I agree with the statement that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd” for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is necessary to define absurd accurately because I think there are widespread common misconceptions on the actual meaning of this word. Absurd, when used to describe and idea or suggestion, means wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate. However, when describing an object or a situation, abused means arousing amusement or derision or ridiculous. I think this definition is more fitting because the statement is describing a situation. I agree with this statement because I think it is ridiculous and awe-inducing how much a random chance affects my life. The random change I am describing is often called the “Birth Lottery” by my parents, and I really like this term. The idea is basically that when you are born, it is totally random where you are born and what your situation is, so being born in a white, middle-class, and whole family really is winning the lottery. With this idea in mind, it becomes clear that the majority of personality, beliefs, and ideas are so greatly affected by my situation and my personal experiences that are a direct result of my environment. Everything I believe and do on a daily basis is completely dependent on the time, place, and economic environment I am living in. I do recognize that some of this could be contributed to genetics, but I think I would be a fundamentally different person if I lived in the 1860’s or in Australia. So, the idea that I was born in this specific time and place and to this specific family really is ridiculous to me. I don’t know how and why I got so lucky, but I do know that these factors have drastically shaped me as a person. I think it is important to recognize how lucky one is in this “Birth Lottery” and to use this recognition to aid those that maybe didn’t get the winning ticket.
I agree that the notion that I am born into a particular time, place, family and economic environment is absurd. It seems to me that everything that happens to each person is completely by chance, and this is why people can be so drastically different based on what chances and experiences they have compared to other people. Because I think that everything that happens to us is random/by chance, it seems absurd to me that we are meant to be born in a certain time/place. Although it doesn’t seem to be fair that some people are born into families that may be impoverished or oppressed, and I was born into a middle class family in a safe environment, I still believe that this is completely random. Although there is no real way that I could justify my claim, just as it would be impossible for someone to justify that it isn’t absurd, I confidently stand by my viewpoint. The only real justification that an individual may offer seems to me to be religion, which is faith based and therefore cannot be proven. Something interesting that I noticed was that each of the things listed in the claim are the things that I believe shape who a person is.
I agree with the statement that day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear. Personally, I’ve found that people are generally afraid of the unknown. Everyday that a person wakes up and goes through their daily routine, they experience something new. One will never live the same day twice. I believe that humans accept this fact but do everything in their power to change it by creating a routine in the first place. Daily rituals such as meals times, bathing and working are attempts to minimize the risk that comes along with trying new things. People eat the same things so they don’t become ill and stay with the same job, despite unhappiness, to secure a sense of comfort. Naturally humans seek safety. However, I would argue that this safety is never fully achieved because humans create their own dangers through doubt. This doubt manifests itself in daily life as distrust of others and fear of the uncertain future. I believe that getting older simply means becoming more afraid. Children aren’t aware of the dangers that surround them. They have no problem running out into the street until their parents tell them that they could be hit by a car. Even though most people never personally experience this, the fear of that outcome is so deeply ingrained in the general population that it is rare that a grown person would run out into the street. Fear is the most effective method of control. It surrounds us all everyday by those friendly reminders to get good grades or the rest of our lives will be ruined, or do what your boss tells you so that you don’t get fired, and to elect this politician or America will be destroyed.
This is Bella's blog post: I completely agree with this. I knowingly go about my life, taking advantage of these amazing opportunities presented to me and often take them for granted. Analyzing this question has made me realize just how lucky I am. I have hit a stroke of luck when it comes to genetics, meaning I am treated differently than others in many countries, but more specifically, this one. I’ve always heard about the terrible tragedies that occurred in the past having to do with racism and mistreatment of normal human beings because of their race, or religion. I now see that I have been sheltered my entire life, being surrounded by copies. It’s absurd how a person’s life can be so vastly different if you were born into a slightly different family or time period. You would think that with all of these small details leading to big changes, I would be exposed to a more diverse crowd. Luckily, I had the opportunity to live in Hawaii for the majority of my childhood. This exposed me to a completely different culture, showing me that there is much more out there to learn and explore. Though being born into a certain family and economic environment does affect the way a person lives their life, it also amazes me how different a person can become as they grow up. With all of the experiences people gather as they live their life, someone who used to be exactly like you as a child could be your opposite 20 years later. This just shows me that a person can be whoever they want, depending on a series of choices they make throughout their life, though this process may be impacted by many restrictions. -Bella Spagnuolo
I agree with the statement that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd” for multiple reasons. It's quite crazy to think that everyone is born in a particular place, and have no power of where it occurs. What is it that makes us, us? Is it already written in our genetic code from the moment we were created out of the glucose that our parents ate? Is it defined at the point of conception? Birth? Or is it continuously shaped throughout our life? What about time period? Some people do believe in reincarnation, and that people are born and reborn again throughout time. Still, depending on your views, there is usually no way to control these factors. It's also amazing to think that most people are defined and mostly influenced by the factors mentioned above (ie: time, place, family, and economic environment). It's also crazy to think that people are restricted from doing what they individually want to do in their lives, solely because of the place/time they grew up. So yes, it is insanely absurd to think that people are born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment.
I disagree with the statement that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd." Even though I agree with the fact that the world is very cruel and unfair, I would like to add there are many remarkable men who have made their lives count and made the best out of what they had. Many people who are born in conditions unimaginable by the privileged, have made a name and fortune for themselves and have accomplished remarkable things in their life that the privilege may consider impossible. A real life example of this is the girl named Malala Yousafzai, who gained media attention after she was shot for standing for what she believed in, an activist for women's education who would later on won a nobel prize at the age of 17. So yes, I do believe that life is unfair and we are born into it unjust and there will always will be someone out there who has more privileges than you; but isn't life just a competition, and like every competition the excitement is always in watching the underdogs beat the undefeated team who has the fancy gear and perfect clean court and the super expensive coaches and trainers! The world is full of people who have proven the unfair world wrong, from people who are adored and came up from nothing and had to work to get to where they are now such as superstar NBA players, to people who started with a small loan of a millions of dollars and now are running for presidency! Even though I'm going against what every one else blogged, which they talked about the negative side and how it is absurd, I'm going to talk about how no matter what race you are, no matter if you are white, Black, Brown or Asian, no matter where you were born and grew up in, if its the friendly white suburban neighborhoods of portland or the slime corners of east Atlanta, no matter you come from a family that loves each other and sits at dinner table every night and laughs or come from a place where family doesn't mean what it should mean, you can overcome those obstacles and come out the other side a stronger man. I have faith that in this world no matter all the disadvantages you are in you can still win at this game of life, all you need is passion and hard work and you can achieve greatness like never seen before; and I truly believe that...... -Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
I do not agree that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd”, because of the evidence evident from my encounters on the Earth. The common notion of “fate” is a bit too far of a controlling hold on life, but there are definite reasons why each and everyone of us know each other, reasons why our grandmother is who our grandmother is, and why certain lessons our parents have taught us stick with us. I am very much appreciative of the circumstances I have been born into; ones which allowed me the fortunes of seeing comparisons across our world: where I have seen living circumstances, physical, mental conditions of societies, and ideological beliefs all different to my thoughts and perspectives from growing up in (Beaverton) Oregon (United States). Many people you meet, you can feel a presence from; one of intelligence, wisdom, kindness, hostility, violence. It is no coincidence each of us possesses these qualities, ones which we can use in the world. All these positive qualities seem to fit directly to the needs of others in the world. I cannot believe that the circumstances that have allowed me to nurture and harbor these personal skills and abilities were by random chance- they are all based on experiences that I’ve had to hone them. There have been plenty of experiences that could have shaped my path and personality in the way of a completely different person, so why, with two people with nearly similar experiences can both come out and move forward completely differently? Because of our predispositions, and the nature of our beings. - Nicholas Rex
I do not agree that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd”, because of the evidence evident from my encounters on the Earth. The common notion of “fate” is a bit too far of a controlling hold on life, but there are definite reasons why each and everyone of us know each other, reasons why our grandmother is who our grandmother is, and why certain lessons our parents have taught us stick with us. I am very much appreciative of the circumstances I have been born into; ones which allowed me the fortunes of seeing comparisons across our world: where I have seen living circumstances, physical, mental conditions of societies, and ideological beliefs all different to my thoughts and perspectives from growing up in (Beaverton) Oregon (United States). Many people you meet, you can feel a presence from; one of intelligence, wisdom, kindness, hostility, violence. It is no coincidence each of us possesses these qualities, ones which we can use in the world. All these positive qualities seem to fit directly to the needs of others in the world. I cannot believe that the circumstances that have allowed me to nurture and harbor these personal skills and abilities were by random chance- they are all based on experiences that I’ve had to hone them. There have been plenty of experiences that could have shaped my path and personality in the way of a completely different person, so why, with two people with nearly similar experiences can both come out and move forward completely differently? Because of our predispositions, and the nature of our beings. - Nicholas Rex
I agree with the statement “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family and economic environment is absurd” because absurd in this statement is basically saying ridiculous or ludicrous. I agree with the statement because I do believe that the time, the place, what family and what economic environment we are born into is completely ridiculous because all of these aspects are so small, yet so crucial to our life and who we grow up to be as an individual. These contributing aspects are all very random and that is another reason why I agree because no individual can control their own or another person’s birth. Another reason why I agree with this statement is because usually the economic environment, place and family that one is born into determines where they end up in life. There are a few exceptions to this happening, such as very determined individuals for example that want to make a better life for themselves than what they had as a child in terms of economic standpoints and other factors that contribute to their lives and how they live. However, for the most part, wherever a person is born is where they tend to stay for the rest of their lives simply because of they people they are connected with, where they live and how they were raised.
A man’s encounter with the absurd changes his perspective in various different ways. First, the absurd is the idea of how humans are always looking for an answer, but because the universe does not create an absolute truth, man will continue searching for answers knowing that there isn’t one in hope that they will find it one day. A man’s knowledge that he doesn’t have a purpose in the world and that he will never find an absolute truth changes his perspective because once someone realizes that they no longer have a purpose in anything, their attitude about how to engage certain situations is changed. For example, there would be a lack of motivation in whatever they do and would have no reason in essence to give any effort because they know that they won't gain any benefit from trying. If man is doing things without a purpose, it changes his perspective in a way that he no longer has anything to believe in. A man’s perspective could also change because they know that they won’t get anywhere in life or won’t have a future because things are always going to be the same due to how they does not have a purpose in the world. The absurd doesn’t allow people to believe in afterlife or a greater power such as God, so this can also change a man’s perspective because he will only believe in his current living and nothing greater than his life.
The absurd in this context describes the conflict between the human tendency to find value and meaning in life and human inability to find it. In this instance, Sisyphus is literally condemned to work until he dies and he knows it. Sisyphus must struggle perpetually without hope of success. This idea shares vague similarities with societal expectations and the “natural” course of human life of working until one retires. This “retirement” is just abstract enough that it feels unattainable and the modern person finds themselves in very much the same position as Sisyphus without ever making a conscious decision. This encounter with the absurd, especially in Sisyphus, demonstrates how man’s encounter with the absurd drastically changes his perspective. In this myth, Sisyphus is fully aware of the never ending nature of his situation and the hopelessness of his future. Albert Camus argues that one must imagine him happy and that as long as Sisyphus accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd struggle, then he can find happiness. This idea explains that someone can be content in the slight moment when the rock has reached the top of the hill, watching it roll, and before starting the descent to continue the struggle. In this small moment, if one is aware of the struggle and accepts it as the truth, one can be happy. And one must imagine Sisyphus happy if there is any hope for the rest of us. Reading the myth, it is startlingly similar to the life plan that so many of us have. We will do well in high school, pushing the rock up the hill, then watch it roll down as we apply to and get accepted in college. We will do well in college, pushing the rock up the hill, then watch it roll down as we get a job. We will work, pushing the rock up the hill, then watch it roll down as we retire. This repetitive nature of seemingly pointless work for a hopeless future reflects the absurd, and one must accept it to be happy. In a way, man’s encounter with the absurd both broadens his perspective and narrows it. It narrows it as he realizes the inability to find true meaning in life, and it broaden it because it enables him to truly accept his situation and find happiness.
I believe that humans generally assign meaning to the things they do in life. However, an encounter with the absurd can quickly put things into perspective. The realization that some people accept that the meaning of life is either nonexistent or unattainable may be frustrating because it seems to eliminate the reasons for the unpleasant things we do. As Katja pointed out, we work very hard in life because we believe there is a reward for us. For example, extremist religious groups live conservative lives that may be difficult and unpleasant at times because they are under the impression that it will earn them eternal happiness after death. An encounter with the absurd can make these people feel as though the effort they have put into their lives may be worth nothing. It is a possibility that these people are right, and they are living the lives we were all meant to live. It is also a possibility that a human’s decision to drink alcohol or have sex or not attend church means close to nothing in the grand scheme of life. We may be putting too much importance on our own existence. Absurdity can give us a healthy dose of reality in that it requires us to remove the importance we place on our actually irrelevant lives. The acceptance of this perspective is both inspiring and dangerous. It is inspiring because it can help us remove some of the unnecessary stress in life. If we accept that one failing grade in one class is not the end of the world, we can focus more on living the short lives that we have as enjoyably as possible. On the other hand, accepting one failing grade may lead to apathy toward grades in general. Then apathy toward education and learning which can lead to complete chaos and moral anarchy. In order for absurdity to be practical, everyone must accept that life itself should be valued, but the lives of others must also be respected, even if that makes living slightly less enjoyable for yourself.
I think that a man's encounter with the absurd can drastically change his perspective on a number of issues. To encounter the absurd means to realize that looking for the meaning of life is hopeless because we are incapable of finding it. I think that this would change many religious people’s actions and ways of life because knowing that they cannot find the answer may cause many to lose faith, and faith is what holds these religious communities together. I think that knowing this may also cause some peace within people who are already sceptical that they will ever be able to find meaning, and allow them to move on and life their life. This also changes perspective because these people may not try to find meaning is as many things as they did before. I think that liberating people from the struggle of trying to find meaning in something that they cannot would be eye opening to many people. I don't think that the resulting change in perspective can be characterized as either good or bad, I think it depends entirely on the views that an individual already has before the event occurs.
Group 4: How does man’s encounter with the absurd change his perspective?
If a man grows up eating dirt, he will think nothing of it; not to hate it, or love it. But once that man tastes of the sweetness of a cookie, he will hate the dirt- and see differently the dirt forever. Similarly, Sisyphus thinks nothing of his perpetually pointless pushing of the boulder up the hill, only to see it roll back to the bottom at his glancing triumph. When Sisyphus tastes of the Sun, of the waves, and of the goodness possible above, he no longer desires to push the rock because he see’s of its frivolousness. Upon his return, his view of his task is sorrowful; longing of what he enjoyed in life above: gratification, reward, enjoyment- rather than repeating the same absurd, unyielding motions. A man’s encounter with the absurd will cause him to address the eternal question, that will haunt him, yet it does not need to be eternal. One thing I do not quite understand about absurdism and the myth of Sisyphus is the concept of accepting the absurd, to make it “disappear”. The concept of realizing the absurd and being bothered by it,-which inspires to act in one way another on it,- being bothered by the fact that you may never be able to answer all questions, is the very reason people live, without it, literally all our actions are pointless, but we just realize they are pointless. Like Sisyphus, he realizes rolling the rock is useless, because he has tasted of the beautiful world above. Yet he still does it, why? Why does he accept his “fate”, and what is to say he cannot change that? Why not? Likewise with absurdism: Why accept that we will (may) never know? If you stop seeking, you will never find. Because you are no longer looking. I think you die the moment you stop searching, not the moment you desert and deny that the truth is out there. -Nicholas Rex
How does man’s encounter with the absurd change his perspective?
This question is absurd by itself! The absurd here could have any meaning from supernatural events to illogical reasoning. If we talk about supernatural events such as miracles and luck and how it is absurd and how it effects man's perspective we can point out that there is two sides to it. A positive side which makes people start what are called "faith" and "religions", and a negative side which makes people lose their respect and morals for humanity and commit actions that may not be considered by the society around them "good" and "right" and be labeled as "criminals" or "not good people". Supernatural events such as miracles such as, when someone is in a car accident and the chances of them surviving was zero but they still survived, can convince people that a higher being exists and that life is meaningful and create religions and faith which are positive and make the world a better place. It can change a man's perspective on life by giving a motive a reason to live and not be afraid to die. A negative side to absurd events that aren't, well, "miracles", for example "bad luck" or even like discussed in the last blog topic the place of birth and the social hierarchy that you are born into, can force people to do "absurd" things to survive in this world full of absurd unwritten rules. Hardships in life and following absurd rules and implied discriminations and injustice can drive people to turn to unconventional methods and actions that may be considered "immoral" by other people in higher social ranks that could never understand the reasoning and necessity of the actions that had to be taken to survive. Living in these hardships can change a man's perspective on life, how to live it and the reasoning and moral issue behind his every action. The same as how people who live life as if it is a fairy tale and have faith that miracles happen to them because life is beautiful and that everything happens for a reason have been influenced by this illusion that absurd events happen because they are meant to and that you should accept your faith. So yes man does get influenced by events, doesn't matter if its absurd or not. One can change someone to a person with a bright perspective on life and thinking of how his actions can consequence others and the other leads to a person who doesn't have that belief in life and its moral rules and takes lightly of the actions he takes in life. It all depends on what absurd events have happened to you and how you took them and reacted to them. -Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
I think the relationship between Old Salamano and his dog is not only the most symbolically significant relationship but also the most genuine and loving. This is a little troubling because “...he beats the dog and swears at it” (27) and it is still the most genuine and valid relationship in this novel. Salamano may not show any affection for the dog when they are together, but it is very evident that he really loves his dog because when the dog disappears, “He was crying” (39) and seemed to be genuinely distraught. This relationship also proposes an idea that is continued in this novel that one can get used to anything and accept it as the new normal. When Salamano's wife died, he was very sad and lonely, but then he essentially replaced his wife with a dog. It is described that “He hadn’t been happy with his wife, but he’d pretty much gotten used to her. When she died he had been very lonely. So he asked a shop buddy for a dog and he’d gotten this one very young.” (44) This shows that he wasn’t happy with his wife, but just accepted it and moved on. Following this, he replaces his wife with a dog and seems to be rather content with it. This idea is mirrored when Meursault is in jail and gets used to it enough to find a kind of happiness and contentment in jail. It is also ironic that the big final reveal of this book was present in the story the entire time. Meursault may know that death is approaching, but he doesn’t accept it until the very end of the novel. However, Salamano and his dog have been present in his life for a while and represent death and dying. Both the dog and the man are old and “After living together for so long, the two of them alone in one tiny room, they’ve ended up looking like each other.” (26) The dog’s disease is described in gruesome detail, which really makes the reader face the idea of death and disease, but Meursault seems blissfully unaware of this until he has to face death himself.
Albert Camus uses Marie and Meursault’s relationship to create a dominant effect of physical attraction to characterize Meursault as a shallow person. Marie is never described in much depth in regards to her personality traits. When it comes to her physical beauty, on the other hand, the author spares no detail. He writes “I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals. You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower”(34). Meursault is a generally apathetic person. When his mother dies, he feels very little emotional discomfort. However, his physical needs are exaggerated. Both the heat of the sun and his attraction to Marie seem to be the only things he ever is passionate about. His attraction to Marie is purely physical. It is rare that the reader is informed of anything Marie says or any intellectual insight she has. For the most part, they swim and sleep together. Feeling anything for another person, even if it is purely physical, is enough for Meursault. This exemplifies his absurd views because for most people, love is the most important part of their life. Meursault would probably disagree with this notion and may even claim that there isn’t anything important about life. However shallow it may be, sex is an important part of everyone’s life. What makes Meursault different is that it is the only thing that he ever seems to care about and he doesn’t actually care about the other person. This relationship reveals the extreme absurdist views of Meursault and his general disregard for other people.
In part one of “The Stranger” we see several relationships. I noticed that in most of the relationships presented, there was always one person who was more dominant or who was seeking to use the other person in some sort of way. One relationship stood out from all of the others because it was genuine. The relationship between Maman and Perez was very special because neither of them were looking to take advantage of one another or gain anything more than company. When Maman died, the caretaker explained to Meursault, “I’m sure you understand. It’s a rather childish sentiment. But he and you mother were almost inseparable”(13). The caretaker mentions how it was rather a ‘childish’ sentiment it becomes evident that their relationship was effortless and true from the heart just as relationships with children. Children are innocent and have few worries in the world, so to compare the relationship of Maman and Perez shows how their relationship was very distinct from the rest. It also comes to show that they didn’t care about using one another for anything. As well as comparing the relationship to children, the caretaker also says how the two were ‘inseparable’. Very rarely can people stand to be near the same person for a great length of time, so this is another reason why their relationship was so special and innocent. Most people would get sick of being around one single individual, but the fact that they could do it by choice just shows how they really wanted nothing more from one another than each other’s company.
Group 4: We see several relationships dominate Part I. Pick ONE such relationship (Salamano and his dog; Marie & Meursault; Raymond and Meursault, etc.) What ties these individuals together? Do you think this relationship is true or valid?
Salamano and his dog The relationship between Salamano and the world is very similar to that of his dog and the world: Salamano lacks the ability to communicate effectively with the world-which I think has been a large cause for him to become so introverted and awkward and a little nuts. Salamano’s dog is very similar- even different when compared to other dogs- a confused little chipper with a capricious attitude. Is this what ties them together in the world? Being alone and different?- which has caused them to become a little clammy and monstrous. Is this prevalent in our world? Do we see the effects of our receivement from the world on us, on our environment influencing us, or those surrounding us affecting us? Back to answer the question: Yes I believe this relationship is very genuine- but genuine in its own strange way. First you must define a “real” relationship: one of intimate feelings, ones that will last, not fade at the loss of sensual experience. When compared to the relationship of the others (Raymond and gf, Meursault and gf) they are both whackjobs in their own sense, but the relationship they have with their lady friends is either of ravaged hate that was carved by lustful premeditations, or of indifference taking hold of some the most serious decisions of life. Salamano and his dog appear to hate each other’s presence, but really, Salamano cannot live without his closest pal.
A relationship that really stood out to me in part one was the relationship between Meursault and Maman. I think Maman had a large impact on Meursault throughout the entire novel, but more specifically in the beginning. In part one when the author describes Maman’s death it is brief and quick. This is similar to how Meursault reacts. Usually when a family member passes away, the family allows themselves to grieve and their body and mind naturally turn to that after suffering such a great loss. Meursault is different in a way, meaning that he does not allow himself this time. Instead, he puts up a wall between reality and himself, blocking out all emotion. Evidence of this is shown throughout the novel, but in part one he uses wine, cigarettes, and coffee to distract himself. The author brings up Meursault’s constant thirst and need of a cigarette or coffee. This symbolizes his caged emotions trying to escape the mask he is hiding them behind. It is obvious that he is not ready to accept Maman’s death, and this reflects in all of his actions. As Meursault carries on with his simple life, it seems to be a constant struggle for him. I also noticed that he enjoyed being alone for the first part of the novel, partly because he felt so strange and out of place. He understood that he was reacting abnormally, but he had no idea why. As the novel progresses, what once was just the death of a family member will turn into a journey of self discovery as Meursault goes through the stages of acceptance of Maman’s death.
Blog 4 Group 4: Do you think Meursault ever felt remorse for his crime? No, Meursault never felt a scrape of remorse for his crime, because he did not ever see it as one- he saw the killing as a happening, an event that occurred, an obstacle, that changed courses, but only caused his mind more grief (or more emotion and thoughts for him to avoid resolving). The magistrate wants him to feel guilt so that he will come to God and repent, the only way to remove or lessen the guilt. But Meursault does not feel anything, so he does not care. That is why he struggles to respond properly, or to respond at all. There are instances when he shows his insensitivity, and near sociopathic mind, when he says “the woman kept on crying, I wished I didn't have to listen to her anymore” (Camus 10), at his mother’s funeral! (The funeral-where he hardly felt emotion, or reflected upon what his mother taught/experiences/memories/etc-- but it’s strange because he does do that at the end of the book, when he faces death.) Even when Meursault has eons in his prison cell to reflect on his life, the people, his actions, his possessions- he never once mentions thinking back to killing the Arab, or any of his “friends” in his before life, besides the occasional lustful fantasizing about Marie, initially, which also eventually fades. It’s almost as if his crime and subsequent time in prison changes him into a better person for society: he finally is able to align himself with a purpose- a purpose for why and what he thinks, instead of just dismissing everything off as menial or avoiding large important topics. Although I do not agree with all of his philosophies and conclusions at his end, HE seems to be in a much better state mentally than prior to his crime (even if the mental state is a little demented, it is focused). -Nicholas Rex
I do not believe that Meursault ever felt remorse for his crime because he is not able to see past himself. While speaking with the Magistrate, Meursault thinks, “I didn’t feel much remorse for what I’d done. But I was surprised by how relentless he was. I would have liked to have tried explaining to him cordially, almost affectionately, that I had never been able to truly feel remorse for anything” (pg 100). He clearly states here that he never felt any remorse and I believe this is an extension of his absurd views. He was of the belief that nothing really mattered so in his mind, why feel anything for anyone else? Although the second part of this statement was true for the entirety of the book, he did find one thing that he saw as significant in the bigger picture. Death. It is only a day before his execution when we can first see that he really feels fear and passion. He can’t sleep and yells angrily at the priest. He has hope for an appeal and feels disappointment when that hope is not achieved. Most shocking of all, he claims that if he did get an appeal he would make sure he spent his life watching every execution. This seems very odd and I still can’t say that I fully understand why he would wish to do that. However, it is possible that the things he feels before his own execution are better than no emotion. Maybe he would be able to experience these feelings again through the death of someone else. It is also possible that he wants to be a spectator so that he feels that he is part of something important. He did say that he hoped there would be a large crowd at his own execution and this might be because he likes feeling like some things matter. In the end, he never really saw past his own needs, but he did see some importance in his own life.
This is Bella's blog post: I don’t think Meursault felt remorse for his crime. It was obvious that he wasn’t allowing himself to feel and I think it is partly why he didn’t feel guilty. Throughout the book the author writes that he does not feel anything/doesn’t act how a normal person should. For this, he is punished and he feels that he is being wrongly accused. As shown by the conversation between Meursault and the Magistrate, it is hard for many people to understand him. He says, “Mostly, I could tell, I made him feel uncomfortable. He didn’t understand me, and he was sort of holding it against me. I felt the urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else, just like everybody else” (66). He can’t help but feel different as he is judged harshly by the Magistrate and he blames many of his actions on this difference that separates him and the rest of society. He feels as though he can’t control his actions and this explains why he does not feel remorse. Meursault refuses to accept his actions, resulting in his execution. However, I do think he realizes the full effect of what he as done at the very end of the novel. In the last chapter, Meursault is hit with a wave of emotion and is completely aware of his surroundings. It was almost if he had woken up from a dream. With this awakening, he has come to accept what he has done. The author writes, “I woke up with the stars in my face. Sounds of the countryside were drifting in. Smells of night, earth, and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous peace of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide” (122). Instead of feeling guilty, he just became okay with what he had done and accepted his future, and for the first time, he felt peaceful. -Bella Spagnuolo
I don’t believe that Meursault ever felt remorse for his crime. I think that his apathetic personality and his lack of emotion causes him to feel next to remorse for this crime. Even during the trial he refuses to accept that he is directly responsible for the death of the Arab and even says “the sun made me do it”. He may regret the situation that his actions have put him in, as one can see in his outburst of passion later in the story. Meursault, however, never has a grand “aha” moment where he realizes how terrible of a person he really is. He goes on believing that he shouldn’t be executed, that the trial was run wrong and that is why he is sentenced, that he should be free, and that he shares no part of the blame for this murder. Meursault says that "we're all elected by the same fate," that with this common fate of death, no one is privileged above any other person—therefore everyone is privileged. This is uncharacteristically optimistic of Camus, because he could have said that no one is privileged. This idea of fate determining his death is also shown in the idea that fate determined the death of the Arab. It was not in his control so he does not feel guilty for his crime. In his mind it may not have even been a crime. But Meursault thinks of everything that happened as predetermined to happen and as caused by some force that he cannot control. This is demonstrated when he blames the sun for his murder and he blames the biased trial for his execution. He never takes responsibility for his actions or the consequences of his actions. Additionally, he even sleeps soundly in prison, something that is regularly associated with being guilt free and peaceful. He gets used to prison life and doesn’t even feel inclined to turn to god as so many others have. This again supports the idea that man can get used to anything.
I don’t think Meursault felt any remorse for his crime at any time. Since he was so careless and unemotional, I feel as if that was the reason to why he or anyone would not feel remorse after murdering another human. Throughout the entire novel, Meursault does not show any emotion while having experienced and being put into many difficult and emotional situations. In the beginning of the book Maman dies and he doesn't even seemed phased by her death. Later in the book while explaining what happened as he was murdering the Arab he says, “Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace”(59). If Meursault felt remorse for killing the man, he wouldn’t have continued to shoot four more times when the man was clearly already dead. Later his lawyer asks him if he had felt any sadness when he found out about Maman’s death and he explains to him, “Nevertheless I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know”(65). Even after murdering someone and losing his mother, Meursault is still not capable of feeling any emotion because he has realized and accepted his fate. He has accepted the ‘absurd’, so he has realized that he shouldn't care about anything anymore. Lastly, he explains on page 100 how he “couldn’t understand how an ordinary man’s good qualities could become crushing accusations against a guilty man”. He basically found guilty at this point and is still calm. I think he is even convinced of his being guilty because he does not oppose or try to explain himself anymore after this point. He simply sits back and listens while other people determine his fate. If he had felt remorse for his actions than he would have spoken up, but rather he does not care so he decides to let others discuss his situation.
I highly doubt that Meursault felt any guilt after the murder. One of the greatest indicators of this is his incredible lack of emotion throughout the entirety of the novel. We see his lack of emotion, or even respect when he shoots the dead body of the arab an additional four times. The definition of remorse is to feel regret or guilt for something that you have done, and this scene makes it quite clear that Meursault didn’t feel either of those things. I think that this is the reason that that line is specifically in the book, otherwise his emotionless state could be analyzed otherwise. With this scene in the novel, there is no doubt to the reader that he didn’t regret anything that he had done.
Meursault even believes that he shouldn’t be executed because everyone has a set fate. This may show that Meursault may truly believe that since it was meant to be, that there is no reason that he should feel remorse because that was what was supposed to happen.
Freedom can be either physical or intellectual. In this play, however, the characters do not have either. Freedom, as a philosophical topic, is very prevalent in this play. It is fairly obvious that they are trapped physically in a room. There may be no official “torturer”, they are still being tortured by each other. This is demonstrated when Inez says “We’ll stay in this room together, the three of us, for ever and ever…” (17). This is reflected by Sartre's existentialist philosophy includes the phrase that "existence precedes essence." Sartre believed that human consciousness, or a "being-for-itself," differed from inanimate objects, or a "being-in-itself," since humans have the ability to choose and define their individual characteristics, or essence. Along with the freedom to choose and define their individual characteristics comes a responsibility for that actions that are caused by these definitions. And if one can be held responsible for their actions, this limits the freedoms of people. This is exploited in this scene in hell where the characters are free enough to see the world continue without them and to be able to relive their lives, but can not do anything to redeem themselves or influence the world as it continues to spin. This is a cruel kind of partial freedom; the freedom to know and experience but not to change and affect the world. This is represented in this novel: the characters are both trapped by the room they are contained in and the consequences of their actions. Inez says “What would be the use? There was some point in being afraid before; while one still had hope.” to which Garcin replies “There’s no more hope-- but it’s still “before.” We haven’t yet begun to suffer.” (10). This represents how their hell will become worse but also how they are trapped in their room and don’t even have the basic human freedom of hope.
There is a large amount of information regarding freedom that takes place throughout No Exit by Camus. The opening scene takes place inside a single room. It is described that there is literally "no exit" and that no one has gone beyond the encasement of the building the characters are inside. Also, the description of the scene makes readers feel claustrophobic. The doors are locked in a small room, there are only a couple couches and a bell to call the Valet. This gives a feeling of emptiness and loneliness in the reader, the complete opposite of freedom. Even the building itself seems very lacking of freedom. Just recalling the play there was only stairs and the room, nothing else. This creates a strong lack of freedom in the play. As there is no where for the characters to go, leaving them almost no freedom to move at all. I believe that Camus uses this to show how the place of death that the characters are in (most likely hell) is very lonesome and lacking in freedom.
Freedom is represented as a distant memory for the characters in “No Exit” by Jean-Paul Sartre. Once they arrive in hell, they are locked into a room. This locked door represents the physical barrier to freedom. They are trapped inside this small room with each other and know that they will be there forever. Inez makes the point that everything they say and everything they do has been perfectly planned out to make sure that they make life for the other two people as miserable as possible. She believes that they have no freedom whatsoever because the reason they are there is because they were chosen for each other. Sartre is famously quoted by saying “Hell is other people” which is clearly shown in this play. Early on, it is clear to see that there are great personality differences between the characters. The other two characters question Inez’s philosophy on their level of freedom which, in a way, proves her point. They are trapped with each other and get only small glimpses at the real world. They feel powerless over their loved ones and the memories that come and fade quickly. Toward the end of the play, Garcin says, “But I’m locked out; they’re passing judgement on my life without troubling about me, and they’re right, because I’m dead”(pg 39). At this moment, he realizes that his legacy has been left in the hands of other people. It doesn’t matter what he really did, it only matters the way it will be remembered. He says that they are right because they hold the power, not him. Estelle also struggles with this idea of powerlessness when she gets glances of her ex-lover dancing with another woman. She wishes for one last dance but she is trapped in hell forever. The idea of forever is the main constraint to their freedom because each of them is aware of the hopelessness of the situation.
Freedom as a philosophical topic is represented in the play through the setting and the character’s memories of their life before they got to hell. Throughout the play, there are many descriptions of the setting and how there are windows and doors, but they happen to be locked. The three characters are trapped in the room with one another with no escape. On page six, Valet and Garcin discuss daylight and the outside. Garcin says “So one has to live with one’s eyes open all the time? Valet: To live, did you say? Garcin: Don’t let’s quibble over words. With one’s eyes open. Forever. Always broad daylight in my eyes-and in my head.” The reminiscence of daylight is a representation of freedom because all the character’s have is the memories of what once was. Another way that freedom is represented in the play is by how the characters were “put together deliberately” as Inez states on page fourteen. She thinks that there is no escape from one another because they were bound to be together, so their chance at freedom is taken because now they are forced to be with one another. The whole time, all of the characters struggle with the idea that they are trapped in a room left feeling claustrophobic, but they also have lost the freedom in a different way. When they all are discovering why and how each of them were put into the situation with one another, they lose their freedom in a way where they no longer have any secrets. They all have accepted that they are going to get ‘tortured’ and that they have no use anymore, so their freedom as an individual mentally is also stripped from them. The idea of the absurd is present in the play because they have accepted that there is no way out for them and that they simply need to accept that they are useless.
Jean Paul Sartre uses Inez in his play, No Exit, to vocalize the helplessness of the characters in the play. Inez explains,“One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43). She starts by saying that one dies too soon or too late. She's saying that no one is ever satisfied with the time they died because it is beyond their control. Then following their death they have no choice in where they go. It is safe to assume that none of the characters in No Exit would have gone to their room in hell had they been given another option. Instead, they died at an inconvenient time and went to a very unpleasant place. The worst part is who they ended up there with. The room itself isn't hell, it is the other people that makes that locked room the worst place imaginable. She continues by saying that a line is drawn under your life once you die. This line symbolizes the divide between life and death. While in hell, none of the characters have any power over things that happen in the living world. They are able to see short glimpses of the people they love but cannot cross this invisible line that separates them from the living. They also cannot change the way their life went. Inez says that you are your life. They are defined solely by the things the did while they were living. Now that they are dead they have no power over who they are or the world. They cannot change anything that they did and will forever be trapped in the life they lead. Inez is really saying that they're existence at all is pointless because they don't have the power to change anything or anyone. All they can do is observe the world from behind the invisible line.
“One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet ones whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else" (43).
I think that this statement was used by Sartre to show two things. The first of the two things being that nobody wants to die at the time that they actually passed. This is shown by the line “one always dies too soon - or too late”. Essentially he is saying that when a person dies, they will always complain that they died either too soon or too late, but they will never say that they died at the perfect time.
The other thing that Sartre uses this quote to emphasize is the importance of what you do in your life. Inez says “You are - your life, and nothing else”. Here, it is emphasized that your purpose is to leave a legacy in the living world, and that once you are dead, you can no longer add to that legacy. It is emphasizing the importance of what you do in your life, because once you have been sent to heaven or hell you won’t be able to affect what you have left behind you. Sartre emphasizes this further when Inez talks about the line being drawn, because that line shows the end of your legacy as a living person, and the start of your new (life??) in heaven or hell.
Inez makes a statement that “one always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one’s whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are-- your life, and nothing else” (Sartre 43). This phrase has someone really important connotations. Firstly, it creates the idea that existence is defined entirely by life. She says that “you are your life and nothing else”, which makes it seem like their time in hell does not add to their lives. This is demonstrated in other parts of this play too. They are condemned to be able to see and hear the world above but are not able to interact with it or change anything. This lack of freedom seems to support the idea that once people die, there is no meaning left. It is also linked to the existentialist idea that the most fundamental and meaningful moment in life is death, because when you die, someone looks back at the rest of your life. This phrase also creates the idea that we are fundamentally responsible for our actions and their consequences. The idea of someone looking back and judging whether we are a good person based solely on actions supports the philosophy that humans can choose their course in life and that their choices have repercussions that must be dealt with by the people themselves. This statement also reflects the general idea that one can never be prepared for death or can never predict it. No one knows when they are going to die, so they will always leave some things unfinished and unresolved on earth. This is represented in the play when the characters can continue experiencing their funerals and when they are mentioned on earth. Their lives didn’t end in a perfect way and they didn’t tie up the loose ends, but they get to see all of these loose ends resolved before the spend eternity in hell.
In “No Exit” Inez states, “One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one’s whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else”(43). Before Inez says this, Garcin is complaining about how he died too soon and ‘wasn’t allowed time to finish his deeds’. When Inez states how one always dies too soon or too early she was speaking her mind on the subject because when someone dies, they’re always going to complain about that aspect. For example, if one dies when they’re elderly, they may complain about how they were suffering and should’ve died sooner and vice versa because it is in human nature that people commonly find things to complain about. Next, when Inez states, “you are your life and nothing else” she is implying that they are clearly not living anymore and people are what they leave behind on earth. They are trapped in hell reminiscing about their old lives and not being able to do anything besides accept that they have done everything they could’ve done because there is no going back and changing anything. One’s legacy is who they are as a whole person, so someone can only be one thing. She is basically stating that all the little things that one does in life are pointless if you didn’t make an impact.
I agree with the statement that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd” for multiple reasons. Firstly, it is necessary to define absurd accurately because I think there are widespread common misconceptions on the actual meaning of this word. Absurd, when used to describe and idea or suggestion, means wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate. However, when describing an object or a situation, abused means arousing amusement or derision or ridiculous. I think this definition is more fitting because the statement is describing a situation. I agree with this statement because I think it is ridiculous and awe-inducing how much a random chance affects my life. The random change I am describing is often called the “Birth Lottery” by my parents, and I really like this term. The idea is basically that when you are born, it is totally random where you are born and what your situation is, so being born in a white, middle-class, and whole family really is winning the lottery. With this idea in mind, it becomes clear that the majority of personality, beliefs, and ideas are so greatly affected by my situation and my personal experiences that are a direct result of my environment. Everything I believe and do on a daily basis is completely dependent on the time, place, and economic environment I am living in. I do recognize that some of this could be contributed to genetics, but I think I would be a fundamentally different person if I lived in the 1860’s or in Australia. So, the idea that I was born in this specific time and place and to this specific family really is ridiculous to me. I don’t know how and why I got so lucky, but I do know that these factors have drastically shaped me as a person. I think it is important to recognize how lucky one is in this “Birth Lottery” and to use this recognition to aid those that maybe didn’t get the winning ticket.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the notion that I am born into a particular time, place, family and economic environment is absurd. It seems to me that everything that happens to each person is completely by chance, and this is why people can be so drastically different based on what chances and experiences they have compared to other people. Because I think that everything that happens to us is random/by chance, it seems absurd to me that we are meant to be born in a certain time/place. Although it doesn’t seem to be fair that some people are born into families that may be impoverished or oppressed, and I was born into a middle class family in a safe environment, I still believe that this is completely random. Although there is no real way that I could justify my claim, just as it would be impossible for someone to justify that it isn’t absurd, I confidently stand by my viewpoint. The only real justification that an individual may offer seems to me to be religion, which is faith based and therefore cannot be proven. Something interesting that I noticed was that each of the things listed in the claim are the things that I believe shape who a person is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement that day to day existence is filled with anxiety and fear. Personally, I’ve found that people are generally afraid of the unknown. Everyday that a person wakes up and goes through their daily routine, they experience something new. One will never live the same day twice. I believe that humans accept this fact but do everything in their power to change it by creating a routine in the first place. Daily rituals such as meals times, bathing and working are attempts to minimize the risk that comes along with trying new things. People eat the same things so they don’t become ill and stay with the same job, despite unhappiness, to secure a sense of comfort. Naturally humans seek safety. However, I would argue that this safety is never fully achieved because humans create their own dangers through doubt. This doubt manifests itself in daily life as distrust of others and fear of the uncertain future.
ReplyDeleteI believe that getting older simply means becoming more afraid. Children aren’t aware of the dangers that surround them. They have no problem running out into the street until their parents tell them that they could be hit by a car. Even though most people never personally experience this, the fear of that outcome is so deeply ingrained in the general population that it is rare that a grown person would run out into the street. Fear is the most effective method of control. It surrounds us all everyday by those friendly reminders to get good grades or the rest of our lives will be ruined, or do what your boss tells you so that you don’t get fired, and to elect this politician or America will be destroyed.
This is Bella's blog post:
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this. I knowingly go about my life, taking advantage of these amazing opportunities presented to me and often take them for granted. Analyzing this question has made me realize just how lucky I am. I have hit a stroke of luck when it comes to genetics, meaning I am treated differently than others in many countries, but more specifically, this one. I’ve always heard about the terrible tragedies that occurred in the past having to do with racism and mistreatment of normal human beings because of their race, or religion. I now see that I have been sheltered my entire life, being surrounded by copies. It’s absurd how a person’s life can be so vastly different if you were born into a slightly different family or time period. You would think that with all of these small details leading to big changes, I would be exposed to a more diverse crowd. Luckily, I had the opportunity to live in Hawaii for the majority of my childhood. This exposed me to a completely different culture, showing me that there is much more out there to learn and explore. Though being born into a certain family and economic environment does affect the way a person lives their life, it also amazes me how different a person can become as they grow up. With all of the experiences people gather as they live their life, someone who used to be exactly like you as a child could be your opposite 20 years later. This just shows me that a person can be whoever they want, depending on a series of choices they make throughout their life, though this process may be impacted by many restrictions.
-Bella Spagnuolo
I agree with the statement that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd” for multiple reasons. It's quite crazy to think that everyone is born in a particular place, and have no power of where it occurs. What is it that makes us, us? Is it already written in our genetic code from the moment we were created out of the glucose that our parents ate? Is it defined at the point of conception? Birth? Or is it continuously shaped throughout our life? What about time period? Some people do believe in reincarnation, and that people are born and reborn again throughout time. Still, depending on your views, there is usually no way to control these factors. It's also amazing to think that most people are defined and mostly influenced by the factors mentioned above (ie: time, place, family, and economic environment). It's also crazy to think that people are restricted from doing what they individually want to do in their lives, solely because of the place/time they grew up. So yes, it is insanely absurd to think that people are born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the statement that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd." Even though I agree with the fact that the world is very cruel and unfair, I would like to add there are many remarkable men who have made their lives count and made the best out of what they had. Many people who are born in conditions unimaginable by the privileged, have made a name and fortune for themselves and have accomplished remarkable things in their life that the privilege may consider impossible. A real life example of this is the girl named Malala Yousafzai, who gained media attention after she was shot for standing for what she believed in, an activist for women's education who would later on won a nobel prize at the age of 17. So yes, I do believe that life is unfair and we are born into it unjust and there will always will be someone out there who has more privileges than you; but isn't life just a competition, and like every competition the excitement is always in watching the underdogs beat the undefeated team who has the fancy gear and perfect clean court and the super expensive coaches and trainers! The world is full of people who have proven the unfair world wrong, from people who are adored and came up from nothing and had to work to get to where they are now such as superstar NBA players, to people who started with a small loan of a millions of dollars and now are running for presidency! Even though I'm going against what every one else blogged, which they talked about the negative side and how it is absurd, I'm going to talk about how no matter what race you are, no matter if you are white, Black, Brown or Asian, no matter where you were born and grew up in, if its the friendly white suburban neighborhoods of portland or the slime corners of east Atlanta, no matter you come from a family that loves each other and sits at dinner table every night and laughs or come from a place where family doesn't mean what it should mean, you can overcome those obstacles and come out the other side a stronger man. I have faith that in this world no matter all the disadvantages you are in you can still win at this game of life, all you need is passion and hard work and you can achieve greatness like never seen before; and I truly believe that......
ReplyDelete-Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
I do not agree that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd”, because of the evidence evident from my encounters on the Earth. The common notion of “fate” is a bit too far of a controlling hold on life, but there are definite reasons why each and everyone of us know each other, reasons why our grandmother is who our grandmother is, and why certain lessons our parents have taught us stick with us.
ReplyDeleteI am very much appreciative of the circumstances I have been born into; ones which allowed me the fortunes of seeing comparisons across our world: where I have seen living circumstances, physical, mental conditions of societies, and ideological beliefs all different to my thoughts and perspectives from growing up in (Beaverton) Oregon (United States).
Many people you meet, you can feel a presence from; one of intelligence, wisdom, kindness, hostility, violence. It is no coincidence each of us possesses these qualities, ones which we can use in the world. All these positive qualities seem to fit directly to the needs of others in the world. I cannot believe that the circumstances that have allowed me to nurture and harbor these personal skills and abilities were by random chance- they are all based on experiences that I’ve had to hone them. There have been plenty of experiences that could have shaped my path and personality in the way of a completely different person, so why, with two people with nearly similar experiences can both come out and move forward completely differently? Because of our predispositions, and the nature of our beings.
- Nicholas Rex
I do not agree that “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family, and economic environment is absurd”, because of the evidence evident from my encounters on the Earth. The common notion of “fate” is a bit too far of a controlling hold on life, but there are definite reasons why each and everyone of us know each other, reasons why our grandmother is who our grandmother is, and why certain lessons our parents have taught us stick with us.
ReplyDeleteI am very much appreciative of the circumstances I have been born into; ones which allowed me the fortunes of seeing comparisons across our world: where I have seen living circumstances, physical, mental conditions of societies, and ideological beliefs all different to my thoughts and perspectives from growing up in (Beaverton) Oregon (United States).
Many people you meet, you can feel a presence from; one of intelligence, wisdom, kindness, hostility, violence. It is no coincidence each of us possesses these qualities, ones which we can use in the world. All these positive qualities seem to fit directly to the needs of others in the world. I cannot believe that the circumstances that have allowed me to nurture and harbor these personal skills and abilities were by random chance- they are all based on experiences that I’ve had to hone them. There have been plenty of experiences that could have shaped my path and personality in the way of a completely different person, so why, with two people with nearly similar experiences can both come out and move forward completely differently? Because of our predispositions, and the nature of our beings.
- Nicholas Rex
I agree with the statement “The idea that I am born into a particular time, place, family and economic environment is absurd” because absurd in this statement is basically saying ridiculous or ludicrous. I agree with the statement because I do believe that the time, the place, what family and what economic environment we are born into is completely ridiculous because all of these aspects are so small, yet so crucial to our life and who we grow up to be as an individual. These contributing aspects are all very random and that is another reason why I agree because no individual can control their own or another person’s birth. Another reason why I agree with this statement is because usually the economic environment, place and family that one is born into determines where they end up in life. There are a few exceptions to this happening, such as very determined individuals for example that want to make a better life for themselves than what they had as a child in terms of economic standpoints and other factors that contribute to their lives and how they live. However, for the most part, wherever a person is born is where they tend to stay for the rest of their lives simply because of they people they are connected with, where they live and how they were raised.
ReplyDeleteA man’s encounter with the absurd changes his perspective in various different ways. First, the absurd is the idea of how humans are always looking for an answer, but because the universe does not create an absolute truth, man will continue searching for answers knowing that there isn’t one in hope that they will find it one day. A man’s knowledge that he doesn’t have a purpose in the world and that he will never find an absolute truth changes his perspective because once someone realizes that they no longer have a purpose in anything, their attitude about how to engage certain situations is changed. For example, there would be a lack of motivation in whatever they do and would have no reason in essence to give any effort because they know that they won't gain any benefit from trying. If man is doing things without a purpose, it changes his perspective in a way that he no longer has anything to believe in. A man’s perspective could also change because they know that they won’t get anywhere in life or won’t have a future because things are always going to be the same due to how they does not have a purpose in the world. The absurd doesn’t allow people to believe in afterlife or a greater power such as God, so this can also change a man’s perspective because he will only believe in his current living and nothing greater than his life.
ReplyDeleteThe absurd in this context describes the conflict between the human tendency to find value and meaning in life and human inability to find it. In this instance, Sisyphus is literally condemned to work until he dies and he knows it. Sisyphus must struggle perpetually without hope of success. This idea shares vague similarities with societal expectations and the “natural” course of human life of working until one retires. This “retirement” is just abstract enough that it feels unattainable and the modern person finds themselves in very much the same position as Sisyphus without ever making a conscious decision.
ReplyDeleteThis encounter with the absurd, especially in Sisyphus, demonstrates how man’s encounter with the absurd drastically changes his perspective. In this myth, Sisyphus is fully aware of the never ending nature of his situation and the hopelessness of his future. Albert Camus argues that one must imagine him happy and that as long as Sisyphus accepts that there is nothing more to life than this absurd struggle, then he can find happiness. This idea explains that someone can be content in the slight moment when the rock has reached the top of the hill, watching it roll, and before starting the descent to continue the struggle. In this small moment, if one is aware of the struggle and accepts it as the truth, one can be happy. And one must imagine Sisyphus happy if there is any hope for the rest of us. Reading the myth, it is startlingly similar to the life plan that so many of us have. We will do well in high school, pushing the rock up the hill, then watch it roll down as we apply to and get accepted in college. We will do well in college, pushing the rock up the hill, then watch it roll down as we get a job. We will work, pushing the rock up the hill, then watch it roll down as we retire. This repetitive nature of seemingly pointless work for a hopeless future reflects the absurd, and one must accept it to be happy.
In a way, man’s encounter with the absurd both broadens his perspective and narrows it. It narrows it as he realizes the inability to find true meaning in life, and it broaden it because it enables him to truly accept his situation and find happiness.
I believe that humans generally assign meaning to the things they do in life. However, an encounter with the absurd can quickly put things into perspective. The realization that some people accept that the meaning of life is either nonexistent or unattainable may be frustrating because it seems to eliminate the reasons for the unpleasant things we do. As Katja pointed out, we work very hard in life because we believe there is a reward for us. For example, extremist religious groups live conservative lives that may be difficult and unpleasant at times because they are under the impression that it will earn them eternal happiness after death. An encounter with the absurd can make these people feel as though the effort they have put into their lives may be worth nothing. It is a possibility that these people are right, and they are living the lives we were all meant to live. It is also a possibility that a human’s decision to drink alcohol or have sex or not attend church means close to nothing in the grand scheme of life. We may be putting too much importance on our own existence. Absurdity can give us a healthy dose of reality in that it requires us to remove the importance we place on our actually irrelevant lives.
ReplyDeleteThe acceptance of this perspective is both inspiring and dangerous. It is inspiring because it can help us remove some of the unnecessary stress in life. If we accept that one failing grade in one class is not the end of the world, we can focus more on living the short lives that we have as enjoyably as possible. On the other hand, accepting one failing grade may lead to apathy toward grades in general. Then apathy toward education and learning which can lead to complete chaos and moral anarchy. In order for absurdity to be practical, everyone must accept that life itself should be valued, but the lives of others must also be respected, even if that makes living slightly less enjoyable for yourself.
I think that a man's encounter with the absurd can drastically change his perspective on a number of issues. To encounter the absurd means to realize that looking for the meaning of life is hopeless because we are incapable of finding it. I think that this would change many religious people’s actions and ways of life because knowing that they cannot find the answer may cause many to lose faith, and faith is what holds these religious communities together. I think that knowing this may also cause some peace within people who are already sceptical that they will ever be able to find meaning, and allow them to move on and life their life. This also changes perspective because these people may not try to find meaning is as many things as they did before. I think that liberating people from the struggle of trying to find meaning in something that they cannot would be eye opening to many people. I don't think that the resulting change in perspective can be characterized as either good or bad, I think it depends entirely on the views that an individual already has before the event occurs.
ReplyDeleteGroup 4: How does man’s encounter with the absurd change his perspective?
ReplyDeleteIf a man grows up eating dirt, he will think nothing of it; not to hate it, or love it. But once that man tastes of the sweetness of a cookie, he will hate the dirt- and see differently the dirt forever. Similarly, Sisyphus thinks nothing of his perpetually pointless pushing of the boulder up the hill, only to see it roll back to the bottom at his glancing triumph. When Sisyphus tastes of the Sun, of the waves, and of the goodness possible above, he no longer desires to push the rock because he see’s of its frivolousness. Upon his return, his view of his task is sorrowful; longing of what he enjoyed in life above: gratification, reward, enjoyment- rather than repeating the same absurd, unyielding motions.
A man’s encounter with the absurd will cause him to address the eternal question, that will haunt him, yet it does not need to be eternal. One thing I do not quite understand about absurdism and the myth of Sisyphus is the concept of accepting the absurd, to make it “disappear”. The concept of realizing the absurd and being bothered by it,-which inspires to act in one way another on it,- being bothered by the fact that you may never be able to answer all questions, is the very reason people live, without it, literally all our actions are pointless, but we just realize they are pointless. Like Sisyphus, he realizes rolling the rock is useless, because he has tasted of the beautiful world above. Yet he still does it, why? Why does he accept his “fate”, and what is to say he cannot change that? Why not? Likewise with absurdism: Why accept that we will (may) never know? If you stop seeking, you will never find. Because you are no longer looking. I think you die the moment you stop searching, not the moment you desert and deny that the truth is out there.
-Nicholas Rex
How does man’s encounter with the absurd change his perspective?
ReplyDeleteThis question is absurd by itself! The absurd here could have any meaning from supernatural events to illogical reasoning. If we talk about supernatural events such as miracles and luck and how it is absurd and how it effects man's perspective we can point out that there is two sides to it. A positive side which makes people start what are called "faith" and "religions", and a negative side which makes people lose their respect and morals for humanity and commit actions that may not be considered by the society around them "good" and "right" and be labeled as "criminals" or "not good people". Supernatural events such as miracles such as, when someone is in a car accident and the chances of them surviving was zero but they still survived, can convince people that a higher being exists and that life is meaningful and create religions and faith which are positive and make the world a better place. It can change a man's perspective on life by giving a motive a reason to live and not be afraid to die. A negative side to absurd events that aren't, well, "miracles", for example "bad luck" or even like discussed in the last blog topic the place of birth and the social hierarchy that you are born into, can force people to do "absurd" things to survive in this world full of absurd unwritten rules. Hardships in life and following absurd rules and implied discriminations and injustice can drive people to turn to unconventional methods and actions that may be considered "immoral" by other people in higher social ranks that could never understand the reasoning and necessity of the actions that had to be taken to survive. Living in these hardships can change a man's perspective on life, how to live it and the reasoning and moral issue behind his every action. The same as how people who live life as if it is a fairy tale and have faith that miracles happen to them because life is beautiful and that everything happens for a reason have been influenced by this illusion that absurd events happen because they are meant to and that you should accept your faith. So yes man does get influenced by events, doesn't matter if its absurd or not. One can change someone to a person with a bright perspective on life and thinking of how his actions can consequence others and the other leads to a person who doesn't have that belief in life and its moral rules and takes lightly of the actions he takes in life. It all depends on what absurd events have happened to you and how you took them and reacted to them.
-Hajir Hosseini, Period 5
I think the relationship between Old Salamano and his dog is not only the most symbolically significant relationship but also the most genuine and loving. This is a little troubling because “...he beats the dog and swears at it” (27) and it is still the most genuine and valid relationship in this novel. Salamano may not show any affection for the dog when they are together, but it is very evident that he really loves his dog because when the dog disappears, “He was crying” (39) and seemed to be genuinely distraught.
ReplyDeleteThis relationship also proposes an idea that is continued in this novel that one can get used to anything and accept it as the new normal. When Salamano's wife died, he was very sad and lonely, but then he essentially replaced his wife with a dog. It is described that “He hadn’t been happy with his wife, but he’d pretty much gotten used to her. When she died he had been very lonely. So he asked a shop buddy for a dog and he’d gotten this one very young.” (44) This shows that he wasn’t happy with his wife, but just accepted it and moved on. Following this, he replaces his wife with a dog and seems to be rather content with it. This idea is mirrored when Meursault is in jail and gets used to it enough to find a kind of happiness and contentment in jail.
It is also ironic that the big final reveal of this book was present in the story the entire time. Meursault may know that death is approaching, but he doesn’t accept it until the very end of the novel. However, Salamano and his dog have been present in his life for a while and represent death and dying. Both the dog and the man are old and “After living together for so long, the two of them alone in one tiny room, they’ve ended up looking like each other.” (26) The dog’s disease is described in gruesome detail, which really makes the reader face the idea of death and disease, but Meursault seems blissfully unaware of this until he has to face death himself.
Albert Camus uses Marie and Meursault’s relationship to create a dominant effect of physical attraction to characterize Meursault as a shallow person. Marie is never described in much depth in regards to her personality traits. When it comes to her physical beauty, on the other hand, the author spares no detail. He writes “I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals. You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower”(34). Meursault is a generally apathetic person. When his mother dies, he feels very little emotional discomfort. However, his physical needs are exaggerated. Both the heat of the sun and his attraction to Marie seem to be the only things he ever is passionate about. His attraction to Marie is purely physical. It is rare that the reader is informed of anything Marie says or any intellectual insight she has. For the most part, they swim and sleep together. Feeling anything for another person, even if it is purely physical, is enough for Meursault. This exemplifies his absurd views because for most people, love is the most important part of their life. Meursault would probably disagree with this notion and may even claim that there isn’t anything important about life. However shallow it may be, sex is an important part of everyone’s life. What makes Meursault different is that it is the only thing that he ever seems to care about and he doesn’t actually care about the other person. This relationship reveals the extreme absurdist views of Meursault and his general disregard for other people.
ReplyDeleteIn part one of “The Stranger” we see several relationships. I noticed that in most of the relationships presented, there was always one person who was more dominant or who was seeking to use the other person in some sort of way. One relationship stood out from all of the others because it was genuine. The relationship between Maman and Perez was very special because neither of them were looking to take advantage of one another or gain anything more than company. When Maman died, the caretaker explained to Meursault, “I’m sure you understand. It’s a rather childish sentiment. But he and you mother were almost inseparable”(13). The caretaker mentions how it was rather a ‘childish’ sentiment it becomes evident that their relationship was effortless and true from the heart just as relationships with children. Children are innocent and have few worries in the world, so to compare the relationship of Maman and Perez shows how their relationship was very distinct from the rest. It also comes to show that they didn’t care about using one another for anything. As well as comparing the relationship to children, the caretaker also says how the two were ‘inseparable’. Very rarely can people stand to be near the same person for a great length of time, so this is another reason why their relationship was so special and innocent. Most people would get sick of being around one single individual, but the fact that they could do it by choice just shows how they really wanted nothing more from one another than each other’s company.
ReplyDeleteGroup 4: We see several relationships dominate Part I. Pick ONE such relationship (Salamano and his dog; Marie & Meursault; Raymond and Meursault, etc.) What ties these individuals together? Do you think this relationship is true or valid?
ReplyDeleteSalamano and his dog
The relationship between Salamano and the world is very similar to that of his dog and the world: Salamano lacks the ability to communicate effectively with the world-which I think has been a large cause for him to become so introverted and awkward and a little nuts.
Salamano’s dog is very similar- even different when compared to other dogs- a confused little chipper with a capricious attitude. Is this what ties them together in the world? Being alone and different?- which has caused them to become a little clammy and monstrous. Is this prevalent in our world? Do we see the effects of our receivement from the world on us, on our environment influencing us, or those surrounding us affecting us?
Back to answer the question: Yes I believe this relationship is very genuine- but genuine in its own strange way. First you must define a “real” relationship: one of intimate feelings, ones that will last, not fade at the loss of sensual experience. When compared to the relationship of the others (Raymond and gf, Meursault and gf) they are both whackjobs in their own sense, but the relationship they have with their lady friends is either of ravaged hate that was carved by lustful premeditations, or of indifference taking hold of some the most serious decisions of life.
Salamano and his dog appear to hate each other’s presence, but really, Salamano cannot live without his closest pal.
A relationship that really stood out to me in part one was the relationship between Meursault and Maman. I think Maman had a large impact on Meursault throughout the entire novel, but more specifically in the beginning. In part one when the author describes Maman’s death it is brief and quick. This is similar to how Meursault reacts. Usually when a family member passes away, the family allows themselves to grieve and their body and mind naturally turn to that after suffering such a great loss. Meursault is different in a way, meaning that he does not allow himself this time. Instead, he puts up a wall between reality and himself, blocking out all emotion. Evidence of this is shown throughout the novel, but in part one he uses wine, cigarettes, and coffee to distract himself. The author brings up Meursault’s constant thirst and need of a cigarette or coffee. This symbolizes his caged emotions trying to escape the mask he is hiding them behind. It is obvious that he is not ready to accept Maman’s death, and this reflects in all of his actions. As Meursault carries on with his simple life, it seems to be a constant struggle for him. I also noticed that he enjoyed being alone for the first part of the novel, partly because he felt so strange and out of place. He understood that he was reacting abnormally, but he had no idea why. As the novel progresses, what once was just the death of a family member will turn into a journey of self discovery as Meursault goes through the stages of acceptance of Maman’s death.
ReplyDeleteBlog 4
ReplyDeleteGroup 4: Do you think Meursault ever felt remorse for his crime?
No, Meursault never felt a scrape of remorse for his crime, because he did not ever see it as one- he saw the killing as a happening, an event that occurred, an obstacle, that changed courses, but only caused his mind more grief (or more emotion and thoughts for him to avoid resolving). The magistrate wants him to feel guilt so that he will come to God and repent, the only way to remove or lessen the guilt. But Meursault does not feel anything, so he does not care. That is why he struggles to respond properly, or to respond at all.
There are instances when he shows his insensitivity, and near sociopathic mind, when he says “the woman kept on crying, I wished I didn't have to listen to her anymore” (Camus 10), at his mother’s funeral! (The funeral-where he hardly felt emotion, or reflected upon what his mother taught/experiences/memories/etc-- but it’s strange because he does do that at the end of the book, when he faces death.)
Even when Meursault has eons in his prison cell to reflect on his life, the people, his actions, his possessions- he never once mentions thinking back to killing the Arab, or any of his “friends” in his before life, besides the occasional lustful fantasizing about Marie, initially, which also eventually fades.
It’s almost as if his crime and subsequent time in prison changes him into a better person for society: he finally is able to align himself with a purpose- a purpose for why and what he thinks, instead of just dismissing everything off as menial or avoiding large important topics. Although I do not agree with all of his philosophies and conclusions at his end, HE seems to be in a much better state mentally than prior to his crime (even if the mental state is a little demented, it is focused).
-Nicholas Rex
I do not believe that Meursault ever felt remorse for his crime because he is not able to see past himself. While speaking with the Magistrate, Meursault thinks, “I didn’t feel much remorse for what I’d done. But I was surprised by how relentless he was. I would have liked to have tried explaining to him cordially, almost affectionately, that I had never been able to truly feel remorse for anything” (pg 100). He clearly states here that he never felt any remorse and I believe this is an extension of his absurd views. He was of the belief that nothing really mattered so in his mind, why feel anything for anyone else? Although the second part of this statement was true for the entirety of the book, he did find one thing that he saw as significant in the bigger picture. Death. It is only a day before his execution when we can first see that he really feels fear and passion. He can’t sleep and yells angrily at the priest. He has hope for an appeal and feels disappointment when that hope is not achieved. Most shocking of all, he claims that if he did get an appeal he would make sure he spent his life watching every execution. This seems very odd and I still can’t say that I fully understand why he would wish to do that. However, it is possible that the things he feels before his own execution are better than no emotion. Maybe he would be able to experience these feelings again through the death of someone else. It is also possible that he wants to be a spectator so that he feels that he is part of something important. He did say that he hoped there would be a large crowd at his own execution and this might be because he likes feeling like some things matter. In the end, he never really saw past his own needs, but he did see some importance in his own life.
ReplyDeleteThis is Bella's blog post:
ReplyDeleteI don’t think Meursault felt remorse for his crime. It was obvious that he wasn’t allowing himself to feel and I think it is partly why he didn’t feel guilty. Throughout the book the author writes that he does not feel anything/doesn’t act how a normal person should. For this, he is punished and he feels that he is being wrongly accused. As shown by the conversation between Meursault and the Magistrate, it is hard for many people to understand him. He says, “Mostly, I could tell, I made him feel uncomfortable. He didn’t understand me, and he was sort of holding it against me. I felt the urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else, just like everybody else” (66). He can’t help but feel different as he is judged harshly by the Magistrate and he blames many of his actions on this difference that separates him and the rest of society. He feels as though he can’t control his actions and this explains why he does not feel remorse. Meursault refuses to accept his actions, resulting in his execution. However, I do think he realizes the full effect of what he as done at the very end of the novel. In the last chapter, Meursault is hit with a wave of emotion and is completely aware of his surroundings. It was almost if he had woken up from a dream. With this awakening, he has come to accept what he has done. The author writes, “I woke up with the stars in my face. Sounds of the countryside were drifting in. Smells of night, earth, and salt air were cooling my temples. The wondrous peace of that sleeping summer flowed through me like a tide” (122). Instead of feeling guilty, he just became okay with what he had done and accepted his future, and for the first time, he felt peaceful.
-Bella Spagnuolo
I don’t believe that Meursault ever felt remorse for his crime. I think that his apathetic personality and his lack of emotion causes him to feel next to remorse for this crime. Even during the trial he refuses to accept that he is directly responsible for the death of the Arab and even says “the sun made me do it”. He may regret the situation that his actions have put him in, as one can see in his outburst of passion later in the story.
ReplyDeleteMeursault, however, never has a grand “aha” moment where he realizes how terrible of a person he really is. He goes on believing that he shouldn’t be executed, that the trial was run wrong and that is why he is sentenced, that he should be free, and that he shares no part of the blame for this murder. Meursault says that "we're all elected by the same fate," that with this common fate of death, no one is privileged above any other person—therefore everyone is privileged. This is uncharacteristically optimistic of Camus, because he could have said that no one is privileged. This idea of fate determining his death is also shown in the idea that fate determined the death of the Arab. It was not in his control so he does not feel guilty for his crime. In his mind it may not have even been a crime.
But Meursault thinks of everything that happened as predetermined to happen and as caused by some force that he cannot control. This is demonstrated when he blames the sun for his murder and he blames the biased trial for his execution. He never takes responsibility for his actions or the consequences of his actions. Additionally, he even sleeps soundly in prison, something that is regularly associated with being guilt free and peaceful. He gets used to prison life and doesn’t even feel inclined to turn to god as so many others have. This again supports the idea that man can get used to anything.
I don’t think Meursault felt any remorse for his crime at any time. Since he was so careless and unemotional, I feel as if that was the reason to why he or anyone would not feel remorse after murdering another human. Throughout the entire novel, Meursault does not show any emotion while having experienced and being put into many difficult and emotional situations. In the beginning of the book Maman dies and he doesn't even seemed phased by her death. Later in the book while explaining what happened as he was murdering the Arab he says, “Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace”(59). If Meursault felt remorse for killing the man, he wouldn’t have continued to shoot four more times when the man was clearly already dead. Later his lawyer asks him if he had felt any sadness when he found out about Maman’s death and he explains to him, “Nevertheless I answered that I had pretty much lost the habit of analyzing myself and that it was hard for me to tell him what he wanted to know”(65). Even after murdering someone and losing his mother, Meursault is still not capable of feeling any emotion because he has realized and accepted his fate. He has accepted the ‘absurd’, so he has realized that he shouldn't care about anything anymore. Lastly, he explains on page 100 how he “couldn’t understand how an ordinary man’s good qualities could become crushing accusations against a guilty man”. He basically found guilty at this point and is still calm. I think he is even convinced of his being guilty because he does not oppose or try to explain himself anymore after this point. He simply sits back and listens while other people determine his fate. If he had felt remorse for his actions than he would have spoken up, but rather he does not care so he decides to let others discuss his situation.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt that Meursault felt any guilt after the murder. One of the greatest indicators of this is his incredible lack of emotion throughout the entirety of the novel. We see his lack of emotion, or even respect when he shoots the dead body of the arab an additional four times. The definition of remorse is to feel regret or guilt for something that you have done, and this scene makes it quite clear that Meursault didn’t feel either of those things. I think that this is the reason that that line is specifically in the book, otherwise his emotionless state could be analyzed otherwise. With this scene in the novel, there is no doubt to the reader that he didn’t regret anything that he had done.
ReplyDeleteMeursault even believes that he shouldn’t be executed because everyone has a set fate. This may show that Meursault may truly believe that since it was meant to be, that there is no reason that he should feel remorse because that was what was supposed to happen.
Freedom can be either physical or intellectual. In this play, however, the characters do not have either. Freedom, as a philosophical topic, is very prevalent in this play. It is fairly obvious that they are trapped physically in a room. There may be no official “torturer”, they are still being tortured by each other. This is demonstrated when Inez says “We’ll stay in this room together, the three of us, for ever and ever…” (17). This is reflected by Sartre's existentialist philosophy includes the phrase that "existence precedes essence." Sartre believed that human consciousness, or a "being-for-itself," differed from inanimate objects, or a "being-in-itself," since humans have the ability to choose and define their individual characteristics, or essence.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the freedom to choose and define their individual characteristics comes a responsibility for that actions that are caused by these definitions. And if one can be held responsible for their actions, this limits the freedoms of people. This is exploited in this scene in hell where the characters are free enough to see the world continue without them and to be able to relive their lives, but can not do anything to redeem themselves or influence the world as it continues to spin. This is a cruel kind of partial freedom; the freedom to know and experience but not to change and affect the world. This is represented in this novel: the characters are both trapped by the room they are contained in and the consequences of their actions. Inez says “What would be the use? There was some point in being afraid before; while one still had hope.” to which Garcin replies “There’s no more hope-- but it’s still “before.” We haven’t yet begun to suffer.” (10). This represents how their hell will become worse but also how they are trapped in their room and don’t even have the basic human freedom of hope.
There is a large amount of information regarding freedom that takes place throughout No Exit by Camus. The opening scene takes place inside a single room. It is described that there is literally "no exit" and that no one has gone beyond the encasement of the building the characters are inside. Also, the description of the scene makes readers feel claustrophobic. The doors are locked in a small room, there are only a couple couches and a bell to call the Valet. This gives a feeling of emptiness and loneliness in the reader, the complete opposite of freedom. Even the building itself seems very lacking of freedom. Just recalling the play there was only stairs and the room, nothing else. This creates a strong lack of freedom in the play. As there is no where for the characters to go, leaving them almost no freedom to move at all. I believe that Camus uses this to show how the place of death that the characters are in (most likely hell) is very lonesome and lacking in freedom.
ReplyDeleteFreedom is represented as a distant memory for the characters in “No Exit” by Jean-Paul Sartre. Once they arrive in hell, they are locked into a room. This locked door represents the physical barrier to freedom. They are trapped inside this small room with each other and know that they will be there forever. Inez makes the point that everything they say and everything they do has been perfectly planned out to make sure that they make life for the other two people as miserable as possible. She believes that they have no freedom whatsoever because the reason they are there is because they were chosen for each other. Sartre is famously quoted by saying “Hell is other people” which is clearly shown in this play. Early on, it is clear to see that there are great personality differences between the characters. The other two characters question Inez’s philosophy on their level of freedom which, in a way, proves her point. They are trapped with each other and get only small glimpses at the real world. They feel powerless over their loved ones and the memories that come and fade quickly. Toward the end of the play, Garcin says, “But I’m locked out; they’re passing judgement on my life without troubling about me, and they’re right, because I’m dead”(pg 39). At this moment, he realizes that his legacy has been left in the hands of other people. It doesn’t matter what he really did, it only matters the way it will be remembered. He says that they are right because they hold the power, not him. Estelle also struggles with this idea of powerlessness when she gets glances of her ex-lover dancing with another woman. She wishes for one last dance but she is trapped in hell forever. The idea of forever is the main constraint to their freedom because each of them is aware of the hopelessness of the situation.
ReplyDeleteFreedom as a philosophical topic is represented in the play through the setting and the character’s memories of their life before they got to hell. Throughout the play, there are many descriptions of the setting and how there are windows and doors, but they happen to be locked. The three characters are trapped in the room with one another with no escape. On page six, Valet and Garcin discuss daylight and the outside. Garcin says “So one has to live with one’s eyes open all the time?
ReplyDeleteValet: To live, did you say?
Garcin: Don’t let’s quibble over words. With one’s eyes open. Forever. Always broad daylight in my eyes-and in my head.”
The reminiscence of daylight is a representation of freedom because all the character’s have is the memories of what once was. Another way that freedom is represented in the play is by how the characters were “put together deliberately” as Inez states on page fourteen. She thinks that there is no escape from one another because they were bound to be together, so their chance at freedom is taken because now they are forced to be with one another. The whole time, all of the characters struggle with the idea that they are trapped in a room left feeling claustrophobic, but they also have lost the freedom in a different way. When they all are discovering why and how each of them were put into the situation with one another, they lose their freedom in a way where they no longer have any secrets. They all have accepted that they are going to get ‘tortured’ and that they have no use anymore, so their freedom as an individual mentally is also stripped from them. The idea of the absurd is present in the play because they have accepted that there is no way out for them and that they simply need to accept that they are useless.
Jean Paul Sartre uses Inez in his play, No Exit, to vocalize the helplessness of the characters in the play. Inez explains,“One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43). She starts by saying that one dies too soon or too late. She's saying that no one is ever satisfied with the time they died because it is beyond their control. Then following their death they have no choice in where they go. It is safe to assume that none of the characters in No Exit would have gone to their room in hell had they been given another option. Instead, they died at an inconvenient time and went to a very unpleasant place. The worst part is who they ended up there with. The room itself isn't hell, it is the other people that makes that locked room the worst place imaginable. She continues by saying that a line is drawn under your life once you die. This line symbolizes the divide between life and death. While in hell, none of the characters have any power over things that happen in the living world. They are able to see short glimpses of the people they love but cannot cross this invisible line that separates them from the living. They also cannot change the way their life went. Inez says that you are your life. They are defined solely by the things the did while they were living. Now that they are dead they have no power over who they are or the world. They cannot change anything that they did and will forever be trapped in the life they lead. Inez is really saying that they're existence at all is pointless because they don't have the power to change anything or anyone. All they can do is observe the world from behind the invisible line.
ReplyDelete“One always dies too soon - or too late. And yet ones whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are - your life, and nothing else" (43).
ReplyDeleteI think that this statement was used by Sartre to show two things. The first of the two things being that nobody wants to die at the time that they actually passed. This is shown by the line “one always dies too soon - or too late”. Essentially he is saying that when a person dies, they will always complain that they died either too soon or too late, but they will never say that they died at the perfect time.
The other thing that Sartre uses this quote to emphasize is the importance of what you do in your life. Inez says “You are - your life, and nothing else”. Here, it is emphasized that your purpose is to leave a legacy in the living world, and that once you are dead, you can no longer add to that legacy. It is emphasizing the importance of what you do in your life, because once you have been sent to heaven or hell you won’t be able to affect what you have left behind you. Sartre emphasizes this further when Inez talks about the line being drawn, because that line shows the end of your legacy as a living person, and the start of your new (life??) in heaven or hell.
Inez makes a statement that “one always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one’s whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are-- your life, and nothing else” (Sartre 43). This phrase has someone really important connotations. Firstly, it creates the idea that existence is defined entirely by life. She says that “you are your life and nothing else”, which makes it seem like their time in hell does not add to their lives. This is demonstrated in other parts of this play too. They are condemned to be able to see and hear the world above but are not able to interact with it or change anything. This lack of freedom seems to support the idea that once people die, there is no meaning left. It is also linked to the existentialist idea that the most fundamental and meaningful moment in life is death, because when you die, someone looks back at the rest of your life.
ReplyDeleteThis phrase also creates the idea that we are fundamentally responsible for our actions and their consequences. The idea of someone looking back and judging whether we are a good person based solely on actions supports the philosophy that humans can choose their course in life and that their choices have repercussions that must be dealt with by the people themselves.
This statement also reflects the general idea that one can never be prepared for death or can never predict it. No one knows when they are going to die, so they will always leave some things unfinished and unresolved on earth. This is represented in the play when the characters can continue experiencing their funerals and when they are mentioned on earth. Their lives didn’t end in a perfect way and they didn’t tie up the loose ends, but they get to see all of these loose ends resolved before the spend eternity in hell.
In “No Exit” Inez states, “One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one’s whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else”(43).
ReplyDeleteBefore Inez says this, Garcin is complaining about how he died too soon and ‘wasn’t allowed time to finish his deeds’. When Inez states how one always dies too soon or too early she was speaking her mind on the subject because when someone dies, they’re always going to complain about that aspect. For example, if one dies when they’re elderly, they may complain about how they were suffering and should’ve died sooner and vice versa because it is in human nature that people commonly find things to complain about.
Next, when Inez states, “you are your life and nothing else” she is implying that they are clearly not living anymore and people are what they leave behind on earth. They are trapped in hell reminiscing about their old lives and not being able to do anything besides accept that they have done everything they could’ve done because there is no going back and changing anything. One’s legacy is who they are as a whole person, so someone can only be one thing. She is basically stating that all the little things that one does in life are pointless if you didn’t make an impact.
late due to surgery