There are some ways in which I agree with this statement. I believe that beliefs are relevant to me, but they do not define me. I think that society influences people to act a certain way and people pay attention to society’s values. Religion also can affect people’s actions, depending on if someone follows a religion. For example, if my religion said that I should not drink alcohol and I followed that, then religion would be very relevant. Political philosophies also tell a person how they should be behaving. They create a behavioral code through authority. Even though political philosophies are a more forced way of actuation, they still motivate people to act a certain way. Overall, the choice to follow or pay attention to these things are completely your choice. I can conduct myself a certain way based on my religion, what society believes, and the law, but I also have the option to abstain from this. Either way, it is extremely difficult not to behave a certain way based on this. I do not believe that these things define me. Because of free will, I have the ability to define myself and choose what affects the way I think. However, this may affect how others define me. Humans are prone to judging anything based on assumptions and first impressions. Others may define me differently from how I define myself. In their minds, they put me into a box or category based on religious values, politics, and society. I do the same thing to other people. I only have the ability to determine my own character and my own actions.
This statement is a little difficult to answer since I both agreed and disagreed. I believe as though it is kind of impossible to prevent society from defining the identity of human beings because we are constantly surrounded by all these ideas and theories that become engraved in our minds. Our morals are then shaped by these rules and beliefs thus creating the person we are today. For example, since laws, many religions, and society overall tell us that killing is wrong, we try to avoid that crime from occurring. But when it does accidentally or purposely happen, we become guilty because we were told we shouldn’t do that. So the point is, Although, I do believe that I have free will to make decisions for myself and that the society I grew up in don’t have complete control on my actions. If you look at trends, especially fashion trends, you are able to easily identify free will. An example of this would be if society tells me that I can’t wear a pink skirt but I really really want to wear a pink skirt, I’m going to wear the pink skirt (duh). Other examples include breaking the law or the idea of sin. You have the ability to let society define and change completely, or you can learn and become your own person and find your own independence.
When I first read the question I was a little weary on it but I ended up with agreeing and disagreeing with this statement. I believe that, yes, political philosophies, religious dogma,and societal beliefs don't define me but they definitely have some relevance in my life somehow. Being caught up in the politics nowadays and hoping that one person does not become president has changed my bored on politics. I used to not be very interested in politics but knowing the candidates this year has changed my views and got me interested in politics. Being a religious person, a Christian, I go to church, I pray, etc. There are certain values that religious people follow and I also follow those views. And being in a society that I am in today, there are so many expectations or requirements that people feel the need to stand up to. In a way, society determines people; how they dress, how they behave, who they hang out with, etc. I believe that people shouldn't have to feel the need to have to live up to these expectations but then again we’re only human. Humans feel the need to be a part of something and if they're not, they feel the need to try and stick in and conform themselves to society’s standards. But I also believe that these things don't define me as a person, I define myself. I mean, I could let these things dictate over my life and define me as a person but I don't. I am a human. I am a person. I have free will. I can choose how I wish to put myself as and how I wish people to see me as. Just because I watch and keep up with politics doesn't mean that I'm so dedicated to politics that I let it change my ways and views. Even though I am a religious person and I have ethics that I stand by, I don't let my religion define me. My religion is just a part of me that defines me. It is a little chunk out of me that I stand by but it doesn't fully define me as a person. And even though society contains peer pressure to act a certain way and conform to society’s needs and wants, I don't let it get to me. I choose how to portray myself in front of others. I choose what things define me as a person. I believe that these things have something to do in at least a lot of people’s lives but it doesn't define them as a person.
Political philosophies, religious dogma, societal beliefs are irrelevant to me and do not define me.
I agree with the part of this statement that says beliefs don’t define me as a person, but I do think they are relevant in our daily lives. Everyone has beliefs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they follow through with them. For example, someone can believe in kindness, generosity, optimism, being spontaneous, ect., but that doesn’t correlate to their actions. Just because they believe in those things and they have value to an them, if they don’t act upon their beliefs, they don’t define who a person is. Actions are what fundamentally what define us. When humans pursue kindness through their daily actions, practice generosity, are optimistic or spontaneous, their actions form who they are. In the case of religion, one can believe they’re a god, but if they reject what they believe in front of their peers, does that make them religious? If someone says they believe in being kind to others, does that make a person always kind? Of course not. Just because you believe in kindness doesn’t mean you’re a kind person. Like I mentioned before, my point is, our actions define us, not our beliefs.
But, they are relevant. Beliefs shape our values and how we choose to act. Without them, there wouldn’t be purpose. These underlying values of humans shape how they act; then they define who they are.
I certainly do not live my life in perfect alignment with a specific dogma or philosophy, however I do take some views and ways of living from said philosophies and try to apply them to my life, but I do not strictly adhere to them by any means. I feel that it can often be harmful for one to become too attached to a specific dogma or way of living as one's individual experiences are what should shape the way that he or she lives his or her life - not what is told to them by leaders or proponents of this philosophy, or what has been done by those in the past. However, having a certain dogma or teaching be the defining factor in one's existence - for example a monk may want to have the decision of how he should live his life made for him. Being totally inflexible however is harmful in general it leaves no room for change, which will inevitably change and change one's outlook on life. I think that the only dogma one should 100% commit to following is the constantly changing one that belongs to themselves as the experiences of others are never going to be the exact same as one's own - making them imperfect to follow as strictly as implied in the question. There is not too much to say past that about this question other than the following summary: using a particular dogma or philosophy as an exact road map for life can be dangerous as one's experiences are unique, however identifying and taking from (but not all) from a particular dogma can lead to personal growth.
I agree with this statement to certain extent, because I try to define myself from the actions I take, however I find that the actions I take sometimes stem from these reasons. For an example, religious dogma dictates that in my daily life I should not lie, and so I find myself avoiding to lie simply not just because I personally believe it is wrong, but because my faith tells me it is wrong. Although I do succumb to the laws of religion, I could think of many examples of where I do define myself independently as an individual. In my life I at least try to not have society’s beliefs nor political philosophy’s dictate what I do/think as a person. Some of the biggest controversies regarding these aspects of society are disputed punishments over those who are claimed to have commit crimes that go against society’s laws. In my own individual mind, I perceive punishments like capital punishment to be logical to an extent, however the reasons why some people do receive this punishment is almost arbitrary, and therefore the ethics of society are somewhat flawed. The reason I do bring this up though, is because I want to express that I can make my own opinions rather than use those based off of ethics or religion. Also, because I choose to think and live this way it prevents me from being another robot of society, and to live my own life to an extent, despite some chains that hold my character back.
Political philosophies, religious dogma, societal beliefs are irrelevant to me and do not define me.
Although the principles listed do not completely define me, I believe that they can provide details about me and how I live my life. I believe that my day-to-day actions are influenced by the moral standards set by my religion and set by society. A person’s actions could be inferred by finding out his/her religious, societal, and political beliefs. Societal beliefs are relevant because people will always conform to the societal norm. It’s human nature for people to find the need to fit within the crowd as diverging might cause unwanted attention or reactions. Personally, I believe that religious dogma is very relevant to me as I follow the rules set by my religion, which means that it also defines my actions. There is a fine line between religious dogma and societal beliefs, as both concepts sometimes intertwine with each other. For example, in many religions, drinking is prohibited. Now people could say that they do not drink because their religion forbids it. But others may say they don’t drink because the law says that they are under the required drinking age. While others may say that drinking at a young age is looked down upon, therefore they will not do it. These three examples all show how these different concepts all could define a person’s reasoning for not engaging in the act of drinking. In the end, I believe that political philosophies, religious dogma, and societal beliefs are relevant to many people and somewhat define who they are.
I found life in acceptance of the absurd portrayed in Sisyphus quite interesting. Camus’ existentialist philosophy roots within the absurd. He states how humans, will never be able to find purpose in life. They will either look at a higher power of God in religion to express their meaning, conclude it is meaningless and commit suicide, or they can accept that life is absurd and find happiness by rebellion against it. In the Myth of Sisyphus, the man repeats the useless task of rolling the stone over and over again up the hill. Usually, an individual would commit suicide with the realization that this task is empty. I believe Camus finds success in accepting that this task is absurd because it allows Sisyphus to live his life mindfully. His ability to be fully aware of his actions and surrounding allows him to find happiness. He becomes greater than committing suicide like a coward who simply gives up. I also believe this is why he describes Homer, Sisyphus as “the wisest and most prudent of mortals” at the opening of this essay. By finding joy in the accomplishing nothing, the Gods that endeavored to humiliate him are unsatisfied and lose. He ends up not needing to conform to them like most humans, or giving up. Sisyphus, by accepting the absurd, becomes heroic and victorious.
In “The Myth of Sisyphus”, Albert Camus decides that defiance is more valued than self-sacrifice. When talking about this, he refers to one’s faith or destiny. Sisyphus’ recalcitrant behavior towards the Gods is what got him stuck in the Underworld, which he then managed to strike a deal with one of the Gods to let him go back to Earth to scold his wife. His rebellious behavior showed just how much Sisyphus wanted to stay back on Earth but his defiant attitude toward the Gods did not give him that chance. Sisyphus wanted to stay back on Earth and he defied the Gods and prefers to act in according to his own happiness than to the happiness of others. Being condemned to the Underworld to a never ending task, Sisyphus was able to do a lot of thinking while rolling that rock back up that hill over and over again. Knowing that he’d be doing this for the rest of his life, he decides to recognize his fate and make himself happy with what he’s doing. Sisyphus chooses to make good of his life doing what he’s doing than try to be unhappy his whole life rolling that rock up the hill. This can tie back to The Stranger. Meursault decides to accept his punishment and the consequences that come with it. He makes good in his prison cell and eventually becomes happy while waiting for his death.
In “The Myth of Sisyphus”, Camus sees the wise and defiant mortal as a strong-willed character. Being condemned into the Underworld and being forced to complete a task over and over again would wear a “normal” human being out and may result in physical suicide or other answers to end the torture. For Sisyphus however, he continued to push the rock to the top of the mountain without letting the rock (which, in my opinion, the rock resembles the rest of society and conformity) defy his happiness. This can be compared to Meursault in The Stranger who accepts his death in the end and realizes his fate is a result of his actions. Camus believes that physical suicide, which tend to be an outcome of defiance against absurdism, is not the answer to living in an absurd world. Another reaction against absurdism is settling to religion or other supernatural causes to create a meaning out of life. But the most logical answer, in Camus’ opinion, is accepting absurdism and that man has a choice in their life. Fate derives from one’s own actions that eventually leads him to where he’s at now. Taking one’s life can be compared to letting the rock be victorious instead of being stronger than the rock itself. Sisyphus defied against the gods and accepted their punishment as a part of his fate. In the end can be seen as heroic since he did not conform unlike the other mortals.
I think that the main reason that Sisyphus is said to be defiant is that he is condemned to a terrible fate, but he finds happiness in it. It is ironic that the Gods wanted to make him miserable, but he was content with his situation, even if it meant rolling a stone up a hill everyday. In life, he constantly goes against the God’s wishes, like when he is allowed to come to Earth when he is dead and decides not to return to the underworld. Sisyphus’s actions show that he does not care what the Gods think and completely disregards what they say. Another example of this is when Jupiter steals Egina, Esopus’s daughter. Esopus asks Sisyphus, and he defies Jupiter by telling him who did it and bargaining for the information. Sisyphus’s contempt with the Gods can also relate to Camus’s existential beliefs. Camus had the idea of “the revolt”, which is the spirit of opposition against any perceived unfairness, oppression, or indignity in human condition. He believed that if one man stood up or “revolted” against society, then he was standing up for the rest of humankind. This is shown in the story of Sisyphus through Sisyphus’s attitude of defiance towards the Gods. He was like many others who were pushed around by the Gods, but he continuously went against them. The character of Sisyphus is important because he represents a common theme in existentialist novels, like The Stranger, and in real life. Camus presents Sisyphus as the archetypal absurd hero, which is repeated in his literary works.
Self defiance ( what Camas calls the rebellion) is inevitably the only way to solve (or delay) the problem of one's own mortality. In the myth of Sisyphus, a man rolls a stone up a mountain despite having absolutely 0 hope of actually getting it to the top (or even knowing if that is something that he wants to do). In the case of man, living forever (rather just escaping death) is analogous to the rolling of the stone up the mountain and Sisyphus is the analogy of man. While humans (and Sisyphus) will actually never understand their mortality or how they should be living their lives, they might as well fill their life with some sort of task, like questioning their life. Camas proposes that this is perhaps more noble than just killing oneself. This is so because suicide would only be speeding up the process and not be adding any actual effort to attempting to learn about one's existence. Essentially he states that suicide is quitting in the face of adversity while rebellion shows that a person accepts their own mortality and continues do roll stones up hills despite this knowledge (and other things presumably). I tend to agree with Camas in that suicide while solving the problem, is the less honorable route. I think this is true because killing oneself takes away from their possible experiences in attempting to understand their own existence (however futile that process may be). Continuing to work on understanding in the face of adversity is the only way to live life and any time spent considering otherwise is wasted: this is Camas's idea of the absurd and I tend to agree with this very much.
In the “Myth of Sisyphus”, Albert Camus emphasizes how despite living a meaningless life, or repetitive tasks, the audience must still imagine Sisyphus as happy. What he means by this could be interpreted in different ways, but the way I see it is that Sisyphus accepts his fate of the eternal cycle of boulder pushing and because of that acceptance he must be happy. To further elaborate, Camus implies that hoping for something to happen in a hopeless situation is what causes negativity and despair. Since Sisyphus is fully aware that there is nothing he can do, he comes to accept his situation, and realizes that since there is no other more preferable alternative, he is happy and will not suffer in his situation. This would then connect the two ideas of happiness and absurdity, because if a person was to be able to realize they lived in an absurd world, and are able to come to terms with it, they are then able to appreciate life as it is. This means that the person cannot even imagine a better world than what they already live, because there is no such thing as a better possible place a person to live in. So, through the application of this idea in the myth of Sisyphus, Camus does come up with a very supported argument, as to why Sisyphus embraces his situation and is happy with what he is living with.
To be able to understand this question, one must know the difference between indifference and acceptance. Indifference means that one simply could care less about the situation present while acceptance, in this context, means that one has a willingness to tolerate a difficult or unpleasant situation. I think that there are different tells or signs when one shows either of these things. For example, in The Stranger, Meursault copes with his mother’s death in a way that no one understood. He did not grieve for his mother’s death, did not show any signs of sympathy, and did not even want to see his mother’s body. He sat in the room with the other elderly people, sitting there awkwardly, and wondering what he was doing there and why people were crying so much. I believe that Meursault was showing signs of a little bit of acceptance but mostly indifference. It seems that he understood that his mother was dead and that there was nothing he could do about it. It was also known that Meursault had turned his mother over to the elderly home but only because he did not earn enough money to provide for the both of them. The two of them, also, had not seen each other in awhile. People thought that Meursault did not really care about his mother’s death because of his behavior on the day of the funeral and the few days after the funeral; indifference. But I believe that Meursault decided to accept his mother’s death and know that he could not do anything about it. Even though I believe this, I think that not showing any sympathy was a weird behavior to show. He could have at least shown some sympathy about his mother’s death. But in the end, even though most people will think that Meursault shown an indifference behavior, I believe that he was showing acceptance.
There is a big difference of the character of Meursault from part one to part two. I noticed that whenever people ask him questions, he answers with “whatever you want” or “I don’t care”. It seems like he does not have any emotions or preferences in life. Even in his job, he is content with where he is at and does not wish to leave because he pretty much does not care about anything. Frankly, Meursault's apathy genuinely bothered me because I was so confounded that there could be anyone in the world like this. It made me think that he had a personality disorder or something, but then I remembered that it probably has something to do with existentialism. In the first part, he seemed to have no purpose and would never think out loud to the readers, but in the second part he developed a voice, which allowed readers to see into his mind. Because Meursault was confined to his prison cell for months, he had so much time to think and establish his own consciousness. Much like Sisyphus, he began to accept his fate, which was to die. Sisyphus was condemned to live in pain forever, but Meursault was condemned to sitting alone for months awaiting his death. By the time he is sentenced to death, he meets with the chaplain and is finally able to acknowledge it. What I thought was interesting was that he had the thoughts that dying that day was no different than dying years later. Overall, the difference of The Stranger in the character of Meursault is that in part one he sees things only how they are and in the second part he begins to ask why.
By definition, indifference means lacking any interest, concern, or sympathy for a certain situation. This is prevalent for the character of Meursault throughout Part 1 in The Stranger. He can be directly and indirectly characterized as lacking ambition or having a carefree attitude towards many issues. For example, towards the beginning of the novel, Meursault states that he does not recall whether or not Maman died yesterday or today and says, “That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” (Camus 3). The short sentences and lack of an interesting word choice shows his apathy towards the death of his mother and is the beginning of trying to figure out what kind of character Meursault is. During the funeral, he rarely shows any signs of remorse or empathy and cares mostly about the hot weather and the sun beating down on their bodies. The visual imagery of the sky, sun, light, and other uses of weather diction showcases the significance of physical outlook and how Meursault is not in touch with his emotions. Acceptance is shown throughout Part 1 when he interacts with the other characters. Although he is rarely in touch with his emotions, he notices and is observant of other people’s own thoughts and actions but rarely acts in accordance to their feelings. When his boss offers him a job in Paris, he is accused of lacking ambition towards furthering his life and the boss becomes upset at his response. Meursault states, “... I went back to work. I would rather not have upset him, but I couldn’t see any reason to change my life. Looking back on it, I wasn’t unhappy.” (41). In this case, he is content with the life he is living right now and sees that there’s no difference in staying or moving to Paris for a new job. He accepts his boss’ displeasure and how changes in his life makes no difference to him whatsoever.
In Camus’ existentialist philosophy, he emphasizes acceptance of the absurd. Throughout Part 1, I viewed Meursault as an indifferent character. This means that he wasn’t interested nor concerned about events that happened around him. To me, he was emotionless. Yet, I later realized that his ability to accept the absurd was formed through acceptance, not indifference. Camus writes, “Raymond told me not to let things get to me. At first I didn’t understand. Then he explained that he’s heard about Maman’s death but that was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later. I thought so too” (33). I was very confused at first, acceptance or indifference, two very different things that were so difficult to identify in this passage. Meursault’s ability to find contentment in the most obscure circumstances allows him to be successful in life. He is able to accept both the words of Raymond and the death of his mother. No matter how hard an individual tries to feel indifferent about situations, I believe Camus’ message includes the fact that human emotions are inevitable, and because of it, indifference to a situation is impossible. Thus, if Meursault was an indifferent character, he wouldn't express emotions. Camus utilizes the motif of color to prove it is unavoidable. He writes, “The sky was green; I felt good” (26). Here, Meursault reacts immediately to his surroundings, accepting them without overthinking. Acceptance becomes vital into living a life fulfilled of the absurd, instead of by indifference.
Camus is able to demonstrate some of his main motifs such as rebellion and themes relating to the myth of Sisyphus. There are various examples of both of these throughout but the most prevalent (and obvious) one would be the one that pertains most to the case of Merusalt's condition in the face of his mother's and later his own impending death. In the first part of the book he is obviously having to cope with the death of his mother, but he does so by sort of realizing that it was inevitable and remaining partially apathetic about the situation. After he takes a trip to the beach with Raymond and Marie among his other friends. He is put in a situation where he must make a (not very hard) decision of killing a random Arab man who has been harassing his friend for a while. After killing this man Merusalt even mentions that he was not very remorseful after killing the Arab; in other words his apathy persisted through this point. This changes however once he learns that he is to be executed, up until that point he just assumed that he would just live the rest of his days as he was previously, but with his impending death he realized that life was actually of no value as it was of no concern to him that he would did shortly (i.e. there was no difference if he were to die 1 day from now or 30 years from now). His apathy stays, but he learns more and more from it and gains a new perspective from what he values in life (which is actually nothing).
As an outsider of the crime, one would accuse Meursault as a heartless and apathetic man. It can be seen by many of the people that played a role in the trial that he never felt any remorse for the death of his mother nor killing the Arab in broad daylight. During the events leading to the crime, the visual imagery used creates a better understanding of Meursault’s point of view. He claims, “The sun was the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman… My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt… The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes… My whole being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver.” (Camus 58-59). In this passage, he focuses on the physical aspect of the environment rather than his thoughts and feelings. It seems as though the sun has been causing a major distraction for Meursault during events of death such as Maman and the Arab and plays a vital role in the novel. It almost makes it seem as though he was the innocent one in the crime and the sun and the beating heat was to blame for his murder. After the crime had occurred, he started to question his sanity because of all the accusations placed on him. Meursault says, “...that for the first time in years I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me.” (90), showing that Meursault actually felt saddened by the situation he put himself in. But in the end it can be seen that he was happy by his oncoming execution and is actually welcoming his death. The events of the crime unfolded as they did because his conflicts on morality shows the struggles of a person who leads an absurd life.
As an outside just simply looking at Meursault, there would be a number of different reasons I would be able to interpret for the actions of Meursault. First of all I would be able to already see him as an emotionally detached person, who does not care at all of what society or people perceive him to be as, which causes me to exclude the reason that he was doing it out of loyalty towards his associate Raymond. Although furthermore about Meursault's nihilistic, sociopath -like behavior, Meursault is one who acts amorally, which means he does not know what is right nor wrong. On top of his unknowing of the ethically correct, he is very isolated from society’s expectations on how one should act, so that further pushes him to be more lost on what he should do. Additionally, Meursault does not hide his feelings, and expresses whatever he feel, as it was very clear when his mother died, that he expressed indifference rather than faking grief. By putting all of these factors of Meursault's character into context of killing the arab an argument along the lines of saying Meursault's amoral state of mind, isolation of society, and compulsive behavior to express whatever he feels caused him to murder the arab. Also everything may have unraveled the way it had, to portray the true indifference Meursault felt about life itself.
As an outsider looking in Meursault, anyone could clearly see that Meursault is a man that is emotionless and has no personality whatsoever. Throughout the entire book, he did not have any care for the world or the people around him. He did not feel remorse, love, etc. During his Maman’s funeral, Meursault’s mother, Albert Camus uses a lot of weather diction and Meursault complains a lot about the weather and the environment. During this whole time, he never grieves about Maman’s death and he seems to always blame the weather/environment for his problems in his life. When he shot the Arab, Meursault also considers the conditions of the weather/environment in his decision of shooting the Arab. He doesn’t want to confront his feelings that he feels and shuts them out from being expressed. His behavior in both situations are fairly odd and one would not think that anyone could act this way in these situations. Meursault’s actions aren’t completely unjustified seeing that he didn’t seem to kill the Arab for Raymond but he has more of an indifferent attitude about his actions. And in the end, he accepts his death and seems to embrace that he is going to die. Most people try to fight the death penalty but Meursault really had no opinion on it and was untroubled that he was sentenced to the death penalty.
I think that there are a lot of reasons for Meursault’s actions in The Stranger. A big reason that Camus wrote the book this way is portray Meursault as the “absurd hero”. He needed all of these events in the book to happen in order for Meursault to fit the existentialist philosophy of the absurd. This is especially seen at the end of the novel and gives reasons why the crime played out how it did. For example, one of Camus’ themes was the revolt, where the hero has to have a spirit of defiance against any unfairness. Meursault did this during his trial, which was laced with preposterous accusations. He was angered by how the prosecution portrayed him, and that he did not have a chance to speak for himself. Also, Meursault shows “the revolt” when he is faced with his punishment (death) for killing the Arab. He does not know when he will die, but instead of seeing death as his impending doom, he sees it as freedom and welcomes it. Meursault finds comfort in his punishment and somehow turns it into a positive thing. This is similar to Sisyphus, who was also an absurd hero. As for the reasons for Meursault committing the crime, there is no way to tell for sure, but I think it may have something to do with Meursault’s mother. I noticed that color symbolism is used a lot in this book. At the beginning of the book, after his mother’s funeral, Meursault describes the sky as “streaked with red” (12). Personally, red reminds me of blood, and the same red symbolism is used before Meursault kills the Arab. He says that the sky had the “same dazzling red glare”. I think that it is possible that the color red relates in both parts of the book. Red may have caused Meursault to think of his mother and her death, and therefore could be a reason for him committing the crime.
As an outsider looking in on Merusalt, what reasons for the events do YOU see? Why do you think the events (of the crime) unfold as they do?
I do not feel that Meursault had any prior intentions for the events of the crime to unfold as they did, he simply did the things that he did as a result of his apathy. Raymond had started to become friends with Meursault as his problem with the Arabs escalated - this was the main cause for what happened. Before Meursault got caught up in all of this and even before he had met Marie, in the wake of his mother's death he realized that he truly did not care about anything in any non insignificant amount. After finding out that Marie was in love with him he had a fairly similar response, mentally; having close to no emotion whatsoever and remaining apathetic toward yet another situation. As Meursault is making the decision to kill the Arab that he had been. Him killing or not killing the Arab was inconsequential: it didn't matter as he would die either way as he states in the latter part of the book, so he might as well. This is some of the rationalization that I could potentially see going on inside of Meursault's mind when making the decision to kill the Arab. Something important to note, however is that Meursault does not necessarily not care about his friends wellbeing and therefore may have felt it necessary for him to kill the Arab in order to keep Raymond s afe - even though Meursault knew that it didn't matter either way for the both of them.
When I initially observed Meursault, I found him as a callous, almost psychopathic man. Following every event, he simply absorbed what happened without pondering why. On numerous accounts, he views life as meaningless. Personally, I found this obscure. Why would Camus write a novel on one’s life if it was truly meaningless? The events of his life continued to get loathsome, but Meursault seemed indifferent. It seemed as though every human life to, no matter what events or tragedies occurred, was the same. The way he lived was so simple, yet complicated at the same time. One of the main reasons why I believe the events happened in such accumulated severity in the novel manifests as a test against Meursault’s emotions. Camus emphasizes on absurdism, where one must be defiant over suicide and submission to God. One of the main factors into achieving such rebellion so successfully is to detach from one’s emotions. The first tragedy, Maman's death is one common amongst most humans. Everyone in their lifetime will experience death at one point or another. Usually, individuals break down and strive to find purpose through their mourning in their own lives because they themselves become fearful. Yet, Meursault remains constant, only focusing on his surroundings and factual information rather than his feelings. Another significant moment of human sensibility is through love. Yet again, he seems indifferent with his relationship with Marie. Although there are countless examples, the most significant is the murder enacted by Meursault on the beach. The visual imagery used for the waves, sun and sweat of Meursault all taunt him to give in to his emotions, yet his ability to cast off guilt leaved him as the “absurd hero” Camus wanted him to be.
Sartrean Existentialism refers to the philosophy that existence precedes essence meaning that humans do not have a predestined path and the choices and actions one makes define who he really is. This idea is prevalent throughout No Exit with the use of direct characterization. For example, when Garcin explains the reason why he was placed in hell he states, “I’m here because I treated my wife abominably.” (Sartre 24). Although he completely neglected his wife, he does not regret treating her the way he had. Garcin is aware of what his actions had brought upon him: a place in hell. This portrays Sartre’s philosophy of accepting internal freedom and being able to choose which path to take, which, in Garcin’s case, chose to mentally abuse his wife. Another example of accepting existentialism is when Inez explains her wrongdoing back on earth which consists of seducing her cousin’s wife. She then says, “You know, I don’t regret a thing…” (25). Looking back on it, Inez understands that her brutality had resulted in an eternal punishment but in the end, she would not trade it for anything else. Both of these characters are owning up to what they had done on earth and sees which events had lead them to where they are now. Accepting one’s existence supports Sartre’s philosophy since it accepts the responsibility of having complete and total freedom.
Jean Paul Sartre believes that “existence comes before essence,” meaning that humans have no pre-established purpose or nature, nor anything that we have to or ought to be. He believes that humans choose their own path to determine who they will become and that one’s actions define him/her; humans are forced to create themselves. In the play, “No Exit,” Sartre displays his belief of existence throughout his characters. One character he displays this in is Inez. She says, “Well, I was what some people down there called “a damned bi***.” Damned already. So it’s no surprise, being here” (Sartre 25). She describes how she was not a very good person, or a nice one but she clearly seems to accept her consequences for being such a “snob” ‘down there’. She embraces what her actions on earth did to her and takes responsibility for what she did. One can also see the belief of existence in Garcin. He says, “... I’m here because I treated my life abominably…” (24). While alive ‘down there’, Garcin describes how he treated his wife horribly for five years until he died. He did not regret how he treated her for so many years and comes to accept how he treated her and that his actions led him to where he is now. These two characters both seemed to embrace their actions and what their actions led them to; karma.
When reading No Exit, there was one very obvious example of existence. Sartre addressed existence in his works (and existentialism literally has the word exist in it:)). He stated that “existence comes before essence”, which means that humans do not have a pre-established nature or attitude. They are born into the world and they have to make choice that will define what kind of person they are. In the play, Estelle is frightened when she realizes that she has no mirror and will never be able to look at herself again. She says, “Don’t you ever get taken that way? When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself to make sure, but it doesn’t help much” (19). Besides portraying Estelle’s conceitedness, this quote seemed important to me. It seems strange that without Estelle being able to see herself, she feels she does not exist. Inez volunteers to be a mirror for Estelle, and tricks her into thinking she has a pimple on her face. Estelle lets Inez define her existence or “essence” and how she views herself. Existence to Estelle is completely dependent on how other people view her, particularly Inez. Inez seems to define Garcin also. He had done terrible things and life and admits it to the others, but he does not seem like he has dealt with it. He wants to be left alone because he knows that his own hell is others judging him for his actions. Inez seems to be this person for him, and it is obviously not Estelle, who is trying to seduce Garcin. She refuses to leave him in peace and forget the others are there. This forces Garcin to face his problems, which defines his existence.
In a literal sense, existence is the state of living or having objective reality. Jean Paul Sartre defines existence as essene, and one must utilize personal freedom in order to define their existence. As Inez, Estelle, and Garcin endure the horrors of hell, the willingness to exist drastically changes through Estelle. At the beginning of the novel she states, “Somehow I feel we’ve never been so much alive as now” (12). Although all individuals expected torture physically in hell, they soon recognize that the agony they were put in is mental suffering. Simple luxuries and freedom given on earth such as brushing teeth and most importantly rest are taken away. Garcin mentions how on Earth, humans had the ability to blink, and despite the fact that it was only for a miniscule amount of time, it provided relaxation and rest. Sleeping is the closest thing to “death” humans can have while living. Thus, when death occurs, they imagine an eternity of rest found in heaven. In a sense, they become non existent encompassed in a world of tranquility. Estelle states she’s never felt so alive because she refers to the lack of rest they have, and at the time, it was seemingly a good thing. Yet, as conflicts emerge between all three characters, silence and rest become almost impossible, and Estelle’s optimistic attitude fades. She soon realizes that she does not want others to exist anymore, stabs Inez, but fails because they are already in death. Through this, I believe Sartre conveys how existence is inevitable, whether one is physically dead or alive, and one must make the most out of the situation because there is “No Exit”.
In "No Exit" Jean Paul Sartre takes various stances on the topics relating to existence - he creates several ideas that open one's mind to the question "What does it mean to exist?". Through his questioning of the senses and sense perception these ideas of existence come to fruition. Firstly, there are several implications by Garcin, Inez, and Estelle that during their time in hell (or eternity I suppose), they must serve some purpose or have some purpose served in order for their existence to be considered meaningful; otherwise why would they still exist and why would this play exist? The purpose that is alluded to by these residents of hell is that they each must be punished eternally for their wrongdoings on earth. This causes for each one of them to believe that the next person to enter was the person that was supposed to be torturing them. Another aspect of the group’s collaborative quest not to annoy one another was met through their attempted lack of communication with each other. This part of the dynamic between the group members shows that each of them serves a very specific purpose: they all exist with each other in order to provide a hellish annoyance, as Garcin points out early on. This not so desireable purpose shows that one’s existence may not serve a positive or may even serve a harmful purpose, but so long as they have a purpose there is no distinction, they exist for a reason - which is an interesting stance that Sartre takes at existence and how having a purpose or believing that one does can lead to what we call existence.
In the play "No Exit" Jean Paul Sartre defines the idea of existence as "absurd" and states that life has no meaning. Jean Paul Sartre also says that one must make use of the freedom, as freedom of choice can allow one to escape "nausea." This can be seen through different characters in the story such as Estelle. Estelle needs to look in the mirror, because she feels the need to be reassured of her existence, and her presence. One key part of existentialism is being aware of oneself, and one’s place in the world. Estelle symbolizes this need. She says, “‘When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist’” (19). There aren’t any mirrors, because in death, the three main characters had to be stripped of their former self, so they could find themselves again. In death, man is most authentic, and most aware of their place in the world, even if they can’t always see it. Estelle’s use of the mirror does seem to constitute bad faith (self-deception), in Inez’s eyes, because she’s only seeing the physical manifestation of herself, and avoiding her character, and her past mistakes.
The idea of existence is represented in the play “No Exit” as a theme that makes humans must have their life define them rather than what they were should live like. This idea is a core element of existentialism as it essentially means our actions in life define us, and we should live the way we want to without having society, a predetermined purpose, or religion dictate our actions. This idea connects to the play, because as we get into the past of each other characters except for the valet in the play, we learn how their actions defined them, and what society would have defined each of them as. Garcin for an example was thought of as coward for fleeing his country during wartime, but to an existentialist, calling Garcin a coward is causing him to anguish for something that he thought was best for him under his free existential life. Garcin simply put was just living life the way he wanted to, but since society called him out on his actions it deprives his freedom to define himself and therefore would be another reason why at the end of the play he ends up stating that “Hell is other people”. Another prime example to further support this is when Estelle who totally depends on the mirror to define her existence allows Inez to be her mirror, and Inez lies to Estelle telling her she a pimple on her face. In a less literal sense this meant that Estelle left her state of existence in the eyes of Inez, who would distort Estelle’s existence and then end up ruining the existence that Estelle should have, because she chose to have others judge her. Therefore by interpreting the importance of how one lived their life vs. how society seeing how they lived their life, the philosophical idea of existing reveals itself in this play in the sense that people should live their life boundlessly to truly define themselves.
Based off of Jean Paul Sartre’s description throughout the play of Estelle’s personality, it seems as if she cares about her appearance a lot. She makes this big ordeal when she's wanting to apply some touch ups to her face and she finds out that no one in the room has a mirror. Estelle is so used to being able to see her reflection every single day and touching up her make-up whenever she felt the need to. But ever since she died, she has not been able to see her reflection because there is no type of glass in the underworld. I think that what Estelle means by, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist,” has something to do with her death. When people die, their family, loved ones, and friends usually grieve and remember them when they were alive. But after some time, people begin to move on and slowly put the dead in the back of their mind. This can refer to how she wonders if she really truly exists because of this factor and that she can’t see herself. Also in the underworld, Estelle’s personality will change and she will change as a person overall. She will not be the same as she was back on Earth. Since Estelle can not see her reflection anymore and she will change as a person while she’s in the underworld, I think this is what she means by when she says this quote.
A lot of the time people think of their existence in terms of what sort of effect they have had on others - i.e. the way in which they have changed the world and the people around them. At a minimum, history will be changed in at least some minute way just by existing and having people looking at you. This is precisely the case that Estelle is going through: if she is unable to see herself, her smallest and most simple mark on the world is lost, her appearance (well, at least for her it is). She has an appropriate reaction as she is questioning what sort of effect she really has on the people around her. This leads me to the next point that this idea of leaving a mark on the people around you is closely tied to one's purpose in life - which for Estelle is being as horrible as possible to the people around her: essentially torturing them. The idea that she is to torture the people around them is the only reason that she still exists is somewhat disheartening. On the other hand however, it is somewhat illogical for Estelle to say that her not being able to see herself makes her wonder if she truly exists. This is because she is conscious and is experiencing the world around her, so she obviously exists right? Well this begs the question, "What does it mean to exist?". Which brings us back to the deffiniton gave earlier that one's existence is based upon what impact they have on the world around them, so in the end it is for the individual to decide what constitutes existing and wether not having a mirror should determine wether one exists or not.
When Estelle verbalizes, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist”, she refers to her existence on earth. Part of what constructs one’s being on Earth is how one impacts others and their surroundings. Once they are dead, they can no longer create and impact and cease to exist. A recurring theme in No Exit was that once every character’s story was revealed, they started to lose sight of Earth. It seems that lack of admittance to their crimes allowed them to keep intact with the world around them because there was still something unknown. When revelation came, whether through themselves or with others, there was no more conflict and their further existence didn’t matter. When Inez looks back at the Earth and realizes that a man and women were making love on her bed, careless of Inez, she says, “ Blacked out. I can’t see or hear a thing. So I’m done with the Earth it seems. No more alibis for me! I feel so empty, desiccated - really dead at last” (29). What leads Inez to feel such incredible emptiness was the lack in care by other people and the lack of remembrance of her on Earth. The fact that others think/hear/say things about each individual allows them to have affirmation of their existence. Similarly, Estelle gained affirmation of her physical existence through a mirror. So, when people are no longer able to impact others, they are unable to exist or have essence.
Even though I already wrote about this quote in my last blog, I can put this quote into context of Estelle’s character now that I have read the whole book in class. Obviously, Estelle is a very conceited character because she needs to look at a mirror every five minutes and cares so much about how other people view her. But this also makes me wonder about how this can apply to life in general. I think that we tend to obsess over how others see us and by looking in a mirror, we can control what people see and how we appear to them. We can uses mirrors not just to control our physical appearances, but metaphorically we can control how we act. How we act determines people’s opinions of us, and if we cannot be viewed how we want to, then we do not feel in control. Also, the fact that Estelle believed that she did not exist without being able to see herself may mean that it does not feel like reality when she cannot control how others view her. She is not able to see how she looks to Garcin and Inez, so they are the only ones that can truly define her. They are the only ones that can act as her mirror and tell her how they view her because she is not able to reflect on herself.
To make sense of the quote, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist” that Estelle said in the play, I think it is a reference to her identity pertaining to what makes her believe she is her who exists. The was very awkwardly put, by the significance of what I meant was that Estelle’s identity or what she made of herself in her life was her physical appearance and without the visibility to be able to herself she cannot confirm she exists, because she lacks her worldly identity even though she would be able to logically tell that she exists. The quote then becomes more significant as later on she depends on Inez to be her mirror, and this under an existential mentality would mean that Estelle has given up her faith to trust herself, and has allowed society to tell her she exists. The reason why this would be so bad in an existentialist point of view is because people should be what they make of themselves not what society thinks or tells them what they are. So going back to the quote, Estelle must now rely on others to be her mirrors, because since she lost her tool of confirming her existence of her true identity, and this may alter who she may have truly been or will be, which destroys the foundation of embracing existence. Sartre’s purpose must have been to reveal an example of how society would be able to take away one’s ability to exist.
In this quote, Estelle is questioning her own existence after she discovers the absence of mirrors in hell. She continues to add on the fact that she had six mirrors in her room and is saddened by how she can see them but they can’t see her. She states, “They’re [mirrors] reflecting the carpet, the settee, the window--but how empty it is, a glass in which I’m absent! When I talked to people I always made sure there was one near by in which I could see myself. I watched myself talking. And somehow it kept my alert, seeing myself as the others saw me…” (Sartre 19). This indirectly characterizes Estelle as one who is in touch with the physical aspects of the world. Her egoistic nature can be seen through this quote since she focused on her physical outlook rather than what was on the inside. She finds comfort through the thought of seeing herself in comparison to Inez who lets her mind wander. This juxtaposes Inez statement when she says, “You’re lucky. I am conscious of myself--in my mind. Painfully conscious.” (19) who is aware of her existence and does not question her place in hell. This can also explain why she needed Garcin to show her love. She barely knew him but needed him to make love to her and was willing to say she loved him just to receive worldly pleasures. Mirrors and his love helped her keep in touch with earth while revealing the self-centered nature of humans seen through the character of Estelle.
There are some ways in which I agree with this statement. I believe that beliefs are relevant to me, but they do not define me. I think that society influences people to act a certain way and people pay attention to society’s values. Religion also can affect people’s actions, depending on if someone follows a religion. For example, if my religion said that I should not drink alcohol and I followed that, then religion would be very relevant. Political philosophies also tell a person how they should be behaving. They create a behavioral code through authority. Even though political philosophies are a more forced way of actuation, they still motivate people to act a certain way. Overall, the choice to follow or pay attention to these things are completely your choice. I can conduct myself a certain way based on my religion, what society believes, and the law, but I also have the option to abstain from this. Either way, it is extremely difficult not to behave a certain way based on this.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that these things define me. Because of free will, I have the ability to define myself and choose what affects the way I think. However, this may affect how others define me. Humans are prone to judging anything based on assumptions and first impressions. Others may define me differently from how I define myself. In their minds, they put me into a box or category based on religious values, politics, and society. I do the same thing to other people. I only have the ability to determine my own character and my own actions.
This statement is a little difficult to answer since I both agreed and disagreed. I believe as though it is kind of impossible to prevent society from defining the identity of human beings because we are constantly surrounded by all these ideas and theories that become engraved in our minds. Our morals are then shaped by these rules and beliefs thus creating the person we are today. For example, since laws, many religions, and society overall tell us that killing is wrong, we try to avoid that crime from occurring. But when it does accidentally or purposely happen, we become guilty because we were told we shouldn’t do that. So the point is,
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I do believe that I have free will to make decisions for myself and that the society I grew up in don’t have complete control on my actions. If you look at trends, especially fashion trends, you are able to easily identify free will. An example of this would be if society tells me that I can’t wear a pink skirt but I really really want to wear a pink skirt, I’m going to wear the pink skirt (duh). Other examples include breaking the law or the idea of sin. You have the ability to let society define and change completely, or you can learn and become your own person and find your own independence.
sorry I said "you" a million times
DeleteAlso, the "So the point is," part shouldn't be there :) sorry again
DeleteWhen I first read the question I was a little weary on it but I ended up with agreeing and disagreeing with this statement. I believe that, yes, political philosophies, religious dogma,and societal beliefs don't define me but they definitely have some relevance in my life somehow. Being caught up in the politics nowadays and hoping that one person does not become president has changed my bored on politics. I used to not be very interested in politics but knowing the candidates this year has changed my views and got me interested in politics. Being a religious person, a Christian, I go to church, I pray, etc. There are certain values that religious people follow and I also follow those views. And being in a society that I am in today, there are so many expectations or requirements that people feel the need to stand up to. In a way, society determines people; how they dress, how they behave, who they hang out with, etc. I believe that people shouldn't have to feel the need to have to live up to these expectations but then again we’re only human. Humans feel the need to be a part of something and if they're not, they feel the need to try and stick in and conform themselves to society’s standards.
ReplyDeleteBut I also believe that these things don't define me as a person, I define myself. I mean, I could let these things dictate over my life and define me as a person but I don't. I am a human. I am a person. I have free will. I can choose how I wish to put myself as and how I wish people to see me as. Just because I watch and keep up with politics doesn't mean that I'm so dedicated to politics that I let it change my ways and views. Even though I am a religious person and I have ethics that I stand by, I don't let my religion define me. My religion is just a part of me that defines me. It is a little chunk out of me that I stand by but it doesn't fully define me as a person. And even though society contains peer pressure to act a certain way and conform to society’s needs and wants, I don't let it get to me. I choose how to portray myself in front of others. I choose what things define me as a person. I believe that these things have something to do in at least a lot of people’s lives but it doesn't define them as a person.
Political philosophies, religious dogma, societal beliefs are irrelevant to me and do not define me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the part of this statement that says beliefs don’t define me as a person, but I do think they are relevant in our daily lives. Everyone has beliefs, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they follow through with them. For example, someone can believe in kindness, generosity, optimism, being spontaneous, ect., but that doesn’t correlate to their actions. Just because they believe in those things and they have value to an them, if they don’t act upon their beliefs, they don’t define who a person is. Actions are what fundamentally what define us. When humans pursue kindness through their daily actions, practice generosity, are optimistic or spontaneous, their actions form who they are. In the case of religion, one can believe they’re a god, but if they reject what they believe in front of their peers, does that make them religious? If someone says they believe in being kind to others, does that make a person always kind? Of course not. Just because you believe in kindness doesn’t mean you’re a kind person.
Like I mentioned before, my point is, our actions define us, not our beliefs.
But, they are relevant. Beliefs shape our values and how we choose to act. Without them, there wouldn’t be purpose. These underlying values of humans shape how they act; then they define who they are.
I certainly do not live my life in perfect alignment with a specific dogma or philosophy, however I do take some views and ways of living from said philosophies and try to apply them to my life, but I do not strictly adhere to them by any means. I feel that it can often be harmful for one to become too attached to a specific dogma or way of living as one's individual experiences are what should shape the way that he or she lives his or her life - not what is told to them by leaders or proponents of this philosophy, or what has been done by those in the past. However, having a certain dogma or teaching be the defining factor in one's existence - for example a monk may want to have the decision of how he should live his life made for him.
ReplyDeleteBeing totally inflexible however is harmful in general it leaves no room for change, which will inevitably change and change one's outlook on life. I think that the only dogma one should 100% commit to following is the constantly changing one that belongs to themselves as the experiences of others are never going to be the exact same as one's own - making them imperfect to follow as strictly as implied in the question. There is not too much to say past that about this question other than the following summary: using a particular dogma or philosophy as an exact road map for life can be dangerous as one's experiences are unique, however identifying and taking from (but not all) from a particular dogma can lead to personal growth.
I agree with this statement to certain extent, because I try to define myself from the actions I take, however I find that the actions I take sometimes stem from these reasons. For an example, religious dogma dictates that in my daily life I should not lie, and so I find myself avoiding to lie simply not just because I personally believe it is wrong, but because my faith tells me it is wrong. Although I do succumb to the laws of religion, I could think of many examples of where I do define myself independently as an individual. In my life I at least try to not have society’s beliefs nor political philosophy’s dictate what I do/think as a person. Some of the biggest controversies regarding these aspects of society are disputed punishments over those who are claimed to have commit crimes that go against society’s laws. In my own individual mind, I perceive punishments like capital punishment to be logical to an extent, however the reasons why some people do receive this punishment is almost arbitrary, and therefore the ethics of society are somewhat flawed. The reason I do bring this up though, is because I want to express that I can make my own opinions rather than use those based off of ethics or religion. Also, because I choose to think and live this way it prevents me from being another robot of society, and to live my own life to an extent, despite some chains that hold my character back.
ReplyDeletePolitical philosophies, religious dogma, societal beliefs are irrelevant to me and do not define me.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the principles listed do not completely define me, I believe that they can provide details about me and how I live my life. I believe that my day-to-day actions are influenced by the moral standards set by my religion and set by society. A person’s actions could be inferred by finding out his/her religious, societal, and political beliefs. Societal beliefs are relevant because people will always conform to the societal norm. It’s human nature for people to find the need to fit within the crowd as diverging might cause unwanted attention or reactions. Personally, I believe that religious dogma is very relevant to me as I follow the rules set by my religion, which means that it also defines my actions. There is a fine line between religious dogma and societal beliefs, as both concepts sometimes intertwine with each other. For example, in many religions, drinking is prohibited. Now people could say that they do not drink because their religion forbids it. But others may say they don’t drink because the law says that they are under the required drinking age. While others may say that drinking at a young age is looked down upon, therefore they will not do it. These three examples all show how these different concepts all could define a person’s reasoning for not engaging in the act of drinking. In the end, I believe that political philosophies, religious dogma, and societal beliefs are relevant to many people and somewhat define who they are.
I found life in acceptance of the absurd portrayed in Sisyphus quite interesting. Camus’ existentialist philosophy roots within the absurd. He states how humans, will never be able to find purpose in life. They will either look at a higher power of God in religion to express their meaning, conclude it is meaningless and commit suicide, or they can accept that life is absurd and find happiness by rebellion against it. In the Myth of Sisyphus, the man repeats the useless task of rolling the stone over and over again up the hill. Usually, an individual would commit suicide with the realization that this task is empty. I believe Camus finds success in accepting that this task is absurd because it allows Sisyphus to live his life mindfully. His ability to be fully aware of his actions and surrounding allows him to find happiness. He becomes greater than committing suicide like a coward who simply gives up. I also believe this is why he describes Homer, Sisyphus as “the wisest and most prudent of mortals” at the opening of this essay. By finding joy in the accomplishing nothing, the Gods that endeavored to humiliate him are unsatisfied and lose. He ends up not needing to conform to them like most humans, or giving up. Sisyphus, by accepting the absurd, becomes heroic and victorious.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Myth of Sisyphus”, Albert Camus decides that defiance is more valued than self-sacrifice. When talking about this, he refers to one’s faith or destiny. Sisyphus’ recalcitrant behavior towards the Gods is what got him stuck in the Underworld, which he then managed to strike a deal with one of the Gods to let him go back to Earth to scold his wife. His rebellious behavior showed just how much Sisyphus wanted to stay back on Earth but his defiant attitude toward the Gods did not give him that chance. Sisyphus wanted to stay back on Earth and he defied the Gods and prefers to act in according to his own happiness than to the happiness of others. Being condemned to the Underworld to a never ending task, Sisyphus was able to do a lot of thinking while rolling that rock back up that hill over and over again. Knowing that he’d be doing this for the rest of his life, he decides to recognize his fate and make himself happy with what he’s doing. Sisyphus chooses to make good of his life doing what he’s doing than try to be unhappy his whole life rolling that rock up the hill. This can tie back to The Stranger. Meursault decides to accept his punishment and the consequences that come with it. He makes good in his prison cell and eventually becomes happy while waiting for his death.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Myth of Sisyphus”, Camus sees the wise and defiant mortal as a strong-willed character. Being condemned into the Underworld and being forced to complete a task over and over again would wear a “normal” human being out and may result in physical suicide or other answers to end the torture. For Sisyphus however, he continued to push the rock to the top of the mountain without letting the rock (which, in my opinion, the rock resembles the rest of society and conformity) defy his happiness. This can be compared to Meursault in The Stranger who accepts his death in the end and realizes his fate is a result of his actions. Camus believes that physical suicide, which tend to be an outcome of defiance against absurdism, is not the answer to living in an absurd world. Another reaction against absurdism is settling to religion or other supernatural causes to create a meaning out of life. But the most logical answer, in Camus’ opinion, is accepting absurdism and that man has a choice in their life. Fate derives from one’s own actions that eventually leads him to where he’s at now. Taking one’s life can be compared to letting the rock be victorious instead of being stronger than the rock itself. Sisyphus defied against the gods and accepted their punishment as a part of his fate. In the end can be seen as heroic since he did not conform unlike the other mortals.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main reason that Sisyphus is said to be defiant is that he is condemned to a terrible fate, but he finds happiness in it. It is ironic that the Gods wanted to make him miserable, but he was content with his situation, even if it meant rolling a stone up a hill everyday. In life, he constantly goes against the God’s wishes, like when he is allowed to come to Earth when he is dead and decides not to return to the underworld. Sisyphus’s actions show that he does not care what the Gods think and completely disregards what they say. Another example of this is when Jupiter steals Egina, Esopus’s daughter. Esopus asks Sisyphus, and he defies Jupiter by telling him who did it and bargaining for the information. Sisyphus’s contempt with the Gods can also relate to Camus’s existential beliefs. Camus had the idea of “the revolt”, which is the spirit of opposition against any perceived unfairness, oppression, or indignity in human condition. He believed that if one man stood up or “revolted” against society, then he was standing up for the rest of humankind. This is shown in the story of Sisyphus through Sisyphus’s attitude of defiance towards the Gods. He was like many others who were pushed around by the Gods, but he continuously went against them. The character of Sisyphus is important because he represents a common theme in existentialist novels, like The Stranger, and in real life. Camus presents Sisyphus as the archetypal absurd hero, which is repeated in his literary works.
ReplyDeleteSelf defiance ( what Camas calls the rebellion) is inevitably the only way to solve (or delay) the problem of one's own mortality. In the myth of Sisyphus, a man rolls a stone up a mountain despite having absolutely 0 hope of actually getting it to the top (or even knowing if that is something that he wants to do). In the case of man, living forever (rather just escaping death) is analogous to the rolling of the stone up the mountain and Sisyphus is the analogy of man. While humans (and Sisyphus) will actually never understand their mortality or how they should be living their lives, they might as well fill their life with some sort of task, like questioning their life. Camas proposes that this is perhaps more noble than just killing oneself. This is so because suicide would only be speeding up the process and not be adding any actual effort to attempting to learn about one's existence. Essentially he states that suicide is quitting in the face of adversity while rebellion shows that a person accepts their own mortality and continues do roll stones up hills despite this knowledge (and other things presumably). I tend to agree with Camas in that suicide while solving the problem, is the less honorable route. I think this is true because killing oneself takes away from their possible experiences in attempting to understand their own existence (however futile that process may be). Continuing to work on understanding in the face of adversity is the only way to live life and any time spent considering otherwise is wasted: this is Camas's idea of the absurd and I tend to agree with this very much.
ReplyDeleteIn the “Myth of Sisyphus”, Albert Camus emphasizes how despite living a meaningless life, or repetitive tasks, the audience must still imagine Sisyphus as happy. What he means by this could be interpreted in different ways, but the way I see it is that Sisyphus accepts his fate of the eternal cycle of boulder pushing and because of that acceptance he must be happy. To further elaborate, Camus implies that hoping for something to happen in a hopeless situation is what causes negativity and despair. Since Sisyphus is fully aware that there is nothing he can do, he comes to accept his situation, and realizes that since there is no other more preferable alternative, he is happy and will not suffer in his situation. This would then connect the two ideas of happiness and absurdity, because if a person was to be able to realize they lived in an absurd world, and are able to come to terms with it, they are then able to appreciate life as it is. This means that the person cannot even imagine a better world than what they already live, because there is no such thing as a better possible place a person to live in. So, through the application of this idea in the myth of Sisyphus, Camus does come up with a very supported argument, as to why Sisyphus embraces his situation and is happy with what he is living with.
ReplyDeleteTo be able to understand this question, one must know the difference between indifference and acceptance. Indifference means that one simply could care less about the situation present while acceptance, in this context, means that one has a willingness to tolerate a difficult or unpleasant situation. I think that there are different tells or signs when one shows either of these things. For example, in The Stranger, Meursault copes with his mother’s death in a way that no one understood. He did not grieve for his mother’s death, did not show any signs of sympathy, and did not even want to see his mother’s body. He sat in the room with the other elderly people, sitting there awkwardly, and wondering what he was doing there and why people were crying so much. I believe that Meursault was showing signs of a little bit of acceptance but mostly indifference. It seems that he understood that his mother was dead and that there was nothing he could do about it. It was also known that Meursault had turned his mother over to the elderly home but only because he did not earn enough money to provide for the both of them. The two of them, also, had not seen each other in awhile. People thought that Meursault did not really care about his mother’s death because of his behavior on the day of the funeral and the few days after the funeral; indifference. But I believe that Meursault decided to accept his mother’s death and know that he could not do anything about it. Even though I believe this, I think that not showing any sympathy was a weird behavior to show. He could have at least shown some sympathy about his mother’s death. But in the end, even though most people will think that Meursault shown an indifference behavior, I believe that he was showing acceptance.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference of the character of Meursault from part one to part two. I noticed that whenever people ask him questions, he answers with “whatever you want” or “I don’t care”. It seems like he does not have any emotions or preferences in life. Even in his job, he is content with where he is at and does not wish to leave because he pretty much does not care about anything. Frankly, Meursault's apathy genuinely bothered me because I was so confounded that there could be anyone in the world like this. It made me think that he had a personality disorder or something, but then I remembered that it probably has something to do with existentialism. In the first part, he seemed to have no purpose and would never think out loud to the readers, but in the second part he developed a voice, which allowed readers to see into his mind. Because Meursault was confined to his prison cell for months, he had so much time to think and establish his own consciousness. Much like Sisyphus, he began to accept his fate, which was to die. Sisyphus was condemned to live in pain forever, but Meursault was condemned to sitting alone for months awaiting his death. By the time he is sentenced to death, he meets with the chaplain and is finally able to acknowledge it. What I thought was interesting was that he had the thoughts that dying that day was no different than dying years later. Overall, the difference of The Stranger in the character of Meursault is that in part one he sees things only how they are and in the second part he begins to ask why.
ReplyDeleteBy definition, indifference means lacking any interest, concern, or sympathy for a certain situation. This is prevalent for the character of Meursault throughout Part 1 in The Stranger. He can be directly and indirectly characterized as lacking ambition or having a carefree attitude towards many issues. For example, towards the beginning of the novel, Meursault states that he does not recall whether or not Maman died yesterday or today and says, “That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” (Camus 3). The short sentences and lack of an interesting word choice shows his apathy towards the death of his mother and is the beginning of trying to figure out what kind of character Meursault is. During the funeral, he rarely shows any signs of remorse or empathy and cares mostly about the hot weather and the sun beating down on their bodies. The visual imagery of the sky, sun, light, and other uses of weather diction showcases the significance of physical outlook and how Meursault is not in touch with his emotions. Acceptance is shown throughout Part 1 when he interacts with the other characters. Although he is rarely in touch with his emotions, he notices and is observant of other people’s own thoughts and actions but rarely acts in accordance to their feelings. When his boss offers him a job in Paris, he is accused of lacking ambition towards furthering his life and the boss becomes upset at his response. Meursault states, “... I went back to work. I would rather not have upset him, but I couldn’t see any reason to change my life. Looking back on it, I wasn’t unhappy.” (41). In this case, he is content with the life he is living right now and sees that there’s no difference in staying or moving to Paris for a new job. He accepts his boss’ displeasure and how changes in his life makes no difference to him whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteIn Camus’ existentialist philosophy, he emphasizes acceptance of the absurd. Throughout Part 1, I viewed Meursault as an indifferent character. This means that he wasn’t interested nor concerned about events that happened around him. To me, he was emotionless. Yet, I later realized that his ability to accept the absurd was formed through acceptance, not indifference. Camus writes, “Raymond told me not to let things get to me. At first I didn’t understand. Then he explained that he’s heard about Maman’s death but that was one of those things that was bound to happen sooner or later. I thought so too” (33). I was very confused at first, acceptance or indifference, two very different things that were so difficult to identify in this passage. Meursault’s ability to find contentment in the most obscure circumstances allows him to be successful in life. He is able to accept both the words of Raymond and the death of his mother. No matter how hard an individual tries to feel indifferent about situations, I believe Camus’ message includes the fact that human emotions are inevitable, and because of it, indifference to a situation is impossible. Thus, if Meursault was an indifferent character, he wouldn't express emotions. Camus utilizes the motif of color to prove it is unavoidable. He writes, “The sky was green; I felt good” (26). Here, Meursault reacts immediately to his surroundings, accepting them without overthinking. Acceptance becomes vital into living a life fulfilled of the absurd, instead of by indifference.
ReplyDeleteCamus is able to demonstrate some of his main motifs such as rebellion and themes relating to the myth of Sisyphus. There are various examples of both of these throughout but the most prevalent (and obvious) one would be the one that pertains most to the case of Merusalt's condition in the face of his mother's and later his own impending death. In the first part of the book he is obviously having to cope with the death of his mother, but he does so by sort of realizing that it was inevitable and remaining partially apathetic about the situation. After he takes a trip to the beach with Raymond and Marie among his other friends. He is put in a situation where he must make a (not very hard) decision of killing a random Arab man who has been harassing his friend for a while. After killing this man Merusalt even mentions that he was not very remorseful after killing the Arab; in other words his apathy persisted through this point. This changes however once he learns that he is to be executed, up until that point he just assumed that he would just live the rest of his days as he was previously, but with his impending death he realized that life was actually of no value as it was of no concern to him that he would did shortly (i.e. there was no difference if he were to die 1 day from now or 30 years from now). His apathy stays, but he learns more and more from it and gains a new perspective from what he values in life (which is actually nothing).
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider of the crime, one would accuse Meursault as a heartless and apathetic man. It can be seen by many of the people that played a role in the trial that he never felt any remorse for the death of his mother nor killing the Arab in broad daylight. During the events leading to the crime, the visual imagery used creates a better understanding of Meursault’s point of view. He claims, “The sun was the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman… My eyes were blinded behind the curtain of tears and salt… The scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes… My whole being tensed and I squeezed my hand around the revolver.” (Camus 58-59). In this passage, he focuses on the physical aspect of the environment rather than his thoughts and feelings. It seems as though the sun has been causing a major distraction for Meursault during events of death such as Maman and the Arab and plays a vital role in the novel. It almost makes it seem as though he was the innocent one in the crime and the sun and the beating heat was to blame for his murder. After the crime had occurred, he started to question his sanity because of all the accusations placed on him. Meursault says, “...that for the first time in years I had this stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all these people hated me.” (90), showing that Meursault actually felt saddened by the situation he put himself in. But in the end it can be seen that he was happy by his oncoming execution and is actually welcoming his death. The events of the crime unfolded as they did because his conflicts on morality shows the struggles of a person who leads an absurd life.
ReplyDeleteAs an outside just simply looking at Meursault, there would be a number of different reasons I would be able to interpret for the actions of Meursault. First of all I would be able to already see him as an emotionally detached person, who does not care at all of what society or people perceive him to be as, which causes me to exclude the reason that he was doing it out of loyalty towards his associate Raymond. Although furthermore about Meursault's nihilistic, sociopath -like behavior, Meursault is one who acts amorally, which means he does not know what is right nor wrong. On top of his unknowing of the ethically correct, he is very isolated from society’s expectations on how one should act, so that further pushes him to be more lost on what he should do. Additionally, Meursault does not hide his feelings, and expresses whatever he feel, as it was very clear when his mother died, that he expressed indifference rather than faking grief. By putting all of these factors of Meursault's character into context of killing the arab an argument along the lines of saying Meursault's amoral state of mind, isolation of society, and compulsive behavior to express whatever he feels caused him to murder the arab. Also everything may have unraveled the way it had, to portray the true indifference Meursault felt about life itself.
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider looking in Meursault, anyone could clearly see that Meursault is a man that is emotionless and has no personality whatsoever. Throughout the entire book, he did not have any care for the world or the people around him. He did not feel remorse, love, etc. During his Maman’s funeral, Meursault’s mother, Albert Camus uses a lot of weather diction and Meursault complains a lot about the weather and the environment. During this whole time, he never grieves about Maman’s death and he seems to always blame the weather/environment for his problems in his life. When he shot the Arab, Meursault also considers the conditions of the weather/environment in his decision of shooting the Arab. He doesn’t want to confront his feelings that he feels and shuts them out from being expressed. His behavior in both situations are fairly odd and one would not think that anyone could act this way in these situations. Meursault’s actions aren’t completely unjustified seeing that he didn’t seem to kill the Arab for Raymond but he has more of an indifferent attitude about his actions. And in the end, he accepts his death and seems to embrace that he is going to die. Most people try to fight the death penalty but Meursault really had no opinion on it and was untroubled that he was sentenced to the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are a lot of reasons for Meursault’s actions in The Stranger. A big reason that Camus wrote the book this way is portray Meursault as the “absurd hero”. He needed all of these events in the book to happen in order for Meursault to fit the existentialist philosophy of the absurd. This is especially seen at the end of the novel and gives reasons why the crime played out how it did. For example, one of Camus’ themes was the revolt, where the hero has to have a spirit of defiance against any unfairness. Meursault did this during his trial, which was laced with preposterous accusations. He was angered by how the prosecution portrayed him, and that he did not have a chance to speak for himself. Also, Meursault shows “the revolt” when he is faced with his punishment (death) for killing the Arab. He does not know when he will die, but instead of seeing death as his impending doom, he sees it as freedom and welcomes it. Meursault finds comfort in his punishment and somehow turns it into a positive thing. This is similar to Sisyphus, who was also an absurd hero.
ReplyDeleteAs for the reasons for Meursault committing the crime, there is no way to tell for sure, but I think it may have something to do with Meursault’s mother. I noticed that color symbolism is used a lot in this book. At the beginning of the book, after his mother’s funeral, Meursault describes the sky as “streaked with red” (12). Personally, red reminds me of blood, and the same red symbolism is used before Meursault kills the Arab. He says that the sky had the “same dazzling red glare”. I think that it is possible that the color red relates in both parts of the book. Red may have caused Meursault to think of his mother and her death, and therefore could be a reason for him committing the crime.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider looking in on Merusalt, what reasons for the events do YOU see? Why do you think the events (of the crime) unfold as they do?
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that Meursault had any prior intentions for the events of the crime to unfold as they did, he simply did the things that he did as a result of his apathy. Raymond had started to become friends with Meursault as his problem with the Arabs escalated - this was the main cause for what happened. Before Meursault got caught up in all of this and even before he had met Marie, in the wake of his mother's death he realized that he truly did not care about anything in any non insignificant amount. After finding out that Marie was in love with him he had a fairly similar response, mentally; having close to no emotion whatsoever and remaining apathetic toward yet another situation. As Meursault is making the decision to kill the Arab that he had been. Him killing or not killing the Arab was inconsequential: it didn't matter as he would die either way as he states in the latter part of the book, so he might as well. This is some of the rationalization that I could potentially see going on inside of Meursault's mind when making the decision to kill the Arab. Something important to note, however is that Meursault does not necessarily not care about his friends wellbeing and therefore may have felt it necessary for him to kill the Arab in order to keep Raymond s afe - even though Meursault knew that it didn't matter either way for the both of them.
When I initially observed Meursault, I found him as a callous, almost psychopathic man. Following every event, he simply absorbed what happened without pondering why. On numerous accounts, he views life as meaningless. Personally, I found this obscure. Why would Camus write a novel on one’s life if it was truly meaningless? The events of his life continued to get loathsome, but Meursault seemed indifferent. It seemed as though every human life to, no matter what events or tragedies occurred, was the same. The way he lived was so simple, yet complicated at the same time. One of the main reasons why I believe the events happened in such accumulated severity in the novel manifests as a test against Meursault’s emotions. Camus emphasizes on absurdism, where one must be defiant over suicide and submission to God. One of the main factors into achieving such rebellion so successfully is to detach from one’s emotions. The first tragedy, Maman's death is one common amongst most humans. Everyone in their lifetime will experience death at one point or another. Usually, individuals break down and strive to find purpose through their mourning in their own lives because they themselves become fearful. Yet, Meursault remains constant, only focusing on his surroundings and factual information rather than his feelings. Another significant moment of human sensibility is through love. Yet again, he seems indifferent with his relationship with Marie. Although there are countless examples, the most significant is the murder enacted by Meursault on the beach. The visual imagery used for the waves, sun and sweat of Meursault all taunt him to give in to his emotions, yet his ability to cast off guilt leaved him as the “absurd hero” Camus wanted him to be.
ReplyDeleteSartrean Existentialism refers to the philosophy that existence precedes essence meaning that humans do not have a predestined path and the choices and actions one makes define who he really is. This idea is prevalent throughout No Exit with the use of direct characterization. For example, when Garcin explains the reason why he was placed in hell he states, “I’m here because I treated my wife abominably.” (Sartre 24). Although he completely neglected his wife, he does not regret treating her the way he had. Garcin is aware of what his actions had brought upon him: a place in hell. This portrays Sartre’s philosophy of accepting internal freedom and being able to choose which path to take, which, in Garcin’s case, chose to mentally abuse his wife. Another example of accepting existentialism is when Inez explains her wrongdoing back on earth which consists of seducing her cousin’s wife. She then says, “You know, I don’t regret a thing…” (25). Looking back on it, Inez understands that her brutality had resulted in an eternal punishment but in the end, she would not trade it for anything else. Both of these characters are owning up to what they had done on earth and sees which events had lead them to where they are now. Accepting one’s existence supports Sartre’s philosophy since it accepts the responsibility of having complete and total freedom.
ReplyDeleteJean Paul Sartre believes that “existence comes before essence,” meaning that humans have no pre-established purpose or nature, nor anything that we have to or ought to be. He believes that humans choose their own path to determine who they will become and that one’s actions define him/her; humans are forced to create themselves. In the play, “No Exit,” Sartre displays his belief of existence throughout his characters. One character he displays this in is Inez. She says, “Well, I was what some people down there called “a damned bi***.” Damned already. So it’s no surprise, being here” (Sartre 25). She describes how she was not a very good person, or a nice one but she clearly seems to accept her consequences for being such a “snob” ‘down there’. She embraces what her actions on earth did to her and takes responsibility for what she did. One can also see the belief of existence in Garcin. He says, “... I’m here because I treated my life abominably…” (24). While alive ‘down there’, Garcin describes how he treated his wife horribly for five years until he died. He did not regret how he treated her for so many years and comes to accept how he treated her and that his actions led him to where he is now. These two characters both seemed to embrace their actions and what their actions led them to; karma.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen reading No Exit, there was one very obvious example of existence. Sartre addressed existence in his works (and existentialism literally has the word exist in it:)). He stated that “existence comes before essence”, which means that humans do not have a pre-established nature or attitude. They are born into the world and they have to make choice that will define what kind of person they are. In the play, Estelle is frightened when she realizes that she has no mirror and will never be able to look at herself again. She says, “Don’t you ever get taken that way? When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself to make sure, but it doesn’t help much” (19). Besides portraying Estelle’s conceitedness, this quote seemed important to me. It seems strange that without Estelle being able to see herself, she feels she does not exist. Inez volunteers to be a mirror for Estelle, and tricks her into thinking she has a pimple on her face. Estelle lets Inez define her existence or “essence” and how she views herself. Existence to Estelle is completely dependent on how other people view her, particularly Inez. Inez seems to define Garcin also. He had done terrible things and life and admits it to the others, but he does not seem like he has dealt with it. He wants to be left alone because he knows that his own hell is others judging him for his actions. Inez seems to be this person for him, and it is obviously not Estelle, who is trying to seduce Garcin. She refuses to leave him in peace and forget the others are there. This forces Garcin to face his problems, which defines his existence.
In a literal sense, existence is the state of living or having objective reality. Jean Paul Sartre defines existence as essene, and one must utilize personal freedom in order to define their existence. As Inez, Estelle, and Garcin endure the horrors of hell, the willingness to exist drastically changes through Estelle. At the beginning of the novel she states, “Somehow I feel we’ve never been so much alive as now” (12). Although all individuals expected torture physically in hell, they soon recognize that the agony they were put in is mental suffering. Simple luxuries and freedom given on earth such as brushing teeth and most importantly rest are taken away. Garcin mentions how on Earth, humans had the ability to blink, and despite the fact that it was only for a miniscule amount of time, it provided relaxation and rest. Sleeping is the closest thing to “death” humans can have while living. Thus, when death occurs, they imagine an eternity of rest found in heaven. In a sense, they become non existent encompassed in a world of tranquility. Estelle states she’s never felt so alive because she refers to the lack of rest they have, and at the time, it was seemingly a good thing. Yet, as conflicts emerge between all three characters, silence and rest become almost impossible, and Estelle’s optimistic attitude fades. She soon realizes that she does not want others to exist anymore, stabs Inez, but fails because they are already in death. Through this, I believe Sartre conveys how existence is inevitable, whether one is physically dead or alive, and one must make the most out of the situation because there is “No Exit”.
ReplyDeleteIn "No Exit" Jean Paul Sartre takes various stances on the topics relating to existence - he creates several ideas that open one's mind to the question "What does it mean to exist?". Through his questioning of the senses and sense perception these ideas of existence come to fruition. Firstly, there are several implications by Garcin, Inez, and Estelle that during their time in hell (or eternity I suppose), they must serve some purpose or have some purpose served in order for their existence to be considered meaningful; otherwise why would they still exist and why would this play exist? The purpose that is alluded to by these residents of hell is that they each must be punished eternally for their wrongdoings on earth. This causes for each one of them to believe that the next person to enter was the person that was supposed to be torturing them. Another aspect of the group’s collaborative quest not to annoy one another was met through their attempted lack of communication with each other. This part of the dynamic between the group members shows that each of them serves a very specific purpose: they all exist with each other in order to provide a hellish annoyance, as Garcin points out early on. This not so desireable purpose shows that one’s existence may not serve a positive or may even serve a harmful purpose, but so long as they have a purpose there is no distinction, they exist for a reason - which is an interesting stance that Sartre takes at existence and how having a purpose or believing that one does can lead to what we call existence.
ReplyDeleteIn the play "No Exit" Jean Paul Sartre defines the idea of existence as "absurd" and states that life has no meaning. Jean Paul Sartre also says that one must make use of the freedom, as freedom of choice can allow one to escape "nausea." This can be seen through different characters in the story such as Estelle. Estelle needs to look in the mirror, because she feels the need to be reassured of her existence, and her presence. One key part of existentialism is being aware of oneself, and one’s place in the world. Estelle symbolizes this need. She says, “‘When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist’” (19). There aren’t any mirrors, because in death, the three main characters had to be stripped of their former self, so they could find themselves again. In death, man is most authentic, and most aware of their place in the world, even if they can’t always see it. Estelle’s use of the mirror does seem to constitute bad faith (self-deception), in Inez’s eyes, because she’s only seeing the physical manifestation of herself, and avoiding her character, and her past mistakes.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of existence is represented in the play “No Exit” as a theme that makes humans must have their life define them rather than what they were should live like. This idea is a core element of existentialism as it essentially means our actions in life define us, and we should live the way we want to without having society, a predetermined purpose, or religion dictate our actions. This idea connects to the play, because as we get into the past of each other characters except for the valet in the play, we learn how their actions defined them, and what society would have defined each of them as. Garcin for an example was thought of as coward for fleeing his country during wartime, but to an existentialist, calling Garcin a coward is causing him to anguish for something that he thought was best for him under his free existential life. Garcin simply put was just living life the way he wanted to, but since society called him out on his actions it deprives his freedom to define himself and therefore would be another reason why at the end of the play he ends up stating that “Hell is other people”. Another prime example to further support this is when Estelle who totally depends on the mirror to define her existence allows Inez to be her mirror, and Inez lies to Estelle telling her she a pimple on her face. In a less literal sense this meant that Estelle left her state of existence in the eyes of Inez, who would distort Estelle’s existence and then end up ruining the existence that Estelle should have, because she chose to have others judge her. Therefore by interpreting the importance of how one lived their life vs. how society seeing how they lived their life, the philosophical idea of existing reveals itself in this play in the sense that people should live their life boundlessly to truly define themselves.
ReplyDeleteBased off of Jean Paul Sartre’s description throughout the play of Estelle’s personality, it seems as if she cares about her appearance a lot. She makes this big ordeal when she's wanting to apply some touch ups to her face and she finds out that no one in the room has a mirror. Estelle is so used to being able to see her reflection every single day and touching up her make-up whenever she felt the need to. But ever since she died, she has not been able to see her reflection because there is no type of glass in the underworld. I think that what Estelle means by, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist,” has something to do with her death. When people die, their family, loved ones, and friends usually grieve and remember them when they were alive. But after some time, people begin to move on and slowly put the dead in the back of their mind. This can refer to how she wonders if she really truly exists because of this factor and that she can’t see herself. Also in the underworld, Estelle’s personality will change and she will change as a person overall. She will not be the same as she was back on Earth. Since Estelle can not see her reflection anymore and she will change as a person while she’s in the underworld, I think this is what she means by when she says this quote.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the time people think of their existence in terms of what sort of effect they have had on others - i.e. the way in which they have changed the world and the people around them. At a minimum, history will be changed in at least some minute way just by existing and having people looking at you. This is precisely the case that Estelle is going through: if she is unable to see herself, her smallest and most simple mark on the world is lost, her appearance (well, at least for her it is). She has an appropriate reaction as she is questioning what sort of effect she really has on the people around her. This leads me to the next point that this idea of leaving a mark on the people around you is closely tied to one's purpose in life - which for Estelle is being as horrible as possible to the people around her: essentially torturing them. The idea that she is to torture the people around them is the only reason that she still exists is somewhat disheartening. On the other hand however, it is somewhat illogical for Estelle to say that her not being able to see herself makes her wonder if she truly exists. This is because she is conscious and is experiencing the world around her, so she obviously exists right? Well this begs the question, "What does it mean to exist?". Which brings us back to the deffiniton gave earlier that one's existence is based upon what impact they have on the world around them, so in the end it is for the individual to decide what constitutes existing and wether not having a mirror should determine wether one exists or not.
ReplyDeleteWhen Estelle verbalizes, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist”, she refers to her existence on earth. Part of what constructs one’s being on Earth is how one impacts others and their surroundings. Once they are dead, they can no longer create and impact and cease to exist. A recurring theme in No Exit was that once every character’s story was revealed, they started to lose sight of Earth. It seems that lack of admittance to their crimes allowed them to keep intact with the world around them because there was still something unknown. When revelation came, whether through themselves or with others, there was no more conflict and their further existence didn’t matter. When Inez looks back at the Earth and realizes that a man and women were making love on her bed, careless of Inez, she says, “ Blacked out. I can’t see or hear a thing. So I’m done with the Earth it seems. No more alibis for me! I feel so empty, desiccated - really dead at last” (29). What leads Inez to feel such incredible emptiness was the lack in care by other people and the lack of remembrance of her on Earth. The fact that others think/hear/say things about each individual allows them to have affirmation of their existence. Similarly, Estelle gained affirmation of her physical existence through a mirror. So, when people are no longer able to impact others, they are unable to exist or have essence.
ReplyDeleteEven though I already wrote about this quote in my last blog, I can put this quote into context of Estelle’s character now that I have read the whole book in class. Obviously, Estelle is a very conceited character because she needs to look at a mirror every five minutes and cares so much about how other people view her. But this also makes me wonder about how this can apply to life in general. I think that we tend to obsess over how others see us and by looking in a mirror, we can control what people see and how we appear to them. We can uses mirrors not just to control our physical appearances, but metaphorically we can control how we act. How we act determines people’s opinions of us, and if we cannot be viewed how we want to, then we do not feel in control. Also, the fact that Estelle believed that she did not exist without being able to see herself may mean that it does not feel like reality when she cannot control how others view her. She is not able to see how she looks to Garcin and Inez, so they are the only ones that can truly define her. They are the only ones that can act as her mirror and tell her how they view her because she is not able to reflect on herself.
ReplyDeleteTo make sense of the quote, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist” that Estelle said in the play, I think it is a reference to her identity pertaining to what makes her believe she is her who exists. The was very awkwardly put, by the significance of what I meant was that Estelle’s identity or what she made of herself in her life was her physical appearance and without the visibility to be able to herself she cannot confirm she exists, because she lacks her worldly identity even though she would be able to logically tell that she exists. The quote then becomes more significant as later on she depends on Inez to be her mirror, and this under an existential mentality would mean that Estelle has given up her faith to trust herself, and has allowed society to tell her she exists. The reason why this would be so bad in an existentialist point of view is because people should be what they make of themselves not what society thinks or tells them what they are. So going back to the quote, Estelle must now rely on others to be her mirrors, because since she lost her tool of confirming her existence of her true identity, and this may alter who she may have truly been or will be, which destroys the foundation of embracing existence. Sartre’s purpose must have been to reveal an example of how society would be able to take away one’s ability to exist.
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Estelle is questioning her own existence after she discovers the absence of mirrors in hell. She continues to add on the fact that she had six mirrors in her room and is saddened by how she can see them but they can’t see her. She states, “They’re [mirrors] reflecting the carpet, the settee, the window--but how empty it is, a glass in which I’m absent! When I talked to people I always made sure there was one near by in which I could see myself. I watched myself talking. And somehow it kept my alert, seeing myself as the others saw me…” (Sartre 19). This indirectly characterizes Estelle as one who is in touch with the physical aspects of the world. Her egoistic nature can be seen through this quote since she focused on her physical outlook rather than what was on the inside. She finds comfort through the thought of seeing herself in comparison to Inez who lets her mind wander. This juxtaposes Inez statement when she says, “You’re lucky. I am conscious of myself--in my mind. Painfully conscious.” (19) who is aware of her existence and does not question her place in hell. This can also explain why she needed Garcin to show her love. She barely knew him but needed him to make love to her and was willing to say she loved him just to receive worldly pleasures. Mirrors and his love helped her keep in touch with earth while revealing the self-centered nature of humans seen through the character of Estelle.
ReplyDelete