“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
I disagree with this statement, as I believe that people inherit a significant genetic influence on their personality. Although the way one is raised or the events one experiences definitely shape the way one thinks and acts, people have an innate personality and thought process that is inherited from their parents and ancestors. I say this because I see it in my own family members. For example, my grandmother had a high-strung personality and always liked to be in control of the situation and everyone around her, and when things didn’t go her way, she would become enraged and start yelling and screaming. My father (and I, sometimes, as I hate to admit) can often have this temperament, getting angry over trivial things and shouting in a similar manner as my grandma. Therefore, I can confidently say that he derived at least part of her personality from the genes transferred by his parents. Now, some may argue that his behavior could simply be explained by his exposure to that of her mother’s as he grew up. However, my little sister clearly has the same temperament, throwing a tremendous tantrum whenever she doesn’t get what she wants, and my grandma had long since passed away before she was born, suggesting that the connections are preconceived rather than based off outside influence. Furthermore, sometimes two people with similar experiences will make drastically different decisions in life, suggesting that they are innately different at their core. An example of this could be two children each with a set of two loving and supportive parents, one of which grows up to go to college and start a family, the other of which grows up to become a juvenile delinquent. Although our experiences in life influence our actions to a certain extent, it is ultimately up to the individual and his or her personality to decide how to think and act.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
I agree with this statement because I personally believe that this has a lot of correlation with the ideology of faith. The idea of a human beings life being predetermined when they are born seem very absurd to me, especially due to the fact that every human being is different in their own individual way. I believe that as humans grow, they are like other wild life animals in evolution as we adapt to our surroundings and live accordingly to where and how we grow up. The people we grow up with also defines personality, and those people are entirely based on luck. As infants grow up, every different person have their own interest or hobbies and are attracted to other people based on those similar interests, causing a group of people that gradually gains trusts with each other and influencing each other on how to perceive the world. Another reason on why I agree with this claim is the countless of possibilities in events that could change someone's life. For example, a certain event could happen in a person's life big enough to impact that person’s life so much that it changes that person’s view on how to live life. The personality within this person could completely change, and this change is most evidently shown through literature as many books and authors reflect the impact things could have on someone’s life.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
I agree with this statement. In my eyes, we are born as a "tabula rasa", or blank slate. We are then metaphorically chiseled into who we are by the environmental factors and variables that surround our upbringing. At the same time, I also believe that the material we are chiseled from, also known as genetics and biological factors, also plays a crucial part of how we develop. Although I prefer looking at it with a nurture-over-nature approach, I feel that our birth traits must also be taken into consideration when discussing how we are molded into social beings. However, I don't believe that these preset traits include a fully complete personality, but rather an extremely rough, instinctual mindset. The idea that we come into the world already holding all of our "human" values is, in my opinion, preposterous and gives the brain of a newborn way more credit than it deserves.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
When looking at this statement, I am reminded of the theory on human nature by the philosopher John Locke and his “clean slate” theory. I happen to agree with this statement and Locke’s theory as I believe that at the moment of birth, I cannot have personality or “soul” as I believe that those are formed through experience and knowledge. As I have no experiences at the moment of birth then I have no preconceived personality or soul. To say that we are born with prior essence or preconceived personality or soul is akin to denying the idea of free will as we would always act according to our preconceived personality and that is something that I disagree with. As we go through life then we gain more experiences and knowledge and that allows us to form our personalities according to our own beliefs and convictions that we choose based on those experiences and gained knowledge. In my opinion, personality is something that is defined by my surroundings rather than something that I am born with and is something that I will continue to change as long as I live.
I personally completely disagree with this idea. Each person has a personality and certain likes and dislikes from the second they are born to the second they die. Although much of one’s knowledge comes from being taught and the idea of nurture in this world, each person still has their own ideas likes or dislikes. Each baby has their own personality when they are born, for example me personally. As a child I was very sassy and had a large amount of attitude even as a little baby. No parent really teaches their son or daughter to have such sass and attitude, specifically my parents, it was my own preconceived personality. This is similar to all human beings when they are first born. Genetics is what makes up a person; how they look, their hair color, height, skin color, and personality traits. Each of us come from someone that make up our whole world, including our own personality and soul. Although one’s personality can easy change with one’s course of life, along with their soul, each person already has their own when they are born.
This entire article highlighted how realizing freedom and happiness in between our moments of despair is inevitable and imperative (if we wish to keep our sanity). Thus, Camus uses the command “must” to imply that Sisyphus has no choice but to be happy, because otherwise, the suffering would be too much to bear. Reading this reminded me of Camus’ concept of “solutions to the absurd”, including physical suicide, which is a result of not being able to bear that life has no meaning, and killing oneself because there’s no point in continuing to live. The absurd, or the antithesis of humans’ desire for meaning in contrast to the utter meaninglessness of the universe, describes how people would hate the meaningless life of continually pushing a boulder up a hill, because humans crave stimulation and purpose. Indeed, this is why Sisyphus' fate is considered one of suffering, because his life is truly pointless, yet he is forced to forever remain alive and conscious. However, Camus’ other solution to the absurd is to simply accept it, which is why Sisyphus is able to, in a sense, obtain happiness. In the words of another Greek character Camus quotes, Edipus: “Despite so many ordeals… [I] conclude that all is well.” In other words, although he experiences suffering and pain, these really mean nothing to the greater universe, nor are there any moral guidelines that say they are bad, and thus, he has nothing to be unhappy about. This can even be seen in The Stranger, as Meursault claims to have “opened [him]self to the gentle indifference of the world” (Camus 122). As an audience and as humans, we can use this guidance to stop focusing on the despair and tragedy we face, stop trying to find meaning and reason for every wrong thing that happens to us, and instead accept that events happen for no apparent reason. We must let life take its course, and live with the results, just as Sisyphus must learn to be happy with his hopeless fate.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
In his essay, The Myth of Sisyphus Albert Camus closes with the statement “We must imagine Sisyphus happy.” In this statement Camus uses the imperative. The imperative is a grammatical mood that forms commands or requests, including the giving of prohibition or permission, or any other kind of advice or exhortation. Camus uses the word “must.” This implies that if humans don’t imagine Sisyphus happy, they will give up in their own pursuits. They will see that trying to make something of themselves is just like Sisyphus's boulder: a waste of time. This is a very existential way to look at things. Likewise, “one does not discover the absurd without attempting to write a manual of happiness.” The struggle to imagine Sisyphus’s condition is enough to drive the normal man mad so people have to remember him happy to keep themselves in a sane condition and whereabouts. Camus identifies Sisyphus as the archetypal absurd hero, both for his behavior on earth and for his punishment in the underworld. We are not told how Sisyphus endures his punishment in the underworld: that much is left to our imagination. When Sisyphus accepts his fate, however, the sorrow and melancholy of it vanish. Camus suggests that acknowledging "crushing truths" like the eternity and futility of his fate is enough to render them less crushing. We react to Sisyphus's fate with horror because we see its futility and hopelessness. Of course, the central argument of this essay is that life itself is a futile struggle devoid of hope. One must imagine Sisyphus happy because absurdity leads to genuine happiness.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
In Camus’ essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, he expresses the value of happiness and an example of it with the greek myth story of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was essentially punished for his wrong doings and his actions against the Gods by Hades, the God of the Underworld, with the target of pushing a rock up a hill. However, at the peak, the boulder falls back down, making it nearly impossible for him to accomplish his punishment. With this amount of frustration, a normal mortal being would give up really easily and view the situation very pessimistically, but Sisyphus remains calm and happy and sets a great example of what is happiness. Then here comes in Camus with his statement: “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” which evokes the question of how we “must” do this. Many people can say they will achieve a happiness so great that it can be called a “Sisyphus happiness,” but what does it really takes and to what extent will a certain happiness level be enough to be a eternal delight that it will be of similar experience of Sisyphus. The implication that the word “must” suggests about human beings is that it is an essential for humans to keep on aiming for and attaining for that goal of reaching that point of happiness. If there is such a thing of a happiness so great that it could be compared to a myth, then every human being should continue to strive for achieving that point in life and use this as influence for living the best possible life they could ever live.
In “the Myth of Sisyphus,” Albert Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy,” using the word “must” over other words that provide more leeway in interpretation. When considering why Albert Camus using “must,” we need to understand the situation that Sisyphus is going through as he has been sentenced to an arduous task that never ends for the rest of his time in the underworld by Hades and the other gods who are angry with his actions. His punishment was to continually roll a heavy boulder up a hill only to watch as it rolls back down as he finally manages to get it to the top before he has to roll it back up again. Yet, despite this redundancy realized, Camus says that “we must imagine Sisyphus happy” as goes about his task which could be a reflection of his task that Camus juxtaposes with our own lives. To find joy in the pointless monotony of continually progressing toward a goal, only to keep working as you find another goal or task to occupy your time. It also refers to the meaningless of existence as it says in a way that man can only be happy when they have a purpose to fulfill and since Sisyphus finds his satisfaction in his task then he must be happy as he can have his existence defined by the purpose of pushing that boulder up the hill for all eternity.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
Camus uses the word "must" in an effort to express the necessity to find some sort of silver lining in the tedious task that is life. The myth can be seen as a comparison to the life of average man, as it is common knowledge that, without an established purpose, we as humans feel worthless. The boulder that Sisyphus pushes all the way up the mountain, only to have it fall again, is comparable to a human's progression through life. The boulder is similar to a day of life, as no matter how hard we as humans push through it, it will always restart the very next day. Camus' usage of "must" is almost like a motivational statement, because if Sisyphus must be happy in his situation of unending routine, then we too must find joy in ours. We, just as Sisyphus was, are molded by both the purposes we are given and the purposes that we give ourselves.
The most immediate choice of a character that experiences isolation is the main character, Meursault, as the entire plot centers around his unique isolation from society. Meursault doesn’t seem to care about the things in life that most people see as very significant. For example, when Marie asks him if he loves her, a confession or lack thereof that most people would see as a big deal, Meursault simply says, “I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so. She looked sad” (Camus 35). His simple and blunt language further expresses his lack of interest or care in the situation. Furthermore, when Marie proposes to him, he says, “[It] didn’t make any difference to me… Besides, she was the one who was doing the asking and all I was saying was yes. Then she pointed out that marriage was a serious thing. I said, ‘No’” (42). Again, his simple language reflects his indifference to everything that happens to him or others, and he denies Marie’s claim that marriage is important with a simple “no.” Meursault is isolated from Marie and the rest of society by not seeing the importance of major events, like marriage or his mother’s death. Indeed, later in the book, this is what alienates him from everyone in the courtroom and causes his tragic fate, as everyone deems him “evil” for not crying at his mother’s funeral. Another character(s) that faces isolation are the Arabs. In 19th century French colonial Algiers, there was racism by the white French people against the native Arabs. Their isolation from society probably somewhat causes them to be targeted by Raymond and, therefore, Meursault. The Arab man’s death reflects Camus’ philosophy of the absurd because he is murdered for no apparent reason by Meursault, confirming the fact that, contrary to common thought, some things happen for no reason and are completely arbitrary. Furthermore, people may claim there’s a destiny- or God-driven reason for the Arab’s oppression in society, but Camus or Meaurseult would claim that that is simply how it happened and there is nothing more to it.
In The Stranger, many multiple characters express a different sign of isolation. This effect broaden ups the meaning and motifs within this book as it creates a very lonely and solitude tone. Two of the main characters in the book consistently display this; Meursalt and Raymond. Firstly, after the loss of his mother, Meursalt gains the sudden realization of how alone one can feel in the world. This is the first sign of isolationist due to his loss of close ones, and Camus greatly represents this with motifs such as color. When the news of his passed away mother first really impacts Meursalt, Camus uses visual imagery, such as the description of the red streaked sky, to effectively use color as a main tool to express characters’ thoughts and emotions. However, after meeting Marie, Meursalt greatly gains a comeback into his life, and feel emotionally connected to this relationship they created. On the other hand, there is Raymond. He has been struggling with his ex-mistress and how he theorizes that she is being unloyal to him, creating a sign of desperation and anguish because of how personally attacked he felt. This was a huge sign of isolation because Raymond’s stubborn and aggressive nature is not used to the state of being betrayed and used, thus causing him to feel completely in need of help for revenge towards his mistress. This effect from being isolated really reflects characterization as it gives the reader a deeper detail and description of Raymond’s personality and him as a friend to Meursalt.
i·so·late to be or remain alone or apart from others.
Isolation is a major theme in The Stranger, and is a key aspect of the story. Meursault's isolation is caused by his own doing however, as he tends to detach himself from others, such as his mother at her funeral. At the funeral, Meursault shows little emotion or social gestures. Meursault seems to be self-aware of his isolated status though, as he even refers to himself as the "odd man out" at a point. Auditory imagery is used throughout the novel by Camus to express isolation as well, as descriptions of silence are used multiple times towards to beginning. At the end of the book, sound is once again used, but instead to express Meursault's dread of the inevitable; death. Meursault begins to sit awake listening for the noises of the guards to come and bring him to be executed, practically going mad from paranoia. At this point in the story, he welcomes being isolated once again, as he knows that the only time he won't be isolated is when the guards are with him and taking him to his own demise.
Two characters that are affected by isolation include Meursault's mother, who was usually isolated when living with Meursault and Salamano who shows distress at the disappearance of his dog. Both are characters that have experienced isolation and that drives them to seek the comfort of companionship, Maman in her “fiance” and Salamano in his dog. This exemplifies a part of human nature as it is only natural to seek others when alone and to be accepted by others. While the isolation of Maman happened prior to the beginning of the book, it is still referred to and Salamano’s isolation happens later in the book when his dog runs away causing Salamano to be distressed. Salamano exhibits sadness at the loss of his dog as well as how Maman’s friends and “fiance” grieve for her death at the funeral. This loss helps create a sense of aimlessness as Salamano goes to Meursault to ask for advice about what to do as he acts lost as though he lost his purpose in life as he seemed to live for his dog and taking care of the dog was his purpose in life and just like Sisyphus and how he must have been happy with his task, we can only assume that this sudden loss of purpose came as a shock to him and creating a dominant effect of sadness.
In the Stranger, the Arab plays the role of acting as a catalyst for Meursault’s exploration of the absurd. Indeed, Meursualt’s killing of the Arab is not only the main event of the book for which the reader is desperate to find a reason, but also is the cause of the plot for the entire second half of the book. Moments before the murder, Meursault states, “The Arab didn’t move… Maybe it was the shadows on his face, but it looked like he was laughing. I waited. The sun was starting to burn my cheeks… It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward” (Camus 58). Up until this point, Meursault has had a pretty simple life, accompanied by passive thoughts, as the reader is aware that he thinks life is meaningless. However, just like any human, he still desires meaning, which perhaps is why he killed the Arab. His action was almost like a test to the universe, to see if anything really had true meaning; since he finds no purpose in life, he commits a violent act in order to see if the events that play out during his prosecution finally prove or disprove his belief in the absurd once and for all. In the quote mentioned, Camus uses heat diction to portray this pressing desire for an answer, as Meursault is motivated to kill the man by “this burning”, literally referring to the sun’s oppressive heat, and metaphorically referring to his urge to prove the absurd. Furthermore, Meursault talks about how the Arab appears to be laughing, but might not be, which, like many of his observations, seems arbitrary. Statements like these are confusing and might suggest a deeper meaning, but, just like the rest of the world viewed from an existentialist point of view, really have no purpose. On the contrary, it could also be argued that the Arab is laughing to represent the universe laughing at Meursault for expecting some sort of meaning to come out of this murder. In addition, Meursault’s descriptive observations also emphasize that he is constantly watching his surroundings, not unlike mankind’s search for meaning. Whatever his true motivations for killing the Arab, even if there are none, the existentialist philosophy of the absurd is beautifully displayed throughout the character of the Arab.
In The stranger, Meursault’s characterisation mainly occurs through his thoughts and feelings. The biggest change I noticed was his opinion and realisation towards death. At the beginning of the novel, Meusault says that, “For now, it’s almost as if Maman wasn't dead.After the funeral, though, the case will be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it” (3). He doesn’t realise the implications because its the same as him living away from his mother. They hardly see each other so his daily routine doesn't change. However, in part 2 Meursault says that, “I was forced to admit, however, that from the moment it had been passed its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body” (110). Even though this statement was in regards to him being convicted, it can be applied to his initial reaction towards his mother’s death. His mother’s death was real from the moment he received the letter, not after her burial occurred. His thoughts regarding death and his understanding is made clear when he says, “Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living-and for thousands of years” (114). He doesn't see himself as a special individual but as someone who is part of the human species. Everybody is the same because we all belong to the same species. It doesn't matter if we die or not because the human race still continues. His natural human desires or experiences usually overpower his emotions which is seen throughout the book.
The character I chose to speak on is Meursault. I believe in this story, Meursault represents the theme of the inevitability of death. This is done through the the dialogue and the beliefs of Meursault. First through his lack of emotion towards the death of his mother. Death is inevitable and therefore why would he spend time mourning the inevitable when he could be our living his life before his own inevitable death? It is also shown through his belief that death is the end of all life and his acceptance of that, rather than believing in life after death. Throughout the story this idea becomes stronger and stronger through the actions and beliefs of Meursault. This comes around in the end when he is thinking about the guillotine and his father watching killings when he was young. He comes to the conclusion that he had been thinking about the entire book. He realizes that life is meaningless because death is inevitable and no matter how long you live or what you do, you'll still die and what's the point. This idea was a constant theme throughout the story and it was further solidified by the ideas of Meursault. His character represented the inevitability of death.
The Arab, more specifically the death of the Arab, represents the destruction of Meursault's life and the crumbling of any spark of hope he had. The motiveless murder of the man initiates the descent of Meursault's life and also aids in the characterization of Meursault. Little is known about the Arab, but the fact that he is never referred to as simply "the man" or by name shows that Meursault subconsciously feels the need to specify his race. This could be out of personal opinion, societal viewpoints, or just pointless categorization, but referring to him specifically as Arabic somewhat dehumanizes him and could possibly have made the murder slightly easier for Meursault. Although Meursault acts rather stone-faced throughout the book, the fact that he hesitates slightly before firing more shots into the Arab's body shows that, no matter how small, Meursault has at least a scrap of humanity in him (or at least did at the time). The Arab's death being so pointless is a good reference point in discussing Meursault's philosophical viewpoints as well, as it demonstrates his view that nothing really matters and that life is pointless.
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’s clear that citizens of Hell can feel both aspects of time as they constantly reference time in Earth terms, even though they are in Hell. For example, upon Mr. Garcin’s arrival, he understands that there is no difference between night and day in Hell, “with one’s eyes open. Forever. Always broad daylight in my eyes--and in my head” (6-7). Garcin 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 a day that is eternal. Since there is no day and night, it isn’t conceivable to tell the time in the traditional sense. 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. Sarte’s main existentialist notion is that other people are what drive us insane. It’s not the environment we are in, but the company that we are subjected to that will eventually make us mad.
According to the existentialist philosophy, human life is meaningless, and thus, so is time. Time is merely a human perception, as our mortal lives are limited and we only have a certain amount of time to live. Therefore, the concept that “there is no time,” in a sense, is expressed by the existentialist play, No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre. The audience gets a first clear glimpse of this when Estelle says, “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly time passes, on earth!” (13). In the realm of hell, time seems to pass much more slowly than on Earth, allowing days or even months to pass by on Earth in the span of the characters’ brief conversation. Not only does Estelle’s comment about the perceived brevity of life on Earth signify the insignificance of human life, but it also suggests that one can only feel timelessness after his or her death. Most humans fear death, and desperately strive to achieve contentment before they die, so the “speeding up” of time seen in the play exemplifies the feeling of our time alive running out. Once the characters are in hell, though, there is no day, night, or any notion of time — not even the reader can feel a sense of time in the characters’ conversation — because their consciousness will last forever, and yet they no longer have any purpose for this consciousness. It is a paradox not unlike the absurd; when one’s life or conscience is limited, like for mortal people, we cling to it, but when it is unlimited, like for immortal souls in hell, it is useless. Inez expresses this idea by her comment, “There was some point in being afraid before; while one still had hope” (10). Before death, there is still hope to continue living, or to gain meaning, but now that they are in hell for the rest of time, there is no hope in anything, and thus nothing to fear, truly reflecting how humans’ psyches are morphed by time.
In No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the concept of time is discussed quite heavily from the get-go. Time is one of the main torture devices used in hell in the story, and appears in many different forms. One way time is used to punish the three main characters is by removing any physical indicators of time passage. The people making the punishment, whoever they may be, have ensured that a lack of doors, windows, clocks, etc. is present. By doing so, the torturer has put the three in a disorientating environment that facilitates frustration. The timeless room is destined to become a place of anger, argument, and conflict, partially due to this lack of sense of time. Time is also a key part of making the characters feel isolated from the mortal world, as time is described to pass much differently in hell compared to real life. The quick progression of time in the living world visibly frustrates Garcin, which is seen when he hears his coworkers discussing him but misses the details of the conversation, losing any chance of hearing his old workmates’ true opinions on him and remaining unable to ever go back.
In No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, time as a philosophical topic is represented in the play as an unending flow that never ends. The notion that they will never be able to take a break from it as Garcin notes as they would be unable to sleep in the room that they have been trapped in as they can’t blink or turn off the lights. That they can’t take any “breaks” from life and are forcefully subjected to the endless flow of time, a torture in of itself, as well as a commentary on the harshness and hell of life.Time acts a sort of overarching antagonistic existence as it slowly wears down the patience of those within the room and eventually will break them as time never stops and acts as an eternal torment by itself which is hastened by the arrival of more people. This antagonistic existence acts as a constant wear on the mental states of the people within the room and is shown to be an unrelenting and merciless tool of hell. Sanctuary from this can only be found in the “breaks” mentioned by Garcin in the time when we can close ourselves off from the outside world and can simply think about ourselves without constantly worrying about the troubles of reality and how their sins have landed them in their own personal hell that they will spend an eternity within.
Even though the traditional view of hell is one of physical torment, pain to the body can become bearable after a while and even able to be ignored, but one can never escape the mind. Thus, Sartre’s depiction of hell is a much more effective form of torture, ensuing mental torment that the characters cannot escape due to eternal consciousness. The first apparent form of this is the lack of freedom, as they are trapped in room with no ability to leave the other two or to roam elsewhere, forcing them to “live” repetitively, forever in the same setting. The second method of torture is explained by Sartre’s famous line, “hell is other people.” Inez, who seems to be the realist or existentialist character of the play, in effect tortures Mr. Garcin by convincing his fears that he is an unmanly coward, and tortures Estelle by revealing her romantic interest in her and taunting her about her murder of her baby. Estelle, in turn, tortures Garcin by insisting that he love her and not acknowledging his manliness, and tortures Inez by not having sexual interest in her. Finally, Garcin tortures Estelle by not truly loving her, and Inez by taking Estelle away from her. In short, the three characters’ presence together, which will remain so for all eternity, is a truly “hellish” afterlife. Furthermore, even when the characters realize this, there is nothing they can do to mitigate it, as no matter how each character acts or speaks, it will frustrate the others. In a more existentialist point of view, the constant presence of other people makes one lose control of the situation and their desperate feeling of self-importance. This feeling of worthlessness is exacerbated by the absence of mirrors, which people use to confirm their self-existence; Estelle even says, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist.”
To the ordinary man, the stereotypical depiction of hell will always most likely be the fiery, lava flowing underground where all demons and Devils live. To some religions, it is taught to be the place where unworthy, sinned man goes after death, and where they suffer their afterlife in. However, Sartre shy’s away from this and creates the setting for his play, “No Exit”, a very moderate and standard environment. It is learned early on in the play that the place where the main characters interact is actually in hell, and that his perception of hell is not actually what most people think. He does not make hell sound that bad at all, but he does fill the conflict and plot of the play full of tension and confusion within the characters. The main point I'd like to discuss is his way of viewing hell as a place entirely based off of mystery. It is referenced in the play that there are no mirrors, meaning no one can actually know what they truly look like, except for the use of mouth by the other person seeing them. The trust factor widens up and keeps the characters in the play questioning. The other point is how Sartre explains that everything is merely due to coincidence. The fact that the 3 main characters were placed together at the same location in the afterlife is fate creates more confusion and mystery in the reader and the characters. The whole scenario of them being in hell really explains and delves into Sartre's personal ideologies of what fate is like.
Like Garcin noticed at the start of the story, this version of hell is not the stereotypical pit-o-despair with fiery pits and demons that is normally depicted in most stories. However, that doesn't mean that this hell is any easier. When most people imagine hell, they think of physical torture and endless bodily pain. In this story though, hell consists of more mental-based abuse. The psychological punishment is dealt in the form of company of unwanted others, alluding to the theme of hell being other people. The three people placed in the room each have opposing personalities and are set up for conflict. Whoever the torturer is is also making it nearly impossible for the inhabitants of the room to ignore one another, as there are no mirrors/windows and the couches of the room are all angled in a specific position so that they face one another. To me, the worst part about this hell is that there are only so many conversations you can have with someone, yet the three are forced to stay with/tolerate each other for all of eternity (which is quite a while).
In his book, No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre depicts a version of hell based around the concept that “hell is other people.” Being in hell itself is not very torturous unless you add a human element to the mix as the physical tortures that are so closely associated with hell only hurt on a physical level, while human interaction is more complex. Their conflicting personalities elicits conflict between the characters in No Exit, how ever the only pain that they are able to feel is the mental and emotional turmoil and anguish caused by each other as they continue to use and hurt each other. Possibly the worst part might be that since there is nothing like physical torture to dull their perception, they are painfully aware of the actions of the others in the room at all times and the constant drama and torture gradually grinds away at their patience and mental fortitude. So if you ask whether or not it is really so bad then I would say that in a situation like that with similar people then I would have to agree that Sartre’s depiction of hell can truly be described as hellish as it goes beyond any torture and anguish that can be caused by physical torment. The way that the characters interact and the way that their situation tears away the masks that they use to hide and protect themselves and are forced to bear their most shameful and insecure moments to each other and to know that you are vulnerable and you can only retaliate by hurting them the same way, judging them just as you are being judged.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement, as I believe that people inherit a significant genetic influence on their personality. Although the way one is raised or the events one experiences definitely shape the way one thinks and acts, people have an innate personality and thought process that is inherited from their parents and ancestors. I say this because I see it in my own family members. For example, my grandmother had a high-strung personality and always liked to be in control of the situation and everyone around her, and when things didn’t go her way, she would become enraged and start yelling and screaming. My father (and I, sometimes, as I hate to admit) can often have this temperament, getting angry over trivial things and shouting in a similar manner as my grandma. Therefore, I can confidently say that he derived at least part of her personality from the genes transferred by his parents. Now, some may argue that his behavior could simply be explained by his exposure to that of her mother’s as he grew up. However, my little sister clearly has the same temperament, throwing a tremendous tantrum whenever she doesn’t get what she wants, and my grandma had long since passed away before she was born, suggesting that the connections are preconceived rather than based off outside influence. Furthermore, sometimes two people with similar experiences will make drastically different decisions in life, suggesting that they are innately different at their core. An example of this could be two children each with a set of two loving and supportive parents, one of which grows up to go to college and start a family, the other of which grows up to become a juvenile delinquent. Although our experiences in life influence our actions to a certain extent, it is ultimately up to the individual and his or her personality to decide how to think and act.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement because I personally believe that this has a lot of correlation with the ideology of faith. The idea of a human beings life being predetermined when they are born seem very absurd to me, especially due to the fact that every human being is different in their own individual way. I believe that as humans grow, they are like other wild life animals in evolution as we adapt to our surroundings and live accordingly to where and how we grow up. The people we grow up with also defines personality, and those people are entirely based on luck. As infants grow up, every different person have their own interest or hobbies and are attracted to other people based on those similar interests, causing a group of people that gradually gains trusts with each other and influencing each other on how to perceive the world. Another reason on why I agree with this claim is the countless of possibilities in events that could change someone's life. For example, a certain event could happen in a person's life big enough to impact that person’s life so much that it changes that person’s view on how to live life. The personality within this person could completely change, and this change is most evidently shown through literature as many books and authors reflect the impact things could have on someone’s life.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. In my eyes, we are born as a "tabula rasa", or blank slate. We are then metaphorically chiseled into who we are by the environmental factors and variables that surround our upbringing. At the same time, I also believe that the material we are chiseled from, also known as genetics and biological factors, also plays a crucial part of how we develop. Although I prefer looking at it with a nurture-over-nature approach, I feel that our birth traits must also be taken into consideration when discussing how we are molded into social beings. However, I don't believe that these preset traits include a fully complete personality, but rather an extremely rough, instinctual mindset. The idea that we come into the world already holding all of our "human" values is, in my opinion, preposterous and gives the brain of a newborn way more credit than it deserves.
“When I am born, I am undefined without any prior essence or preconceived personality or soul.”
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at this statement, I am reminded of the theory on human nature by the philosopher John Locke and his “clean slate” theory. I happen to agree with this statement and Locke’s theory as I believe that at the moment of birth, I cannot have personality or “soul” as I believe that those are formed through experience and knowledge. As I have no experiences at the moment of birth then I have no preconceived personality or soul. To say that we are born with prior essence or preconceived personality or soul is akin to denying the idea of free will as we would always act according to our preconceived personality and that is something that I disagree with. As we go through life then we gain more experiences and knowledge and that allows us to form our personalities according to our own beliefs and convictions that we choose based on those experiences and gained knowledge. In my opinion, personality is something that is defined by my surroundings rather than something that I am born with and is something that I will continue to change as long as I live.
I personally completely disagree with this idea. Each person has a personality and certain likes and dislikes from the second they are born to the second they die. Although much of one’s knowledge comes from being taught and the idea of nurture in this world, each person still has their own ideas likes or dislikes. Each baby has their own personality when they are born, for example me personally. As a child I was very sassy and had a large amount of attitude even as a little baby. No parent really teaches their son or daughter to have such sass and attitude, specifically my parents, it was my own preconceived personality. This is similar to all human beings when they are first born.
ReplyDeleteGenetics is what makes up a person; how they look, their hair color, height, skin color, and personality traits. Each of us come from someone that make up our whole world, including our own personality and soul. Although one’s personality can easy change with one’s course of life, along with their soul, each person already has their own when they are born.
This entire article highlighted how realizing freedom and happiness in between our moments of despair is inevitable and imperative (if we wish to keep our sanity). Thus, Camus uses the command “must” to imply that Sisyphus has no choice but to be happy, because otherwise, the suffering would be too much to bear. Reading this reminded me of Camus’ concept of “solutions to the absurd”, including physical suicide, which is a result of not being able to bear that life has no meaning, and killing oneself because there’s no point in continuing to live. The absurd, or the antithesis of humans’ desire for meaning in contrast to the utter meaninglessness of the universe, describes how people would hate the meaningless life of continually pushing a boulder up a hill, because humans crave stimulation and purpose. Indeed, this is why Sisyphus' fate is considered one of suffering, because his life is truly pointless, yet he is forced to forever remain alive and conscious. However, Camus’ other solution to the absurd is to simply accept it, which is why Sisyphus is able to, in a sense, obtain happiness. In the words of another Greek character Camus quotes, Edipus: “Despite so many ordeals… [I] conclude that all is well.” In other words, although he experiences suffering and pain, these really mean nothing to the greater universe, nor are there any moral guidelines that say they are bad, and thus, he has nothing to be unhappy about. This can even be seen in The Stranger, as Meursault claims to have “opened [him]self to the gentle indifference of the world” (Camus 122). As an audience and as humans, we can use this guidance to stop focusing on the despair and tragedy we face, stop trying to find meaning and reason for every wrong thing that happens to us, and instead accept that events happen for no apparent reason. We must let life take its course, and live with the results, just as Sisyphus must learn to be happy with his hopeless fate.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteIn his essay, The Myth of Sisyphus Albert Camus closes with the statement “We must imagine Sisyphus happy.” In this statement Camus uses the imperative. The imperative is a grammatical mood that forms commands or requests, including the giving of prohibition or permission, or any other kind of advice or exhortation. Camus uses the word “must.” This implies that if humans don’t imagine Sisyphus happy, they will give up in their own pursuits. They will see that trying to make something of themselves is just like Sisyphus's boulder: a waste of time. This is a very existential way to look at things. Likewise, “one does not discover the absurd without attempting to write a manual of happiness.” The struggle to imagine Sisyphus’s condition is enough to drive the normal man mad so people have to remember him happy to keep themselves in a sane condition and whereabouts. Camus identifies Sisyphus as the archetypal absurd hero, both for his behavior on earth and for his punishment in the underworld. We are not told how Sisyphus endures his punishment in the underworld: that much is left to our imagination. When Sisyphus accepts his fate, however, the sorrow and melancholy of it vanish. Camus suggests that acknowledging "crushing truths" like the eternity and futility of his fate is enough to render them less crushing. We react to Sisyphus's fate with horror because we see its futility and hopelessness. Of course, the central argument of this essay is that life itself is a futile struggle devoid of hope. One must imagine Sisyphus happy because absurdity leads to genuine happiness.
Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteIn Camus’ essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, he expresses the value of happiness and an example of it with the greek myth story of Sisyphus. Sisyphus was essentially punished for his wrong doings and his actions against the Gods by Hades, the God of the Underworld, with the target of pushing a rock up a hill. However, at the peak, the boulder falls back down, making it nearly impossible for him to accomplish his punishment. With this amount of frustration, a normal mortal being would give up really easily and view the situation very pessimistically, but Sisyphus remains calm and happy and sets a great example of what is happiness. Then here comes in Camus with his statement: “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” which evokes the question of how we “must” do this. Many people can say they will achieve a happiness so great that it can be called a “Sisyphus happiness,” but what does it really takes and to what extent will a certain happiness level be enough to be a eternal delight that it will be of similar experience of Sisyphus. The implication that the word “must” suggests about human beings is that it is an essential for humans to keep on aiming for and attaining for that goal of reaching that point of happiness. If there is such a thing of a happiness so great that it could be compared to a myth, then every human being should continue to strive for achieving that point in life and use this as influence for living the best possible life they could ever live.
In “the Myth of Sisyphus,” Albert Camus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy,” using the word “must” over other words that provide more leeway in interpretation. When considering why Albert Camus using “must,” we need to understand the situation that Sisyphus is going through as he has been sentenced to an arduous task that never ends for the rest of his time in the underworld by Hades and the other gods who are angry with his actions. His punishment was to continually roll a heavy boulder up a hill only to watch as it rolls back down as he finally manages to get it to the top before he has to roll it back up again. Yet, despite this redundancy realized, Camus says that “we must imagine Sisyphus happy” as goes about his task which could be a reflection of his task that Camus juxtaposes with our own lives. To find joy in the pointless monotony of continually progressing toward a goal, only to keep working as you find another goal or task to occupy your time. It also refers to the meaningless of existence as it says in a way that man can only be happy when they have a purpose to fulfill and since Sisyphus finds his satisfaction in his task then he must be happy as he can have his existence defined by the purpose of pushing that boulder up the hill for all eternity.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses the imperative, saying “We must imagine [Sisyphus] happy?” Why this word "must"? What implications does this suggest for human beings?
ReplyDeleteCamus uses the word "must" in an effort to express the necessity to find some sort of silver lining in the tedious task that is life. The myth can be seen as a comparison to the life of average man, as it is common knowledge that, without an established purpose, we as humans feel worthless. The boulder that Sisyphus pushes all the way up the mountain, only to have it fall again, is comparable to a human's progression through life. The boulder is similar to a day of life, as no matter how hard we as humans push through it, it will always restart the very next day. Camus' usage of "must" is almost like a motivational statement, because if Sisyphus must be happy in his situation of unending routine, then we too must find joy in ours. We, just as Sisyphus was, are molded by both the purposes we are given and the purposes that we give ourselves.
The most immediate choice of a character that experiences isolation is the main character, Meursault, as the entire plot centers around his unique isolation from society. Meursault doesn’t seem to care about the things in life that most people see as very significant. For example, when Marie asks him if he loves her, a confession or lack thereof that most people would see as a big deal, Meursault simply says, “I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so. She looked sad” (Camus 35). His simple and blunt language further expresses his lack of interest or care in the situation. Furthermore, when Marie proposes to him, he says, “[It] didn’t make any difference to me… Besides, she was the one who was doing the asking and all I was saying was yes. Then she pointed out that marriage was a serious thing. I said, ‘No’” (42). Again, his simple language reflects his indifference to everything that happens to him or others, and he denies Marie’s claim that marriage is important with a simple “no.” Meursault is isolated from Marie and the rest of society by not seeing the importance of major events, like marriage or his mother’s death. Indeed, later in the book, this is what alienates him from everyone in the courtroom and causes his tragic fate, as everyone deems him “evil” for not crying at his mother’s funeral.
ReplyDeleteAnother character(s) that faces isolation are the Arabs. In 19th century French colonial Algiers, there was racism by the white French people against the native Arabs. Their isolation from society probably somewhat causes them to be targeted by Raymond and, therefore, Meursault. The Arab man’s death reflects Camus’ philosophy of the absurd because he is murdered for no apparent reason by Meursault, confirming the fact that, contrary to common thought, some things happen for no reason and are completely arbitrary. Furthermore, people may claim there’s a destiny- or God-driven reason for the Arab’s oppression in society, but Camus or Meaurseult would claim that that is simply how it happened and there is nothing more to it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, many multiple characters express a different sign of isolation. This effect broaden ups the meaning and motifs within this book as it creates a very lonely and solitude tone. Two of the main characters in the book consistently display this; Meursalt and Raymond. Firstly, after the loss of his mother, Meursalt gains the sudden realization of how alone one can feel in the world. This is the first sign of isolationist due to his loss of close ones, and Camus greatly represents this with motifs such as color. When the news of his passed away mother first really impacts Meursalt, Camus uses visual imagery, such as the description of the red streaked sky, to effectively use color as a main tool to express characters’ thoughts and emotions. However, after meeting Marie, Meursalt greatly gains a comeback into his life, and feel emotionally connected to this relationship they created. On the other hand, there is Raymond. He has been struggling with his ex-mistress and how he theorizes that she is being unloyal to him, creating a sign of desperation and anguish because of how personally attacked he felt. This was a huge sign of isolation because Raymond’s stubborn and aggressive nature is not used to the state of being betrayed and used, thus causing him to feel completely in need of help for revenge towards his mistress. This effect from being isolated really reflects characterization as it gives the reader a deeper detail and description of Raymond’s personality and him as a friend to Meursalt.
ReplyDeletei·so·late
ReplyDeleteto be or remain alone or apart from others.
Isolation is a major theme in The Stranger, and is a key aspect of the story. Meursault's isolation is caused by his own doing however, as he tends to detach himself from others, such as his mother at her funeral. At the funeral, Meursault shows little emotion or social gestures. Meursault seems to be self-aware of his isolated status though, as he even refers to himself as the "odd man out" at a point. Auditory imagery is used throughout the novel by Camus to express isolation as well, as descriptions of silence are used multiple times towards to beginning. At the end of the book, sound is once again used, but instead to express Meursault's dread of the inevitable; death. Meursault begins to sit awake listening for the noises of the guards to come and bring him to be executed, practically going mad from paranoia. At this point in the story, he welcomes being isolated once again, as he knows that the only time he won't be isolated is when the guards are with him and taking him to his own demise.
Two characters that are affected by isolation include Meursault's mother, who was usually isolated when living with Meursault and Salamano who shows distress at the disappearance of his dog. Both are characters that have experienced isolation and that drives them to seek the comfort of companionship, Maman in her “fiance” and Salamano in his dog. This exemplifies a part of human nature as it is only natural to seek others when alone and to be accepted by others. While the isolation of Maman happened prior to the beginning of the book, it is still referred to and Salamano’s isolation happens later in the book when his dog runs away causing Salamano to be distressed. Salamano exhibits sadness at the loss of his dog as well as how Maman’s friends and “fiance” grieve for her death at the funeral. This loss helps create a sense of aimlessness as Salamano goes to Meursault to ask for advice about what to do as he acts lost as though he lost his purpose in life as he seemed to live for his dog and taking care of the dog was his purpose in life and just like Sisyphus and how he must have been happy with his task, we can only assume that this sudden loss of purpose came as a shock to him and creating a dominant effect of sadness.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab
ReplyDeleteIn the Stranger, the Arab plays the role of acting as a catalyst for Meursault’s exploration of the absurd. Indeed, Meursualt’s killing of the Arab is not only the main event of the book for which the reader is desperate to find a reason, but also is the cause of the plot for the entire second half of the book. Moments before the murder, Meursault states, “The Arab didn’t move… Maybe it was the shadows on his face, but it looked like he was laughing. I waited. The sun was starting to burn my cheeks… It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore, that made me move forward” (Camus 58). Up until this point, Meursault has had a pretty simple life, accompanied by passive thoughts, as the reader is aware that he thinks life is meaningless. However, just like any human, he still desires meaning, which perhaps is why he killed the Arab. His action was almost like a test to the universe, to see if anything really had true meaning; since he finds no purpose in life, he commits a violent act in order to see if the events that play out during his prosecution finally prove or disprove his belief in the absurd once and for all. In the quote mentioned, Camus uses heat diction to portray this pressing desire for an answer, as Meursault is motivated to kill the man by “this burning”, literally referring to the sun’s oppressive heat, and metaphorically referring to his urge to prove the absurd. Furthermore, Meursault talks about how the Arab appears to be laughing, but might not be, which, like many of his observations, seems arbitrary. Statements like these are confusing and might suggest a deeper meaning, but, just like the rest of the world viewed from an existentialist point of view, really have no purpose. On the contrary, it could also be argued that the Arab is laughing to represent the universe laughing at Meursault for expecting some sort of meaning to come out of this murder. In addition, Meursault’s descriptive observations also emphasize that he is constantly watching his surroundings, not unlike mankind’s search for meaning. Whatever his true motivations for killing the Arab, even if there are none, the existentialist philosophy of the absurd is beautifully displayed throughout the character of the Arab.
In The stranger, Meursault’s characterisation mainly occurs through his thoughts and feelings. The biggest change I noticed was his opinion and realisation towards death. At the beginning of the novel, Meusault says that, “For now, it’s almost as if Maman wasn't dead.After the funeral, though, the case will be closed, and everything will have a more official feel to it” (3). He doesn’t realise the implications because its the same as him living away from his mother. They hardly see each other so his daily routine doesn't change. However, in part 2 Meursault says that, “I was forced to admit, however, that from the moment it had been passed its consequences became as real and as serious as the wall against which I pressed the length of my body” (110). Even though this statement was in regards to him being convicted, it can be applied to his initial reaction towards his mother’s death. His mother’s death was real from the moment he received the letter, not after her burial occurred. His thoughts regarding death and his understanding is made clear when he says, “Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living-and for thousands of years” (114). He doesn't see himself as a special individual but as someone who is part of the human species. Everybody is the same because we all belong to the same species. It doesn't matter if we die or not because the human race still continues. His natural human desires or experiences usually overpower his emotions which is seen throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteThe character I chose to speak on is Meursault. I believe in this story, Meursault represents the theme of the inevitability of death. This is done through the the dialogue and the beliefs of Meursault. First through his lack of emotion towards the death of his mother. Death is inevitable and therefore why would he spend time mourning the inevitable when he could be our living his life before his own inevitable death? It is also shown through his belief that death is the end of all life and his acceptance of that, rather than believing in life after death. Throughout the story this idea becomes stronger and stronger through the actions and beliefs of Meursault. This comes around in the end when he is thinking about the guillotine and his father watching killings when he was young. He comes to the conclusion that he had been thinking about the entire book. He realizes that life is meaningless because death is inevitable and no matter how long you live or what you do, you'll still die and what's the point. This idea was a constant theme throughout the story and it was further solidified by the ideas of Meursault. His character represented the inevitability of death.
ReplyDeleteSymbolism in the Arab
ReplyDeleteThe Arab, more specifically the death of the Arab, represents the destruction of Meursault's life and the crumbling of any spark of hope he had. The motiveless murder of the man initiates the descent of Meursault's life and also aids in the characterization of Meursault. Little is known about the Arab, but the fact that he is never referred to as simply "the man" or by name shows that Meursault subconsciously feels the need to specify his race. This could be out of personal opinion, societal viewpoints, or just pointless categorization, but referring to him specifically as Arabic somewhat dehumanizes him and could possibly have made the murder slightly easier for Meursault. Although Meursault acts rather stone-faced throughout the book, the fact that he hesitates slightly before firing more shots into the Arab's body shows that, no matter how small, Meursault has at least a scrap of humanity in him (or at least did at the time). The Arab's death being so pointless is a good reference point in discussing Meursault's philosophical viewpoints as well, as it demonstrates his view that nothing really matters and that life is pointless.
Time...
ReplyDeleteIn 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’s clear that citizens of Hell can feel both aspects of time as they constantly reference time in Earth terms, even though they are in Hell. For example, upon Mr. Garcin’s arrival, he understands that there is no difference between night and day in Hell, “with one’s eyes open. Forever. Always broad daylight in my eyes--and in my head” (6-7). Garcin 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 a day that is eternal. Since there is no day and night, it isn’t conceivable to tell the time in the traditional sense. 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. Sarte’s main existentialist notion is that other people are what drive us insane. It’s not the environment we are in, but the company that we are subjected to that will eventually make us mad.
According to the existentialist philosophy, human life is meaningless, and thus, so is time. Time is merely a human perception, as our mortal lives are limited and we only have a certain amount of time to live. Therefore, the concept that “there is no time,” in a sense, is expressed by the existentialist play, No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre. The audience gets a first clear glimpse of this when Estelle says, “Olga’s undressing; it must be after midnight. How quickly time passes, on earth!” (13). In the realm of hell, time seems to pass much more slowly than on Earth, allowing days or even months to pass by on Earth in the span of the characters’ brief conversation. Not only does Estelle’s comment about the perceived brevity of life on Earth signify the insignificance of human life, but it also suggests that one can only feel timelessness after his or her death. Most humans fear death, and desperately strive to achieve contentment before they die, so the “speeding up” of time seen in the play exemplifies the feeling of our time alive running out. Once the characters are in hell, though, there is no day, night, or any notion of time — not even the reader can feel a sense of time in the characters’ conversation — because their consciousness will last forever, and yet they no longer have any purpose for this consciousness. It is a paradox not unlike the absurd; when one’s life or conscience is limited, like for mortal people, we cling to it, but when it is unlimited, like for immortal souls in hell, it is useless. Inez expresses this idea by her comment, “There was some point in being afraid before; while one still had hope” (10). Before death, there is still hope to continue living, or to gain meaning, but now that they are in hell for the rest of time, there is no hope in anything, and thus nothing to fear, truly reflecting how humans’ psyches are morphed by time.
ReplyDeleteTime in No Exit
ReplyDeleteIn No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the concept of time is discussed quite heavily from the get-go. Time is one of the main torture devices used in hell in the story, and appears in many different forms. One way time is used to punish the three main characters is by removing any physical indicators of time passage. The people making the punishment, whoever they may be, have ensured that a lack of doors, windows, clocks, etc. is present. By doing so, the torturer has put the three in a disorientating environment that facilitates frustration. The timeless room is destined to become a place of anger, argument, and conflict, partially due to this lack of sense of time. Time is also a key part of making the characters feel isolated from the mortal world, as time is described to pass much differently in hell compared to real life. The quick progression of time in the living world visibly frustrates Garcin, which is seen when he hears his coworkers discussing him but misses the details of the conversation, losing any chance of hearing his old workmates’ true opinions on him and remaining unable to ever go back.
In No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, time as a philosophical topic is represented in the play as an unending flow that never ends. The notion that they will never be able to take a break from it as Garcin notes as they would be unable to sleep in the room that they have been trapped in as they can’t blink or turn off the lights. That they can’t take any “breaks” from life and are forcefully subjected to the endless flow of time, a torture in of itself, as well as a commentary on the harshness and hell of life.Time acts a sort of overarching antagonistic existence as it slowly wears down the patience of those within the room and eventually will break them as time never stops and acts as an eternal torment by itself which is hastened by the arrival of more people. This antagonistic existence acts as a constant wear on the mental states of the people within the room and is shown to be an unrelenting and merciless tool of hell. Sanctuary from this can only be found in the “breaks” mentioned by Garcin in the time when we can close ourselves off from the outside world and can simply think about ourselves without constantly worrying about the troubles of reality and how their sins have landed them in their own personal hell that they will spend an eternity within.
ReplyDeleteEven though the traditional view of hell is one of physical torment, pain to the body can become bearable after a while and even able to be ignored, but one can never escape the mind. Thus, Sartre’s depiction of hell is a much more effective form of torture, ensuing mental torment that the characters cannot escape due to eternal consciousness. The first apparent form of this is the lack of freedom, as they are trapped in room with no ability to leave the other two or to roam elsewhere, forcing them to “live” repetitively, forever in the same setting. The second method of torture is explained by Sartre’s famous line, “hell is other people.” Inez, who seems to be the realist or existentialist character of the play, in effect tortures Mr. Garcin by convincing his fears that he is an unmanly coward, and tortures Estelle by revealing her romantic interest in her and taunting her about her murder of her baby. Estelle, in turn, tortures Garcin by insisting that he love her and not acknowledging his manliness, and tortures Inez by not having sexual interest in her. Finally, Garcin tortures Estelle by not truly loving her, and Inez by taking Estelle away from her. In short, the three characters’ presence together, which will remain so for all eternity, is a truly “hellish” afterlife. Furthermore, even when the characters realize this, there is nothing they can do to mitigate it, as no matter how each character acts or speaks, it will frustrate the others. In a more existentialist point of view, the constant presence of other people makes one lose control of the situation and their desperate feeling of self-importance. This feeling of worthlessness is exacerbated by the absence of mirrors, which people use to confirm their self-existence; Estelle even says, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist.”
ReplyDeleteTo the ordinary man, the stereotypical depiction of hell will always most likely be the fiery, lava flowing underground where all demons and Devils live. To some religions, it is taught to be the place where unworthy, sinned man goes after death, and where they suffer their afterlife in. However, Sartre shy’s away from this and creates the setting for his play, “No Exit”, a very moderate and standard environment. It is learned early on in the play that the place where the main characters interact is actually in hell, and that his perception of hell is not actually what most people think. He does not make hell sound that bad at all, but he does fill the conflict and plot of the play full of tension and confusion within the characters. The main point I'd like to discuss is his way of viewing hell as a place entirely based off of mystery. It is referenced in the play that there are no mirrors, meaning no one can actually know what they truly look like, except for the use of mouth by the other person seeing them. The trust factor widens up and keeps the characters in the play questioning. The other point is how Sartre explains that everything is merely due to coincidence. The fact that the 3 main characters were placed together at the same location in the afterlife is fate creates more confusion and mystery in the reader and the characters. The whole scenario of them being in hell really explains and delves into Sartre's personal ideologies of what fate is like.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs Sarte's depiction of hell really hellish?
ReplyDeleteLike Garcin noticed at the start of the story, this version of hell is not the stereotypical pit-o-despair with fiery pits and demons that is normally depicted in most stories. However, that doesn't mean that this hell is any easier. When most people imagine hell, they think of physical torture and endless bodily pain. In this story though, hell consists of more mental-based abuse. The psychological punishment is dealt in the form of company of unwanted others, alluding to the theme of hell being other people. The three people placed in the room each have opposing personalities and are set up for conflict. Whoever the torturer is is also making it nearly impossible for the inhabitants of the room to ignore one another, as there are no mirrors/windows and the couches of the room are all angled in a specific position so that they face one another. To me, the worst part about this hell is that there are only so many conversations you can have with someone, yet the three are forced to stay with/tolerate each other for all of eternity (which is quite a while).
In his book, No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre depicts a version of hell based around the concept that “hell is other people.” Being in hell itself is not very torturous unless you add a human element to the mix as the physical tortures that are so closely associated with hell only hurt on a physical level, while human interaction is more complex. Their conflicting personalities elicits conflict between the characters in No Exit, how ever the only pain that they are able to feel is the mental and emotional turmoil and anguish caused by each other as they continue to use and hurt each other. Possibly the worst part might be that since there is nothing like physical torture to dull their perception, they are painfully aware of the actions of the others in the room at all times and the constant drama and torture gradually grinds away at their patience and mental fortitude. So if you ask whether or not it is really so bad then I would say that in a situation like that with similar people then I would have to agree that Sartre’s depiction of hell can truly be described as hellish as it goes beyond any torture and anguish that can be caused by physical torment. The way that the characters interact and the way that their situation tears away the masks that they use to hide and protect themselves and are forced to bear their most shameful and insecure moments to each other and to know that you are vulnerable and you can only retaliate by hurting them the same way, judging them just as you are being judged.
ReplyDelete