Whether or not God exists is, in my opinion, relevant to the real world despite the fact that free will exists. First of all, and most obviously, if God exists, especially in the form that most major world religions portray Him, there will be an afterlife in which your fate is determined by your actions on Earth. Specifically, these religions often portray entrance into heaven as dependent on whether or not you believe in God and follow His word as outlined in the teachings of the specific religion. Whether or not God exists will determine your fate after death simply by the nature of what humans define God to be. Secondly, whether or not God exists changes the way that certain people may live out their lives. Especially in religious circles, God is believed to send down visions and callings to those who listen to Him on Earth. If God is real and these callings are heard, they will influence people's free will in a way that may cause them to stand up for social or other types of change. If God were not real, then there would be no outside influence on free will and humans would be living out their lives completely according to their own whims. Thus, the questions of whether or not God exists does actually change the reality of the way people live out their free will on Earth. Overall, by affecting the potential post- death consequences of free will and by changing the current use of people's free will, the question of whether God exists matters a great deal to our existence as humans. For this reason, religion will persist as long as humanity.
Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.
I disagree with this statement. I think that it is relevant whether or not God exists, even with free will present. People who believe in God are influenced by their faith, as it shapes the way people live their lives. Religion often presents moral teachings that provide a framework of how people should live their lives. These influential teachings may come through different forms and can include holy books, like the Bible, or from other people like pastors. Followers of God, like in Christianity, believe in life after death, which is determined by how they live their life on the physical earth. They believe that choosing to live a life dedicated to God and trusting in His word or choosing not to will result in an afterlife in either Heaven or Hell. If this is the case, the belief in God will obviously influence the choices that followers make as it determines where they end up after death. On the opposite side, non-believers have the free will to do whatever they choose as they do not believe in any greater influence that has the power to determine their fate. Decisions that both non-believers and believers make are up to them completely, but the difference is that each are influenced by different beliefs.
I know I may be in the minority, but I see some truth in this statement: “Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.” People all across the world will change their way of life in order to please Him, or a creator, where a God could not exist at all. The one thing that I think about is that many people believe that God predetermines their lives, or has the power to control their destiny. When they are in a feeling of weakness, or feeling hopeless, they choose to ask in a greater power to pull them out of that. But what if God doesn’t exist? Or He does? Neither of those things matter – because people have the ability to pull themselves out of that moment of weakness on their own terms. The only one holding you back is yourself. It is remarkable what humans can accomplish if they just set their minds to something. What distracts people from the real world is concerning themselves with whether God is real or not. There are so many people around the world fighting to prove that their religion is right. But there’s really no way we can prove that any of them are correct! So why worry about it? Rather than focusing on something you can’t control, people should be worrying about what they can control. Therefore, people cannot control the existence of God and what He may be able to do, but people are able to do anything they set their mind to, with their free will.
I agree that the concept of a God existing is irrelevant because of free will. The concept of a God has never made much sense to me, nor has it mattered. There are so many inconsistencies. Why was there such a surge of miracles and “Godly activity” in a relatively small part of the world for a small period of time, but he has been essentially silent for the past 2000ish years? People have gotten along well without direct action from a God, just directions of men who claimed to have spoken to him for millennia. That’s why I believe God’s existence is irrelevant. People don’t need him to speak in their for ear every second of every day so that they can live their lives. The lessons people need to learn are what’s important, not where they learn it from. If people believe they need to learn about morals from a God, they have the ability to choose to do so. If they believe they can learn about morals through experience, they can. Some people have claimed that accepting God into their lives has made them a better person as well as happier, which is completely okay. Even if God doesn’t exist, these people are benefitting from the concept and the morals being taught to them. God’s existence is irrelevant because people have the ability to choose their own path in life, whether it be one with God or without God, while still being able to learn the lessons his followers preach.
“Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.” I agree and disagree with the statement above. The definition of a God, in Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Going by this, then without a God then there would not be any free will because he created everything. Then again, it is a paradox because how can a God create free will when they have the will/action to create free will. The statement itself is a contradiction. Transitioning to fate and say that God is fate because people often say that God is the one who plans things out for the person before they are even born. How can we believe in fate when we have free will? When someone throws an object at a person, for this case a ball, often time people would try and catch it. Can we really say that they were fated to catch the ball or miss it, if either one of the scenario gets to play out. How can we say free will to this scenario when it is our automatic/reflex to our response of “fight or flight”. We cannot control our reflexes and it happens, so where is the free will there? Nam Nguyen
“Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.”
I agree and disagree on this statement because in my opinion free will isn’t applied when one believes in God because God is a being that one depends on and a lot of their actions are caused by their faith. For example many Islamic women have to cover their head against their own will otherwise they would be penalized for it. This shows that religion plays a role in certain believer’s actions. However I also disagree with this statement because although God may make most of the decisions for you, you still have the ability to make our own choices and decisions. Although factors in life such as culture, family values, and nationality and religion contribute to our choices, I still believe ultimately it is our choice and we should be able to make decisions on our own and have confidence in them.
Whether or not God exists is absolutely relevant regardless of humanity's belief in free will. In my personal opinion, based on the religion I practice, God has a master plan for the lives of each and every one of us. So it's His free will that I have faith in to guide my decisions and the events that occur in my life on a large scale, as well as everyday. That being said, I do believe that free will exists for some people. Based on what I know and choose to believe in terms of religion, I feel as though free will is a theory created by humans who have a strong disbelief in any form of higher power. Because humans are God's creation, human creation is also God's creation, so, paradoxiclaly, the idea of free will is therefore created by God and planted by God in the minds of those whose plans from Him do not actually involve a belief in Him. Taking my opinion into account, I think it's fair to say that religion has an immense impact on an individual's ideas about the world, why things work (or don't work), and why people do what they do. Even if someone claims themselves to be an atheist, the values of religion are alive in the world no matter what, so those values are imposed on those people no matter what.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure? The Greek Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus describes a king who was sentenced to “ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back if its own weight.” The gods that punished Sisyphus believed that this was the ultimate punishment because it was pointless labor. Although it is uncertain why Sisyphus deserved this punishment, he ultimately received eternal struggle because of “his scorn for the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life.” Camus explains that the only way that this myth can be tragic is if the hero (Sisyphus) is conscious. During the brief moment where the rock rolls back down the mountain and Sisyphus is free from his labor, he has a negative mindset as he is aware of his endless and futile punishment. This awareness is similar to an absurd man on earth who sees no reason or purpose for his life because both situations are perceived as hopeless. However, Camus also says that “crushing truths perish from being acknowledged” meaning that as soon as Sisyphus accepts his fate, he can find joy in his situation. This can be seen as a lesson for all people, thus creating a universal figure out of Sisyphus. Like Sisyphus, people on earth are subject to struggles that may seem endless. Camus suggests that as soon as you accept your situation, you must make the best of it to live a happy life. By accepting your fate, you discard hope and therefore find happiness because you perceive your fate as not dreadful anymore.
"In What ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?"
Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because he represents the absurd struggle that most people face in their lives. Camus writes of Sisyphus as happy despite being condemned to endlessly roll a rock up a mountain. This is a central part of Camus's idea of the Revolt, in which people should choose to be defiant in the face of what he calls the Absurd, which is the disconnect between human's desire for order and the general disorder that is the universe. Just as Sisyphus chooses to be defiantly happy in the face of his fate, humans should choose to cheerfully go about their work despite the fact that it may be never ending. Most people find in their lives that there will never be a time when there is no work to be done at all. Even once you have achieved your goals, it is likely that there will be yet another goal to pursue, and no matter how successful one is, there will always be something more that needs to be accomplished. This is just like how Sisyphus accomplishes his goal over and over again, and each time he finishes pushing the rock up the hill, he must do it again. Thus Camus is saying that both humans and Sisyphus are "condemned" to endlessly accomplish tasks. His message is actually more optimistic because he notes that Sisyphus "must be happy" despite his fate. Therefore it is not the work we do and whether we accomplish goals that will make us happy, but rather our own personal choice to be happy and defiant in the face of the fact that we will always have more work to do.
Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because many examples of actions and qualities similar to his are demonstrated in the everyday lives of all people. Firstly, Sisyphus was banished to the underworld because “he stole [the gods’] secrets”. Quite often, people confide in one another just to find that their trust was broken for the benefit of the other party. This broken trust causes tension and turmoil within relationships which can be interpreted as banishment from a happy and fulfilling life once lived. Secondly, Sisyphus “wanted to test his wife’s love”. Although it may not be to the creepy extent that Sisyphus did so, humans naturally test each others’ emotions when we need reassurance. In his case, Sisyphus needed reassurance of love when he was near death, but most often, people test others’ love when we can’t find a way to love ourselves. If others don’t pass these tests of emotion, we naturally resort to a desire for revenge because someone has failed us, just as Sisyphus wanted “to return to earth in order to chastise his wife”. Thirdly, and most obviously, Sisyphus can be considered universal because he is banished to a life of futile efforts. As we know, he resides in the underworld, each day pushing a rock up a mountain only for it to undoubtedly roll all the way back to the bottom. Considering Albert Camus’ notion of the absurd, regardless of religious justification of purpose, all people are an embodiment of Sisyphus. We all have our own rock, our own mountain, unable to find success, each day consciously attempting to conquer the unconquerable.
Sisyphus can be considered a universal figure in our society because he represents what the people of our world go through in their lives. Sisyphus was sentenced to push a rock up a mountain for eternity, remained unphased as it came tumbling down each time he thought he completed his goal. It's similar to humans in all of time- we never seem to have a goal we strive for in life. Nobody has yet to find why we exist, or what our purpose is for living. This is just as Sisyphus- he continues moving on with his life, even though rolling the rock up the hill serves no ultimate goal. Another thing similar to society is the fact that people live their lives developing goals step by step, and not looking at the big, ultimate purpose. You go to school, get a job, marry, and have children to pass on your legacy to the future generations and ensure that humans keep surviving. After each "step" in life is accomplished, you move on to the next one. Just as Sisyphus, once he completes his goal of pushing the rock he starts over again. He has no knowledge of the ultimate goal, but he continues in small steps. This whole concept relates back to Camus' idea of the Absurd. People continue living, going through each hardship in life, regardless of their inability to find purpose in life. This is how Sisyphus is a universal figure- he shows how people have the capacity to continue moving and persevering even though we may not know where or why we're going.
Sisyphus is a universal figure in the same way that anything can be considered art. It's not necessarily wrong, but there is also something about it that doesn't seem right. If Sisyphus is meant to represent humanity toiling away at a pointless task, it is hard to deny that that is true. There is no apparent purpose to life. We go to school to learn how to do more school, so that we can get a job to pay for the school that got us the job. Eventually we are supposed to have made enough money so that our children can maybe do the same thing we just did, but a little more easily. But life isn't like that, it's even more tough. There is always someone who will push the boulder down the hill, someone who will ruin the path that has been made. It isn't fair, it isn't necessarily right, but it's human nature. Camus is trying to explain how there is no real purpose to life, just one of monotony that others have created for us, but we blindly follow, feigning happiness. Just as “one must imagine Sisyphus happy,” one must assume that because the system hasn’t been changed, there must be some illusion of happiness, otherwise such a horrible system would no longer exist and have been swapped out for another.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
In Greek mythology Sisyphus was known as a king who was punished by rolling an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to continue this action for all of eternity. I thought that Sisyphus is a good example of a universal figure because it shows the never give up mentality. Even though the task wasn’t complete yet it shows us that Sisyphus was still determined to complete it and maintained a positive attitude throughout the punishment so that he could focus on the task at hand. I also think that the boulder falling down is to show that nothing is that simple in life and that you need to work hard in life to accomplish your goal. With this being said the boulder falling down could also resemble us to continue to take down challenges because after accomplishing a goal we want to strive for greatness and take on another challenge, which resembles the boulder falling over and over again. I think Camus is actually showing us that Sisyphus is a universal figure because although the punishment is cruel it teaches us lessons about how we should take on more challenges, and that when faced with a task, we don’t give up and always share a positive attitude when doing it so that we are focused completely on the task at hand.
The story of Sisyphus portrays a king in the afterlife and his punishment. The gods condemn him to push a rock up a mountain for all eternity. The story is a universal symbol as it portrays many things in life. For example, doctors and nurses at the hospital face sick and wounded patients everyday. Once they completed treating a patient, another person comes in injure or sick and needs to be treated. It’s an infinite circle similarly to Sisyphus, as he has to push the rock up the mountain after it rolls down after it reaches the top. It happens through history as well. Comparing the Jew Concentration Camp, during W.W.II, and the Japanese Concentration Camp, during the Cold War, were the repetition of history. The cycle of never ending prejudice is similar to the rock going up and down the hill. History repeats itself and that is the motif of Sisyphus. Nam Nguyen
Through Part I of The Stranger, Albert Camus incorporates isolation into his characters to add depth to their characterization and support his theme of the absurdity prevalent in the world. Camus uses the death of Meursault’s mother to show his detachment from emotions thus creating an emotional isolation in Meursault. Camus writes, “The woman kept on crying… I wish I didn’t have to listen to her anymore” (Camus 10). This comes across to the reader as very rude as he feels no sadness over his mother’s death, which for most people would be a very tragic and difficult thing to go through. I think that maybe this was his way of dealing with his grief, by acting like he doesn’t seem to care. Meursault also doesn’t seem to have any feelings about anything else in his life. When Marie asked if he loved her, he shrugged it off and said it didn’t really make a difference to him if he did or not. He responded the same way when Marie asked him if he wanted to marry her. Meursault seems to isolate himself from strong feelings because of laziness. I feel like he just doesn’t want to deal with or come to terms with his feelings. I feel like he doesn’t care because he believes that there is no point in living if he is just going to die one day (the idea of an absurd life). Another form of isolation is seen through the relationship between Salamano and his old, sick dog. While they were together in the beginning of the book, they had a tough-love kind of relationship. Salamano always called his dog a bastard and he beat him when he didn’t obey his commands. It came across like Salamano was ready for the sick and weak dog to die off, but as soon as the dog disappears, Salamano is lost without him. He is extremely disappointed that he lost his loyal companion of many years and searches for him frantically. Salamano’s physical isolation from his dog becomes a tragic misfortune.
In Part I, Meursault and his mother are both affected by their isolation in drastically different ways. Meursault’s self-isolation has made him into somewhat of an introvert, while at the same time causing him to harden, becoming highly judgemental of others. While they are expressed through the words on the pages, his introversion keeps these harsh judgements inside of his head. On page 10 he talks about how fat old women can be. On pages 14 and 15 he goes in depth about Monsieur Pérez, describing his “nose dotted with blackheads” and “strange, floppy, thick-rimmed ears”. And on page 42 he bashes on Paris, saying “it's dirty. Lots of pigeons and dark courtyards. Everybody's pale.” Because he's kept to himself for so long, most of his thoughts, positive or negative, are also kept to himself. This plays a role in another effect of his isolation: the inability, or lack of desire to, express his opinions. Isolation doesn't require one to voice their opinions because the individual is alone with their own thoughts so there's really no point in knowing how to explain oneself when there's no one to explain oneself to. For example, when Raymond is asking him how he feels about the woman cheating, Meursault says he replied, “I didn't think anything but that it was interesting” (32). If he had exposed himself to other people, he would have been able to give at least some sort of opinion as to how he felt, but he simply didn't see a reason to. His mother, on the other hand, thrived on her isolation. This could possibly be due to the fact that she didn’t inflict it upon herself. She and Meursault, although mother and son, had a dead end relationship, so Meursault put her into a retirement facility against her wishes. At first, the isolation made her very unhappy, but, “a few months later and she would have cried if she’d been taken out” (5). For Maman, a constricted world is what she needed in order to be happy with her life. Instead of closing herself off to everyone, she found companionship in isolation from the outside world. Being isolated along with people like her, she was able to share and relate to others. Her partial isolation allowed her to be a happier self.
The first character that comes to mind when I think of isolation in the first part of The Stranger is the old man, Salamano. When he loses his dog in the middle of Part One, his reaction to his newfound loneliness is very strange. In the beginning, he continually blames his dog and seems more angry than anything else, calling his dog “stinking bastard” as he usually does, and even mentioning that he’d rather let his dog die than pay money for it. But as the night goes on Salamano begins to show his panic when he asks Meursault if they would really take the dog away from him. This proves that despite the act he put up before the dog was lost and immediately after he lost it, he truly does care about the dog. To me this proves that when a person has only one companion, whether it is another human or a pet, the companion is often taken for granted. Once this person finds themself in isolation, however they realize all of the good that their companion brought to their life. Thus I believe based on the other information I know about Camus’ beliefs, he is trying to say that if we are not willing to get used to isolation and accept it as the norm, we will ultimately be subject to the whims of others in a universe that is mostly selfish and does not care if we are happy. This theme is supported by the other old man who is friends with Maman, Thomas Perez. Camus writes “Big tears of exhaustion and frustration were streaming down his cheeks.”(24). Once again, Camus reveals that the loss of connection and ensuing isolation left Perez devastated. I believe that Perez and his isolation were included to show that attachment to others can leave you hurt if you are too dependent on them.
The two characters that had a strong bond in the story, Mersault and Marie, seemed to have the most contrasting ways of dealing with isolation. When together, the two had sort of a unique relationship. Marie enjoyed her own freedom outside of the relationship, as Mersault had no interest in her daily life. They both enjoyed physical contact, but they had different emotions from that– Mersault appeared to just enjoy her presence for pleasure, while Marie showed a more sentimental attachment to him. Although their relationship was strangely structured, it seemed to work for them. And despite Mersault’s lack of interest in her, they were set to be married. It was only when they were separated that they began to change their way of thinking, and deal with isolation from their partner. After Mersault is arrested, he begins to see the world as it truly is. Separated from the people around him that dragged him through life (such as Marie), he discovered a new point of view, similar to the way Albert Camus perceives the world. Mersault thinks, “As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world” (Camus). This is where he is in the cell, awaiting his execution the next day. He is isolated in a prison cell – no one to talk to, to tell him it’s alright. He must be alone with his thoughts the day before his murder. However, Mersault faces this isolation with acceptance of his situation. This is just how Albert Camus claimed that people of the world should face the Absurd, by accepting it. The other side of this is the view of Marie – philosophical suicide. When Marie is separated from Mersault, rather than accepting the reality, she tries to convince herself that everything will be alright. Filled with optimism, Marie believes that despite Mersault’s crime, they will be together again and everything will be okay in the end. However, she simply blinds herself from the reality of the situation. Marie’s faith completely contrasts with Mersault’s pessimistic view on the world, although they were both separated from each other similarly.
There are two kinds of isolation in the world; physical isolation and mental isolation. Both kinds of isolation are present in the relationship between Meursault and Marie. Meursault takes the cake when it comes to mental isolation. There is always contradiction in the world, why fight against it is the general thought process he takes. Meursault’s mental isolation keeps him from experiencing either joy or sadness. Camus juxtaposes this with Marie’s infatuation of Meursault, increasing the feeling that Meursault isn’t an average person. A prime example of Meursault’s mental isolation is at his mother’s funeral. He doesn’t cry, and barely remembers the actual date of her death, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (Camus 3). Camus chose those words as the first thing that the reader would see for great reason. It is all anyone needs to know that Meursault places no value on anyone, after all, the assumption is that if someone can’t love their own mother, they can’t love anyone. Marie, on the other hand, encompasses the idea of physical isolation. Although it isn’t obvious at first, what Marie loves most about Meursault is that he is emotionally detached from her. The healthy distance he keeps allows her to live her own life away from him. She realizes that she can be both Marie Cardona the young woman, and Marie Cardona the fiance of Meursault. Camus likely uses this to show the value in Meursault’s ideology, and that if there is a balance that can be achieved, whether it be in relationships, or life in general, life becomes easier to bear. There is nothing wrong with enjoying being alone.
Two characters in The Stranger that experiences isolation is the main character Meursault and Salamano. Meursault represents isolation because the entire novel centers around his isolation from society. I realized that Meursault isn’t interested in what others would be actually interested about. One example is when Marie asks Meursault whether or not he loves her, but when Meursault responds he seems to answer without any interest at all, which is unique because love is a serious matter. Also Marie tries to propose to him and again he responds with a simple no. This shows perfectly that he is isolated from society because he is ignoring all the major events that is happening to him like love and marriage and doesn’t seem to be interested in anything. Also he experiences isolation when his mother dies because he now is alone and no one can take care of him. Camus demonstrates isolation using the color red to resemble how dark he feels and is “dead” inside. Another character that also experiences isolation is Salamano. When we are first introduced to Salamano we see he has a dog, but we see that he treats the dog poorly by calling him names like “bastard,” and beats him mercilessly when he doesn’t obey his commands. It seemed that Salamano didn’t really care about his dog and was expecting it to die anytime soon, however once it dies Salamano begins to feel extremely lonely and regrets his actions. Thus he begins experiencing isolation, The theme of isolation is portrayed throughout the entire novel and Camus does a excellent job showcasing this using literary devices such as visual imagery.
Albert Camus uses Marie’s character to contrast with the protagonist Meursault in his novel The Stranger. Marie symbolizes the emotions that Meursault lacks in his life. Both of the characters are attracted to each other and enjoy each other’s company. Most of their time together is spent swimming at the beach and having sex. Marie eventually becomes in love with Meursault and asks him if he loves her and he responds with a simple “No.” When she asks if he wants to marry her, he responds with “Sure.” Marie is disappointed with his response but says that she still loves him because he is peculiar. While Marie seems like she wants their relationship to advance and mature, Meursault acts like he does not care what happens with them and he just goes with the flow. When Meursault is first imprisoned he struggles, yet accepts, that his freedoms have been taken away from him, including being around women and smoking cigarettes. Camus writes, “I was tormented by my desire for women… I never thought specifically of Marie” (Camus 77). It is clear that Meursault saw no real connection between him and Marie, or else he would have missed her dearly and would not have been dreaming about other women. On the other hand, Marie goes to the prison to visit him and even continues to write to Meursault after the guards refuse to let her visit her lover. Marie and Meursault are complete opposites when it comes to their feelings and emotions. Marie is able to (and wants to) take things seriously, while Meursault does not want to deal with his problems and he sees no point or hope in any kind of future.
Camus juxtaposes Meursault with the Priest who comes to see him after it has been decided that Meursault is to be executed. The priest has a strong sense of morals and obviously represents theism as a whole against Meursault’s atheism, which was a scary belief to many at the time. The Priest is visibly shaken that someone like Meursault could exist, “He sat down indignantly… ‘Do you want my life to be meaningless?’ he shouted” (Camus 69). Meursault’s confident atheism is astounding to the Priest. He himself thinks his entire existence is intended to help people accept God, and Meursault won’t budge. Religion teaches morality and faith in the unknown. Meursault has neither. His amorality is shown countless times, most notably when he helps write the letter for Raymond; he does it because he “didn’t have any reason not to” (32). His lack of faith is evident both by his atheism, obviously, and that he believes in only what is certain; everyone will eventually die. The priest also acts as a catalyst for Meursault’s development. It is the Priest who angers Meursault to the point that he realizes that life is meaningless and that all men are condemned to die, he just happens to have sped up the process. The argument triggers Meursault’s acceptance of the absurdity of the universe. Nothing has meaning and there is no significance.
“Pick a character and discuss their symbolic value in The Stranger”
Marie is a very important character when it comes to deciding the events and meaning of The Stranger. It seems throughout the course of the entire book that Meursault has no passion for interacting with anyone except for Marie. Even when his own mother dies, he shows no emotion, and yet he does seem to be excited at the prospect of being with Marie, not to mention the fact that he started his relationship with Marie the day after his mother died. This proves that Marie has something that no other person has which makes her valuable to Meursault. Camus makes it clear that for Meursault, the relationship is purely physical when he writes “she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so” (35). Meursault reveals that he doesn’t believe that it makes a difference whether he loves Marie or not. Thus Marie represents the physical desires for human interaction that Meursault feels. If this is the only thing that draws Meursault to her, then it proves that Meursault only wants to interact with other people if they fulfill some physical desire of his. This theory also manifests itself in the way that Meursault ends up acting solely based off of his tiredness or the heat of the sun. I believe that Camus included Marie in The Stranger mainly to characterize Meursault as a person motivated purely by his physical desires. Camus wants the reader to see that from an existentialist viewpoint, humans ultimately only act based on their physical desire for sex, sleep and comfort. Although I disagree with this viewpoint, I believe this is the ultimate meaning that Marie represents.
Throughout The Stranger, Meursault’s character is a symbol of overwhelming apathy toward commonly emotion-inciting events. From the very first line, it is apparent that Meursault is apathetic in terms of his relationship with his mother when he says, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know” (3), later to find out that he fell asleep at her vigil, didn't even know how old she was, and didn't shed a single tear at the funeral. Any other person would most likely not receive this kind of news in a telegram first of all, and second of all, would care enough to at least visit every once in awhile instead of completely abandoning their own mother. Later in the novel, Meursault’s apathy is shown again when he says, “Marie came back to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn't make a difference to me and that we could if she wanted to” (41). Here, Meursault openly expressed his lack of emotional capability. Marriage, to the majority of people, is a serious and weighty topic that involves a great deal of emotional commitment. Meursault, on the other hand, doesn't care whether he's married or not, nor who it is that he marries. Based on these situations I feel as though Meursault is using this extreme apathy as an escape from feeling any sort of emotion whatsoever. His evasion of emotion is seen so often in the world as people would rather feel nothing at all than deal with natural emotions due to the effort that is involved. Not only is Meursault a symbol of apathy but also of the emotional numbness that plagues humanity, hardening the hearts of so many and causing a paradox of not caring and therefore not feeling. Camus obviously does this to portray his existential philosophy in an extreme way; as Meursault has completely accepted the absurdity of life, subsequently choosing to be apathetic toward the events that occur in his life and the relationships that he finds himself in because he is aware of the complete lack of meaning that it all has. Less obviously, I think Camus made Meursault so emotionally inept due to his apathy in order to draw attention to the fact that so many of us do the exact same thing for the exact same reason--not to feel.
Meursault represents indifference in Albert Camus’ book, The Stranger. His emotions and social interactions with others are not “normal”. When the caretaker asks him about his mother, Maman, and if he wanted to see the body, he answers with a simple “No” and which he feels embarrassed for (Camus 6). This is awkward as anyone would have wanted to see their loved one when they have deceased. He repeats the similar reaction again when Maria, his girlfriend, asks him if he would marry her. He says “Sure”, a simple disappointment answer for Marie. Anyone would be joyous when they hear a proposal, but Meursault’s reaction is plain and emotionless. Later, his remembrance of his father’s execution (Camus 110) reveal to readers that he is the epitome of indifference, as he struggles to react “properly” to social queues. He mentions the only thing that give him feelings is the site of others being executed. He wishes, if he gets out of prison, he would watch more executions. His longing is similar to others longing for happiness, the things people chase after all their lives. Meursault's goal is to feel emotions in life, so that his life would not be an empty void. He longs for happiness just like others, but his is an outlier comparing to others. Nam Nguyen
Though Marie was only a side character to Mersault, she played a very significant role in the story, mostly with her view on life. Mersault came to represent the pessimism of society– he felt no remorse over his crime, had no passion for anything, and thought his life was meaningless all the way to its end. On the contrary, Marie represents the opposite. Marie acted as a foil to Mersault, as she had passion in life and was optimistic about every situation, even when life presented the worst consequences. Marie symbolizes optimism in life, contrasting with the pessimism in Mersault that also parallels with the views of Albert Camus. We see Marie in several situations, always clinging to the hope that everything will be ok in the end. In this way, she is similar to Albert Camus’ idea of “philosophical suicide.” Marie chooses to distract herself from what’s occurring right in front of her, and instead to hope that things will turn out differently. For example, when Marie visits Mersault in the prison, she convinces herself that he will be released, and they will get married in turn: “She shouted again, ‘You’ll get out and we’ll get married!’” (Camus 75). Though it is highly unlikely, borderline impossible that a man who murdered in cold blood would be released from prison, Marie still believed in her heart that everything would turn out okay. Even the way Mersault sees her represents optimism in life: “she was still smiling. All I could see was the sparkle of her teeth and the little folds of her eyes” (75). This happiness is so unusual in the rest of the characters of The Stranger, and it could possibly be why Mersault is so intrigued with her (although he has no feelings?). Overall, Marie represents the hope that the other characters do not posses, and she contrasts the pessimism of Mersault.
One character that is symbolic in The Stranger is the priest. The Chaplain, as they call him in the book, is one who attends to the religious needs of condemned men. He acts as a catalyst towards Meursault and he believes that he should seek comfort in God even after killing the Arab for no reason. He believes that if anyone put faith into God, then they can be saved. He even states that all condemned men all have eventually turned to God to give them comfort. However it doesn’t go well for him regarding Meursault because he was the only person who he’s met who is stubborn and can’t accept religion even in his last minutes. The priest says “I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours.” (Camus, 69) Meursault doesn’t even want to associate with the priest but the priest doesn’t follow his orders and comes to meet him anyway, just to force him to accept God and turn to him for help. Meursault irritated responds that “He feels he has not time to waste with God,” however the priest tells him that “his heart is blind and that he is living like a dead man.” (69) This sets Meursault off and causes him to shout that “nothing matters, and that nothing in the chaplain’s beliefs is as certain as the chaplain thinks.” (70) He thinks that the whole of human existence is death and there isn’t anything left to live for. This entire conversation with the priest is a vital one because with the priest focusing mainly on causing Meursault to accept God, he actually causes him to accept that the universe is meaningless and that the only option that satisfies him is death.
In No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the concept of time is a nebulous phenomenon that is of little importance to the lives, or deaths rather, of the characters in the play. Upon Mr. Garcin’s arrival, he understands part of his fate in hell when he says, “with one’s eyes open. Forever. Always broad daylight in my eyes--and in my head” (6-7). Him and the valet had just finished discussing the fact that one never sleeps when in hell. Because of this eternal awakeness, our mortal concept of nighttime does not exist, making one’s presence in hell like one, long day that last forever…literally. Once Inez and Estelle have been introduced, the three deceased people share a little bit about their stories. Each one states how long ago they died, Inez says “last week”, Estelle says “yesterday”, and Garcin says “about a month” (11-12). Garcin’s month-long stay isn’t realized by the reader/audience until he states it because it's constituted in only a few pages of conversation between him and the valet. In the same way, Inez’s week in hell is merely 1 and ½ pages. I feel like this lapse in time is representative of the beast of eternity that the characters face, as a day, week, or month is very insignificant in regard to the infinite amount of time that they are sentenced to in hell.
Even in just the first few pages of No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the concept of time is referenced to a couple of times to help describe the hell that the three characters are living in. It is clear that time in hell is very different to time on earth. Garcin tells his roommates that he passed away a month ago, yet he just arrived in hell a few moments before that. Also, when Estelle looks upon her own funeral on earth, she describes the ceremony going on within minutes, when in reality on earth, the ceremony lasted much longer. Estelle talks about her friend at her funeral and says, “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly the time passes, on earth!” (Sartre 13). It is clear that time on earth passes much faster than time in hell. This could be seen as part of the torture concept in hell, as not only do the characters have to spend eternity in hell, the fact that time goes by very slowly only adds to their never-ending dreadful experience. Another concept of time that provides more torture to the characters in hell is the fact that sleep does not exist in hell. Garcin describes blinking to Valet and says, “You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour” (5). No blinking means no sleep which means no happy dreams, and no breaks. Sleep usually helps time pass quicker, but since Sartre’s hell does not include sleep, the characters will continue to suffer in hell due to their distorted concept of time.
Time is a concept that receives much debate through whatever intellectual lense it is seen through. In No Exit, time flows differently in Hell than how it does on Earth. In Hell, a couple of moments can go by while it has been hours on Earth. It it obvious that citizens of Hell can feel both different flows of time as they constantly reference time in terms of Earth time, even though they are “living” in Hell and recognize the differences. For example, Garcin said, “Six months since I—” (Sartre). He is of course talking about his death, but at best he has been in the room with his fellow prisoners for hours. The time in Hell is never discussed. There is no day and night, so it isn’t really possible to tell the time in a traditional sense, but Sartre makes no effort to allow the reader to feel time has passed. There are no cues as to how long the damned have been in the room in Hell time. This is all to aid in Sartre’s goal of convincing us that Hell is other people. It doesn’t matter how much time you spend with a person, or without them; the very existence of someone is bound to drive you insane at some point or another.
Time, a process of orderly events flowing in an ever infinite loop. In "No Exit" by Jean Paul Sartre, it is mentioned that there is no sense of time in Hell. Garcin mentions as a repetitive motion by comparing it to sleeping, "So you rub your eyes, get up, and it starts all over again," (Satre 5). Even though there is no clock or time recording contraption to keep track of time, it is an ever continuous loop that keeps going. Satre's point is to shows readers how Hell is other people. The Valet keeps talking to Garcin, asking questions to make Garcin explains himself on the things he says, "What do you mean by that?... What are you talking about?" (Satre 5). This drives Garcins insane, as he uses analogies to elaborate on his opinions to explain it to the Valet. He uses eyelids to explain that their is no point of living and it all are just repetitive motions. Nam
In Jean Paul Sartre’s play titled No Exit one of the main themes evident throughout the play is time. Based on existentialist ideas they think that not only human life is meaningless, exactly what we witnessed in the Stranger, but time as well and the overall target of the play is to show that “there is no time at all.” In No Exit we notice that time flows differently in Hell than it does on Earth like a month on Earth takes a matter of minutes in Sartre’s hell. One example is shown when Garcin tells everyone that his wife died a month ago. However Garcin tells everyone that she died “Just now” (17) This just shows how time is different when you are in Hell because he is acting like his wife died now when in reality she died a month ago. Another example of this is when Estelle clearly says “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly time passes on earth! (Sartre, 13) This quote pretty much sums up that there is no sense of time on Hell because she is estimating what time of the day it is, and nobody knows what time of the day it is, or what day or month it is. Even us readers have no idea what the time is based on the conversation of people in hell. Also Garcin understands that there isn’t a difference between day and night when the valet said that no one ever sleeps in Hell. Garcin says “with one’s eyes open, it is always broad daylight in my eyes, and in my head.” (7) This again shows that in hell night doesn’t exist and that the only time of the day that is present is the daytime, and that it is eternal. With time being one of the main themes in the play it just shows that when we are alive, we tend to worry about time and that every second of our life is important and that we need to take advantage of it. However when we die we don’t have to worry and fear about anything, which means that time isn’t necessary, and that’s the concept that Sartre is trying to get us to understand.
How is TIME, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
In the play, “No Exit,” the concept of time is represented as inconsistent, and, ultimately, irrelevant. The inconsistence of time is shown through the various stories that the characters share of their lives, and how their deaths are either months away or weeks away, when in reality they only just walked through “hell’s door” a few days prior. Estelle asks, “have you been absent for long?” (Sartre) while Garcin replies, “about a month.” However, while he seems to have been dead for a month, he just walked through the door of hell moments ago. So does time pass more slowly in hell relative to the real world? This is what makes time inconsistent to the world, as it is different between life and death. This is also what brings about the irrelevance. At one point in the play, Garcin talks about his eyelids being permanently open, as if it’s a punishment in hell. He says, “Ah, I see; it’s life without a break… But I can’t go on without a break. Down there I had my nights. I slept. I always had good nights. By way of compensation, I suppose. And happy little dreams. There was a green field. Just an ordinary field. I used to stroll in it… Is it daytime now?” (Sartre). In hell, time seems to be unimportant in that it goes on without interruptions. When things are always in the background, uninterrupted, do you really take notice to them in life? That is what is happening in the play. Because you do not get to take a break from time with sleep, it simply goes on. There is nothing to look forward to, nothing to get away from with time, it is just nonexistent. Time, in this way, is irrelevant and inconsistent throughout the play.
In the play No Exit, hell has a much different timeframe than the real world. Time moves much faster for people in the living world than it does for the dead, as seen when Estelle exclaims “Olga’s undressing, it must be after midnight. How quickly the time passes on earth!” (13). Because the people in hell are trapped there for all of eternity, it makes sense that time would pass faster on earth than it seems to pass in hell. However, in the book it seems that time may not be passing at all in hell. There is no rising or setting sun and therefore no days, and despite the fact that people died at very different times on earth they all arrived around the same time in hell. Therefore it seems that time itself has little or no meaning, which makes sense considering that whether or not time passes quickly or slowly in hell you will spend all of the rest of your time there. I believe Sartre included this detail to emphasize the fleeting nature of human life in the grand scheme of eternity. Just as the dead see earth time flashing by, our lives are a tiny fraction of the time the universe has existed. Sartre wanted to emphasize his view existentialist view that time as we know it is a construct of humans rather than something created by the universe. Despite the fact that we try to manage it and define it with clocks and schedules, it will march on infinitely. I think this enhances the nature of hell in the story because humans hate not being in control by nature, and in this hell time is truly abstract and undefinable.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s only setting in his play No Exit is his interpretation of hell for his three main characters. Google defines hell as, “a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.” When most people think of hell they think of fire, the devil, and many forms of eternal suffering. Even one of the main characters Garcin says, “‘You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the ‘burning marl.’ Old wives’ tales! There’s no need for red-hot pokers’” (45). However, in Sartre’s play, he describes hell very differently. He writes, “Hell is other people” (45). The three main characters condemned to hell soon realize that their version of hell is being trapped in a room together forever. They drive each other insane and cannot get along well or take a liking to each other. There is a force that keeps them together, they are inseparable. This explains how when the door of their room opened, no one was able to leave alone and they were forced to stay together in their room. Just being together in a room forever is enough suffering for the three characters to be in hell. Although Sartre’s hell in this play may be different from the stereotypical hell that is usually described, he suggests that hell may be different for everyone since everyone’s definition of suffering is different. Nonetheless, hell is hell and is therefore a place of eternal suffering that may differ depending on the condemned person.
I believe Sartre’s hell is, while not the worst hell ever imagined certainly has some very hellish aspects. First of all, I believe that the traditional view of hell with torturers and fire is far worse than the hell Sartre presents. However, I believe the main reason for Sartre not to include these things comes from the fact that hell is meant to last for all of eternity. Sartre probably believed that while a hell with torturers would be horrifying, one would eventually get used to the tortures and become, in a way, numb to it. This would then be something of a limbo rather than a hell. The reason a hell characterized by other people may be more of a hell than the traditional view is because the way in which people can torture you is ever changing and unlimited. While physical torture is a sensation that possibly could be numbed, the social and emotional torture caused by others can be even worse. However, I believe that Sartre’s hell as well would eventually be numbed by the passage of time. Perhaps, though, this is the case with any hell imaginable, thus Sartre’s hell is hellish simply because it forces you to be in a negative situation for all of eternity. One thing that I wonder is if, after years and years of being together, could these people really not put aside all of their differences and become friends? As cheesy as that sounds, it is notable that oftentimes people without similar viewpoints or desires can become friends because of shared experience-- for this reason, I believe Sartre’s hell is not as bad as he seems to say it is.
I believe that, according to Sartre's famous line, "Hell is other people," Sartre's version of Hell in No Exit is quite hellish. While humans are social animals, and it has been proven that anyone left in solitary confinement for too long will eventually experience a psychological breakdown, it is impossible to argue that much of the stress in life comes from interactions with other humans. Even in death, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez are troubled by the people the lived with and the people they are currently in limbo with. By having people lead unhappy lives and afterlives, Sartre is saying that people bring out our inner hell. It is entirely pessimistic, but still contains some realistic views. Without others, people would not experience both the joy and sadness of life. Every day living is filled with new opportunities to experience hell. It could be said that Sartre’s hell is a living hell. Not much is different; the days seem to flow together and the characters are surrounded by the same people, theoretically. There is no way to escape other people. While living, people try to be alone and catch a break from others, but they eventually come back to society. In No Exit, there are multiple occasions where a character will sit in silence and try to ignore the other two, searching for any semblance of isolation, any escape from hell. There is no escape from people, so there is no exit from Hell.
Is Sartre's Hell hellish? A hell where people are forever stuck with each other sharing one room sounds worst than the stereotypical hell. Comparing between eternal physical suffering or eternal mental suffering, eternal mental suffering is worst as people never recover, while they can recover from physical pain or build up immunity. It does not have to be mental suffering, as readers can see in the relationship between Estelle and Garcin. They both begin to feel love, or maybe sexual obsession, and wish to do intimate actions with each other, but because Inez is there with them and watches, they can never feel the feeling of sharing a private intimate moment together. This is considered suffering as they both cannot do what they wishes simply because there is another person. This is the epitome of Sartre's quote, “Hell is other people”. Comparing this with the Tango dance. It takes two to tango (no pun intended), and when there are three people it is awkward for the third person to watch and also for the other because they feel like they leave the third person out, hanging there alone. Hell is , in fact, other people! Nam Nguyen
In my opinion, Sartre’s depiction of hell is far from what I would have imagined myself. From the very beginning, his description makes it seem a lot more similar to a hotel than the place to which the evil people of the world are damned. Right as Mr. Garcin enters his room he says, “Hm! So here we are? And this is what it looks like?” (3). Religious or not, we all create an idea of what hell is like based on our own imagination in concurrence with the things we hear from other people. Obviously, like most of us, Mr. Garcin’s idea of hell was a dark, fiery chamber full of torture tools and the stench of death. What he's led into by the valet is far from that, considering the presence of the expensive, yet uncomfortable Second Empire furnishings and the bright lights. He's taken aback by the somewhat comfortable accommodations he's been given and is utterly confused by the lack of physical punishment he's confronted with. Inez has the same confused realization when she arrives, assuming that Mr. Garcin is, “the torturer, of course” (8). And later, Estelle thinks that Garcin is the man that killed himself on her behalf, assuming that hell is a place where she is to reconnect with people she wronged in her life on earth. After they've all been acquainted, and begin to have a little trouble with each other, Inez realizes, “that each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). This notion is far removed from both her and Garcin’s idea of what hell should be like. In terms of good versus bad, this form of torture seems like a luxury compared to what most of us believe would happen to us if we were banished to hell after we die. For obvious reasons at the end of the play, “hell is--other people” (45), and this form of torture is no worse than the physical version. Other than the fact that the characters complain about the heat, Sartre’s version of hell is completely non-hellish.
Is Sartre’s depiction of hell really hellish? Is it all that bad?
According to Sartre and seen in the play, “hell is-- other people” (Sartre, 45). But is this really that bad? You could ask anyone in the world if they hated or disliked a certain type of person, and I could guarantee they could find someone. If you are eternally stuck with that person you could not get along with no matter what your efforts, it produces a hell much worse than what people traditionally think it’s like. In most religions, hell is considered a place in the underworld, ruled by the devil and meant to bring suffering to its people for eternity. However, often it is thought that the people brought to hell would experience physical torture- but that is not the case in “No Exit.” The characters arrive in a small room, with a few sofas to sit on. They cannot escape each other, as they’re in a small room. They can also not escape through the privilege of sleep. As each character arrives, they all ask the same question: where is the torturer? They all assume that a torturer will take them and inflict physical damage unto them for eternity. Rather, they come to realize that the true torture is experiencing mental ‘pain,’ if you will, brought on by others. Inez says, “each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). So which is worse- physical torture or mental torture? Personally, I would take the room of three people and some sofas over my skin being burned repeatedly. I feel that as time goes on, people can learn to adapt and grow on each other. It’s hard to determine how others would feel, because I’m such an easy going person. But I’ve come to see that true hatred does not really exist – especially amongst strangers. You can dislike the way someone speaks, what they’ve done in life. You can be bothered by their presence. But is it really enough to be considered hell? Those people in the room could not possibly hate each other forever. Over time, they will probably not even communicate with each other any more. It will just be empty air and blank stares, but it is much better than having your limbs stretched or your body beaten.
Is Sartre's depiction of hell really hellish? Is it all that bad?
In my opinion I kind of disagree that Sartre’s depiction of hell was hellish. I say this because most people when they think of hell, they think of torture, suffrage, demons and devils, and a place where people who have committed sins after death go and repent for their actions. However I thought that Sartre actually made hell seem like cool and calm environment. Right away we know that the main characters in hell, and my initial instinct was that I was going to see them suffer and getting tortured, but I was surprised as Sartre doesn’t go too extreme describing hell and he makes it sound like it isn’t that bad of a place. Don’t get me wrong here as no one wants to be put in hell, I’m just saying that the punishment that they had wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. For example one punishment was all the three characters are locked in a room and they have no means of escape. Another form of punishment was seen directly from the quote “Hell is described as other people.” This is seen evident when Inez annoys Garcin by telling him that he is a coward, and she also annoys Estelle by talking all romantic to her and even bring up her murdering her own child. With Inez doing this it causes now Garcin to get agitated and torture both Inez and Estelle, and after that Estelle does the same thing. This quote stands true because since they are locked up and can’t escape, they can’t do anything and no matter how much a person talks or taunts them all they can do is hide all their frustration. The only thing that puzzled me was how the 3 main characters all coincidentally landed in the same place after their death and how fate plays a role in that.
Whether or not God exists is, in my opinion, relevant to the real world despite the fact that free will exists. First of all, and most obviously, if God exists, especially in the form that most major world religions portray Him, there will be an afterlife in which your fate is determined by your actions on Earth. Specifically, these religions often portray entrance into heaven as dependent on whether or not you believe in God and follow His word as outlined in the teachings of the specific religion. Whether or not God exists will determine your fate after death simply by the nature of what humans define God to be. Secondly, whether or not God exists changes the way that certain people may live out their lives. Especially in religious circles, God is believed to send down visions and callings to those who listen to Him on Earth. If God is real and these callings are heard, they will influence people's free will in a way that may cause them to stand up for social or other types of change. If God were not real, then there would be no outside influence on free will and humans would be living out their lives completely according to their own whims. Thus, the questions of whether or not God exists does actually change the reality of the way people live out their free will on Earth. Overall, by affecting the potential post- death consequences of free will and by changing the current use of people's free will, the question of whether God exists matters a great deal to our existence as humans. For this reason, religion will persist as long as humanity.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. I think that it is relevant whether or not God exists, even with free will present. People who believe in God are influenced by their faith, as it shapes the way people live their lives. Religion often presents moral teachings that provide a framework of how people should live their lives. These influential teachings may come through different forms and can include holy books, like the Bible, or from other people like pastors. Followers of God, like in Christianity, believe in life after death, which is determined by how they live their life on the physical earth. They believe that choosing to live a life dedicated to God and trusting in His word or choosing not to will result in an afterlife in either Heaven or Hell. If this is the case, the belief in God will obviously influence the choices that followers make as it determines where they end up after death.
On the opposite side, non-believers have the free will to do whatever they choose as they do not believe in any greater influence that has the power to determine their fate. Decisions that both non-believers and believers make are up to them completely, but the difference is that each are influenced by different beliefs.
I know I may be in the minority, but I see some truth in this statement: “Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.” People all across the world will change their way of life in order to please Him, or a creator, where a God could not exist at all. The one thing that I think about is that many people believe that God predetermines their lives, or has the power to control their destiny. When they are in a feeling of weakness, or feeling hopeless, they choose to ask in a greater power to pull them out of that. But what if God doesn’t exist? Or He does? Neither of those things matter – because people have the ability to pull themselves out of that moment of weakness on their own terms. The only one holding you back is yourself. It is remarkable what humans can accomplish if they just set their minds to something. What distracts people from the real world is concerning themselves with whether God is real or not. There are so many people around the world fighting to prove that their religion is right. But there’s really no way we can prove that any of them are correct! So why worry about it? Rather than focusing on something you can’t control, people should be worrying about what they can control. Therefore, people cannot control the existence of God and what He may be able to do, but people are able to do anything they set their mind to, with their free will.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the concept of a God existing is irrelevant because of free will. The concept of a God has never made much sense to me, nor has it mattered. There are so many inconsistencies. Why was there such a surge of miracles and “Godly activity” in a relatively small part of the world for a small period of time, but he has been essentially silent for the past 2000ish years? People have gotten along well without direct action from a God, just directions of men who claimed to have spoken to him for millennia. That’s why I believe God’s existence is irrelevant. People don’t need him to speak in their for ear every second of every day so that they can live their lives. The lessons people need to learn are what’s important, not where they learn it from. If people believe they need to learn about morals from a God, they have the ability to choose to do so. If they believe they can learn about morals through experience, they can. Some people have claimed that accepting God into their lives has made them a better person as well as happier, which is completely okay. Even if God doesn’t exist, these people are benefitting from the concept and the morals being taught to them. God’s existence is irrelevant because people have the ability to choose their own path in life, whether it be one with God or without God, while still being able to learn the lessons his followers preach.
ReplyDelete“Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.”
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with the statement above. The definition of a God, in Christianity and other monotheistic religions, the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Going by this, then without a God then there would not be any free will because he created everything. Then again, it is a paradox because how can a God create free will when they have the will/action to create free will. The statement itself is a contradiction. Transitioning to fate and say that God is fate because people often say that God is the one who plans things out for the person before they are even born. How can we believe in fate when we have free will? When someone throws an object at a person, for this case a ball, often time people would try and catch it. Can we really say that they were fated to catch the ball or miss it, if either one of the scenario gets to play out. How can we say free will to this scenario when it is our automatic/reflex to our response of “fight or flight”. We cannot control our reflexes and it happens, so where is the free will there?
Nam Nguyen
“Whether or not God exists is irrelevant because of free will.”
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree on this statement because in my opinion free will isn’t applied when one believes in God because God is a being that one depends on and a lot of their actions are caused by their faith. For example many Islamic women have to cover their head against their own will otherwise they would be penalized for it. This shows that religion plays a role in certain believer’s actions. However I also disagree with this statement because although God may make most of the decisions for you, you still have the ability to make our own choices and decisions. Although factors in life such as culture, family values, and nationality and religion contribute to our choices, I still believe ultimately it is our choice and we should be able to make decisions on our own and have confidence in them.
Whether or not God exists is absolutely relevant regardless of humanity's belief in free will. In my personal opinion, based on the religion I practice, God has a master plan for the lives of each and every one of us. So it's His free will that I have faith in to guide my decisions and the events that occur in my life on a large scale, as well as everyday. That being said, I do believe that free will exists for some people. Based on what I know and choose to believe in terms of religion, I feel as though free will is a theory created by humans who have a strong disbelief in any form of higher power. Because humans are God's creation, human creation is also God's creation, so, paradoxiclaly, the idea of free will is therefore created by God and planted by God in the minds of those whose plans from Him do not actually involve a belief in Him. Taking my opinion into account, I think it's fair to say that religion has an immense impact on an individual's ideas about the world, why things work (or don't work), and why people do what they do. Even if someone claims themselves to be an atheist, the values of religion are alive in the world no matter what, so those values are imposed on those people no matter what.
ReplyDeleteIn what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
ReplyDeleteThe Greek Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus describes a king who was sentenced to “ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back if its own weight.” The gods that punished Sisyphus believed that this was the ultimate punishment because it was pointless labor. Although it is uncertain why Sisyphus deserved this punishment, he ultimately received eternal struggle because of “his scorn for the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life.” Camus explains that the only way that this myth can be tragic is if the hero (Sisyphus) is conscious. During the brief moment where the rock rolls back down the mountain and Sisyphus is free from his labor, he has a negative mindset as he is aware of his endless and futile punishment. This awareness is similar to an absurd man on earth who sees no reason or purpose for his life because both situations are perceived as hopeless. However, Camus also says that “crushing truths perish from being acknowledged” meaning that as soon as Sisyphus accepts his fate, he can find joy in his situation. This can be seen as a lesson for all people, thus creating a universal figure out of Sisyphus. Like Sisyphus, people on earth are subject to struggles that may seem endless. Camus suggests that as soon as you accept your situation, you must make the best of it to live a happy life. By accepting your fate, you discard hope and therefore find happiness because you perceive your fate as not dreadful anymore.
"In What ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?"
ReplyDeleteSisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because he represents the absurd struggle that most people face in their lives. Camus writes of Sisyphus as happy despite being condemned to endlessly roll a rock up a mountain. This is a central part of Camus's idea of the Revolt, in which people should choose to be defiant in the face of what he calls the Absurd, which is the disconnect between human's desire for order and the general disorder that is the universe. Just as Sisyphus chooses to be defiantly happy in the face of his fate, humans should choose to cheerfully go about their work despite the fact that it may be never ending. Most people find in their lives that there will never be a time when there is no work to be done at all. Even once you have achieved your goals, it is likely that there will be yet another goal to pursue, and no matter how successful one is, there will always be something more that needs to be accomplished. This is just like how Sisyphus accomplishes his goal over and over again, and each time he finishes pushing the rock up the hill, he must do it again. Thus Camus is saying that both humans and Sisyphus are "condemned" to endlessly accomplish tasks. His message is actually more optimistic because he notes that Sisyphus "must be happy" despite his fate. Therefore it is not the work we do and whether we accomplish goals that will make us happy, but rather our own personal choice to be happy and defiant in the face of the fact that we will always have more work to do.
Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure because many examples of actions and qualities similar to his are demonstrated in the everyday lives of all people. Firstly, Sisyphus was banished to the underworld because “he stole [the gods’] secrets”. Quite often, people confide in one another just to find that their trust was broken for the benefit of the other party. This broken trust causes tension and turmoil within relationships which can be interpreted as banishment from a happy and fulfilling life once lived. Secondly, Sisyphus “wanted to test his wife’s love”. Although it may not be to the creepy extent that Sisyphus did so, humans naturally test each others’ emotions when we need reassurance. In his case, Sisyphus needed reassurance of love when he was near death, but most often, people test others’ love when we can’t find a way to love ourselves. If others don’t pass these tests of emotion, we naturally resort to a desire for revenge because someone has failed us, just as Sisyphus wanted “to return to earth in order to chastise his wife”. Thirdly, and most obviously, Sisyphus can be considered universal because he is banished to a life of futile efforts. As we know, he resides in the underworld, each day pushing a rock up a mountain only for it to undoubtedly roll all the way back to the bottom. Considering Albert Camus’ notion of the absurd, regardless of religious justification of purpose, all people are an embodiment of Sisyphus. We all have our own rock, our own mountain, unable to find success, each day consciously attempting to conquer the unconquerable.
ReplyDeleteSisyphus can be considered a universal figure in our society because he represents what the people of our world go through in their lives. Sisyphus was sentenced to push a rock up a mountain for eternity, remained unphased as it came tumbling down each time he thought he completed his goal. It's similar to humans in all of time- we never seem to have a goal we strive for in life. Nobody has yet to find why we exist, or what our purpose is for living. This is just as Sisyphus- he continues moving on with his life, even though rolling the rock up the hill serves no ultimate goal. Another thing similar to society is the fact that people live their lives developing goals step by step, and not looking at the big, ultimate purpose. You go to school, get a job, marry, and have children to pass on your legacy to the future generations and ensure that humans keep surviving. After each "step" in life is accomplished, you move on to the next one. Just as Sisyphus, once he completes his goal of pushing the rock he starts over again. He has no knowledge of the ultimate goal, but he continues in small steps. This whole concept relates back to Camus' idea of the Absurd. People continue living, going through each hardship in life, regardless of their inability to find purpose in life. This is how Sisyphus is a universal figure- he shows how people have the capacity to continue moving and persevering even though we may not know where or why we're going.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSisyphus is a universal figure in the same way that anything can be considered art. It's not necessarily wrong, but there is also something about it that doesn't seem right. If Sisyphus is meant to represent humanity toiling away at a pointless task, it is hard to deny that that is true. There is no apparent purpose to life. We go to school to learn how to do more school, so that we can get a job to pay for the school that got us the job. Eventually we are supposed to have made enough money so that our children can maybe do the same thing we just did, but a little more easily. But life isn't like that, it's even more tough. There is always someone who will push the boulder down the hill, someone who will ruin the path that has been made. It isn't fair, it isn't necessarily right, but it's human nature. Camus is trying to explain how there is no real purpose to life, just one of monotony that others have created for us, but we blindly follow, feigning happiness. Just as “one must imagine Sisyphus happy,” one must assume that because the system hasn’t been changed, there must be some illusion of happiness, otherwise such a horrible system would no longer exist and have been swapped out for another.
ReplyDeleteIn what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
ReplyDeleteIn Greek mythology Sisyphus was known as a king who was punished by rolling an immense boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll back down, and to continue this action for all of eternity. I thought that Sisyphus is a good example of a universal figure because it shows the never give up mentality. Even though the task wasn’t complete yet it shows us that Sisyphus was still determined to complete it and maintained a positive attitude throughout the punishment so that he could focus on the task at hand. I also think that the boulder falling down is to show that nothing is that simple in life and that you need to work hard in life to accomplish your goal. With this being said the boulder falling down could also resemble us to continue to take down challenges because after accomplishing a goal we want to strive for greatness and take on another challenge, which resembles the boulder falling over and over again. I think Camus is actually showing us that Sisyphus is a universal figure because although the punishment is cruel it teaches us lessons about how we should take on more challenges, and that when faced with a task, we don’t give up and always share a positive attitude when doing it so that we are focused completely on the task at hand.
The story of Sisyphus portrays a king in the afterlife and his punishment. The gods condemn him to push a rock up a mountain for all eternity. The story is a universal symbol as it portrays many things in life. For example, doctors and nurses at the hospital face sick and wounded patients everyday. Once they completed treating a patient, another person comes in injure or sick and needs to be treated. It’s an infinite circle similarly to Sisyphus, as he has to push the rock up the mountain after it rolls down after it reaches the top. It happens through history as well. Comparing the Jew Concentration Camp, during W.W.II, and the Japanese Concentration Camp, during the Cold War, were the repetition of history. The cycle of never ending prejudice is similar to the rock going up and down the hill. History repeats itself and that is the motif of Sisyphus.
ReplyDeleteNam
Nguyen
Through Part I of The Stranger, Albert Camus incorporates isolation into his characters to add depth to their characterization and support his theme of the absurdity prevalent in the world. Camus uses the death of Meursault’s mother to show his detachment from emotions thus creating an emotional isolation in Meursault. Camus writes, “The woman kept on crying… I wish I didn’t have to listen to her anymore” (Camus 10). This comes across to the reader as very rude as he feels no sadness over his mother’s death, which for most people would be a very tragic and difficult thing to go through. I think that maybe this was his way of dealing with his grief, by acting like he doesn’t seem to care. Meursault also doesn’t seem to have any feelings about anything else in his life. When Marie asked if he loved her, he shrugged it off and said it didn’t really make a difference to him if he did or not. He responded the same way when Marie asked him if he wanted to marry her. Meursault seems to isolate himself from strong feelings because of laziness. I feel like he just doesn’t want to deal with or come to terms with his feelings. I feel like he doesn’t care because he believes that there is no point in living if he is just going to die one day (the idea of an absurd life).
ReplyDeleteAnother form of isolation is seen through the relationship between Salamano and his old, sick dog. While they were together in the beginning of the book, they had a tough-love kind of relationship. Salamano always called his dog a bastard and he beat him when he didn’t obey his commands. It came across like Salamano was ready for the sick and weak dog to die off, but as soon as the dog disappears, Salamano is lost without him. He is extremely disappointed that he lost his loyal companion of many years and searches for him frantically. Salamano’s physical isolation from his dog becomes a tragic misfortune.
In Part I, Meursault and his mother are both affected by their isolation in drastically different ways. Meursault’s self-isolation has made him into somewhat of an introvert, while at the same time causing him to harden, becoming highly judgemental of others. While they are expressed through the words on the pages, his introversion keeps these harsh judgements inside of his head. On page 10 he talks about how fat old women can be. On pages 14 and 15 he goes in depth about Monsieur Pérez, describing his “nose dotted with blackheads” and “strange, floppy, thick-rimmed ears”. And on page 42 he bashes on Paris, saying “it's dirty. Lots of pigeons and dark courtyards. Everybody's pale.” Because he's kept to himself for so long, most of his thoughts, positive or negative, are also kept to himself. This plays a role in another effect of his isolation: the inability, or lack of desire to, express his opinions. Isolation doesn't require one to voice their opinions because the individual is alone with their own thoughts so there's really no point in knowing how to explain oneself when there's no one to explain oneself to. For example, when Raymond is asking him how he feels about the woman cheating, Meursault says he replied, “I didn't think anything but that it was interesting” (32). If he had exposed himself to other people, he would have been able to give at least some sort of opinion as to how he felt, but he simply didn't see a reason to. His mother, on the other hand, thrived on her isolation. This could possibly be due to the fact that she didn’t inflict it upon herself. She and Meursault, although mother and son, had a dead end relationship, so Meursault put her into a retirement facility against her wishes. At first, the isolation made her very unhappy, but, “a few months later and she would have cried if she’d been taken out” (5). For Maman, a constricted world is what she needed in order to be happy with her life. Instead of closing herself off to everyone, she found companionship in isolation from the outside world. Being isolated along with people like her, she was able to share and relate to others. Her partial isolation allowed her to be a happier self.
ReplyDeleteThe first character that comes to mind when I think of isolation in the first part of The Stranger is the old man, Salamano. When he loses his dog in the middle of Part One, his reaction to his newfound loneliness is very strange. In the beginning, he continually blames his dog and seems more angry than anything else, calling his dog “stinking bastard” as he usually does, and even mentioning that he’d rather let his dog die than pay money for it. But as the night goes on Salamano begins to show his panic when he asks Meursault if they would really take the dog away from him. This proves that despite the act he put up before the dog was lost and immediately after he lost it, he truly does care about the dog. To me this proves that when a person has only one companion, whether it is another human or a pet, the companion is often taken for granted. Once this person finds themself in isolation, however they realize all of the good that their companion brought to their life. Thus I believe based on the other information I know about Camus’ beliefs, he is trying to say that if we are not willing to get used to isolation and accept it as the norm, we will ultimately be subject to the whims of others in a universe that is mostly selfish and does not care if we are happy. This theme is supported by the other old man who is friends with Maman, Thomas Perez. Camus writes “Big tears of exhaustion and frustration were streaming down his cheeks.”(24). Once again, Camus reveals that the loss of connection and ensuing isolation left Perez devastated. I believe that Perez and his isolation were included to show that attachment to others can leave you hurt if you are too dependent on them.
ReplyDeleteThe two characters that had a strong bond in the story, Mersault and Marie, seemed to have the most contrasting ways of dealing with isolation. When together, the two had sort of a unique relationship. Marie enjoyed her own freedom outside of the relationship, as Mersault had no interest in her daily life. They both enjoyed physical contact, but they had different emotions from that– Mersault appeared to just enjoy her presence for pleasure, while Marie showed a more sentimental attachment to him. Although their relationship was strangely structured, it seemed to work for them. And despite Mersault’s lack of interest in her, they were set to be married. It was only when they were separated that they began to change their way of thinking, and deal with isolation from their partner.
ReplyDeleteAfter Mersault is arrested, he begins to see the world as it truly is. Separated from the people around him that dragged him through life (such as Marie), he discovered a new point of view, similar to the way Albert Camus perceives the world. Mersault thinks, “As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world” (Camus). This is where he is in the cell, awaiting his execution the next day. He is isolated in a prison cell – no one to talk to, to tell him it’s alright. He must be alone with his thoughts the day before his murder. However, Mersault faces this isolation with acceptance of his situation. This is just how Albert Camus claimed that people of the world should face the Absurd, by accepting it. The other side of this is the view of Marie – philosophical suicide.
When Marie is separated from Mersault, rather than accepting the reality, she tries to convince herself that everything will be alright. Filled with optimism, Marie believes that despite Mersault’s crime, they will be together again and everything will be okay in the end. However, she simply blinds herself from the reality of the situation. Marie’s faith completely contrasts with Mersault’s pessimistic view on the world, although they were both separated from each other similarly.
There are two kinds of isolation in the world; physical isolation and mental isolation. Both kinds of isolation are present in the relationship between Meursault and Marie. Meursault takes the cake when it comes to mental isolation. There is always contradiction in the world, why fight against it is the general thought process he takes. Meursault’s mental isolation keeps him from experiencing either joy or sadness. Camus juxtaposes this with Marie’s infatuation of Meursault, increasing the feeling that Meursault isn’t an average person. A prime example of Meursault’s mental isolation is at his mother’s funeral. He doesn’t cry, and barely remembers the actual date of her death, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (Camus 3). Camus chose those words as the first thing that the reader would see for great reason. It is all anyone needs to know that Meursault places no value on anyone, after all, the assumption is that if someone can’t love their own mother, they can’t love anyone.
ReplyDeleteMarie, on the other hand, encompasses the idea of physical isolation. Although it isn’t obvious at first, what Marie loves most about Meursault is that he is emotionally detached from her. The healthy distance he keeps allows her to live her own life away from him. She realizes that she can be both Marie Cardona the young woman, and Marie Cardona the fiance of Meursault. Camus likely uses this to show the value in Meursault’s ideology, and that if there is a balance that can be achieved, whether it be in relationships, or life in general, life becomes easier to bear. There is nothing wrong with enjoying being alone.
Two characters in The Stranger that experiences isolation is the main character Meursault and Salamano. Meursault represents isolation because the entire novel centers around his isolation from society. I realized that Meursault isn’t interested in what others would be actually interested about. One example is when Marie asks Meursault whether or not he loves her, but when Meursault responds he seems to answer without any interest at all, which is unique because love is a serious matter. Also Marie tries to propose to him and again he responds with a simple no. This shows perfectly that he is isolated from society because he is ignoring all the major events that is happening to him like love and marriage and doesn’t seem to be interested in anything. Also he experiences isolation when his mother dies because he now is alone and no one can take care of him. Camus demonstrates isolation using the color red to resemble how dark he feels and is “dead” inside. Another character that also experiences isolation is Salamano. When we are first introduced to Salamano we see he has a dog, but we see that he treats the dog poorly by calling him names like “bastard,” and beats him mercilessly when he doesn’t obey his commands. It seemed that Salamano didn’t really care about his dog and was expecting it to die anytime soon, however once it dies Salamano begins to feel extremely lonely and regrets his actions. Thus he begins experiencing isolation, The theme of isolation is portrayed throughout the entire novel and Camus does a excellent job showcasing this using literary devices such as visual imagery.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus uses Marie’s character to contrast with the protagonist Meursault in his novel The Stranger. Marie symbolizes the emotions that Meursault lacks in his life. Both of the characters are attracted to each other and enjoy each other’s company. Most of their time together is spent swimming at the beach and having sex. Marie eventually becomes in love with Meursault and asks him if he loves her and he responds with a simple “No.” When she asks if he wants to marry her, he responds with “Sure.” Marie is disappointed with his response but says that she still loves him because he is peculiar. While Marie seems like she wants their relationship to advance and mature, Meursault acts like he does not care what happens with them and he just goes with the flow.
ReplyDeleteWhen Meursault is first imprisoned he struggles, yet accepts, that his freedoms have been taken away from him, including being around women and smoking cigarettes. Camus writes, “I was tormented by my desire for women… I never thought specifically of Marie” (Camus 77). It is clear that Meursault saw no real connection between him and Marie, or else he would have missed her dearly and would not have been dreaming about other women. On the other hand, Marie goes to the prison to visit him and even continues to write to Meursault after the guards refuse to let her visit her lover. Marie and Meursault are complete opposites when it comes to their feelings and emotions. Marie is able to (and wants to) take things seriously, while Meursault does not want to deal with his problems and he sees no point or hope in any kind of future.
Camus juxtaposes Meursault with the Priest who comes to see him after it has been decided that Meursault is to be executed. The priest has a strong sense of morals and obviously represents theism as a whole against Meursault’s atheism, which was a scary belief to many at the time. The Priest is visibly shaken that someone like Meursault could exist, “He sat down indignantly… ‘Do you want my life to be meaningless?’ he shouted” (Camus 69). Meursault’s confident atheism is astounding to the Priest. He himself thinks his entire existence is intended to help people accept God, and Meursault won’t budge. Religion teaches morality and faith in the unknown. Meursault has neither. His amorality is shown countless times, most notably when he helps write the letter for Raymond; he does it because he “didn’t have any reason not to” (32). His lack of faith is evident both by his atheism, obviously, and that he believes in only what is certain; everyone will eventually die.
ReplyDeleteThe priest also acts as a catalyst for Meursault’s development. It is the Priest who angers Meursault to the point that he realizes that life is meaningless and that all men are condemned to die, he just happens to have sped up the process. The argument triggers Meursault’s acceptance of the absurdity of the universe. Nothing has meaning and there is no significance.
“Pick a character and discuss their symbolic value in The Stranger”
ReplyDeleteMarie is a very important character when it comes to deciding the events and meaning of The Stranger. It seems throughout the course of the entire book that Meursault has no passion for interacting with anyone except for Marie. Even when his own mother dies, he shows no emotion, and yet he does seem to be excited at the prospect of being with Marie, not to mention the fact that he started his relationship with Marie the day after his mother died. This proves that Marie has something that no other person has which makes her valuable to Meursault. Camus makes it clear that for Meursault, the relationship is purely physical when he writes “she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so” (35). Meursault reveals that he doesn’t believe that it makes a difference whether he loves Marie or not. Thus Marie represents the physical desires for human interaction that Meursault feels. If this is the only thing that draws Meursault to her, then it proves that Meursault only wants to interact with other people if they fulfill some physical desire of his. This theory also manifests itself in the way that Meursault ends up acting solely based off of his tiredness or the heat of the sun. I believe that Camus included Marie in The Stranger mainly to characterize Meursault as a person motivated purely by his physical desires. Camus wants the reader to see that from an existentialist viewpoint, humans ultimately only act based on their physical desire for sex, sleep and comfort. Although I disagree with this viewpoint, I believe this is the ultimate meaning that Marie represents.
Throughout The Stranger, Meursault’s character is a symbol of overwhelming apathy toward commonly emotion-inciting events. From the very first line, it is apparent that Meursault is apathetic in terms of his relationship with his mother when he says, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know” (3), later to find out that he fell asleep at her vigil, didn't even know how old she was, and didn't shed a single tear at the funeral. Any other person would most likely not receive this kind of news in a telegram first of all, and second of all, would care enough to at least visit every once in awhile instead of completely abandoning their own mother. Later in the novel, Meursault’s apathy is shown again when he says, “Marie came back to see me and asked me if I wanted to marry her. I said it didn't make a difference to me and that we could if she wanted to” (41). Here, Meursault openly expressed his lack of emotional capability. Marriage, to the majority of people, is a serious and weighty topic that involves a great deal of emotional commitment. Meursault, on the other hand, doesn't care whether he's married or not, nor who it is that he marries. Based on these situations I feel as though Meursault is using this extreme apathy as an escape from feeling any sort of emotion whatsoever. His evasion of emotion is seen so often in the world as people would rather feel nothing at all than deal with natural emotions due to the effort that is involved. Not only is Meursault a symbol of apathy but also of the emotional numbness that plagues humanity, hardening the hearts of so many and causing a paradox of not caring and therefore not feeling. Camus obviously does this to portray his existential philosophy in an extreme way; as Meursault has completely accepted the absurdity of life, subsequently choosing to be apathetic toward the events that occur in his life and the relationships that he finds himself in because he is aware of the complete lack of meaning that it all has. Less obviously, I think Camus made Meursault so emotionally inept due to his apathy in order to draw attention to the fact that so many of us do the exact same thing for the exact same reason--not to feel.
ReplyDeleteMeursault represents indifference in Albert Camus’ book, The Stranger. His emotions and social interactions with others are not “normal”. When the caretaker asks him about his mother, Maman, and if he wanted to see the body, he answers with a simple “No” and which he feels embarrassed for (Camus 6). This is awkward as anyone would have wanted to see their loved one when they have deceased. He repeats the similar reaction again when Maria, his girlfriend, asks him if he would marry her. He says “Sure”, a simple disappointment answer for Marie. Anyone would be joyous when they hear a proposal, but Meursault’s reaction is plain and emotionless. Later, his remembrance of his father’s execution (Camus 110) reveal to readers that he is the epitome of indifference, as he struggles to react “properly” to social queues. He mentions the only thing that give him feelings is the site of others being executed. He wishes, if he gets out of prison, he would watch more executions. His longing is similar to others longing for happiness, the things people chase after all their lives. Meursault's goal is to feel emotions in life, so that his life would not be an empty void. He longs for happiness just like others, but his is an outlier comparing to others.
ReplyDeleteNam Nguyen
Though Marie was only a side character to Mersault, she played a very significant role in the story, mostly with her view on life. Mersault came to represent the pessimism of society– he felt no remorse over his crime, had no passion for anything, and thought his life was meaningless all the way to its end. On the contrary, Marie represents the opposite. Marie acted as a foil to Mersault, as she had passion in life and was optimistic about every situation, even when life presented the worst consequences.
ReplyDeleteMarie symbolizes optimism in life, contrasting with the pessimism in Mersault that also parallels with the views of Albert Camus. We see Marie in several situations, always clinging to the hope that everything will be ok in the end. In this way, she is similar to Albert Camus’ idea of “philosophical suicide.” Marie chooses to distract herself from what’s occurring right in front of her, and instead to hope that things will turn out differently. For example, when Marie visits Mersault in the prison, she convinces herself that he will be released, and they will get married in turn: “She shouted again, ‘You’ll get out and we’ll get married!’” (Camus 75). Though it is highly unlikely, borderline impossible that a man who murdered in cold blood would be released from prison, Marie still believed in her heart that everything would turn out okay. Even the way Mersault sees her represents optimism in life: “she was still smiling. All I could see was the sparkle of her teeth and the little folds of her eyes” (75). This happiness is so unusual in the rest of the characters of The Stranger, and it could possibly be why Mersault is so intrigued with her (although he has no feelings?). Overall, Marie represents the hope that the other characters do not posses, and she contrasts the pessimism of Mersault.
One character that is symbolic in The Stranger is the priest. The Chaplain, as they call him in the book, is one who attends to the religious needs of condemned men. He acts as a catalyst towards Meursault and he believes that he should seek comfort in God even after killing the Arab for no reason. He believes that if anyone put faith into God, then they can be saved. He even states that all condemned men all have eventually turned to God to give them comfort. However it doesn’t go well for him regarding Meursault because he was the only person who he’s met who is stubborn and can’t accept religion even in his last minutes. The priest says “I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours.” (Camus, 69) Meursault doesn’t even want to associate with the priest but the priest doesn’t follow his orders and comes to meet him anyway, just to force him to accept God and turn to him for help. Meursault irritated responds that “He feels he has not time to waste with God,” however the priest tells him that “his heart is blind and that he is living like a dead man.” (69) This sets Meursault off and causes him to shout that “nothing matters, and that nothing in the chaplain’s beliefs is as certain as the chaplain thinks.” (70) He thinks that the whole of human existence is death and there isn’t anything left to live for. This entire conversation with the priest is a vital one because with the priest focusing mainly on causing Meursault to accept God, he actually causes him to accept that the universe is meaningless and that the only option that satisfies him is death.
ReplyDeleteIn No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the concept of time is a nebulous phenomenon that is of little importance to the lives, or deaths rather, of the characters in the play. Upon Mr. Garcin’s arrival, he understands part of his fate in hell when he says, “with one’s eyes open. Forever. Always broad daylight in my eyes--and in my head” (6-7). Him and the valet had just finished discussing the fact that one never sleeps when in hell. Because of this eternal awakeness, our mortal concept of nighttime does not exist, making one’s presence in hell like one, long day that last forever…literally. Once Inez and Estelle have been introduced, the three deceased people share a little bit about their stories. Each one states how long ago they died, Inez says “last week”, Estelle says “yesterday”, and Garcin says “about a month” (11-12). Garcin’s month-long stay isn’t realized by the reader/audience until he states it because it's constituted in only a few pages of conversation between him and the valet. In the same way, Inez’s week in hell is merely 1 and ½ pages. I feel like this lapse in time is representative of the beast of eternity that the characters face, as a day, week, or month is very insignificant in regard to the infinite amount of time that they are sentenced to in hell.
ReplyDeleteEven in just the first few pages of No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the concept of time is referenced to a couple of times to help describe the hell that the three characters are living in. It is clear that time in hell is very different to time on earth. Garcin tells his roommates that he passed away a month ago, yet he just arrived in hell a few moments before that. Also, when Estelle looks upon her own funeral on earth, she describes the ceremony going on within minutes, when in reality on earth, the ceremony lasted much longer. Estelle talks about her friend at her funeral and says, “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly the time passes, on earth!” (Sartre 13). It is clear that time on earth passes much faster than time in hell. This could be seen as part of the torture concept in hell, as not only do the characters have to spend eternity in hell, the fact that time goes by very slowly only adds to their never-ending dreadful experience. Another concept of time that provides more torture to the characters in hell is the fact that sleep does not exist in hell. Garcin describes blinking to Valet and says, “You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour” (5). No blinking means no sleep which means no happy dreams, and no breaks. Sleep usually helps time pass quicker, but since Sartre’s hell does not include sleep, the characters will continue to suffer in hell due to their distorted concept of time.
ReplyDeleteTime is a concept that receives much debate through whatever intellectual lense it is seen through. In No Exit, time flows differently in Hell than how it does on Earth. In Hell, a couple of moments can go by while it has been hours on Earth. It it obvious that citizens of Hell can feel both different flows of time as they constantly reference time in terms of Earth time, even though they are “living” in Hell and recognize the differences. For example, Garcin said, “Six months since I—” (Sartre). He is of course talking about his death, but at best he has been in the room with his fellow prisoners for hours. The time in Hell is never discussed. There is no day and night, so it isn’t really possible to tell the time in a traditional sense, but Sartre makes no effort to allow the reader to feel time has passed. There are no cues as to how long the damned have been in the room in Hell time. This is all to aid in Sartre’s goal of convincing us that Hell is other people. It doesn’t matter how much time you spend with a person, or without them; the very existence of someone is bound to drive you insane at some point or another.
ReplyDeleteTime, a process of orderly events flowing in an ever infinite loop. In "No Exit" by Jean Paul Sartre, it is mentioned that there is no sense of time in Hell. Garcin mentions as a repetitive motion by comparing it to sleeping, "So you rub your eyes, get up, and it starts all over again," (Satre 5). Even though there is no clock or time recording contraption to keep track of time, it is an ever continuous loop that keeps going. Satre's point is to shows readers how Hell is other people. The Valet keeps talking to Garcin, asking questions to make Garcin explains himself on the things he says, "What do you mean by that?... What are you talking about?" (Satre 5). This drives Garcins insane, as he uses analogies to elaborate on his opinions to explain it to the Valet. He uses eyelids to explain that their is no point of living and it all are just repetitive motions.
ReplyDeleteNam
In Jean Paul Sartre’s play titled No Exit one of the main themes evident throughout the play is time. Based on existentialist ideas they think that not only human life is meaningless, exactly what we witnessed in the Stranger, but time as well and the overall target of the play is to show that “there is no time at all.” In No Exit we notice that time flows differently in Hell than it does on Earth like a month on Earth takes a matter of minutes in Sartre’s hell. One example is shown when Garcin tells everyone that his wife died a month ago. However Garcin tells everyone that she died “Just now” (17) This just shows how time is different when you are in Hell because he is acting like his wife died now when in reality she died a month ago. Another example of this is when Estelle clearly says “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly time passes on earth! (Sartre, 13) This quote pretty much sums up that there is no sense of time on Hell because she is estimating what time of the day it is, and nobody knows what time of the day it is, or what day or month it is. Even us readers have no idea what the time is based on the conversation of people in hell. Also Garcin understands that there isn’t a difference between day and night when the valet said that no one ever sleeps in Hell. Garcin says “with one’s eyes open, it is always broad daylight in my eyes, and in my head.” (7) This again shows that in hell night doesn’t exist and that the only time of the day that is present is the daytime, and that it is eternal. With time being one of the main themes in the play it just shows that when we are alive, we tend to worry about time and that every second of our life is important and that we need to take advantage of it. However when we die we don’t have to worry and fear about anything, which means that time isn’t necessary, and that’s the concept that Sartre is trying to get us to understand.
ReplyDeleteHow is TIME, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn the play, “No Exit,” the concept of time is represented as inconsistent, and, ultimately, irrelevant. The inconsistence of time is shown through the various stories that the characters share of their lives, and how their deaths are either months away or weeks away, when in reality they only just walked through “hell’s door” a few days prior. Estelle asks, “have you been absent for long?” (Sartre) while Garcin replies, “about a month.” However, while he seems to have been dead for a month, he just walked through the door of hell moments ago. So does time pass more slowly in hell relative to the real world? This is what makes time inconsistent to the world, as it is different between life and death. This is also what brings about the irrelevance. At one point in the play, Garcin talks about his eyelids being permanently open, as if it’s a punishment in hell. He says, “Ah, I see; it’s life without a break… But I can’t go on without a break. Down there I had my nights. I slept. I always had good nights. By way of compensation, I suppose. And happy little dreams. There was a green field. Just an ordinary field. I used to stroll in it… Is it daytime now?” (Sartre). In hell, time seems to be unimportant in that it goes on without interruptions. When things are always in the background, uninterrupted, do you really take notice to them in life? That is what is happening in the play. Because you do not get to take a break from time with sleep, it simply goes on. There is nothing to look forward to, nothing to get away from with time, it is just nonexistent. Time, in this way, is irrelevant and inconsistent throughout the play.
In the play No Exit, hell has a much different timeframe than the real world. Time moves much faster for people in the living world than it does for the dead, as seen when Estelle exclaims “Olga’s undressing, it must be after midnight. How quickly the time passes on earth!” (13). Because the people in hell are trapped there for all of eternity, it makes sense that time would pass faster on earth than it seems to pass in hell. However, in the book it seems that time may not be passing at all in hell. There is no rising or setting sun and therefore no days, and despite the fact that people died at very different times on earth they all arrived around the same time in hell. Therefore it seems that time itself has little or no meaning, which makes sense considering that whether or not time passes quickly or slowly in hell you will spend all of the rest of your time there. I believe Sartre included this detail to emphasize the fleeting nature of human life in the grand scheme of eternity. Just as the dead see earth time flashing by, our lives are a tiny fraction of the time the universe has existed. Sartre wanted to emphasize his view existentialist view that time as we know it is a construct of humans rather than something created by the universe. Despite the fact that we try to manage it and define it with clocks and schedules, it will march on infinitely. I think this enhances the nature of hell in the story because humans hate not being in control by nature, and in this hell time is truly abstract and undefinable.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteJean-Paul Sartre’s only setting in his play No Exit is his interpretation of hell for his three main characters. Google defines hell as, “a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.” When most people think of hell they think of fire, the devil, and many forms of eternal suffering. Even one of the main characters Garcin says, “‘You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the ‘burning marl.’ Old wives’ tales! There’s no need for red-hot pokers’” (45). However, in Sartre’s play, he describes hell very differently. He writes, “Hell is other people” (45). The three main characters condemned to hell soon realize that their version of hell is being trapped in a room together forever. They drive each other insane and cannot get along well or take a liking to each other. There is a force that keeps them together, they are inseparable. This explains how when the door of their room opened, no one was able to leave alone and they were forced to stay together in their room. Just being together in a room forever is enough suffering for the three characters to be in hell. Although Sartre’s hell in this play may be different from the stereotypical hell that is usually described, he suggests that hell may be different for everyone since everyone’s definition of suffering is different. Nonetheless, hell is hell and is therefore a place of eternal suffering that may differ depending on the condemned person.
Is Sartre’s hell all that bad?
ReplyDeleteI believe Sartre’s hell is, while not the worst hell ever imagined certainly has some very hellish aspects. First of all, I believe that the traditional view of hell with torturers and fire is far worse than the hell Sartre presents. However, I believe the main reason for Sartre not to include these things comes from the fact that hell is meant to last for all of eternity. Sartre probably believed that while a hell with torturers would be horrifying, one would eventually get used to the tortures and become, in a way, numb to it. This would then be something of a limbo rather than a hell. The reason a hell characterized by other people may be more of a hell than the traditional view is because the way in which people can torture you is ever changing and unlimited. While physical torture is a sensation that possibly could be numbed, the social and emotional torture caused by others can be even worse. However, I believe that Sartre’s hell as well would eventually be numbed by the passage of time. Perhaps, though, this is the case with any hell imaginable, thus Sartre’s hell is hellish simply because it forces you to be in a negative situation for all of eternity. One thing that I wonder is if, after years and years of being together, could these people really not put aside all of their differences and become friends? As cheesy as that sounds, it is notable that oftentimes people without similar viewpoints or desires can become friends because of shared experience-- for this reason, I believe Sartre’s hell is not as bad as he seems to say it is.
Is Sartre's Hell all that Hellish?
ReplyDeleteI believe that, according to Sartre's famous line, "Hell is other people," Sartre's version of Hell in No Exit is quite hellish. While humans are social animals, and it has been proven that anyone left in solitary confinement for too long will eventually experience a psychological breakdown, it is impossible to argue that much of the stress in life comes from interactions with other humans. Even in death, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez are troubled by the people the lived with and the people they are currently in limbo with. By having people lead unhappy lives and afterlives, Sartre is saying that people bring out our inner hell. It is entirely pessimistic, but still contains some realistic views. Without others, people would not experience both the joy and sadness of life. Every day living is filled with new opportunities to experience hell. It could be said that Sartre’s hell is a living hell. Not much is different; the days seem to flow together and the characters are surrounded by the same people, theoretically. There is no way to escape other people. While living, people try to be alone and catch a break from others, but they eventually come back to society. In No Exit, there are multiple occasions where a character will sit in silence and try to ignore the other two, searching for any semblance of isolation, any escape from hell. There is no escape from people, so there is no exit from Hell.
Is Sartre's Hell hellish?
ReplyDeleteA hell where people are forever stuck with each other sharing one room sounds worst than the stereotypical hell. Comparing between eternal physical suffering or eternal mental suffering, eternal mental suffering is worst as people never recover, while they can recover from physical pain or build up immunity. It does not have to be mental suffering, as readers can see in the relationship between Estelle and Garcin. They both begin to feel love, or maybe sexual obsession, and wish to do intimate actions with each other, but because Inez is there with them and watches, they can never feel the feeling of sharing a private intimate moment together. This is considered suffering as they both cannot do what they wishes simply because there is another person. This is the epitome of Sartre's quote, “Hell is other people”. Comparing this with the Tango dance. It takes two to tango (no pun intended), and when there are three people it is awkward for the third person to watch and also for the other because they feel like they leave the third person out, hanging there alone. Hell is , in fact, other people!
Nam Nguyen
In my opinion, Sartre’s depiction of hell is far from what I would have imagined myself. From the very beginning, his description makes it seem a lot more similar to a hotel than the place to which the evil people of the world are damned. Right as Mr. Garcin enters his room he says, “Hm! So here we are? And this is what it looks like?” (3). Religious or not, we all create an idea of what hell is like based on our own imagination in concurrence with the things we hear from other people. Obviously, like most of us, Mr. Garcin’s idea of hell was a dark, fiery chamber full of torture tools and the stench of death. What he's led into by the valet is far from that, considering the presence of the expensive, yet uncomfortable Second Empire furnishings and the bright lights. He's taken aback by the somewhat comfortable accommodations he's been given and is utterly confused by the lack of physical punishment he's confronted with. Inez has the same confused realization when she arrives, assuming that Mr. Garcin is, “the torturer, of course” (8). And later, Estelle thinks that Garcin is the man that killed himself on her behalf, assuming that hell is a place where she is to reconnect with people she wronged in her life on earth. After they've all been acquainted, and begin to have a little trouble with each other, Inez realizes, “that each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). This notion is far removed from both her and Garcin’s idea of what hell should be like. In terms of good versus bad, this form of torture seems like a luxury compared to what most of us believe would happen to us if we were banished to hell after we die. For obvious reasons at the end of the play, “hell is--other people” (45), and this form of torture is no worse than the physical version. Other than the fact that the characters complain about the heat, Sartre’s version of hell is completely non-hellish.
ReplyDeleteIs Sartre’s depiction of hell really hellish? Is it all that bad?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Sartre and seen in the play, “hell is-- other people” (Sartre, 45). But is this really that bad? You could ask anyone in the world if they hated or disliked a certain type of person, and I could guarantee they could find someone. If you are eternally stuck with that person you could not get along with no matter what your efforts, it produces a hell much worse than what people traditionally think it’s like. In most religions, hell is considered a place in the underworld, ruled by the devil and meant to bring suffering to its people for eternity. However, often it is thought that the people brought to hell would experience physical torture- but that is not the case in “No Exit.” The characters arrive in a small room, with a few sofas to sit on. They cannot escape each other, as they’re in a small room. They can also not escape through the privilege of sleep. As each character arrives, they all ask the same question: where is the torturer? They all assume that a torturer will take them and inflict physical damage unto them for eternity. Rather, they come to realize that the true torture is experiencing mental ‘pain,’ if you will, brought on by others. Inez says, “each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). So which is worse- physical torture or mental torture? Personally, I would take the room of three people and some sofas over my skin being burned repeatedly. I feel that as time goes on, people can learn to adapt and grow on each other. It’s hard to determine how others would feel, because I’m such an easy going person. But I’ve come to see that true hatred does not really exist – especially amongst strangers. You can dislike the way someone speaks, what they’ve done in life. You can be bothered by their presence. But is it really enough to be considered hell? Those people in the room could not possibly hate each other forever. Over time, they will probably not even communicate with each other any more. It will just be empty air and blank stares, but it is much better than having your limbs stretched or your body beaten.
Is Sartre's depiction of hell really hellish? Is it all that bad?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I kind of disagree that Sartre’s depiction of hell was hellish. I say this because most people when they think of hell, they think of torture, suffrage, demons and devils, and a place where people who have committed sins after death go and repent for their actions. However I thought that Sartre actually made hell seem like cool and calm environment. Right away we know that the main characters in hell, and my initial instinct was that I was going to see them suffer and getting tortured, but I was surprised as Sartre doesn’t go too extreme describing hell and he makes it sound like it isn’t that bad of a place. Don’t get me wrong here as no one wants to be put in hell, I’m just saying that the punishment that they had wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. For example one punishment was all the three characters are locked in a room and they have no means of escape. Another form of punishment was seen directly from the quote “Hell is described as other people.” This is seen evident when Inez annoys Garcin by telling him that he is a coward, and she also annoys Estelle by talking all romantic to her and even bring up her murdering her own child. With Inez doing this it causes now Garcin to get agitated and torture both Inez and Estelle, and after that Estelle does the same thing. This quote stands true because since they are locked up and can’t escape, they can’t do anything and no matter how much a person talks or taunts them all they can do is hide all their frustration. The only thing that puzzled me was how the 3 main characters all coincidentally landed in the same place after their death and how fate plays a role in that.