterlife, which is the setting that all the characters are in, such as: in all situations should crimes such as murder determine whether or not someone ends up in hell, even if the case of protecting a stronger good? It is clear from the beginning the novel that as each character gets added into the room, they understand that they should be in hell, but nobody thinks they deserve to be there. Death, and getting each of the characters to confess their crime/reason for death, is a topic that tends to be avoided and as much as possible tries to be unmentioned. Especially with Estelle when she states, “Please, please don't use that word [the dead]. It's so – so crude. In terribly bad taste, really. It doesn't mean much, anyhow. Somehow I feel we've never been so much alive as now” (20). In a way, each of the character’s death’s force them to face the reality of what they have done in the past. Additionally, it shows how existentialism comes into play due to the fact that each character made their own decision(s) and were able to defend it with what seemed like for the most part no regrets afterwards. This also ties to the notion how each character believed death in hell to be torturous, evil, and a horrible experience, however it’s not what is expected at all and is somewhat normal, considering that the main focus was the people surrounding/annoying each other, not a greater power such as the Devil as expected.
In No Exit, death is represented through the characters in the play having false hope and denying their situations. The greatest form example of false hope and denial can be observed through Estelle early on in the play “Please, please don't use that word [the dead]. It's so – so crude. In terribly bad taste, really. It doesn't mean much, anyhow. Somehow I feel we've never been so much alive as now” (20). Estelle wants to avoid using the word dead not simply because because it leaves a bad taste in her mouth but because it would force her to accept the situation that she’s in. Saying the word “dead” has relatively no meaning also, in a sense, contradicts her saying the word leaves a bad taste in her mouth and is crude. Usually the words that would leave a poor taste in one's mouth would be the ones that carry the deepest meanings, emotionally, historically, or even spiritually, such as racial slurs like the n-word. “Dead” carries more meaning to her now than any other word does as it can negatively affect her mood and senses, “dead” would force her to come to realize the situation she’s in quicker and by avoiding it as much as possible she can also deny her situation as much as possible. Estelle makes another attempt to completely erase the word dead from the group's vocabulary by having the group using absent instead. Using absent would imply that the group will one day leave hell and return to the world of the living. This view is meant to give hope that they will return but in fact, they won’t, they are dead and will spend the rest of their time in hell, no matter how long they try to convince themselves that they’re not or are alive in a way.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
When asking people what they are afraid of, one might expect answers like spiders, heights and public speaking. While those are all consistently valid answers, another common fear is death. Death is one of the inevitable things in life. We all know it is going to happen and we try our best to avoid it. Part of the fear comes from the age old mystery if there is indeed a heaven or a hell, or if there is indeed an afterlife. Therefore, this topic of death can be very debatable. Is there life after death? And should we be upstanding citizens out of fear of going to hell? In No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre uses three main characters to discuss the delicate topic of death while demonstrating the natural human fear of death. First off, when each of the characters arrive in the room, they assume that there is someone there to torture them. They all have a preconceived notion that the afterlife will be painful. Another thing that I noticed was a clear denial of their situations. While all of the characters admitted that they were no longer living, they still didn’t feel comfortable with the idea of being deceased. Estelle even refuses to use the word ‘dead’, in fact she describes herself and the other victims as ‘absentees’. This makes them sound more missing from the living world, than gone from it all together. In fact, in many parts of the play, characters are often checking up on their old lives as if they are missing something. The last thing that I noticed was the fact that the characters all wanted ‘human’ things. When Garcin first arrived, he was torn up at the idea of not having a tooth brush, mirrors, or the ability to sleep. This leads back to the idea that humans are comfortable of what they know and have a fear of what the afterlife my bring them.
The role of eyes/vision in No Exit is very crucial because in hell, none of the inhabitants are able to blink due to the fact that none of them have eyelids. Since they cannot do that, they also can’t sleep, which means that they are not allowed to rest. Additionally, that adds emphasis to the fact that they are not very human like anymore, also connecting to the reason why they ended up in hell, which is for their inhumane crimes/sins. Not being able to rest/close their eyes resembles how the characters are not able to avoid their problems, and imagine being in another location. They must face the “reality” of being in hell and deal with the situation without excuses/procrastinating. As well as that, eyes also symbolize how each character can “see through” everyone else’s life story and judge it for how it is. For example, Estelle and the fact that she murdered so many people during her lifetime. Forcing all the characters to keep their eyes open allowed clarity in their crimes and a true understanding to why they ended up in hell. Additionally, one thing all the characters assumed/are waiting for is a greater power of some sorts to come into the room and torture them/burn them alive or even kill them once again, for that is the general assumption for hell. However, this is clearly not the case, for they discover hell is people. But, the feeling that they might be constantly watched by something else is one of the reasons they are sheltered and shy and unwilling to share their life stories. Also with the power of their visions, each person is able to look down at a loved one on earth, which justifies some people’s emotions of anger, sadness, etc.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
Sartre uses the sight/vision/eyes in metaphorical context to portray realizations by the characters. Near the middle of the play Inez exclaims, “yes, I see. Look here! What’s the point of play-acting, trying to throw dust in each other’s eyes? We’re all tarred with the same brush” (Sartre 16). Inez gets fairly angry here as a result of Garcin claim of innocence, as he proclaims that he should not be in Hell. She believes this to be impossible given some of the group’s previously revealed character flaws. By saying this quote, she is concluding that they must be in Hell since they are all in the same place and all dead. The metaphor she uses here, “throw dust in each other’s eyes” seems to reference her opinion that there is no reason to deny their situation thus blinding them from the truth. She is basically getting everyone on the same page, attempting to make the others see her realization. Sartre also uses vision as a window into the character’s previous lives and the living world as they see it. Towards the end of the play Garcin “sees” some people from his old life and says, “Bored they look. Half-asleep. They’re thinking, ‘Garcin’s a coward.’ But only vaguely, dreamily. One’s got to think of something” (Sartre 38). Garcin, like the other two, can see everyone from his past, but, being dead, simply cannot intervene. He seems to look down on them with both envy and spite, very negative emotions, because of his situation. Overall, looking/seeing are have a bad connotation for the main characters in that they can look all they want but do nothing. This contributes to their bizarre, but no less torturous, Hell.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
Eyes, sight, and vision play a significant role in No Exit. All of characters, recently deceased, have lost many ‘humanly’ traits and abilities. The three main characters: Garcin, Estelle, and Inez, are adjusting to their time in hell. One of the most significant things lost was the loss of their eyelids. Sartre chooses to focus their loss on eyes, or rather gain, due to the fact that they are in Hell. There is a controversy as to what people believe that hell is, a fiery pit, a torture chamber, a black room, or even nothing at all. Sartre believes however that “hell is other people”. Being forced to into a room for eternity with strangers who you hate is taxing enough, but not being able to close your eyes, sleep and escape for a moment can be worse than the most painful torture. Sartre’s choice to have the characters lose their eyelids can also represent guilt. Each of the characters did horrible things to land themselves a room in hell, so they should not be able to escape their mistakes. By never being able to close their eyes and look away they are faced with their crimes ringing in their head for eternity. There are many things that humans take for granted everyday. Along with the ability to sleep, the ability to blink is also something that humans don’t appreciate until it’s gone, “It’s a small black shutter that clicks down and makes a break. Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is,” (5). Even though blinking is just a moment, it can still be considered a refreshing treat, especially to someone who doesn’t have the abilities to. Sartre used the motif of eyes to reinforce the idea that you can’t always escape your actions.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
In the real world our eyes and vision are almost like a gift given to us. Using our eyes we can observe the world in a myriad of ways. In a sense, pun intended, our eyes are a blessing. In No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre eyes are used as a form of torture for the trio in their time in hell. Along with having to an agonizing spend an eternity with people they truly despise the three have had their eyelids taken away as a form of punishment. Having their eyes taken away causes the gift of sight to become a curse, especially in hell. Closing your eyes is a way to not only clean eyes but easily ignore what's set in front of you to the best of your ability. Without their eyelids the trio loses their ability to ignore their surroundings, ignore the fact that they’re in hell with people they hate more than anything else in the world. It forces them to see what exactly they’re dealing with and no matter how appalling it may be to look at they can’t seem to go way. Sight is used almost as a weapon in the relationship between Inez and Estelle. While in hell Estelle doesn’t have a mirror, this is extremely unsettling for Estelle who is extremely vain. Inez offers to be Estelle’s mirror for her and a comments on how she looks like in order to help her apply makeup and hit on her while doing so. When Estelle doesn’t recuperate her feelings Inex tells Estelle she that she has a pimple, startling her. While there was no pimple at all, Inez demonstrates the ability she has to frighten the vain Estelle by lying as her mirror.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
In the play, eyes and sight play a large role in each of the character’s new understanding of their future life in hell. One of the largest symbolic aspects of the character's’ eyes is that they do not have eyelids. As he first arrives, Garcin questions the valet about his new attribute and he says, “Your eyelids. We move ours up and down. Blinking, we call it. It’s like a small black shutter that clicks down and makes a break. Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is” (5). The lack of eyelids and blinking signifies that there is no rest in hell. He and the others must endure themselves and each other for all of eternity. They cannot relax in the pleasure of sleeping or dreaming, and they must face their sins without break. A common connect to open eyes is the realization of one’s mistakes and the provision of clarity. In this case, Garcin, Estelle and Inez will come to terms with their death on earth and their torture of each other in hell. Garcin foreshadows this theme of endurance of company when he says, “I shall never sleep again. But then— how shall I endure my own company?” (6). As the scene continues, Garcin will have to endure much more than just his own company. IN Sartre’s mind, hell is the inescapable company of other people, and that is clearly conveyed through the character's eyes, or lack thereof.
Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear, this much is true. There is the fear of death, fear of loss, fear of loosing, and fear of failure, which ties into anxiety, with every ounce of fear there is an equal if not greater stimulation of anxiety, but these are just things in life everyone must face. Fear and anxiety are quite present and relevant in our world, but they do not define what our existence embodies. There is love, and from love; happiness. To say that life is only negative is absurd, because without positive, what is negative? Bad things are only defined as bad because they have their antonym to compare itself to. For example; consider in todays world if someone was at a movie theatre and was handed a bucket of pop corn, in our world this would be seen as a good thing, but imagine a world where popcorn was something that made peoples heads explode, so if someone handed you something that would make your head explode, you would probably view it as a bad thing. This displays the depiction between good and bad, and that it is impossible to only have fear and anxiety, because without happiness, love, joy, relief, fear and anxiety would be meaningless.
ReplyDeleteDay to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear, this much is true. There is the fear of death, fear of loss, fear of loosing, and fear of failure, which ties into anxiety, with every ounce of fear there is an equal if not greater stimulation of anxiety, but these are just things in life everyone must face. Fear and anxiety are quite present and relevant in our world, but they do not define what our existence embodies. There is love, and from love; happiness. To say that life is only negative is absurd, because without positive, what is negative? Bad things are only defined as bad because they have their antonym to compare itself to. For example; consider in todays world if someone was at a movie theatre and was handed a bucket of pop corn, in our world this would be seen as a good thing, but imagine a world where popcorn was something that made peoples heads explode, so if someone handed you something that would make your head explode, you would probably view it as a bad thing. This displays the depiction between good and bad, and that it is impossible to only have fear and anxiety, because without happiness, love, joy, relief, fear and anxiety would be meaningless.
ReplyDelete“Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear.”
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I do agree with this quote for the most part, as life is, by nature a fairly stressful thing. However, as with most of these existentialist quotes, a negative feeling is portrayed here with this quote (anxiety and fear general bring an unhappy feeling to light). Unlike many of the rest them though, I find this quote has a fairly positive connotation as well that is not as easily seen. Anxiety and fear are natural emotions, as are many, many other feelings, in humans, and they are very necessary life-saving for our survival as a species. Every animal has these innate senses; they are tied to the “fight of flight” aspect of nature in which an animal will naturally attempt to survive and live to fight another day. While we are not out in the wild being hunted as our ancestors were, we still experience these feelings in a similar way. These feelings are brought about in a number of ways (before a big test of sporting event, during a speech, etc.), and they are very important in that they help us perform these difficult tasks at a high level. Without anxiety or fear, extreme apathy would be abound, as nobody would care about completing tasks well and on time. Nobody would have that voice in their head telling them to keep going. Anyway anxiety and fear are feelings I experience on a daily basis, and I am sure everyone, at least to some varying degree, feels them too; it is only natural after all.
“Day to day existence is full with anxiety and fear.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement completely. Anxiety and fear are in everybody’s everyday life, but it does not mean that they are bad. Fear and anxiety have a negative connotation making this statement sound as if it is sad and depressing, but I don’t think that it is at all, they are natural responses after all. Sometimes it’s nice to have some anxiety and fear in your life. For example, before big tests, games, speeches, new experiences, etc. If you experience anxiety before an event it’s because you care about it, even the slightest bit. The same thing goes with fear, it means that you care enough to be scared if a situation doesn’t go your way. Without anxiety and fear, everything and life would become irrelevant and there would be no motivation to complete necessary tasks at all. In Eugene Oregon, there have been traces of pharmaceutical drugs in the water due to people flushing their unused drugs. This of course has an affect on the environment as fish are being affected by the drugs in the water, especially the anti-depressants. One of the uses for anti-depressants is to help people deal with their anxiety. When fish have anti-depressants, they become less concerned about hiding from bigger fish, and in result putting their life in danger. By blocking of these natural emotions, they are putting their lives in risk. The same thing can be said for people, without anxiety or fear, there would be no will to survive. Personally, I would rather have anxiety and fear and care about things in my life than not to feel anything at all.
Link to the article about the fish (It’s really interesting) : http://www.opb.org/news/article/oregon-water-pollution-pharmaceuticals-meds-drugs/
Sorry adding on, I don't think this is something that is an opinion, this is a statement. There is no denying that anxiety and fear is in everyday life. I think the question here is whether or not we believe that the anxiety and fear is good or bad.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDay to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement wholeheartedly. Humans are naturally social beings, and they crave the feel safe and belonged in their lifetimes. With this need for acceptance, each day can cause internal stress with the unknown challenges that lie ahead. I believe most of these challenges will root at a person’s deep fear of not being good enough. Speaking as a teenager, I can say that I have seen and experienced this kind of fear and anxiety on a daily basis. I feel confident in saying that almost every person has been mindful of their actions in order to appeal to the social setting. However, trying to appease everyone else is nearly impossible and the worry of feeling subsequent to one’s peers is enough to arise anxiety. Taking a step back from the social aspect of life, fear can be found in the loss of hope in one’s worthiness for life. Common misfortunes like getting fired, failing a test, losing a friend or constantly being criticized can take a tole on on one’s outlook on the importance of life, and replace that with the feelings of hopelessness and fear of failure. While most people find ways to handle their fears and anxiety, each person experiences it in their own ways, making it an inevitable factor of life.
"Day to day existence is filled with fear and anxiety."
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with the statement above, not only for humans but for all living creatures day to day existence is filled with fear and anxiety. Everyone has different goals that they hope to accomplish in life, from being the greatest athlete in the world to getting a good sale on laundry detergent. Trying to achieve these goals we set in life can cause anxiety, due to not being able to achieve these goals or the roadblocks we face while trying to achieve them. With goals come the fear of not being able to fulfill them as well. Although we all have varying individual goals, every living being has the deep routed will or goal to survive. This will to live produces many fears and causes a great deal of anxiety. The fear of death persists practically every living creature, knowing that your life could potentially expire at any moment, is both frightening to know and but also causes a lot of anxiety as to whether we’ll accomplish our goals in life or not. Anxiety can appear because it's obvious that our time isn’t infinite so we try to make the most of it causing stress.
[ABSENT FOR STATE]
ReplyDelete“Day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear.”
The purpose of human existent is to accomplish goals and to always be prepared for the future or even just an outcome. I agree with this statement because in order to accomplish even the simplest goals there is always the possibility that certain factors could go wrong since nobody can see into the future. There is a well-known quote that states, “Do one thing a day that scares you.” Without fear, there is no motivation to do certain tasks, even though fear can be connected with a negative connotation. Examples of this are: the fear of failing a test pushes people to study hard, the fear of not getting into a prestigious university motivates people to take difficult classes and be well rounded. But what makes me agree with this statement the most is the even smaller life tasks that people generally don’t think about. The reason people wear oven mitts to pull out a freshly baked tray of cookies is because of the terror that comes from burning themselves. Additionally, that fear created the motivation for that invention, thus, fear can help motivate an easier existence. Even actions that have become second nature such as crossing the street has fears and possible dangerous outcomes. However, the fear of being late, not getting to the location, etc. overrides the fear that comes from crossing the street, therefore the task is accomplished.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus is used to explain is his thoughts on the absurd. Camus believed that there were three options to get over the absurd, physical suicide, psychological suicide, and acceptance. The option that he believed was the only correct option was acceptance. In The Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus tried to escape death because he enjoyed life so greatly. Unfortunately, Sisyphus was punished for his actions and forced to push a huge stone up a mountain again and again. Every time that he would push the rock up, it would roll back down the mountain. This relates to Camus’ idea of the absurd and that everyone has limitations and barriers to doing what they enjoy and are passionate about, “One always finds one’s burden again,” . We all have our burdens and life, and to enjoy life, we need to accept them and try to find joy within the burdens that we have. This is why Camus still says that we MUST imagine sisyphus as happy even with a task is tortuous. Repeating a task so monotonous as pushing a rock up a hill over and over again is bound to make someone go insane and lose their mind. It is torture to even imagine such a task. This is why he chooses to use the word ‘must’, we must accept the fact that life has its struggles in order to be sane, “He is stronger than his rock,”. We must ‘become stronger’ than our burdens to be able to continue pushing the rock up the mountain and to continue living our lives.
“Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?”
ReplyDeleteCamus felt the story of Sisyphus to be very absurd, similar to lots of the writings that he himself produced. In this way, he portrays the story as a dark, unending happening similar to life itself. He questions what many other people think about the story (that Sisyphus is a hero of sorts), and provides a new analysis of the situation with this essay. This idea of Sisyphus as a hero ties into his opinion that “We must imagine him happy.” Because people think Sisyphus’ efforts to be more valient than pointless, as Camus thinks of them as, they have have to think of him a happy individual or at least one with a positive outlook on life. With this Camus suggests that human beings are too positive as a people, always looking for a hero to root for even if, in Camus’ opinion, there is not one to be found. This last point is supported by an earlier quote in the passage which reads, “If one believes in Homer, Sisyphus was the wisest and most prudent of mortals.” Homer, being an optimist like everyone else discussed above, portrayed Sisyphus in a very positive light, which only fueled this thinking with the general population. Camus, overall, is very negative in his interpretation of the story, thus suggesting the absurdity of life. In this way, if life was not absurd, then bad things, such as eternally pushing a rock up a hill, would not happen to good people like Sisyphus. Alas, that is not the case here, which provides evidence for Camus’ unique hypothesis.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word “must”? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteThe myth describes the philosophy of how human nature is always curious about the meaning/purpose and God’s reasoning for why people are living. This is considered absurd due to the fact that it drives people to live their life a certain way and define their decisions. For example, Sisyphus continues to push the rock up the mountain even though he knows that the rock will roll down the hill every single time, yet he continues to do so every single day. The myth of Sisyphus ends with the imperative statement to show how the struggle of discovering the meaning of man is very important to most if not all people. Sisyphus sacrificed his life for man to understand that life is about hard work and the little things in life that no one appreciates, “Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountains, in itself forms a world". Additionally, that statement supports how Sisyphus’s self-discovery went to help all of humanity understand the meaning and truth of life. Supported by “itself forms a world”, the rock that kept rolling and then shattered into an abundant amount of pieces and then absorbed by the air shows how human kind evolved to absorb those qualities and understand this in a simpler way without the sacrifices Sisyphus had to endure. Also, the word “must” implies the fact that Sisyphus really wanted to understand the purpose of life, and the fact that he helped others do so would most likely make his sacrifices worth the effort even if he didn’t get to experience it.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteThe myth Sisyphus was a greek legend of the king of Enarete, who was punished for his deceitfulness and his craftiness by being forced to throw a bolder up a hill, only to watch it come back down, for all of eternity. To think that he is happy is the greatest symbol of optimism, what he would spend his eternity doing would be the most physically and emotionally draining thing mortal men can imagine. But to state that he is happy, is to say that there is no situation that one could look upon negatively. The must is included to state that we as a society must think about this, to not only remember to stay optimistic, but to remember that there is probably someone somewhere who has it worse than we do, but has a smile on their face still.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteIn the myth of Sisyphus, a man (Sisyphus) is scorned to eternal torture after disobeying the Gods. He must push a stone up a mountain and watch it roll back down repeatedly throughout his time in the underworld. However when describing his torture, Camus acknowledges the moments in which Sisyphus watches the stone roll down and walks back to roll it up again is the time in which he, “contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory’s eye and soon sealed by his death”. This addresses humanity’s natural eagerness when it comes to existence. Despite having been sentenced to this miserable future, Sisyphus still has a purpose to his life and a place to ‘go’. So when Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy”, he is telling people to be content with their misfortunes, as there is a life to be made in each of the worst circumstances. Determination and hard work is sufficient to fill a man’s heart and we must recognize that when all else fails and impending darkness is all we see, we must make light out of the dark and create new forms of happiness when the rest has been lost.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteThe myth of Sisyphus is that, Sisyphus has been condemned to move a rock up a hill for all of eternity. Sisyphus has been punished to move a boulder up a hill. The theme of the myth is that no matter what Sisyphus can never attain his goal of having the rock reach the top of the hill and it will always roll back down, dooming him to spend all of eternity rolling the rock up the hill. Sisyphus' situation is a perfect example of the absurd, an unending contradiction that can never bu fulfilled but can be escaped from. This related back to life which Camus also view as absurd. Camus believes Sisyphus must be imagined happy with his situation, as he has not taken the only step in escaping from it, suicide. In human life death is the escape from the absurd, and suicide is a way to quickly reach it through one's own means. By using Sisyphus as an example Camus is able to discourage people from commiting suicide and escaping the absurd but instead continuously facing it head on like the happy man, Sisyphus.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteWeather has a profound impact on the thoughts and feeling of the main character Meursault. In some cases, it feeds his apathetic nature. Near the beginning of the book, he thinks to himself, “Soon after that, the sky grew dark, and I thought we were in for a summer storm. Gradually, though, it cleared up again. But the passing clouds had left a hint of rain hanging over the street, which made it look darker” (Camus 22-23). Here, and in many other instances, Meursault has an indifferent and seemingly negative outlook on the weather. He constantly dwells on the darkness, which makes sense since he should be in mourning over his mother’s death, although he would never say outright say that he was. It almost seems here that he wants there to be a storm; it sort of feeds his existentialist, life does not matter vibe. Now, he certainly is not a fan of warm days either. At the end of part one, he begins a very dramatic interpretation of what the sun’s effects on him even going as far as to say that the sunlight and warmth was making him drunk and that his forehead was swelling from the heat (57). This page, which comes right he kills the Arab, explains the uncanny, negative effects that adverse weather has on him. It seems to cloud his judgement severely, forcing him into poor, foolish decisions. Of course, for a man who does not really care about life, he probably does not see it this way at all.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteDuring part one of The Stranger the sun is prevalent mainly during the major events Meursault decides on. The weather in general dictates his emotions and decisions especially when he tends to be outdoors. Meursault seems to be highly affected by the sun. It expresses the major pressure he feels and the injustice of society and the societal punishments. An example of this is when he was hesitant on killing the Arab man and was deciding if he should go through with it or not. The sun was what pushed Meursault to not leave the beach since it was too bright. When, “It occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it. But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back” (58). Without that bright sun, he would have left the beach and never have run into the scenario with the Arab man to begin with. Therefore, it foreshadows that whenever there is sun, Meursault will be pressured into a decision that could be negative, specifically if heat is mentioned. Oddly enough, it’s ironic to how Meursault almost blames the sun for his irrational decisions because usually the sun has a positive connotation. This helps support how Meursault has complete control over his actions and that the author does not believe in fate, but rather free will.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteIn Part One of The Stranger, Albert Camus uses weather to influence the emotions and motivations of Meursault. Throughout most of part one, Meursault's actions are often a reflection of the weather, this is very prevalent when Meursault kills the Arab. Leading up to the murder, Meursault made a connection of to the weather, “The sun was the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman, and like then, especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under my skin,” (Camus 58-59). Meursault says the sun is hurting him. Meursault was pressured into murdering this man, and this only confirms that he did not feel comfortable with this decision. The sun also reminded Meursault of the day his mother was buried. This brings back that Meursault feels guilt for the situation, as he remembers the pain he felt for losing a loved one. Also, Meursault is also probably thinking of how ashamed his mother would be of him. The weather continues to reflect Meursault’s emotions, “At the same instant the sweat in my eyebrows dripped down over my eyelids all at once and covered them with a warm thick film. My eyes were blinded by the cymbals of the sunlight crashing on my forehead and, indistinctly, the dazzling spear flying up from the knife and in front of me,” (59). Again the sun is beating down on Meursault, similar to the guilt beating down in him. The first thing that popped out in the quote was the film of sweat covering his eyes. This symbolizes the blindness of the actions that Meursault is about to commit. One thing that I noticed in both of the quotes, was the mention of the sun and heat affecting Meursault’s forehead. The forehead is actually home to the brain's frontal lobes. One of the functions of the frontal lobes is to be the center for judgement and decision making. It is interesting that the sun and heat had impacts on the part of the brain that controls decision making. This is another example of how weather reflects Meursault’s attitude towards the murder.
By the way, I don't know if the forehead thing has any correlation at all, I just thought it was interesting.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWeather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses weather as the primary control over Meursault's emotions. From the first couple chapters of the book, it is evident that the sun plays a major role Meursault’s life. While he lack many emotional connections to the world, he values physical ones and finds his only real source of life in the physical aspects of his environment, and especially the weather. Meursault's emotion will differ across of large spectrum from joyous to resentful depending on the sun’s intensity. In the beginning of the novel, Camus writes, “The room was filled late-afternoon sunlight. Two hornets were buzzing against the glass roof. I could feel myself getting sleepy” (7). Not only does the sun affect Meursault’s emotional state, but it affects his visceral nature and drains his body to the point of exhaustion. This was Camus’ first indicator to the readers that the sun provides strong influence over Meursault and this foreshadows later him being overtaken by the heat and, in Meursault's mind, excused to kill the Arab. In the moments before he shoots the Arab, Meursault describes the setting and Camus writes, “...my forehead especially was hurting me, all the veins in it throbbing under the skin. It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward. I knew that it was stupid, that I wouldn’t get the sun off of me by stepping forward” (59). Meursault clearly feels heavily influence by the heat of the sun and he allows it to captivate his mind and infect his body, focusing on all the pain it was causing him in that moment. He had convinced himself that stepping forward, in the direction of the Arab, would ‘get the sun off’, and although he recognized this as nonsense, he continues anyway. It was this notion that lead to him murdering the Arab, and while it may have been hot, Meursault’s naturalism and apathy for societal moral standard is the cause that leads him to pull the trigger. After he has done so he says, “I shook off the sweat and the sun” (59). Camus as distinctively written the sun to be Meursault's scapegoat for this situation and it is evident as immediately after the man is killed, the sun and its violent influence is removed from Meursault's mind. His change in demeanor is rapid and it concludes that the weather influences Meursault in a way that is limited to his interpretation of the heat. The temperature of the day did not change from before or after Meursault shot the Arab, yet he felt significantly less violated by the heat after he killed the man. Meursault allows the weather to control his emotions due to his intense infatuation with the physical aspects of the world.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, the weather, especially the sun has an extremely important role as it seems the sun dominates Meursault's life and his actions. The while at the beach Meursault's would have left if not for the sweltering heat of sun “"But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back.” ( Camus, 58).While Meursault should have the ability to move simply leave the beach the sun’s powerful heat motivates to move towards the spring. It’s as if Meursault can’t control his own actions when he’s pitted against nature, the sun’s heat and his physical need to escape it has a greater impact on him than his own will to leave the beach. When standing in trial for the murder of the arab Meursault states that the murder was because of the sun “My head was spinning with heat and astonishment. I never intended to kill the Arab. I blurted out it was because of the sun” (106). The sun is so incredibly impactful to Meursault that it compels him to murder a man in cold blood. Meursault also fails to feel remorse for his actions, because he honestly believes they weren’t his fault, it was the sun, the same sun that compelled him to abandon his goal of leaving the beach and kill the Arab. When the sun and it’s heat come into play Meursault believes he’s a pawn.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteIn the Stranger, Meusault's emotions can be seen in the following quote,
The sky was already filled with light. The sun was beginning to bear down on the earth and it was getting hotter by the minute. I don’t know why we waited so long before getting under way. I was hot in my dark clothes […] it was inhuman and oppressive.
Meursault displays what it is to be a walking contradiction. He takes positive things such as sunlight and spring life and turns it into something negative. This shows Meusaults emotions, as he will take something positive and turn it into something negative, but it could also explore something about who he is as a person, through out the novel, Camus displays Meusault as a rather emotionless man, without empathy. A depiction of this can be seen from when he feels indifferent about his lovers offer to get married, he doesn't care or understand the concept of emotion, he is only instinct.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
ReplyDeleteMeursault and Salamano both lost important people in their lives (their only friends in a way). However, this is probably their only similarity. Salamano seems to be a foil of sorts to Meursault, specifically with regards to their dog and mother, respectively. Salamano weeps when his dog dies of a horrible disease even though he was constantly cursing and beating the dog when it was alive. This severely contrasts Meursault who seemed to like his mother, as much as an extreme existentialist could at least, but was then indifferent after her death. Salamano is, in general, a much more emotional person than Meursault, and had actual connections with people and more importantly, his dog. He even says, “I hope the dogs don’t bark tonight. I always think it’s mine” (Camus 46). Clearly, Salamano cannot stop thinking of his dog after it passes away. He, like many people, grieves considerably when his loved one dies. He is focused on the dog, as he probably should be. Meursault on the hand, has his mind drift after his mother’s death (although that is not really unusual for him). Two days after her death, he cannot even remember when she died; was it one day, two days, three?; it does not really matter to him. Given all of this information, it seems that Salamano symbolizes the caring and passionate side of people, a side that is never shown by Meursault in any significant way. For this reason, Salamano is definitely a foil of Meursault.
The symbolic representation of each character represents a different emotion that Meusault cannot comprehend. In the first few chapters, he meets a man named Raymond Sintes, to me he represents Sin, as it is even found in his very name. Raymond is a pimp he believes heavily in achieving revenge and getting even. Raymond also never seems to act upon logic or rational thought. Because he had one hunch that his mistress was seeing someone else, he concluded that she was cheating on her, and did not even bother to ask or try to find any other reasonable explanation, which would be the opposite of what Meursault would do, as he would be rational, and probably would not even build up any anger. That being said, one could state that Raymond represents Meursaults Foil character, but only of his anger. Every other character seems to be his foil to every other emotion.
ReplyDeleteOne of the points that the prosecutor in Meursault’s trial brought up was the fact that Meursault did no in fact seem to grieve over his mother’s deceased status. This point was used to portray Meursault as an unfeeling monster because of this seemingly stone-hearted response to his mother’s death which is considered highly abnormal by the society that he lives in. This is because in the religious environment of the town family is considered a very important core value and Meursault not agreeing with that sets everyone who believes that family is especially important at odds with him. Maman then represents the backbone of his connection with the society and humanity. With the death of the backbone of the connection to his society he starts to become more distant from it. She also represents the death of his ignorance to the the absurdity of the world around him. In the description of her relationship with Monsieur Perez it states that it is a pure, innocent love much like that of a child’s. This is similar to this blissful ignorance a child has and the relatively peaceful life of Meursault before he comes to terms with the absurdity of the world around him like Meursault did after his mother’s death.This also makes a statement about parenthood in that the parents that raise and nurture us are often the ones whose actions blocks us from realizing the truth of the absurdity of the world.
ReplyDeleteOne specific character with significant symbolism is Maman. Maman is Meursault’s mother who passed away in the beginning of the novel. For some strange reason, Meursault did not seemed to express much emotion, specifically sadness, to losing his mother. When describing his emotions after her death, Meursault states, “When she was at home with me, Maman used to spend her time following me with her eyes, not saying a thing” (5). This quote explains why Meursault was not saddened by the fact that his mother passed away, instead he was indifferent due to the fact that he was never close to his mother. In general, his relationship with Maman helps represent the fact that Meursault struggles to make and keep relationships with other characters. Additionally, after Meursault’s court case, he thinks, “But now I understood, it was perfectly normal. How had I not seen that there was nothing more important than an execution, and that when you come right down to it, it was the only thing a man could truly be interested in? If I ever got out of this prison I would go and watch every execution there was” (110). Oddly enough, Meursault went unwillingly to his mother’s funeral, however he talked about wanting to see strangers be executed. Taking this into consideration, and the fact that Meursault is an existentialist, most likely, he would want to see people’s death’s for the reason that they did something socially unacceptable. Thus, he would want to see what people were willing to fight for. Whereas his mother, died what was considered a normal death, representing the people in society who are submissive and don’t stand out, which is not something Meursault wants to be associated with.
ReplyDeleteChoose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
ReplyDeleteThe old Salamano and his dog have the most complex relationship of the book. It signifies love after death, mortality equality and a compelling companionship that Meursault failed to conceive in his own life. Salamano and his dog appeared to be an abusive relationship, but the surface of their relationship was deceiving to the strong emotional connection they had. Camus first introduces these characters and says, “He was with his dog. The two of them have been inseparable for eight years. The spaniel has a skin-disease – mange, I think – which makes almost all of its hair fall out and leaves it covered with brown sores and scabs. After living together for so long, the two of them alone in one tiny room, they’ve ended up looking like each other.... They look as if they belong to the same species, and yet they hate each other” (26). After losing his wife, the dog was all Salamano had. His physical appearance is a representation of his emotional deterioration, and the relation to the dog shows that the man’s pain reflects on to the dogs as well, resulting in their mirrored appearances. The abusive side of their relationship most likely is a projection of Salamano’s anger towards the death of wife, yet the survival of this dog. Salamano has used his dog as a surrogate for his lost wife and this suggests reflects Meursault's later realization that all men and creatures are made equal by death. It is still unclear now that he truly does love this dog for it is all he has left of his family. As time goes on in the book, their relationship becomes clear. Camus writes, “From a distance I noticed old Salamano standing on the doorstep. He looked flustered. When we got closer, I saw that he didn’t have his dog. He was looking all over the place, turning around, peering into the darkness of the entryway, muttering incoherently, and then he started searching the street again with his little red eyes” (38). Salamano and his dog have a great companionship that is finally brought to light after the dog becomes lost and Salamano shows vivid signs of distress. This type of worry and discontenment is rooted in Salamano’s love for his dog and only appeared once the dog was missing. With this, Camus is suggesting that dogs can operate on the same level of humans in an emotional stance. The friendship these two have is greatly exaggerated, yet it foils Meursault's character because in his lifetime he failed to ever make a connection as strong as Salamano and his dog.
In the stranger, many characters also act as symbols, Raymond Sintes, possibly the most important character after Meursault and whose actions influence the entire course of the novella, symbolizes morality. Raymond isn’t a moral character, in fact he’s the most immoral character in the entire story. Raymond’s character is utterly despicable, he’s a pimp that abuses his girlfriends and he’s irrationally violent, he gets into a fight with an arab and nearly kills him and uses violence against women. Raymond’s immoral nature contrasts with that of Meursault’s amoral nature, Meursault simply lacks the knowledge of right and wrong, or they don’t necarsily mean as much to him as they would the average person Raymond is purely immoral and his actions go completely against moral standards. Raymond’s immorality and Meursault’s lack of morality are demonstrated when Raymond convinces Meursault to assist him in his plot to punish his mistress and testify to the police for him for cheating on him. Raymond plans on spitting and hitting the mistress, an act he clearly knows is wrong yet proceeds with any, and Meursault agrees to help not because he feel sRaymond is close to him or has been greatly wronged but because he doesn’t see as reason not too. This clearly shows how Meursault is amoral, he doesn’t see the wrong in Raymond’s actions or simply does not care whether they are seen as wrong or right by society while Raymond is doing an action he can truly interpret as wrong.
ReplyDeleteChoose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, Albert Camus uses The Robot Woman to represent society's standards while acting as a foil to Meursault who does not conform to society.While not a very significant character in the plot of the story, The Robot Woman had a significant role in the overall message of The Stranger. The Robot Woman had an abrupt and random introduction into this story and was only mentioned one other time throughout the novel. When she was first introduced, Meursault was in Celeste’s cafe and she sat at the same table as him. She had strange mannerisms that intrigued Meursault. Camus described the robot woman’s actions as “clear”, “fast”, “feverishly”, “meticulously”, and “robot like” (43). The Robot woman knew what she was doing and what she needed to get done. When she was waiting for her meal, she paid her bill and tip. After her meal, she left , “She had positioned herself right next to the curb and was making her way with incredible speed and assurance, never once swerving or looking around,” (43). The robot woman is concerned with completing her task, this is opposes Meursault, who typically doesn’t have a plan and goes with the flow. This is shown when he decides to follow her out of curiosity and because he had no plans. The Robot Woman is mentioned once more at Meursault’s trial, “I recognized next to him the little woman from the restaurant, with her jacket and her stiff determined manner,” (86). At Meursault’s trial, she is a representative of society as she is judging him for his actions. This is another example of how she is a foil to Meursault. Meursault is on trial and fully accepting his death, whereas the robot woman is watching the trial and an exaggerated example of society. The Robot Woman represents society and the daily routines that people go through.
“How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?”
ReplyDeleteDeath is taken very lightly in this book, probably because everyone in the book is already dead (except the Valet maybe? a ghost or something… the world may never know). Much of the fear associated with death ties into the very common fear of the unknown. In the the case of death, “what happens when one dies?” or something along these lines is the oft-asked question. All of the fear associated with this set of large, unanswerable, philosophical questions is, for obvious reasons, eliminated after death. The characters really do not seem all too angry about their deaths, and in fact, seem contented and accepting. This is understandable because all of them had something that, in their time period or, in some cases, any time period, was objectionable quality. Garcin, for example, had many such traits such as his abusive behavior or his pacifist writing at the time of a great war. Throughout the play, the character get on each other’s nerves, which causes much of the conflict in the story. It is through this tension that the group concludes that they must be in Hell. This seems to align perfectly to Sartre’s, the writer of this play, quote in which he states that, “Hell is other people.” His portrayal of Hell in this play is representative of his nightmare: being locked in a room for all of eternity with a bunch of annoying strangers. This may not be everybody’s hypothetical doom and gloom scenario, but to Sartre, it just could not get worse.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteDeath is spoken of in terms of denial, especially when Estelle demands herself and the others to use the word ‘absentees’ when describing their current state. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, the characters carry on with a sense of hope as if they didn’t refer to themselves as dead, only absent, their life would still remain. In other ways, the characters also hold on to their past lives by at first not admitting their reasons for being spawn in hell. Estelle evading accepting her true reason for being in hell, and kept up her ‘good girl’ persona even when there was no point to it. Garcin and Inez did the same and neither wanted to be the first to confess their sins. Each was afraid to put to bed their old lives and reflect honestly on the mistake they made during their lives. Refusing their death, it seemed each one of them wanted to appear as if their place in hell was a mistake, and convince themselves and each other of their goodness in order to make up for the sins they had committed in their lives. Death in this play serves as an end to all hope and possibility of forgiveness and it takes most of the play for these characters to realize it. Once they do, they accept their place in hell for the eternity of their stay.
Death is a philosophical topic represented in the play No Exit, due to the fact that it is constantly being questioned and there is not an exact answer that can be given, even at the end of the play. What exactly is hell? This questioning mainly occurs once characters reach the afterlife, which is the setting that all the characters are in, such as: in all situations should crimes such as murder determine whether or not someone ends up in hell, even if the case of protecting a stronger good? It is clear from the beginning the novel that as each character gets added into the room, they understand that they should be in hell, but nobody thinks they deserve to be there. Death, and getting each of the characters to confess their crime/reason for death, is a topic that tends to be avoided and as much as possible tries to be unmentioned. Especially with Estelle when she states, “Please, please don't use that word [the dead]. It's so – so crude. In terribly bad taste, really. It doesn't mean much, anyhow. Somehow I feel we've never been so much alive as now” (20). In a way, each of the character’s death’s force them to face the reality of what they have done in the past. Additionally, it shows how existentialism comes into play due to the fact that each character made their own decision(s) and were able to defend it with what seemed like for the most part no regrets afterwards. This also ties to the notion how each character believed death in hell to be torturous, evil, and a horrible experience, however it’s not what is expected at all and is somewhat normal, considering that the main focus was the people surrounding/annoying each other, not a greater power such as the Devil as expected.
ReplyDeleteIn No Exit, death is represented through the characters in the play having false hope and denying their situations. The greatest form example of false hope and denial can be observed through Estelle early on in the play “Please, please don't use that word [the dead]. It's so – so crude. In terribly bad taste, really. It doesn't mean much, anyhow. Somehow I feel we've never been so much alive as now” (20). Estelle wants to avoid using the word dead not simply because because it leaves a bad taste in her mouth but because it would force her to accept the situation that she’s in. Saying the word “dead” has relatively no meaning also, in a sense, contradicts her saying the word leaves a bad taste in her mouth and is crude. Usually the words that would leave a poor taste in one's mouth would be the ones that carry the deepest meanings, emotionally, historically, or even spiritually, such as racial slurs like the n-word. “Dead” carries more meaning to her now than any other word does as it can negatively affect her mood and senses, “dead” would force her to come to realize the situation she’s in quicker and by avoiding it as much as possible she can also deny her situation as much as possible. Estelle makes another attempt to completely erase the word dead from the group's vocabulary by having the group using absent instead. Using absent would imply that the group will one day leave hell and return to the world of the living. This view is meant to give hope that they will return but in fact, they won’t, they are dead and will spend the rest of their time in hell, no matter how long they try to convince themselves that they’re not or are alive in a way.
ReplyDeleteHow is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteWhen asking people what they are afraid of, one might expect answers like spiders, heights and public speaking. While those are all consistently valid answers, another common fear is death. Death is one of the inevitable things in life. We all know it is going to happen and we try our best to avoid it. Part of the fear comes from the age old mystery if there is indeed a heaven or a hell, or if there is indeed an afterlife. Therefore, this topic of death can be very debatable. Is there life after death? And should we be upstanding citizens out of fear of going to hell? In No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre uses three main characters to discuss the delicate topic of death while demonstrating the natural human fear of death. First off, when each of the characters arrive in the room, they assume that there is someone there to torture them. They all have a preconceived notion that the afterlife will be painful. Another thing that I noticed was a clear denial of their situations. While all of the characters admitted that they were no longer living, they still didn’t feel comfortable with the idea of being deceased. Estelle even refuses to use the word ‘dead’, in fact she describes herself and the other victims as ‘absentees’. This makes them sound more missing from the living world, than gone from it all together. In fact, in many parts of the play, characters are often checking up on their old lives as if they are missing something. The last thing that I noticed was the fact that the characters all wanted ‘human’ things. When Garcin first arrived, he was torn up at the idea of not having a tooth brush, mirrors, or the ability to sleep. This leads back to the idea that humans are comfortable of what they know and have a fear of what the afterlife my bring them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe role of eyes/vision in No Exit is very crucial because in hell, none of the inhabitants are able to blink due to the fact that none of them have eyelids. Since they cannot do that, they also can’t sleep, which means that they are not allowed to rest. Additionally, that adds emphasis to the fact that they are not very human like anymore, also connecting to the reason why they ended up in hell, which is for their inhumane crimes/sins. Not being able to rest/close their eyes resembles how the characters are not able to avoid their problems, and imagine being in another location. They must face the “reality” of being in hell and deal with the situation without excuses/procrastinating. As well as that, eyes also symbolize how each character can “see through” everyone else’s life story and judge it for how it is. For example, Estelle and the fact that she murdered so many people during her lifetime. Forcing all the characters to keep their eyes open allowed clarity in their crimes and a true understanding to why they ended up in hell. Additionally, one thing all the characters assumed/are waiting for is a greater power of some sorts to come into the room and torture them/burn them alive or even kill them once again, for that is the general assumption for hell. However, this is clearly not the case, for they discover hell is people. But, the feeling that they might be constantly watched by something else is one of the reasons they are sheltered and shy and unwilling to share their life stories. Also with the power of their visions, each person is able to look down at a loved one on earth, which justifies some people’s emotions of anger, sadness, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteSartre uses the sight/vision/eyes in metaphorical context to portray realizations by the characters. Near the middle of the play Inez exclaims, “yes, I see. Look here! What’s the point of play-acting, trying to throw dust in each other’s eyes? We’re all tarred with the same brush” (Sartre 16). Inez gets fairly angry here as a result of Garcin claim of innocence, as he proclaims that he should not be in Hell. She believes this to be impossible given some of the group’s previously revealed character flaws. By saying this quote, she is concluding that they must be in Hell since they are all in the same place and all dead. The metaphor she uses here, “throw dust in each other’s eyes” seems to reference her opinion that there is no reason to deny their situation thus blinding them from the truth. She is basically getting everyone on the same page, attempting to make the others see her realization. Sartre also uses vision as a window into the character’s previous lives and the living world as they see it. Towards the end of the play Garcin “sees” some people from his old life and says, “Bored they look. Half-asleep. They’re thinking, ‘Garcin’s a coward.’ But only vaguely, dreamily. One’s got to think of something” (Sartre 38). Garcin, like the other two, can see everyone from his past, but, being dead, simply cannot intervene. He seems to look down on them with both envy and spite, very negative emotions, because of his situation. Overall, looking/seeing are have a bad connotation for the main characters in that they can look all they want but do nothing. This contributes to their bizarre, but no less torturous, Hell.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteEyes, sight, and vision play a significant role in No Exit. All of characters, recently deceased, have lost many ‘humanly’ traits and abilities. The three main characters: Garcin, Estelle, and Inez, are adjusting to their time in hell. One of the most significant things lost was the loss of their eyelids. Sartre chooses to focus their loss on eyes, or rather gain, due to the fact that they are in Hell. There is a controversy as to what people believe that hell is, a fiery pit, a torture chamber, a black room, or even nothing at all. Sartre believes however that “hell is other people”. Being forced to into a room for eternity with strangers who you hate is taxing enough, but not being able to close your eyes, sleep and escape for a moment can be worse than the most painful torture. Sartre’s choice to have the characters lose their eyelids can also represent guilt. Each of the characters did horrible things to land themselves a room in hell, so they should not be able to escape their mistakes. By never being able to close their eyes and look away they are faced with their crimes ringing in their head for eternity. There are many things that humans take for granted everyday. Along with the ability to sleep, the ability to blink is also something that humans don’t appreciate until it’s gone, “It’s a small black shutter that clicks down and makes a break. Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is,” (5). Even though blinking is just a moment, it can still be considered a refreshing treat, especially to someone who doesn’t have the abilities to. Sartre used the motif of eyes to reinforce the idea that you can’t always escape your actions.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn the real world our eyes and vision are almost like a gift given to us. Using our eyes we can observe the world in a myriad of ways. In a sense, pun intended, our eyes are a blessing. In No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre eyes are used as a form of torture for the trio in their time in hell. Along with having to an agonizing spend an eternity with people they truly despise the three have had their eyelids taken away as a form of punishment. Having their eyes taken away causes the gift of sight to become a curse, especially in hell. Closing your eyes is a way to not only clean eyes but easily ignore what's set in front of you to the best of your ability. Without their eyelids the trio loses their ability to ignore their surroundings, ignore the fact that they’re in hell with people they hate more than anything else in the world. It forces them to see what exactly they’re dealing with and no matter how appalling it may be to look at they can’t seem to go way. Sight is used almost as a weapon in the relationship between Inez and Estelle. While in hell Estelle doesn’t have a mirror, this is extremely unsettling for Estelle who is extremely vain. Inez offers to be Estelle’s mirror for her and a comments on how she looks like in order to help her apply makeup and hit on her while doing so. When Estelle doesn’t recuperate her feelings Inex tells Estelle she that she has a pimple, startling her. While there was no pimple at all, Inez demonstrates the ability she has to frighten the vain Estelle by lying as her mirror.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn the play, eyes and sight play a large role in each of the character’s new understanding of their future life in hell. One of the largest symbolic aspects of the character's’ eyes is that they do not have eyelids. As he first arrives, Garcin questions the valet about his new attribute and he says, “Your eyelids. We move ours up and down. Blinking, we call it. It’s like a small black shutter that clicks down and makes a break. Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is” (5). The lack of eyelids and blinking signifies that there is no rest in hell. He and the others must endure themselves and each other for all of eternity. They cannot relax in the pleasure of sleeping or dreaming, and they must face their sins without break. A common connect to open eyes is the realization of one’s mistakes and the provision of clarity. In this case, Garcin, Estelle and Inez will come to terms with their death on earth and their torture of each other in hell. Garcin foreshadows this theme of endurance of company when he says, “I shall never sleep again. But then— how shall I endure my own company?” (6). As the scene continues, Garcin will have to endure much more than just his own company. IN Sartre’s mind, hell is the inescapable company of other people, and that is clearly conveyed through the character's eyes, or lack thereof.