I strongly disagree with the statement which says, “Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.” I disagree with this because I have family and friends who truly care about me and have a strong presence in my life.Without others, my life would be shaped much differently. They have impacted my views of the world and my ideals of moral values. Even if one does not know it, there is another human going through a similar situation somewhere in the world. Therefore, we must never believe that we are completely alone. Society has a large impact on the daily actions most people perform. It seems that through setting examples, expectations, judgements, and standards, society desires to shape its population. Everyone is influenced by their surroundings whether it is to follow society or rebel against it. It is impossible to be separated from everything that defines a person. Every small thing which is noticed by one is taken into consideration and has a small or large degree of impact on them. Once an observation is made, it must influence an aspect of one’s life. Human’s do not have the option to erase what they have seen or been told in society.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
I disagree with this statement because human lives are shaped by experiences and interactions with other people. When a person is born, he or she may have genetic predispositions towards certain traits, but certainly does not have a predefined personality. Personality develops throughout life as a response to various external and internal stimuli. A child would not grow up to be the same person if he or she were placed in a different part of the world with a different family and values. Language, religion, education, and many more factors can drastically influence one’s worldview. In this way, circumstantial events do play a role in defining a human being. It is impossible to separate oneself from outside influences completely; even a person who rebels against societal norms is being impacted by society in the fact that he does the exact opposite of what society expects. Even Camus, Sartre, and other existentialists could not have reached their philosophical conclusions without experiencing the world around them. Their life experiences defined them as existentialists. Free will exists in that people can make their own decisions, but the idea that a human being can be completely alienated from outside influences is an illusion.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
I partially agree with the beginning of this statement statement. However, I believe that I rarely, if ever, feel this way, as there are always people around who care for me. I think that this statement holds some truth in the sense that at the end of the day, I am alone with my own feelings and thoughts. No one will ever know and experience my feelings and thoughts as clearly and as vividly as I can, no matter how well I articulate or describe them. Even if someone has experienced the same event as I have, no two experiences are exactly alike. Therefore, because no can truly understand my personal experiences and thoughts, I am ultimately alone in the world, as there is no one to who I can truly relate. However, I also believe that this situation in which one feels totally isolated from society rarely happens, at least in my own experience. I believe that there are always people in my life who understand me and will care for me, so my situation never reaches the severity described in the statement. I also disagree with the second part of the statement (“…alienated from everything that attempts to define me”). I believe that I am surrounded by influences that consciously and subconsciously influence my decisions and my behaviors. Although I can stop some influences from affecting my life, others are unavoidable and will inevitably impact my life. So I am not completely alienated from all influences that attempt to define me, because these influences can sometimes change how I act and therefore how I see myself.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
Philosopher John Locke popularized the theory that people are born neutral; and overtime it is their experiences and surroundings that shape them into the unique individuals they are. However, while Locke’s blank slate philosophy is not absolute in all cases, I disagree with the claim that someone can be alone and alienated from everything that attempts to define them. To begin, there are over seven billion people around the world: with so many people, the chances of another individual never experiencing the same happiness or heartbreak as another person is very small. And with that, out of those seven billion people, there are parents, siblings, friends, coaches and teachers: all people who are available for love, advice and support. Additionally, along with these select mentors, a person is influenced by their culture, religion and even smaller things like the sports they play or books they read. For example, in the movie “Toy Story”, Andy’s interests were defined by his love for his toy cowboy, which caused him to wear a cowboy hat and decorate his room with western paraphernalia. It is all of these factors that come into play when defining a person: and since people are influenced by the world around them, alienation is impossible.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
I disagree with this statement because a life is never just one’s own. It is simply impossible to be truly alone in this world because a person’s life and decisions will always affect others’ lives and/or be affected by other people. This may happen because of family relations, friendship, any relationships, and even between strangers. Even the simplest actions such as smiling can impact a person’s day. Although in despairing and hard times, one may feel alone, if that person reaches out, there is bound to be someone to help and give advice, ultimately influencing their decisions/person. Also, it may be possible for people to purposefully alienate themselves from everything that attempts to define them, but the reality is that people don’t. People are always influenced by various factors such as culture, family, relationships, society, expectations, experiences, and more. This is similar to when people always say “don’t judge a book by its cover,” but people still do so. Just as it is with using first impressions to judge others, it is simply human nature/instinct to be at least somewhat defined by principles, expectations, society, and etc. In fact, it is extremely beneficial to use these aspects, especially experiences, to shape and develop one’s personality.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
To me there are two parts to the statement made here. The first is that you as a person are individual, and the second is that you are an individual and because of this no one can ever understand you. Therefore you are alone in this perspective of things. I agree with the idea that we are individuals to a point, but I dismiss the idea that this means that you are “alienated”, because of this distinction you have from others or that you are alone. You are alone in the sense that you have to make decisions for yourself on a daily basis. However, this doesn’t mean you are alone or should think that way. If everyone thought that way, there wouldn’t be a society. A society is based around the idea that you and a group must cooperate and care for one another to better your own and others lives. Society exists because we make it exist. We care enough about ourselves, and I’d like to think, others that we feel a need to work together. Humans love to categorize and this can make people feel alienated. Infact we see this in race, people being categorized or feeling the need to fit into a certain stereotype put on them based on skin color. Even with this though I still believe that it is impossible to be alone as I have come to the conclusion that there is too much good in the world for a person to ever be alone. There are so many people in this world, that some circumstances you undertake may not be comprehensible to others, but they have just as much that you wouldn’t understand and chances are they have gone through something similar or have been in circumstances that have shaped them similarly. This diversity unites us and makes us stronger and because we know no one can always understand us we know we need to be with others.
Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.
Completely isolating myself from the world and its influences is simply an impossible task because as sociable creatures, our natural instincts forces us to do otherwise. In order to survive and thrive as a human, we must be able to interact with everything around us and adapt to that influence. For example, if society tells me i should not murder anybody because i will be punished, then i would not kill anybody. Arguably, some may say that people in prison are examples of people that disconnect themselves from society and are ultimately alone. But their criminal actions could be a result of a violent environment in their youth or an external influence that defined them to be that way. This is the basis of sociology. Now in consideration to myself I strongly believe that I am the way I am because of the things I have experienced that constantly changes my personality. I used to be a little kid that did not fully understand the value of money or the value of hard work until I realized true poverty. I also find myself highly influenced by my culture since I with with some Filipino culture like valuing education. I actually believe letting experiences and people define me will benefit me in the future, but this does not mean I am simply a moldable piece of clay. I have my own thoughts and own beliefs, choosing who or what I will allow to define me
Personally, I strongly disagree with the statement of, “Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me”. If we were all isolated, unable to be defined or influenced by our surroundings, then no human would have ever been able to learn or had any sort of change in their personality ever since they were born. When we touch a hot surface, we learn through the use of our senses that said surface is not something that should be touched because it causes harm to ourselves. In a way, this also applies to relationships. People connect with one another on differing levels of emotional basis every day of their lives, learning how to interact with one another in an appropriate manner (although for some this doesn’t seem to stick for some people) and also other lessons needed in life. If every person remained isolated from others and was unable to be taught, then there could very likely be a massive population of stubborn, tantrum throwing adults who act the same way as they did when they were two years of age. Also, it is shown to be that by hanging out with a certain group or groups of people, humans might pick up certain habits or traits from other people within that group. This can even happen with fictional characters. It has happened to me before where I find some subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) alterations in my manner of speech after reading a book where the characters say certain things, something that I had unknowingly picked up by complete accident. If we were alienated from everything that attempts to define us, then how would such a thing happen?
Religion is an important part in many people’s lives in modern times. It can give people hope and motivate them to do things that they might not have been able to do previously. However, faith in religion is also what Albert Camus considers to be “philosophical suicide”. Camus sees this philosophical suicide as undesirable as it goes beyond the Absurd, or the chaos that unifies the human and the surrounding world. This attempt to escape Absurdism is also called the “leap of faith”. Camus looks down upon this idea as it eliminates reason, which he believes is a fatal mistake, commensurate with physical suicide. Camus says that there is one valid way to avoid not only philosophical suicide, but also physical suicide. He claims that the only way to avoid said suicides is to accept absurdity and embrace it. Camus believes that the absurd is unavoidable, and there is nothing better to be done than to accept it can continue on with life. He states that life is better lived when it has no meaning. When one accepts religion as a counter or escape to Absurdism, he or she is giving meaning to his or her life, thereby committing philosophical suicide.
Camus believes that philosophical suicide is extremely undesirable, as it tries to escape Absurdism. Philosophical suicide is when one falls into religion and convinces himself that there is a larger meaning than the Absurd. These supernatural solutions are quite common in society. Albert Camus explains that this philosophical suicide is a wrong option because it goes against the logic and reason in the Absurd. He seems to think that philosophical suicide (following a religion and having faith) is equal to committing physical suicide. The mysticism which comes with faith leaves humans vulnerable to questioning the “silent universe”, and receiving nothing in return. Religion relieves humans of the uncertainty in the Absurd, and lets them understand a more agreeable life. It seems that some people have managed to avoid this philosophical suicide, but it appears to be very difficult. Society has a large impact on the pressures of being a human, religion included. The only way in which one may avoid either philosophical or physical suicide is by accepting absurdity, according to Camus. Once the Absurd has been embraced, then they will feel as though everything is fine and as it should be. This is what Camus promotes as the best solution and way to live one’s life. If someone truly accepts the absurd, then their life will be easier to live, and will be the truth.
The efforts of Albert Camus greatly contributed to the progress and influence of the philosophy of absurdism; a set of beliefs that imply that a human cannot express the meaning of anything. His views emphasized how the absurd is a result from human inclination for control and the indifference of the universe. And in order to respond to the situation, a person has three choices; physical suicide, philosophical suicide and acceptance of the absurd. However, while Camus rejected physical suicide as a cowardly solution, he saw philosophical suicide, a more religious option, as simply undesirable. This is because he viewed the absurd as concrete and inevitable, so seeking hope in a supernatural solution only evades the problem and defeats reason; similar to physical suicide. With this, Camus believed the only way to avoid philosophical suicide was to accept and embrace absurdity: finding security in religion, or even death, only interferes with the reality of the absurd. For example, in the myth of Sisyphus, a man was punished with the task of pushing a boulder up a hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down to the bottom. Sisyphus represents the acceptance of the absurd as he continues to live his life, exerting himself over an unavoidable task, while accomplishing nothing.
Albert Camus believed in “the Absurd,” or the idea that there is a fundamental incongruity between human beings, who constantly seek meaning, and the world around them, which is meaningless. Camus suggested that there were three possible responses to this issue: physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and acceptance. He defined philosophical suicide as believing in a supernatural solution to the problem of the absurd. Camus rejected religion on the basis that it was nothing more than an evasion of the true problem of existence. Philosophical suicide could lead to self-destruction because it abandoned reason. In order to avoid philosophical suicide, one must accept the absurdity of the world because life “can be lived all the better if it has no meaning.” In “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus describes a man who accepts the absurdity of his situation but continues to live and persevere at his impossible task. Camus claimed that continuing to live in the face of the absurd was a form of defiance that could bring happiness to a person’s life. However, Camus provided little justification that his mythical Sisyphus would, indeed, have been happy. Instead, to accept his theory and its accompanying way of life seems to be the same “leap of faith” that Camus called philosophical suicide. Camus’ philosophy may have had benefits for its adherents, but these benefits came from the same comforting idea that is behind the religion he condemned: the idea that there is a way of life that can bring happiness.
Why does Camus see philosophical suicide as undesirable, and can one possibly avoid it?
Camus believes that the reason for Philosophical suicide being undesirable is that humans have a natural tendency to want to solve and answer questions about the world they live in. The stance Camus takes is that there is no way to rationalize the absurd so one must accept the chaos that is the universe. Just as Sisyphus accepts the fact that he must roll the rock up the mountain all his afterlife. The absurdity behind the things we hope to one day understand, in Camus’s view, are only absurd because they are always combined with the nature of humans to want to answer these questions. This is what makes it absurd. Philosophical suicide is possible to avoid, it only takes a human being who wishes to do what humans having been doing since our existence on Earth, and that is to question the universe and the reason for our existence. People do this all the time and the rationalization of the absurd is why we have religion. So I do believe it is possible to avoid philosophical suicide, but that it is a choice to do so. Maybe it is ridiculous for us to think we can comprehend the complexity of our universe? Perhaps it is unnatural to try and rationalize the chaos and lazy to give up? Either way life has to lived how you desire it to be lived.
The Philosopher Albert Camus views the religious solution of the absurd as a philosophical suicide. He believes that believing in a supernatural solution to the absurd is as destructive and harmful as physical suicide. In his philosophy of religion he believes that religion completely eliminates reason which is fatal to the solution of the problem of the absurd. He views religion as more of an excuse to give a solution to the purpose of man. People who are religious remove themselves from the world so to avoid the absurd. He does not see this as desirable because he believes that religion is more of an excuse rather than a valid solution. To avoid such a condition, people must accept the meaningless of their actions or rather to accept the absurd. Similar to the story of Sisyphus who knew that his actions were meaningless yet continues to strive for an answer. By refusing to believe there is not an answer to the absurd but accepting that there may not be one, an individual can avoid the solution of a supernatural being. As a society, it is impossible to avoid philosophical suicide because solutions to problems is unalienable to the human mind. Constantly seeking solutions, the mind uses any valid explanation though true or false to satisfy its need for answers. Simply removing the need for an answer will prevent one from committing philosophical suicide.
Albert Camus saw three responses to the Absurd: physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and acceptance of the Absurd. He recognized that the Absurd is the product of disharmony and collision/confrontation between human’s desire for order, meaning and purpose in life and the “silence of the universe.” Although the Absurd itself is unavoidable, psychological suicide can be avoided. People who encounter and recognize the Absurd can be unable to face the conflict of the Absurd and commit suicide, unable to handle absurdity and ignore the Absurd by committing psychological suicide (and thus killing one’s psychological thought), or acknowledge and surrender to Absurdity for what is it. Camus immediately disregarded physical suicide as “cowardly’ as people are not truly confronting/resolving the Absurd, but rather completely separating oneself from it. He similarly described philosophical suicide as an evasive and fraudulent choice as it again removed people from direct confrontation with the Absurd by mentally disregarding it through a leap of faith. He saw such a response as fatal/self-destructive as physical suicide as it kills the true philosophical part of oneself. Camus believed that the only valid solution is to embrace the Absurd. This can be seen in the myth of Sisyphus as Sisyphus’ heroic portrayal depicts him embracing his doomed and meaningless punishment and fate. Every day, Sisyphus obediently pushes up the huge stone up the hill and watches it fall only to repeat the process perpetually. Although the acceptance of the Absurd such as Sisyphus’ acceptance of his meaningless and unending task may seem to be daunting and incomprehensible, in reality, it makes life easier as people accept the truth: one can never wholly understand the truth of life.
The Absurdist philosophy explains the human desire to find a “true” meaning and purpose of life with the silence of the Universe conflicting with their search. This absurdity displays the tragic and fundamental disharmony in the existence of humans. In the first portion of the novel Meursault lives a similar life to the myth of Sisyphus where he repeatedly completes meaningless tasks. He does not consider death, or anything else for that matter. Meursault never questions his purpose in life, or desires change/ improve something in his life. Once his maman dies, the aspect of death becomes clearer and more prominent to him. He portrays the image of an existentialist (shaping one through their actions, free will, and consequence of those actions). Friedrich Nietzsche presented the groundwork for future existentialists, but he did not consider himself to be one. A main philosophy of his included the idea that “God is Dead”. This is very similar to the way in which Meursault perceives life. When the pastor repeatedly visits Meursault in prison, he tries to convince him to have faith in God. However, Meursault refuses to believe that there is anything beyond himself which could shape his life. This abandonment by God was also expressed in Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy. Jean Paul Sartre also believed the morals were dead and that humans were alone in the universe. Meursault’s attitude agrees with these ideas because he doesn’t place importance on finding someone to share his life with. Marie wants to marry him but he seems very apathetic towards the topic. Overall, there is a large use of philosophy from the Founding Fathers of Existentialism in The Stranger.
The coexistence of humans and the universe is a key component in a philosophy known as the absurd. As believed by Albert Camus, absurdist philosophy highlights the ongoing struggle between humans in pursuit of individual purpose and their failure to find it, which results in a meaningless life. In his book The Stranger, the philosophy of the absurd is portrayed through the nature of the main character Meursault. Unlike other characters, Meursault accepts his life and lives aimlessly, unaffected by all circumstances whatsoever. This is first observed when Meursault hears of his mother’s death, and he says, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know" (Camus 3). His reaction to the death of his mother showed almost no emotion, only indifference. This response embodies the absurdist philosophy based on the inevitability of death: since everyone dies, one life is no more important than another and therefore has no meaning. In addition, Meursault’s response to Marie's proposal derived from the absurd. After Marie asks Meursault to marry her, he recounts, "I said it didn't make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to" (Camus 41). From the absurdist philosophy, this careless answer represents the lack of rationalization Meursault has when it comes to big decisions, because in the bigger picture it is pointless. Through the actions of Meursault, Albert Camus is able to convey essential aspects of absurdist philosophy that are prominent throughout the novel.
In The Stranger, Albert Camus uses different motifs including the sun, heat, and light to create a dominant effect of oppression while emphasizing Meursault’s internal struggle in acknowledging and resolving the Absurd. Throughout the book, Camus repetitively mentions the heat/weather as intense and oppressive. In fact, on Maman’s funeral day, Meursault notices, “today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive” (15). The oppressive heat seems to represent the Absurd in the aspect that they are both unavoidable. The hot weather simply exists; because heat is part of the atmosphere, it cannot be escaped from. However, people may choose to ignore or disregard. Similarly to the heat, the Absurd, according to Camus, simply exists and cannot be avoided. As sweat is the body’s natural response to heat as a method of combatting the heat and maintaining a balanced temperature, Camus’ idea of accepting/embracing the Absurd is the only remedy for the heat. However, Meursault seems to lose the importance of balance as the oppressive heat becomes too much for him to handle, or in other words, accept. Immediately before Meursault murders the Arab, he recalls “The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows … It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore” (58-59). As Meursault seems to be in direct confrontation with the Absurd closer than ever, he is unable to grasp and accept the Absurd, and he turns to violence to kill the Arab. After the first shot, he says he “shook off the sweat and sun … [and] shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where [he’d] been happy” (59) and he proceeds to shoot the Arab four more times. In this scene, the action of shaking off the sweat and the sun represents Meursault ignoring the heat and overturning the balance (sweat) even though the heat is a fact that cannot be changed. In his desperation, he attempts to refuse the truth, a similar concept to psychological suicide, and is thus able to murder the Arab. Furthermore, the “silence of a beach” where he’s been happy shows that previously, Meursault seemed closer to embracing the true/unavoidable “silence of universe” which allowed him to be happy. However, the moment he destroyed the balance, he lost his happiness as his four bullets “was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness” (59).
Absurdist philosophy claims that us humans are just desperately seeking hope and meaning in a hopeless and meaningless world. The Absurd is the only uniting factor between humans and the world, and this is the product of the collision between humans’ desire for purpose in life and the “silence of the universe”. Right from the beginning of the novel, we can see how Meursault represents one who aligns with Absurdist beliefs. He says “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: ‘Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.’ That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (3). In this excerpt, Meursault shows absolutely no remorse for the death of Maman; he can’t even remember when she died. He also said that “That doesn’t mean anything”, which further shows how he displays the Absurdist idea of how nothing really matters because we cannot find meaning or clarity to anything. Another Absurdist belief is represented through nurse’s words. She says, “’If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.’ She was right. There was no way out” (17). This is another example of the hopelessness that some of the characters, especially Meursault, had towards the world. He believed that there was no way out of this situation, and he accepts this. Later in the novel, Meusault goes on to say how “people never change their lives, that in any case one life was a good as another and that [he] wasn’t dissatisfied with [his life] here at all” (41). Muersault’s behaviors can be connect to the Absurdist philosophy through the idea that everyone’s lives are equal, and that there is no point in changing them as everyone’s lives have no meaning at the end of the day.
The Stranger written by Albert Camus, reflects his philosophies about human existence in both major and minor characters in the first part of the novel. The Idea of the absurd is that there is no point to life but humans actively seek a purpose knowing that this goal is futile. Whether it be trying to achieve this goal by occupying time with various activities or participate in acts of love. After Meursault's mother dies, he sits in front of his porch for the whole day and recalls small details that shows the reader of Camus’s philosophies. One detail in particular is the soccer team cheering that they had just one a game. At first glance it appears like a normal event but I then asked myself why Camus would put such a seemingly meaningless detail. This is because Camus is introducing the idea of the absurd where people are trying to find a meaning to life, and to them it is having fun. Camus’s idea is similar to Kierkegaard’s philosophy of existence in which each individual defines the purpose of their life. The soccer players are to have fun, the interrogator was to worship God and to Marie it is to find love and establish it. To Meursault, there is no meaning to life. He accepts that there is the absurd but unlike those around him, he does not attempt to define his existence. He only seeks to live rather than find a reason for his existence. Meursault’s mindset can be related to the philosophy of Paul Sartre who believes in just being. Just being means that you live because you live, without any real reason at all. Meursault denies that there is a point to life as seen when he rejects the idea of loving someone or when he rejects the existence of God to the interrogator
Absurdist philosophy is based on the idea that humans optimism clashes with the chaos of the world to form the absurd. The two share the world like good and evil. The world can not be rationalized, so therefore we should accept the absurdity of the world we live in. It’s all very depressing. Similar is the novel, The Stranger, which uses some of these ideas to shape the main character. It seems as if through the entire beginning of the book that the protagonist is indifferent or can not make anything of the absurdity of the world around him. He drinks and smokes and has a sexual relationship with a women, all after the death of his mother showing him distracting himself from the absurdity of the world. He does not seem to care at all about the world around him, so in this way he aligns himself with absurdist belief. Additionally he mirrors the absurdist belief by not valuing one life over another. Death is nothing shocking to him, as seen by the death of his mother. Overall there is a lot of parallels to the philosophies we have learned about in our packet and the novel stays consistently dark.
Camus uses the motif of intense light to represent the human reaction to the Absurd. Light is often described as having a negative impact on Meursault. While describing his mother’s funeral, Camus writes, “The whiteness of the room seemed even brighter than before. There wasn’t a shadow anywhere in front of me, and every object, every angle and curve stood out so sharply it made my eyes hurt” (9). Camus describes the light as blinding in order to mirror how the Absurd is a constantly present, unavoidable entity that is incompatible with Meursault’s natural state of being. Meursault seeks out shadows and appears to be more at home in the dark, demonstrating the human desire to avoid the Absurd. However, Meursault does not fall victim to Camus’s “physical suicide” or “philosophical suicide.” Instead, Meursault achieves his “enlightenment” at the end of The Stranger by accepting the Absurd. This is shown through his embracement of the light: “I had waited all this time for this moment and for the first light of this dawn to be vindicated” (121). Camus believed that a person could only be truly happy once he had accepted the world’s absurdity and a fate of constantly struggling to achieve the impossible. Even though Meursault is fated to die, he seems to be happy because he has opened himself to “the gentle indifference of the world” (122).
“But everybody knows life isn’t worth living…At that point, what would disturb my train of thought was the terrifying leap I would feel my heart take at the idea of having twenty more years of life ahead of me.” (114)
This quote occurs while Meursault ponders about his life in his jail cell. He believes that life is not worth living, as everyone is going to die, and it does not make a difference whether he dies today or in 20 years. This is a key belief in the collection of existentialist teachings. Because everybody is going to die, there is no point to life; no purpose, no meaning. This is an important quote and Meursault’s existentialist ideals are solidifying in his mind. In addition, the “terrifying leap” that Meursault refers to in this quote is a reference to the “leap of faith” that existentialists despise. This is looked down upon by existentialists because it eliminates reason, which equates to physical suicide in the eyes of existentialists. Meursault is justifying his death sentence by saying that there is no difference between dying now or dying later. Everybody has the same inevitable fate of death. Although there were other quotes in the novel that were profound, I chose this one to be the most important out of all of them because it truly exemplifies the existentialist theme of a meaningless life that is so prevalent in this novel. This quote also occurs during a crucial part of the novel when Meursault begins to ponder about his beliefs. He even begins to question them at the end of the novel after he talks to the magistrate about religion. Meursault explains through this quote how he must accept this reality in order to be able to accept the rejection of his appeal in court.
Throughout the novel, there are many quotes which directly mention the philosophy in Meursault's life. However, I believe that the most important quote is when Albert Camus writes, “But everybody knows life isn’t worth living” (114). This seems quite contradictory to the beliefs of the other characters within the book, and most people. Meursault simply goes through the motions of life without showing emotion about anything. He does not care about things which greatly affect his life such as marriage and his mother’s death. This quote shows how truly existential Meursault’s way of living is. He doesn’t believe in a greater purpose than himself or mankind. His infatuation with death is very intriguing and is portrayed through this quote. Meursault later expresses that the only thing a man can be interested in is death, not life. This meaningless is strongly emphasized in existential philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche was profoundly known for his idea that “God is dead”. Existentialists have a strong opposition to any religion which attempts to place meaning and value on an individual’s life. When examining this quote, it becomes apparent that Meursault is slightly trying to convince himself that his death is inevitable and there is no better way to die. He devalues life and makes the thought of death his new focus. His execution is viewed as a necessary consequence to his actions. The reader originally questions why he does not even attempt to get out of his punishment, but it is later clear that his existential philosophy leads him to calmly accept his death.
“As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (122-123).
Meursault lives his life in constant indifference to the actions of people around him. He appears to feel no emotions and have no sense of morality. However, Meursault does not fully accept the absurdity of the world until the moment at the end of the novel when he opens himself “to the gentle indifference of the world.” It is clear that Meursault does not truly live by the existentialist philosophy until this moment because he is previously incapable of accepting the inevitability of his death. In addition to his fear of death, Meursault also shows a fear of the Absurd, as represented by his negative reaction to the light that is constantly beating down upon him. It is not until he is able to reflect quietly in “that night alive with signs and stars” that he is able to accept the Absurd and finally be happy. Meursault realizes that the world is like himself: indifferent to human emotions, actions, and even death. Camus believed that a human being could only be happy once he had accepted the absurd indifference of the world. Meursault is able to accomplish this feat only once he is days from his own execution, a sequence of events that is, in itself, absurd.
“As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate” (Camus, 122-123).
After Meursault received his death sentence, he had been desperately thinking of possibilities of escaping his death. As the days of living drag on as is closer to death, he is on edge, loses sleep, and is essentially torturing himself by hoping to survive. By hoping for life, he is committing psychological suicide. Even though his execution is his fate and set in stone, he continues to reject/ignore it and thinks of all the impossible possibilities that could save him. However, after his encounter with the chaplain, he becomes enraged by the chaplain’s insistence on turning to God. Suddenly, Meursault’s blind rage cleaned him, ridding him of hope. By losing his hope, he can finally see clearly and realize that no matter what happens, his death is inevitable. By finally accepting his fate, he opens himself “to the gentle indifference of the world.” As he was never been able to understand human emotions, the world, like him, is the same and does not revolve around individual and trivial happenings of anyone. His realization finally allows himself to have peace and truly happy, a contrast to his previous mere satisfaction with his life. In the end, he has reached peace and happiness, and he only wishes to not be alone as a perfect ending of his life. His final wish is an ideal representation of Camus’ existential philosophy as his hope for a “large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate” only emphasizes Meursault’s acceptance of his fair judgement of his crime.
"She said, 'If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go to too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.' She was right. There was no way out" (Camus 17).
Throughout the extent of The Stranger, Albert Camus includes many lines and quotes that elude to existential philosophy. These quotes enhance the meaning of the novel, and more importantly, give additional insight on the characterization of Meursault. Towards the end of chapter one, Meursault exchanges some brief words with a few other people in the funeral procession. Many characters try to talk to Meursault, however he makes no effort to talk to them. For example, when the nurse makes a remark to Meursault regarding the intense heat, he does not respond. Instead, he interprets her comment that was solely meant to warn of the physical harm due to the unavoidable sun to a metaphor for the human condition. Similar to the effects of the sun that are sure to lead to physical trauma, man is born into a life that will ultimately end in death, no matter what. Weather a person saunters through life at a leisurely pace or hurries out of anticipation for the end, there will be repercussions: the effects of the sun are as inevitable as death itself. This idea that, "There is no way out" (Camus 17) stuck with Meursault as he realized that no matter how he lived his life, his individual choices would have no impact on the certainty of his death.
The quote that stood out the most and was the most impactful in conveying the existentialism theme in this novel was, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (pg.3). Yes these lines are at the very beginning of the novel, and seems to stand out a lot, but this does not delegitamize the importance of these words. They introduce Meursault's true internal conflict that plagues him throughout the book. Most would think that the protagonist would have some sort of emotional moment when learning of his mother’s death. Instead he seems to brush it off as nothing too important. This is essential to his character as, Meursault, is not your typical protagonist. He is supposed to be a grey area. The reader is supposed to have mixed feelings about the Frenchmen, just as he has mixed feelings about life in general. He is indifferent to all that goes on in his life. The meaning of life is meaningless to him. The death of his mother means little to nothing to him and feeds into the whole theme of Existentialism. The author also places this at the very beginning of the novel before the reader has an opinion about the main character. This causes an instant molding of the reader's perception.
“But he cut me off and urged me one last time, drawing himself up to his full height and asking me if i believed in God. I said no. He sat down indignantly. He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless” (69).
Relaying Albert Camus’s concept of the Absurd, I believe is the purpose of the book; to introduce his ideas and how it relates to real life. An aspect of his philosophy is the concept of philosophical suicide. This is the idea that believing in God blocks away reason, which is as fatal as physical suicide to philosophy. During the time that Camus lived, such an ideology was taboo to the public. Due to his powerful belief and the correlation it has with this quote is the reason why I believe this is the most significant quote in the novel. Using direct diction, Camus creates a lasting effect of shock to the reader especially to those in the early 1900’s. The blunt nature of the sentences such as “I said no” shows Camus’s defiance against society. He treats religion as a form of excuse for the meaning of life rather than a viable solution. He suggests that people believes in God because they are in the Absurd, where there is no meaning, yet people try to define life.
In the beginning of no exit, the topic of individuality is discussed philosophically. Individuality is defined in philosophy as an emphasis on the moral value of a single person in regards to both their actions and thoughts. Jean Paul Sartre believed strongly in the idea of free will, which comes with individuality. The aspect of fate directly contradicts individual free will. Inez strongly believes that fate has put them together. This is shown when she says, “Mere chance?... I tell you they thought it all out. Down to the Last Detail. Nothing was left to chance” (14). As Jean Paul Sartre said that “Hell is other people, the first example of individuality is the ways in which others bother them. Inez later says to Garcin, “Can't you keep your mouth still? You keep twisting it about all the time. It's grotesque... remember you're not alone; you’ve no right to inflict the sight of your fear on me.”(8). This quote shows how an individual’s small preferences in life strongly shape their character. This certain aspect of their individuality is used against each one of them as it is a form of mental torture. The groupings of people within no exit are used to strategically make their conditions uncomfortable and unpleasant. Although the characters have different personalities, it seems strange that they all must face equal punishment. In purgatory, the characters experience the same feelings as each other for the most part. This causes the audience to perceive them with a more general view which lacks individuality.
Jean-Paul Sartre is well known for his witty statement that, "Hell is other people". This notion is brought to life in his play No Exit in which Hell is literally other people. Yet along with this ideology comes the representation of individuality as a philosophical stance. While the philosophy of individualism suggests that the goals and values of an individual outweigh the state of a group, the topic present throughout No Exit contradicts this claim and presents a more collective view. Upon entering the room, the characters all decide that they would prefer to be alone, however they soon find that they ultimately need each other. First, since Estelle is without a mirror, Inez must help her apply her lipstick. She says, "I'll be as candid as any looking-glass" (Sartre 20). So although Estelle preferred to keep to herself, she was forced to depend on Inez to describe her beauty and recreate the identity she used to know. In addition, after telling of his past, Garcin refused to leave the room, saying to Inez, "So it's you whom I'm supposed to convince..." (Sartre 42). In order for Garcin to find solace, he looks to Inez to relieve his conscience and tell him he is not a coward. Since the characters are unable to exist individually, they must rely on each other to fulfill their desires. And while they don't necessarily want to work together, they must for the sake of their individual needs within the group.
Individualism is a very important topic that is prevalent in No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre. In the play, we are introduced to three very unique characters, who are specifically placed together in Hell because they will make each other miserable. Each of the characters – Garcin, Estelle, and Inez – are unique and have some quality that torments another character. For example, Inez explained to the other two characters that she had an attraction towards Estelle who did not reciprocate the same feelings. Instead, Estelle tried to seduce Garcin, who eventually conceded to her efforts. He then asks for consolation from Estelle and Inez, wanting them to tell him that he is not a coward for abandoning the army during wartime. However, Inez does not comply, and when Garcin has the chance to escape, he chooses not to. This is because he “couldn’t leave [Inez] here, gloating over [his] defeat, with all those thought about [him] running in [her] head” (42). In Estelle’s case, she desires to see herself in a mirror, but cannot do so as there are no mirrors in the room in which they are trapped. She then agrees to allow Inez to be her mirror by describing her qualities, but this only scares Estelle. In a philosophical sense, the individuality of all of these characters actually ended up being their downfalls. The individuality of each of the characters were created in such a way that they will always annoy each other and make everyone miserable. They all torment one another, and Garcin acknowledges this when he says “Hell is – other people!” (45).
In No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre, the characters’ greatest issue is the conflict between individuality and society. While alive, each character (Garcin, Inez, and Estelle) had made an individual choice that had led them to eternal damnation. Garcin deserted the army during war and was horrible to his wife. Inez seduced a friend’s wife, and Estelle committed an affair and murdered her baby. In life, everyone makes mistakes, but every choice is an individual, conscious action. There may be chances to redeem oneself, but these three characters that chose sin and understand their faults as they admit their crimes and do not question their damnation. Sartre emphasizes the impacts of individual choices through the characters’ damnation and their imprisonment with the each other. As the character’s individuality through his/her choices and personality acts as a personal punishment, it is equally as much of a punishment to the others as they cannot stand each other. Their refusal to comply with each other such as when Garcin wants silence and no contact and Inez and Estelle don’t leave him alone accurately shows how conflict between different individualities can serve to be one of the most torturous, eternal punishment. However, this causes me to raise questions such as to what extent is individuality and individual freedom acceptable into a free society?
One of the fundamental aspects of Sartre’s philosophy is the idea that each person will be held accountable to their actions. In No Exit, the three different characters had made their own individual choices that had led them into hell. Their characterization enforces the idea that a person will pay for their crimes. By supporting individual choice, Sartre supports the natural evil of people. Holding each person accountable to their actions, like how Estelle murdered her baby, implies that it was entirely their choice. Nobody but themselves is responsible for their actions. Despite this philosophy the character Estelle denies her actions saying “Keep Quiet” when Inez bluntly states that they are in hell (17). In order for Estelle to justify her actions, she refuses the believe that she will pay for her actions. Individualism in Estelle reflects how human nature will go as far as lying to oneself in order to protect one’s reputation. On the other hand Inev has fully accepted that he will pay for his crimes, severely irritating the other characters. Their irritation reflects how society also rejects the payment for it's actions. Though Inez is simply stating the truth, Garcin and Estelle treat it as a lie. Knowing that you must pay for your own actions can be a terrible experience, especially when you are left with your own thoughts for all eternity.
Sartre's philosophy has had a great impact on 1960’s counterculture. His ideas about individualism have been highly influential, and no place is this more evident than in his book, “No Exit”. Individualism is the principle idea that humans have freedom of choice and that they have no predetermined path. Choices make a person and society should have no effect on the person’s developed traits. The reader sees this in the play by a theme of man vs society. Hell is other people, the decisions between what the society wants and what the individual wants are always tricky. Characters constantly look for mirrors to avoid the glare of others who judge and criticize them. Fear and anxiety of free will forces people to ignore their gift. An example of this would be when Garcin is unable to leave the room and ultimately lets Inez decide for him. Also, Sartre uses the three people in the room to convey his theme of hell being other people by using scenes like when Inez looks at Garcin and Garcin feels judged. It brings up the insecurities of these people in a simple environment. Overall, Sartre uses his philosophy heavily in this novel and uses it to influence those who read it to question their own identity.
Sartre was famous for his pronouncement, “hell is other people.” This idea stems from existentialist philosophy, which claims that suffering is caused by the eternal struggle between self-determination and uncontrollable circumstances. While a human being must take complete responsibility for his or her own actions, the actions of others are completely out of their control. This leads to Sartre’s idea of hell: a place where individual actions are constantly thwarted by the actions of others. In his play No Exit, Sartre describes three people who, upon arriving in hell, find themselves together in a room for no apparent reason. Inez is the most perceptive of the three in deciphering these mysterious circumstances; she realizes, “each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). The other two characters react with astonishment and denial; Garcin says gently, “No, I shall never be your torturer” (17). However, it becomes clear that the characters’ individual characteristics and minor traits are completely at odds with one another. Estelle’s loathing of men in their shirt sleeves causes Garcin to be hot and uncomfortable; Garcin’s inattention to Estelle causes Inez to react with jealousy; and Inez’s constant prodding at Estelle’s past makes her extremely uncomfortable. Although the three initially agree to remain quiet and ignore one another, they find it impossible to do so. Sartre comments that while these three people may not have had any connection with one another in the real world, they were placed together in hell because their individual traits would cause them to never live in peace. Sartre represents individualism as an unavoidable force that inevitably causes conflict between people.
When the three characters first arrive in hell, they automatically assume that someone is waiting to physically torture them. When Inez is introduced to Garcin she says, “You? Why, the torturer, of course” (8). This seems quite ridiculous to Garcin as he just arrived there shortly before Inez. This concept of a non-existent torturer seems to initially baffle Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. It is not until they begin to know each other that they realize who the real torturers are. Each person serves as the mental torture to another. Later, this is clearly seen through the individual relationships between the three. Inez is attracted to Estelle, but Estelle only fancies men. Therefore, Estelle wants Garcin to put his attention on her. However, Garcin originally does not want to be with Estelle. The characters are simply chasing each other in a circle of desire. Another aspect which tortures them is that of a disagreement on silence. Garcin only wants to be alone with his thoughts, and he continually asks the two women to be quiet. On the other hand, Inez cannot stand the quiet and she has to always be talking, or stopping the silence. While the main torturers are the characters, the absence of things from their life tortured them in the beginning. Garcin says, “So that’s that: no toothbrush. And no bed either. One never sleeps, I take it?” (5). The absence of small items like toothbrushes makes the characters miss their life, and appreciate the time when they had access to these items. The most prominent thing which is taken away is that of sleep. Sleep allows people to escape their situations and rest. Without rest and breaks, existing is very tiresome and hard. Estelle’s wish for a mirror is a symbol of their desire to return to their lives.
In Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit, three characters are brought together in Hell after meeting their untimely demise. These characters, Garcin, Inez and Estelle are all so different, coming from various backgrounds and beliefs, that they are meant to be each other’s torturers in Hell. However, this is not exactly the case. While in the room, the recently deceased are left with a sort of sixth sense that allows them to observe their friends and family in the physical world. Inez remarks, "The windows are wide open, a man is sitting on my bed. My bed, if you please! ...Ah, there's a woman, too... Is she going to make love to him in my bed? (Sartre 29). In this scenario, Inez has a vision of two people kissing in her room, on her bed, and she is struck with the realization that she has already been forgotten. Later, Garcin shares that, "There they are, slumped in their chairs, sucking at their cigars... They're thinking: 'Garcin's a coward.'" (Sartre 38). In this case, Garcin is able to see what his coworkers really think of him, and he is deeply hurt. So while the three characters expect to torture and be tortured by each other, they are ultimately tortured by fear of both oblivion and a negative legacy. The reality of their friends and family continuing to live without them is their torture: and it hurts them more than eternity in Hell ever will.
Although at first glance, it might appear as though a character like the valet - who supposedly represents the devil in the play – is the torturer. Their surroundings do not follow the typical view of Hell; there are no torturing devices, death pits, or raging fires. Instead, the room is furnished Second Empire style, a style of furnishing revolving around the period of the Second Empire in the mid 1800’s. So therefore, it is not the room that is the torturer. However, as you read on through the play, you discover that the real torturers are actually the characters Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. These three characters, all unique and in Hell for a unique reason, have personalities that will make one another miserable. They “torture” each other in a sense that they will never satisfy one another, and because of this, it is like “hell” for everyone. Inez is attracted to Estelle, but Estelle does not reciprocate the same feelings. Estelle wants to see her reflection in a mirror, but no mirrors exist. She agrees with Inez to allow her to use her as a mirror, but it does not work out. Garcin tries to remain silent and encouraged the others to do the same, but in the end he desperately tries to acquire the approval of the other two ladies. Garcin even blatantly says how “Hell is – other people!” (45) towards the end of the play. This has a greater message, saying how “Hell” might not be due to environmental or individual factors, but rather due to the presence of and communication with others.
In No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the three main characters Garcin, Inez, and Estella are all damned in Hell, but an official torturer seems to be absent. This confuses them until Inez finally realizes that each of them was being eternally punished merely by the presences of the other two. She specifically states, “I mean that each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). Although in the beginning, they all seem unable to comprehend how they could torture others. In fact, Garcin proposes that as long as they all stay silent and away from each other, everything would be alright. However, as time passes, Estelle is unable to sit still and searches for a glass. Then, Estelle and Inez converse loudly and eventually drag Garcin into it. As time passes, the conversation and each person’s comments slowly turn more hostile and scathing which shows the true start of the torture. For example, when Garcin and Inez ask about the man Estelle was scared of before, they aggressively ask her “Why were you afraid of him” (27), “and Did he shoot himself on your account?” (27). Then despite her cries to stop, they continue to attack her by saying “He shot himself because of you” (27) and “Because of you. Because of you” (27). As Estelle attempts to flee from the mental torture, she realizes that she is locked in the confines of the room and the bell calling for the Valet doesn’t work. As the three characters all committed crimes in their lives, they are committed to torturing each other as nothing can escape the room for all eternity.
Sartre is all about individualism, and so his version of hell is the judgements of other people. So the torturers in this play are the other people in the room they are stuck in during the play. This doesn’t seem really that bad in my own opinion, however the reader knows this is in fact the torture the three must endure, based on textual evidence. Some of the best moments to prove this are found towards the end of the play. For example, “To forget about the others? How utterly absurd! I feel you there, in every pore. Your silence clamors in my ears. You can nail up your mouth, cut your tongue out-but you can’t prevent your being there” (Pg 22). Here at this point, the reader has to be able to understand the pain that Inez suffers. She wants to interact like any other human being would, but she can’t because Garcin is pushing what he thinks is best. Garcin wants quiet, however they both want the complete opposite and they can’t have both. This puts into perspective why this is so horrible. The torture of being apart of a society which pushes its standards upon the individual is amplified here. There is also exaggeration which helps push the idea further that this is utter hell for these people.
Sartre’s famous quotation “Hell is—other people!” (45) makes it evident that the characters in No Exit are each torturers of the others. Their personalities, while not too obviously incompatible at first, are found to be just different enough to cause eternal tension and exasperation among the three. While it is obvious that Garcin, Estelle, and Inez are torturers to one another, it is less evident how or why they are placed together at the beginning of the play. There are two alternatives: either they were specifically chosen because of their contrasting personalities, or they were placed there at random. Inez seems to believe the former: “I know why they’ve put us three together […] It’s obvious what they’re after—an economy of manpower” (17). Inez implies that whoever is in control of hell has placed them together specifically because he or she knew that the three of them would not be able to stand one another. However, this suggests that hell is only specific people, rather than Sartre’s “other people” in general. The second conclusion—that Inez, Garcin, and Estelle were chosen at random—better supports Sartre’s philosophy. The idea that any three random people who are locked in a room together will end up torturing one another is a pessimistic thought that fits with existentialist ideas. Existentialists like Sartre believed that “Despair” occurs when a person is incapable of accomplishing independent actions due to the actions of other human beings. If Inez, Garcin, and Estelle were placed together randomly, it was human nature itself that was responsible for their torture.
The Valet, in the beginning of the novel, appears to have little significance to the story as the whole. Later on as the plot develops and showing the Christian influence on Sartre, the Valet actually represents the devil or the torturer in Hell. Through intuition, the Valet can be assumed to be the torturer, but that is not the case in No Exit. He simply discarded the people in the room and did not interact with them for the rest of the story, leading to the conclusion that all three of the people, Estelle, Izen and Garcin, are the torturers to themselves. The concept that they will torture each other follows Sartre’s idea that Hell is other people. If the three did not interact with one another and got along well then Hell would not be such a torturous experience. Izen tortured the other two by exploiting their guilt for being sent to Hell. Garcin tortured Izen because he made her jealous. And Estelle tortured Izen and Garcin by following her own lusts and disregarding the feelings of the others. It is not clear on the other hand to why they specifically would be placed with one another. Their personalities are not quite the foils of one another, but rather similar shown by their lack of respect to one another. Essentially the torture that Sartre supports is the emotional pain that people cause one another rather than the physical pain; evident by the lack of any torture devices. But their seemingly arbitrary combination may also be support that any combination of people, as long as they are people they will bring Hell.
I strongly disagree with the statement which says, “Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.” I disagree with this because I have family and friends who truly care about me and have a strong presence in my life.Without others, my life would be shaped much differently. They have impacted my views of the world and my ideals of moral values. Even if one does not know it, there is another human going through a similar situation somewhere in the world. Therefore, we must never believe that we are completely alone. Society has a large impact on the daily actions most people perform. It seems that through setting examples, expectations, judgements, and standards, society desires to shape its population. Everyone is influenced by their surroundings whether it is to follow society or rebel against it. It is impossible to be separated from everything that defines a person. Every small thing which is noticed by one is taken into consideration and has a small or large degree of impact on them. Once an observation is made, it must influence an aspect of one’s life. Human’s do not have the option to erase what they have seen or been told in society.
ReplyDelete“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement because human lives are shaped by experiences and interactions with other people. When a person is born, he or she may have genetic predispositions towards certain traits, but certainly does not have a predefined personality. Personality develops throughout life as a response to various external and internal stimuli. A child would not grow up to be the same person if he or she were placed in a different part of the world with a different family and values. Language, religion, education, and many more factors can drastically influence one’s worldview. In this way, circumstantial events do play a role in defining a human being. It is impossible to separate oneself from outside influences completely; even a person who rebels against societal norms is being impacted by society in the fact that he does the exact opposite of what society expects. Even Camus, Sartre, and other existentialists could not have reached their philosophical conclusions without experiencing the world around them. Their life experiences defined them as existentialists. Free will exists in that people can make their own decisions, but the idea that a human being can be completely alienated from outside influences is an illusion.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with the beginning of this statement statement. However, I believe that I rarely, if ever, feel this way, as there are always people around who care for me. I think that this statement holds some truth in the sense that at the end of the day, I am alone with my own feelings and thoughts. No one will ever know and experience my feelings and thoughts as clearly and as vividly as I can, no matter how well I articulate or describe them. Even if someone has experienced the same event as I have, no two experiences are exactly alike. Therefore, because no can truly understand my personal experiences and thoughts, I am ultimately alone in the world, as there is no one to who I can truly relate. However, I also believe that this situation in which one feels totally isolated from society rarely happens, at least in my own experience. I believe that there are always people in my life who understand me and will care for me, so my situation never reaches the severity described in the statement.
I also disagree with the second part of the statement (“…alienated from everything that attempts to define me”). I believe that I am surrounded by influences that consciously and subconsciously influence my decisions and my behaviors. Although I can stop some influences from affecting my life, others are unavoidable and will inevitably impact my life. So I am not completely alienated from all influences that attempt to define me, because these influences can sometimes change how I act and therefore how I see myself.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
ReplyDeletePhilosopher John Locke popularized the theory that people are born neutral; and overtime it is their experiences and surroundings that shape them into the unique individuals they are. However, while Locke’s blank slate philosophy is not absolute in all cases, I disagree with the claim that someone can be alone and alienated from everything that attempts to define them. To begin, there are over seven billion people around the world: with so many people, the chances of another individual never experiencing the same happiness or heartbreak as another person is very small. And with that, out of those seven billion people, there are parents, siblings, friends, coaches and teachers: all people who are available for love, advice and support. Additionally, along with these select mentors, a person is influenced by their culture, religion and even smaller things like the sports they play or books they read. For example, in the movie “Toy Story”, Andy’s interests were defined by his love for his toy cowboy, which caused him to wear a cowboy hat and decorate his room with western paraphernalia. It is all of these factors that come into play when defining a person: and since people are influenced by the world around them, alienation is impossible.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement because a life is never just one’s own. It is simply impossible to be truly alone in this world because a person’s life and decisions will always affect others’ lives and/or be affected by other people. This may happen because of family relations, friendship, any relationships, and even between strangers. Even the simplest actions such as smiling can impact a person’s day. Although in despairing and hard times, one may feel alone, if that person reaches out, there is bound to be someone to help and give advice, ultimately influencing their decisions/person. Also, it may be possible for people to purposefully alienate themselves from everything that attempts to define them, but the reality is that people don’t. People are always influenced by various factors such as culture, family, relationships, society, expectations, experiences, and more. This is similar to when people always say “don’t judge a book by its cover,” but people still do so. Just as it is with using first impressions to judge others, it is simply human nature/instinct to be at least somewhat defined by principles, expectations, society, and etc. In fact, it is extremely beneficial to use these aspects, especially experiences, to shape and develop one’s personality.
“Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.”
ReplyDeleteTo me there are two parts to the statement made here. The first is that you as a person are individual, and the second is that you are an individual and because of this no one can ever understand you. Therefore you are alone in this perspective of things. I agree with the idea that we are individuals to a point, but I dismiss the idea that this means that you are “alienated”, because of this distinction you have from others or that you are alone. You are alone in the sense that you have to make decisions for yourself on a daily basis. However, this doesn’t mean you are alone or should think that way. If everyone thought that way, there wouldn’t be a society. A society is based around the idea that you and a group must cooperate and care for one another to better your own and others lives. Society exists because we make it exist. We care enough about ourselves, and I’d like to think, others that we feel a need to work together. Humans love to categorize and this can make people feel alienated. Infact we see this in race, people being categorized or feeling the need to fit into a certain stereotype put on them based on skin color. Even with this though I still believe that it is impossible to be alone as I have come to the conclusion that there is too much good in the world for a person to ever be alone. There are so many people in this world, that some circumstances you undertake may not be comprehensible to others, but they have just as much that you wouldn’t understand and chances are they have gone through something similar or have been in circumstances that have shaped them similarly. This diversity unites us and makes us stronger and because we know no one can always understand us we know we need to be with others.
Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me.
ReplyDeleteCompletely isolating myself from the world and its influences is simply an impossible task because as sociable creatures, our natural instincts forces us to do otherwise. In order to survive and thrive as a human, we must be able to interact with everything around us and adapt to that influence. For example, if society tells me i should not murder anybody because i will be punished, then i would not kill anybody. Arguably, some may say that people in prison are examples of people that disconnect themselves from society and are ultimately alone. But their criminal actions could be a result of a violent environment in their youth or an external influence that defined them to be that way. This is the basis of sociology. Now in consideration to myself I strongly believe that I am the way I am because of the things I have experienced that constantly changes my personality. I used to be a little kid that did not fully understand the value of money or the value of hard work until I realized true poverty. I also find myself highly influenced by my culture since I with with some Filipino culture like valuing education. I actually believe letting experiences and people define me will benefit me in the future, but this does not mean I am simply a moldable piece of clay. I have my own thoughts and own beliefs, choosing who or what I will allow to define me
Personally, I strongly disagree with the statement of, “Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me”. If we were all isolated, unable to be defined or influenced by our surroundings, then no human would have ever been able to learn or had any sort of change in their personality ever since they were born. When we touch a hot surface, we learn through the use of our senses that said surface is not something that should be touched because it causes harm to ourselves. In a way, this also applies to relationships. People connect with one another on differing levels of emotional basis every day of their lives, learning how to interact with one another in an appropriate manner (although for some this doesn’t seem to stick for some people) and also other lessons needed in life. If every person remained isolated from others and was unable to be taught, then there could very likely be a massive population of stubborn, tantrum throwing adults who act the same way as they did when they were two years of age. Also, it is shown to be that by hanging out with a certain group or groups of people, humans might pick up certain habits or traits from other people within that group. This can even happen with fictional characters. It has happened to me before where I find some subtle (or maybe not-so-subtle) alterations in my manner of speech after reading a book where the characters say certain things, something that I had unknowingly picked up by complete accident. If we were alienated from everything that attempts to define us, then how would such a thing happen?
ReplyDeleteReligion is an important part in many people’s lives in modern times. It can give people hope and motivate them to do things that they might not have been able to do previously. However, faith in religion is also what Albert Camus considers to be “philosophical suicide”. Camus sees this philosophical suicide as undesirable as it goes beyond the Absurd, or the chaos that unifies the human and the surrounding world. This attempt to escape Absurdism is also called the “leap of faith”. Camus looks down upon this idea as it eliminates reason, which he believes is a fatal mistake, commensurate with physical suicide.
ReplyDeleteCamus says that there is one valid way to avoid not only philosophical suicide, but also physical suicide. He claims that the only way to avoid said suicides is to accept absurdity and embrace it. Camus believes that the absurd is unavoidable, and there is nothing better to be done than to accept it can continue on with life. He states that life is better lived when it has no meaning. When one accepts religion as a counter or escape to Absurdism, he or she is giving meaning to his or her life, thereby committing philosophical suicide.
ReplyDeleteCamus believes that philosophical suicide is extremely undesirable, as it tries to escape Absurdism. Philosophical suicide is when one falls into religion and convinces himself that there is a larger meaning than the Absurd. These supernatural solutions are quite common in society. Albert Camus explains that this philosophical suicide is a wrong option because it goes against the logic and reason in the Absurd. He seems to think that philosophical suicide (following a religion and having faith) is equal to committing physical suicide. The mysticism which comes with faith leaves humans vulnerable to questioning the “silent universe”, and receiving nothing in return. Religion relieves humans of the uncertainty in the Absurd, and lets them understand a more agreeable life. It seems that some people have managed to avoid this philosophical suicide, but it appears to be very difficult. Society has a large impact on the pressures of being a human, religion included. The only way in which one may avoid either philosophical or physical suicide is by accepting absurdity, according to Camus. Once the Absurd has been embraced, then they will feel as though everything is fine and as it should be. This is what Camus promotes as the best solution and way to live one’s life. If someone truly accepts the absurd, then their life will be easier to live, and will be the truth.
The efforts of Albert Camus greatly contributed to the progress and influence of the philosophy of absurdism; a set of beliefs that imply that a human cannot express the meaning of anything. His views emphasized how the absurd is a result from human inclination for control and the indifference of the universe. And in order to respond to the situation, a person has three choices; physical suicide, philosophical suicide and acceptance of the absurd. However, while Camus rejected physical suicide as a cowardly solution, he saw philosophical suicide, a more religious option, as simply undesirable. This is because he viewed the absurd as concrete and inevitable, so seeking hope in a supernatural solution only evades the problem and defeats reason; similar to physical suicide. With this, Camus believed the only way to avoid philosophical suicide was to accept and embrace absurdity: finding security in religion, or even death, only interferes with the reality of the absurd. For example, in the myth of Sisyphus, a man was punished with the task of pushing a boulder up a hill for eternity, only to have it roll back down to the bottom. Sisyphus represents the acceptance of the absurd as he continues to live his life, exerting himself over an unavoidable task, while accomplishing nothing.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus believed in “the Absurd,” or the idea that there is a fundamental incongruity between human beings, who constantly seek meaning, and the world around them, which is meaningless. Camus suggested that there were three possible responses to this issue: physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and acceptance. He defined philosophical suicide as believing in a supernatural solution to the problem of the absurd. Camus rejected religion on the basis that it was nothing more than an evasion of the true problem of existence. Philosophical suicide could lead to self-destruction because it abandoned reason. In order to avoid philosophical suicide, one must accept the absurdity of the world because life “can be lived all the better if it has no meaning.” In “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus describes a man who accepts the absurdity of his situation but continues to live and persevere at his impossible task. Camus claimed that continuing to live in the face of the absurd was a form of defiance that could bring happiness to a person’s life. However, Camus provided little justification that his mythical Sisyphus would, indeed, have been happy. Instead, to accept his theory and its accompanying way of life seems to be the same “leap of faith” that Camus called philosophical suicide. Camus’ philosophy may have had benefits for its adherents, but these benefits came from the same comforting idea that is behind the religion he condemned: the idea that there is a way of life that can bring happiness.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Camus see philosophical suicide as undesirable, and can one possibly avoid it?
ReplyDeleteCamus believes that the reason for Philosophical suicide being undesirable is that humans have a natural tendency to want to solve and answer questions about the world they live in. The stance Camus takes is that there is no way to rationalize the absurd so one must accept the chaos that is the universe. Just as Sisyphus accepts the fact that he must roll the rock up the mountain all his afterlife. The absurdity behind the things we hope to one day understand, in Camus’s view, are only absurd because they are always combined with the nature of humans to want to answer these questions. This is what makes it absurd. Philosophical suicide is possible to avoid, it only takes a human being who wishes to do what humans having been doing since our existence on Earth, and that is to question the universe and the reason for our existence. People do this all the time and the rationalization of the absurd is why we have religion. So I do believe it is possible to avoid philosophical suicide, but that it is a choice to do so. Maybe it is ridiculous for us to think we can comprehend the complexity of our universe? Perhaps it is unnatural to try and rationalize the chaos and lazy to give up? Either way life has to lived how you desire it to be lived.
The Philosopher Albert Camus views the religious solution of the absurd as a philosophical suicide. He believes that believing in a supernatural solution to the absurd is as destructive and harmful as physical suicide. In his philosophy of religion he believes that religion completely eliminates reason which is fatal to the solution of the problem of the absurd. He views religion as more of an excuse to give a solution to the purpose of man. People who are religious remove themselves from the world so to avoid the absurd. He does not see this as desirable because he believes that religion is more of an excuse rather than a valid solution. To avoid such a condition, people must accept the meaningless of their actions or rather to accept the absurd. Similar to the story of Sisyphus who knew that his actions were meaningless yet continues to strive for an answer. By refusing to believe there is not an answer to the absurd but accepting that there may not be one, an individual can avoid the solution of a supernatural being. As a society, it is impossible to avoid philosophical suicide because solutions to problems is unalienable to the human mind. Constantly seeking solutions, the mind uses any valid explanation though true or false to satisfy its need for answers. Simply removing the need for an answer will prevent one from committing philosophical suicide.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus saw three responses to the Absurd: physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and acceptance of the Absurd. He recognized that the Absurd is the product of disharmony and collision/confrontation between human’s desire for order, meaning and purpose in life and the “silence of the universe.” Although the Absurd itself is unavoidable, psychological suicide can be avoided. People who encounter and recognize the Absurd can be unable to face the conflict of the Absurd and commit suicide, unable to handle absurdity and ignore the Absurd by committing psychological suicide (and thus killing one’s psychological thought), or acknowledge and surrender to Absurdity for what is it. Camus immediately disregarded physical suicide as “cowardly’ as people are not truly confronting/resolving the Absurd, but rather completely separating oneself from it. He similarly described philosophical suicide as an evasive and fraudulent choice as it again removed people from direct confrontation with the Absurd by mentally disregarding it through a leap of faith. He saw such a response as fatal/self-destructive as physical suicide as it kills the true philosophical part of oneself. Camus believed that the only valid solution is to embrace the Absurd. This can be seen in the myth of Sisyphus as Sisyphus’ heroic portrayal depicts him embracing his doomed and meaningless punishment and fate. Every day, Sisyphus obediently pushes up the huge stone up the hill and watches it fall only to repeat the process perpetually. Although the acceptance of the Absurd such as Sisyphus’ acceptance of his meaningless and unending task may seem to be daunting and incomprehensible, in reality, it makes life easier as people accept the truth: one can never wholly understand the truth of life.
ReplyDeleteThe Absurdist philosophy explains the human desire to find a “true” meaning and purpose of life with the silence of the Universe conflicting with their search. This absurdity displays the tragic and fundamental disharmony in the existence of humans. In the first portion of the novel Meursault lives a similar life to the myth of Sisyphus where he repeatedly completes meaningless tasks. He does not consider death, or anything else for that matter. Meursault never questions his purpose in life, or desires change/ improve something in his life. Once his maman dies, the aspect of death becomes clearer and more prominent to him. He portrays the image of an existentialist (shaping one through their actions, free will, and consequence of those actions). Friedrich Nietzsche presented the groundwork for future existentialists, but he did not consider himself to be one. A main philosophy of his included the idea that “God is Dead”. This is very similar to the way in which Meursault perceives life. When the pastor repeatedly visits Meursault in prison, he tries to convince him to have faith in God. However, Meursault refuses to believe that there is anything beyond himself which could shape his life. This abandonment by God was also expressed in Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy. Jean Paul Sartre also believed the morals were dead and that humans were alone in the universe. Meursault’s attitude agrees with these ideas because he doesn’t place importance on finding someone to share his life with. Marie wants to marry him but he seems very apathetic towards the topic. Overall, there is a large use of philosophy from the Founding Fathers of Existentialism in The Stranger.
ReplyDeleteThe coexistence of humans and the universe is a key component in a philosophy known as the absurd. As believed by Albert Camus, absurdist philosophy highlights the ongoing struggle between humans in pursuit of individual purpose and their failure to find it, which results in a meaningless life. In his book The Stranger, the philosophy of the absurd is portrayed through the nature of the main character Meursault. Unlike other characters, Meursault accepts his life and lives aimlessly, unaffected by all circumstances whatsoever. This is first observed when Meursault hears of his mother’s death, and he says, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know" (Camus 3). His reaction to the death of his mother showed almost no emotion, only indifference. This response embodies the absurdist philosophy based on the inevitability of death: since everyone dies, one life is no more important than another and therefore has no meaning. In addition, Meursault’s response to Marie's proposal derived from the absurd. After Marie asks Meursault to marry her, he recounts, "I said it didn't make any difference to me and that we could if she wanted to" (Camus 41). From the absurdist philosophy, this careless answer represents the lack of rationalization Meursault has when it comes to big decisions, because in the bigger picture it is pointless. Through the actions of Meursault, Albert Camus is able to convey essential aspects of absurdist philosophy that are prominent throughout the novel.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, Albert Camus uses different motifs including the sun, heat, and light to create a dominant effect of oppression while emphasizing Meursault’s internal struggle in acknowledging and resolving the Absurd. Throughout the book, Camus repetitively mentions the heat/weather as intense and oppressive. In fact, on Maman’s funeral day, Meursault notices, “today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhuman and oppressive” (15). The oppressive heat seems to represent the Absurd in the aspect that they are both unavoidable. The hot weather simply exists; because heat is part of the atmosphere, it cannot be escaped from. However, people may choose to ignore or disregard. Similarly to the heat, the Absurd, according to Camus, simply exists and cannot be avoided. As sweat is the body’s natural response to heat as a method of combatting the heat and maintaining a balanced temperature, Camus’ idea of accepting/embracing the Absurd is the only remedy for the heat. However, Meursault seems to lose the importance of balance as the oppressive heat becomes too much for him to handle, or in other words, accept. Immediately before Meursault murders the Arab, he recalls “The sun was starting to burn my cheeks, and I could feel drops of sweat gathering in my eyebrows … It was this burning, which I couldn’t stand anymore” (58-59). As Meursault seems to be in direct confrontation with the Absurd closer than ever, he is unable to grasp and accept the Absurd, and he turns to violence to kill the Arab. After the first shot, he says he “shook off the sweat and sun … [and] shattered the harmony of the day, the exceptional silence of a beach where [he’d] been happy” (59) and he proceeds to shoot the Arab four more times. In this scene, the action of shaking off the sweat and the sun represents Meursault ignoring the heat and overturning the balance (sweat) even though the heat is a fact that cannot be changed. In his desperation, he attempts to refuse the truth, a similar concept to psychological suicide, and is thus able to murder the Arab. Furthermore, the “silence of a beach” where he’s been happy shows that previously, Meursault seemed closer to embracing the true/unavoidable “silence of universe” which allowed him to be happy. However, the moment he destroyed the balance, he lost his happiness as his four bullets “was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness” (59).
ReplyDeleteAbsurdist philosophy claims that us humans are just desperately seeking hope and meaning in a hopeless and meaningless world. The Absurd is the only uniting factor between humans and the world, and this is the product of the collision between humans’ desire for purpose in life and the “silence of the universe”. Right from the beginning of the novel, we can see how Meursault represents one who aligns with Absurdist beliefs. He says “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: ‘Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.’ That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (3). In this excerpt, Meursault shows absolutely no remorse for the death of Maman; he can’t even remember when she died. He also said that “That doesn’t mean anything”, which further shows how he displays the Absurdist idea of how nothing really matters because we cannot find meaning or clarity to anything. Another Absurdist belief is represented through nurse’s words. She says, “’If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.’ She was right. There was no way out” (17). This is another example of the hopelessness that some of the characters, especially Meursault, had towards the world. He believed that there was no way out of this situation, and he accepts this. Later in the novel, Meusault goes on to say how “people never change their lives, that in any case one life was a good as another and that [he] wasn’t dissatisfied with [his life] here at all” (41). Muersault’s behaviors can be connect to the Absurdist philosophy through the idea that everyone’s lives are equal, and that there is no point in changing them as everyone’s lives have no meaning at the end of the day.
ReplyDeleteThe Stranger written by Albert Camus, reflects his philosophies about human existence in both major and minor characters in the first part of the novel. The Idea of the absurd is that there is no point to life but humans actively seek a purpose knowing that this goal is futile. Whether it be trying to achieve this goal by occupying time with various activities or participate in acts of love. After Meursault's mother dies, he sits in front of his porch for the whole day and recalls small details that shows the reader of Camus’s philosophies. One detail in particular is the soccer team cheering that they had just one a game. At first glance it appears like a normal event but I then asked myself why Camus would put such a seemingly meaningless detail. This is because Camus is introducing the idea of the absurd where people are trying to find a meaning to life, and to them it is having fun. Camus’s idea is similar to Kierkegaard’s philosophy of existence in which each individual defines the purpose of their life. The soccer players are to have fun, the interrogator was to worship God and to Marie it is to find love and establish it. To Meursault, there is no meaning to life. He accepts that there is the absurd but unlike those around him, he does not attempt to define his existence. He only seeks to live rather than find a reason for his existence. Meursault’s mindset can be related to the philosophy of Paul Sartre who believes in just being. Just being means that you live because you live, without any real reason at all. Meursault denies that there is a point to life as seen when he rejects the idea of loving someone or when he rejects the existence of God to the interrogator
ReplyDeleteAbsurdist philosophy is based on the idea that humans optimism clashes with the chaos of the world to form the absurd. The two share the world like good and evil. The world can not be rationalized, so therefore we should accept the absurdity of the world we live in. It’s all very depressing. Similar is the novel, The Stranger, which uses some of these ideas to shape the main character. It seems as if through the entire beginning of the book that the protagonist is indifferent or can not make anything of the absurdity of the world around him. He drinks and smokes and has a sexual relationship with a women, all after the death of his mother showing him distracting himself from the absurdity of the world. He does not seem to care at all about the world around him, so in this way he aligns himself with absurdist belief. Additionally he mirrors the absurdist belief by not valuing one life over another. Death is nothing shocking to him, as seen by the death of his mother. Overall there is a lot of parallels to the philosophies we have learned about in our packet and the novel stays consistently dark.
ReplyDeleteCamus uses the motif of intense light to represent the human reaction to the Absurd. Light is often described as having a negative impact on Meursault. While describing his mother’s funeral, Camus writes, “The whiteness of the room seemed even brighter than before. There wasn’t a shadow anywhere in front of me, and every object, every angle and curve stood out so sharply it made my eyes hurt” (9). Camus describes the light as blinding in order to mirror how the Absurd is a constantly present, unavoidable entity that is incompatible with Meursault’s natural state of being. Meursault seeks out shadows and appears to be more at home in the dark, demonstrating the human desire to avoid the Absurd. However, Meursault does not fall victim to Camus’s “physical suicide” or “philosophical suicide.” Instead, Meursault achieves his “enlightenment” at the end of The Stranger by accepting the Absurd. This is shown through his embracement of the light: “I had waited all this time for this moment and for the first light of this dawn to be vindicated” (121). Camus believed that a person could only be truly happy once he had accepted the world’s absurdity and a fate of constantly struggling to achieve the impossible. Even though Meursault is fated to die, he seems to be happy because he has opened himself to “the gentle indifference of the world” (122).
ReplyDelete“But everybody knows life isn’t worth living…At that point, what would disturb my train of thought was the terrifying leap I would feel my heart take at the idea of having twenty more years of life ahead of me.” (114)
ReplyDeleteThis quote occurs while Meursault ponders about his life in his jail cell. He believes that life is not worth living, as everyone is going to die, and it does not make a difference whether he dies today or in 20 years. This is a key belief in the collection of existentialist teachings. Because everybody is going to die, there is no point to life; no purpose, no meaning. This is an important quote and Meursault’s existentialist ideals are solidifying in his mind. In addition, the “terrifying leap” that Meursault refers to in this quote is a reference to the “leap of faith” that existentialists despise. This is looked down upon by existentialists because it eliminates reason, which equates to physical suicide in the eyes of existentialists. Meursault is justifying his death sentence by saying that there is no difference between dying now or dying later. Everybody has the same inevitable fate of death.
Although there were other quotes in the novel that were profound, I chose this one to be the most important out of all of them because it truly exemplifies the existentialist theme of a meaningless life that is so prevalent in this novel. This quote also occurs during a crucial part of the novel when Meursault begins to ponder about his beliefs. He even begins to question them at the end of the novel after he talks to the magistrate about religion. Meursault explains through this quote how he must accept this reality in order to be able to accept the rejection of his appeal in court.
Throughout the novel, there are many quotes which directly mention the philosophy in Meursault's life. However, I believe that the most important quote is when Albert Camus writes, “But everybody knows life isn’t worth living” (114). This seems quite contradictory to the beliefs of the other characters within the book, and most people. Meursault simply goes through the motions of life without showing emotion about anything. He does not care about things which greatly affect his life such as marriage and his mother’s death. This quote shows how truly existential Meursault’s way of living is. He doesn’t believe in a greater purpose than himself or mankind. His infatuation with death is very intriguing and is portrayed through this quote. Meursault later expresses that the only thing a man can be interested in is death, not life. This meaningless is strongly emphasized in existential philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche was profoundly known for his idea that “God is dead”. Existentialists have a strong opposition to any religion which attempts to place meaning and value on an individual’s life. When examining this quote, it becomes apparent that Meursault is slightly trying to convince himself that his death is inevitable and there is no better way to die. He devalues life and makes the thought of death his new focus. His execution is viewed as a necessary consequence to his actions. The reader originally questions why he does not even attempt to get out of his punishment, but it is later clear that his existential philosophy leads him to calmly accept his death.
ReplyDelete“As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again” (122-123).
ReplyDeleteMeursault lives his life in constant indifference to the actions of people around him. He appears to feel no emotions and have no sense of morality. However, Meursault does not fully accept the absurdity of the world until the moment at the end of the novel when he opens himself “to the gentle indifference of the world.” It is clear that Meursault does not truly live by the existentialist philosophy until this moment because he is previously incapable of accepting the inevitability of his death. In addition to his fear of death, Meursault also shows a fear of the Absurd, as represented by his negative reaction to the light that is constantly beating down upon him. It is not until he is able to reflect quietly in “that night alive with signs and stars” that he is able to accept the Absurd and finally be happy. Meursault realizes that the world is like himself: indifferent to human emotions, actions, and even death. Camus believed that a human being could only be happy once he had accepted the absurd indifference of the world. Meursault is able to accomplish this feat only once he is days from his own execution, a sequence of events that is, in itself, absurd.
“As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate” (Camus, 122-123).
ReplyDeleteAfter Meursault received his death sentence, he had been desperately thinking of possibilities of escaping his death. As the days of living drag on as is closer to death, he is on edge, loses sleep, and is essentially torturing himself by hoping to survive. By hoping for life, he is committing psychological suicide. Even though his execution is his fate and set in stone, he continues to reject/ignore it and thinks of all the impossible possibilities that could save him. However, after his encounter with the chaplain, he becomes enraged by the chaplain’s insistence on turning to God. Suddenly, Meursault’s blind rage cleaned him, ridding him of hope. By losing his hope, he can finally see clearly and realize that no matter what happens, his death is inevitable. By finally accepting his fate, he opens himself “to the gentle indifference of the world.” As he was never been able to understand human emotions, the world, like him, is the same and does not revolve around individual and trivial happenings of anyone. His realization finally allows himself to have peace and truly happy, a contrast to his previous mere satisfaction with his life. In the end, he has reached peace and happiness, and he only wishes to not be alone as a perfect ending of his life. His final wish is an ideal representation of Camus’ existential philosophy as his hope for a “large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate” only emphasizes Meursault’s acceptance of his fair judgement of his crime.
"She said, 'If you go slowly, you risk getting sunstroke. But if you go to too fast, you work up a sweat and then catch a chill inside the church.' She was right. There was no way out" (Camus 17).
ReplyDeleteThroughout the extent of The Stranger, Albert Camus includes many lines and quotes that elude to existential philosophy. These quotes enhance the meaning of the novel, and more importantly, give additional insight on the characterization of Meursault. Towards the end of chapter one, Meursault exchanges some brief words with a few other people in the funeral procession. Many characters try to talk to Meursault, however he makes no effort to talk to them. For example, when the nurse makes a remark to Meursault regarding the intense heat, he does not respond. Instead, he interprets her comment that was solely meant to warn of the physical harm due to the unavoidable sun to a metaphor for the human condition. Similar to the effects of the sun that are sure to lead to physical trauma, man is born into a life that will ultimately end in death, no matter what. Weather a person saunters through life at a leisurely pace or hurries out of anticipation for the end, there will be repercussions: the effects of the sun are as inevitable as death itself. This idea that, "There is no way out" (Camus 17) stuck with Meursault as he realized that no matter how he lived his life, his individual choices would have no impact on the certainty of his death.
ReplyDeleteThe quote that stood out the most and was the most impactful in conveying the existentialism theme in this novel was, “Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday” (pg.3). Yes these lines are at the very beginning of the novel, and seems to stand out a lot, but this does not delegitamize the importance of these words. They introduce Meursault's true internal conflict that plagues him throughout the book. Most would think that the protagonist would have some sort of emotional moment when learning of his mother’s death. Instead he seems to brush it off as nothing too important. This is essential to his character as, Meursault, is not your typical protagonist. He is supposed to be a grey area. The reader is supposed to have mixed feelings about the Frenchmen, just as he has mixed feelings about life in general. He is indifferent to all that goes on in his life. The meaning of life is meaningless to him. The death of his mother means little to nothing to him and feeds into the whole theme of Existentialism. The author also places this at the very beginning of the novel before the reader has an opinion about the main character. This causes an instant molding of the reader's perception.
“But he cut me off and urged me one last time, drawing himself up to his full height and asking me if i believed in God. I said no. He sat down indignantly. He said it was impossible; all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would become meaningless” (69).
ReplyDeleteRelaying Albert Camus’s concept of the Absurd, I believe is the purpose of the book; to introduce his ideas and how it relates to real life. An aspect of his philosophy is the concept of philosophical suicide. This is the idea that believing in God blocks away reason, which is as fatal as physical suicide to philosophy. During the time that Camus lived, such an ideology was taboo to the public. Due to his powerful belief and the correlation it has with this quote is the reason why I believe this is the most significant quote in the novel. Using direct diction, Camus creates a lasting effect of shock to the reader especially to those in the early 1900’s. The blunt nature of the sentences such as “I said no” shows Camus’s defiance against society. He treats religion as a form of excuse for the meaning of life rather than a viable solution. He suggests that people believes in God because they are in the Absurd, where there is no meaning, yet people try to define life.
In the beginning of no exit, the topic of individuality is discussed philosophically. Individuality is defined in philosophy as an emphasis on the moral value of a single person in regards to both their actions and thoughts. Jean Paul Sartre believed strongly in the idea of free will, which comes with individuality. The aspect of fate directly contradicts individual free will. Inez strongly believes that fate has put them together. This is shown when she says, “Mere chance?... I tell you they thought it all out. Down to the Last Detail. Nothing was left to chance” (14). As Jean Paul Sartre said that “Hell is other people, the first example of individuality is the ways in which others bother them. Inez later says to Garcin, “Can't you keep your mouth still? You keep twisting it about all the time. It's grotesque... remember you're not alone; you’ve no right to inflict the sight of your fear on me.”(8). This quote shows how an individual’s small preferences in life strongly shape their character. This certain aspect of their individuality is used against each one of them as it is a form of mental torture. The groupings of people within no exit are used to strategically make their conditions uncomfortable and unpleasant. Although the characters have different personalities, it seems strange that they all must face equal punishment. In purgatory, the characters experience the same feelings as each other for the most part. This causes the audience to perceive them with a more general view which lacks individuality.
ReplyDeleteJean-Paul Sartre is well known for his witty statement that, "Hell is other people". This notion is brought to life in his play No Exit in which Hell is literally other people. Yet along with this ideology comes the representation of individuality as a philosophical stance. While the philosophy of individualism suggests that the goals and values of an individual outweigh the state of a group, the topic present throughout No Exit contradicts this claim and presents a more collective view. Upon entering the room, the characters all decide that they would prefer to be alone, however they soon find that they ultimately need each other. First, since Estelle is without a mirror, Inez must help her apply her lipstick. She says, "I'll be as candid as any looking-glass" (Sartre 20). So although Estelle preferred to keep to herself, she was forced to depend on Inez to describe her beauty and recreate the identity she used to know. In addition, after telling of his past, Garcin refused to leave the room, saying to Inez, "So it's you whom I'm supposed to convince..." (Sartre 42). In order for Garcin to find solace, he looks to Inez to relieve his conscience and tell him he is not a coward. Since the characters are unable to exist individually, they must rely on each other to fulfill their desires. And while they don't necessarily want to work together, they must for the sake of their individual needs within the group.
ReplyDeleteIndividualism is a very important topic that is prevalent in No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre. In the play, we are introduced to three very unique characters, who are specifically placed together in Hell because they will make each other miserable. Each of the characters – Garcin, Estelle, and Inez – are unique and have some quality that torments another character. For example, Inez explained to the other two characters that she had an attraction towards Estelle who did not reciprocate the same feelings. Instead, Estelle tried to seduce Garcin, who eventually conceded to her efforts. He then asks for consolation from Estelle and Inez, wanting them to tell him that he is not a coward for abandoning the army during wartime. However, Inez does not comply, and when Garcin has the chance to escape, he chooses not to. This is because he “couldn’t leave [Inez] here, gloating over [his] defeat, with all those thought about [him] running in [her] head” (42). In Estelle’s case, she desires to see herself in a mirror, but cannot do so as there are no mirrors in the room in which they are trapped. She then agrees to allow Inez to be her mirror by describing her qualities, but this only scares Estelle.
ReplyDeleteIn a philosophical sense, the individuality of all of these characters actually ended up being their downfalls. The individuality of each of the characters were created in such a way that they will always annoy each other and make everyone miserable. They all torment one another, and Garcin acknowledges this when he says “Hell is – other people!” (45).
In No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre, the characters’ greatest issue is the conflict between individuality and society. While alive, each character (Garcin, Inez, and Estelle) had made an individual choice that had led them to eternal damnation. Garcin deserted the army during war and was horrible to his wife. Inez seduced a friend’s wife, and Estelle committed an affair and murdered her baby. In life, everyone makes mistakes, but every choice is an individual, conscious action. There may be chances to redeem oneself, but these three characters that chose sin and understand their faults as they admit their crimes and do not question their damnation. Sartre emphasizes the impacts of individual choices through the characters’ damnation and their imprisonment with the each other. As the character’s individuality through his/her choices and personality acts as a personal punishment, it is equally as much of a punishment to the others as they cannot stand each other. Their refusal to comply with each other such as when Garcin wants silence and no contact and Inez and Estelle don’t leave him alone accurately shows how conflict between different individualities can serve to be one of the most torturous, eternal punishment. However, this causes me to raise questions such as to what extent is individuality and individual freedom acceptable into a free society?
ReplyDeleteOne of the fundamental aspects of Sartre’s philosophy is the idea that each person will be held accountable to their actions. In No Exit, the three different characters had made their own individual choices that had led them into hell. Their characterization enforces the idea that a person will pay for their crimes. By supporting individual choice, Sartre supports the natural evil of people. Holding each person accountable to their actions, like how Estelle murdered her baby, implies that it was entirely their choice. Nobody but themselves is responsible for their actions. Despite this philosophy the character Estelle denies her actions saying “Keep Quiet” when Inez bluntly states that they are in hell (17). In order for Estelle to justify her actions, she refuses the believe that she will pay for her actions. Individualism in Estelle reflects how human nature will go as far as lying to oneself in order to protect one’s reputation. On the other hand Inev has fully accepted that he will pay for his crimes, severely irritating the other characters. Their irritation reflects how society also rejects the payment for it's actions. Though Inez is simply stating the truth, Garcin and Estelle treat it as a lie. Knowing that you must pay for your own actions can be a terrible experience, especially when you are left with your own thoughts for all eternity.
ReplyDeleteSartre's philosophy has had a great impact on 1960’s counterculture. His ideas about individualism have been highly influential, and no place is this more evident than in his book, “No Exit”. Individualism is the principle idea that humans have freedom of choice and that they have no predetermined path. Choices make a person and society should have no effect on the person’s developed traits. The reader sees this in the play by a theme of man vs society. Hell is other people, the decisions between what the society wants and what the individual wants are always tricky. Characters constantly look for mirrors to avoid the glare of others who judge and criticize them. Fear and anxiety of free will forces people to ignore their gift. An example of this would be when Garcin is unable to leave the room and ultimately lets Inez decide for him. Also, Sartre uses the three people in the room to convey his theme of hell being other people by using scenes like when Inez looks at Garcin and Garcin feels judged. It brings up the insecurities of these people in a simple environment. Overall, Sartre uses his philosophy heavily in this novel and uses it to influence those who read it to question their own identity.
ReplyDeleteSartre was famous for his pronouncement, “hell is other people.” This idea stems from existentialist philosophy, which claims that suffering is caused by the eternal struggle between self-determination and uncontrollable circumstances. While a human being must take complete responsibility for his or her own actions, the actions of others are completely out of their control. This leads to Sartre’s idea of hell: a place where individual actions are constantly thwarted by the actions of others. In his play No Exit, Sartre describes three people who, upon arriving in hell, find themselves together in a room for no apparent reason. Inez is the most perceptive of the three in deciphering these mysterious circumstances; she realizes, “each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). The other two characters react with astonishment and denial; Garcin says gently, “No, I shall never be your torturer” (17). However, it becomes clear that the characters’ individual characteristics and minor traits are completely at odds with one another. Estelle’s loathing of men in their shirt sleeves causes Garcin to be hot and uncomfortable; Garcin’s inattention to Estelle causes Inez to react with jealousy; and Inez’s constant prodding at Estelle’s past makes her extremely uncomfortable. Although the three initially agree to remain quiet and ignore one another, they find it impossible to do so. Sartre comments that while these three people may not have had any connection with one another in the real world, they were placed together in hell because their individual traits would cause them to never live in peace. Sartre represents individualism as an unavoidable force that inevitably causes conflict between people.
ReplyDeleteWhen the three characters first arrive in hell, they automatically assume that someone is waiting to physically torture them. When Inez is introduced to Garcin she says, “You? Why, the torturer, of course” (8). This seems quite ridiculous to Garcin as he just arrived there shortly before Inez. This concept of a non-existent torturer seems to initially baffle Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. It is not until they begin to know each other that they realize who the real torturers are. Each person serves as the mental torture to another. Later, this is clearly seen through the individual relationships between the three. Inez is attracted to Estelle, but Estelle only fancies men. Therefore, Estelle wants Garcin to put his attention on her. However, Garcin originally does not want to be with Estelle. The characters are simply chasing each other in a circle of desire. Another aspect which tortures them is that of a disagreement on silence. Garcin only wants to be alone with his thoughts, and he continually asks the two women to be quiet. On the other hand, Inez cannot stand the quiet and she has to always be talking, or stopping the silence. While the main torturers are the characters, the absence of things from their life tortured them in the beginning. Garcin says, “So that’s that: no toothbrush. And no bed either. One never sleeps, I take it?” (5). The absence of small items like toothbrushes makes the characters miss their life, and appreciate the time when they had access to these items. The most prominent thing which is taken away is that of sleep. Sleep allows people to escape their situations and rest. Without rest and breaks, existing is very tiresome and hard. Estelle’s wish for a mirror is a symbol of their desire to return to their lives.
ReplyDeleteIn Jean-Paul Sartre's play No Exit, three characters are brought together in Hell after meeting their untimely demise. These characters, Garcin, Inez and Estelle are all so different, coming from various backgrounds and beliefs, that they are meant to be each other’s torturers in Hell. However, this is not exactly the case. While in the room, the recently deceased are left with a sort of sixth sense that allows them to observe their friends and family in the physical world. Inez remarks, "The windows are wide open, a man is sitting on my bed. My bed, if you please! ...Ah, there's a woman, too... Is she going to make love to him in my bed? (Sartre 29). In this scenario, Inez has a vision of two people kissing in her room, on her bed, and she is struck with the realization that she has already been forgotten. Later, Garcin shares that, "There they are, slumped in their chairs, sucking at their cigars... They're thinking: 'Garcin's a coward.'" (Sartre 38). In this case, Garcin is able to see what his coworkers really think of him, and he is deeply hurt. So while the three characters expect to torture and be tortured by each other, they are ultimately tortured by fear of both oblivion and a negative legacy. The reality of their friends and family continuing to live without them is their torture: and it hurts them more than eternity in Hell ever will.
ReplyDeleteAlthough at first glance, it might appear as though a character like the valet - who supposedly represents the devil in the play – is the torturer. Their surroundings do not follow the typical view of Hell; there are no torturing devices, death pits, or raging fires. Instead, the room is furnished Second Empire style, a style of furnishing revolving around the period of the Second Empire in the mid 1800’s. So therefore, it is not the room that is the torturer. However, as you read on through the play, you discover that the real torturers are actually the characters Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. These three characters, all unique and in Hell for a unique reason, have personalities that will make one another miserable. They “torture” each other in a sense that they will never satisfy one another, and because of this, it is like “hell” for everyone. Inez is attracted to Estelle, but Estelle does not reciprocate the same feelings. Estelle wants to see her reflection in a mirror, but no mirrors exist. She agrees with Inez to allow her to use her as a mirror, but it does not work out. Garcin tries to remain silent and encouraged the others to do the same, but in the end he desperately tries to acquire the approval of the other two ladies. Garcin even blatantly says how “Hell is – other people!” (45) towards the end of the play. This has a greater message, saying how “Hell” might not be due to environmental or individual factors, but rather due to the presence of and communication with others.
ReplyDeleteIn No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre, the three main characters Garcin, Inez, and Estella are all damned in Hell, but an official torturer seems to be absent. This confuses them until Inez finally realizes that each of them was being eternally punished merely by the presences of the other two. She specifically states, “I mean that each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (17). Although in the beginning, they all seem unable to comprehend how they could torture others. In fact, Garcin proposes that as long as they all stay silent and away from each other, everything would be alright. However, as time passes, Estelle is unable to sit still and searches for a glass. Then, Estelle and Inez converse loudly and eventually drag Garcin into it. As time passes, the conversation and each person’s comments slowly turn more hostile and scathing which shows the true start of the torture. For example, when Garcin and Inez ask about the man Estelle was scared of before, they aggressively ask her “Why were you afraid of him” (27), “and Did he shoot himself on your account?” (27). Then despite her cries to stop, they continue to attack her by saying “He shot himself because of you” (27) and “Because of you. Because of you” (27). As Estelle attempts to flee from the mental torture, she realizes that she is locked in the confines of the room and the bell calling for the Valet doesn’t work. As the three characters all committed crimes in their lives, they are committed to torturing each other as nothing can escape the room for all eternity.
ReplyDeleteSartre is all about individualism, and so his version of hell is the judgements of other people. So the torturers in this play are the other people in the room they are stuck in during the play. This doesn’t seem really that bad in my own opinion, however the reader knows this is in fact the torture the three must endure, based on textual evidence. Some of the best moments to prove this are found towards the end of the play. For example, “To forget about the others? How utterly absurd! I feel you there, in every pore. Your silence clamors in my ears. You can nail up your mouth, cut your tongue out-but you can’t prevent your being there” (Pg 22). Here at this point, the reader has to be able to understand the pain that Inez suffers. She wants to interact like any other human being would, but she can’t because Garcin is pushing what he thinks is best. Garcin wants quiet, however they both want the complete opposite and they can’t have both. This puts into perspective why this is so horrible. The torture of being apart of a society which pushes its standards upon the individual is amplified here. There is also exaggeration which helps push the idea further that this is utter hell for these people.
ReplyDeleteSartre’s famous quotation “Hell is—other people!” (45) makes it evident that the characters in No Exit are each torturers of the others. Their personalities, while not too obviously incompatible at first, are found to be just different enough to cause eternal tension and exasperation among the three. While it is obvious that Garcin, Estelle, and Inez are torturers to one another, it is less evident how or why they are placed together at the beginning of the play. There are two alternatives: either they were specifically chosen because of their contrasting personalities, or they were placed there at random. Inez seems to believe the former: “I know why they’ve put us three together […] It’s obvious what they’re after—an economy of manpower” (17). Inez implies that whoever is in control of hell has placed them together specifically because he or she knew that the three of them would not be able to stand one another. However, this suggests that hell is only specific people, rather than Sartre’s “other people” in general. The second conclusion—that Inez, Garcin, and Estelle were chosen at random—better supports Sartre’s philosophy. The idea that any three random people who are locked in a room together will end up torturing one another is a pessimistic thought that fits with existentialist ideas. Existentialists like Sartre believed that “Despair” occurs when a person is incapable of accomplishing independent actions due to the actions of other human beings. If Inez, Garcin, and Estelle were placed together randomly, it was human nature itself that was responsible for their torture.
ReplyDeleteThe Valet, in the beginning of the novel, appears to have little significance to the story as the whole. Later on as the plot develops and showing the Christian influence on Sartre, the Valet actually represents the devil or the torturer in Hell. Through intuition, the Valet can be assumed to be the torturer, but that is not the case in No Exit. He simply discarded the people in the room and did not interact with them for the rest of the story, leading to the conclusion that all three of the people, Estelle, Izen and Garcin, are the torturers to themselves. The concept that they will torture each other follows Sartre’s idea that Hell is other people. If the three did not interact with one another and got along well then Hell would not be such a torturous experience. Izen tortured the other two by exploiting their guilt for being sent to Hell. Garcin tortured Izen because he made her jealous. And Estelle tortured Izen and Garcin by following her own lusts and disregarding the feelings of the others. It is not clear on the other hand to why they specifically would be placed with one another. Their personalities are not quite the foils of one another, but rather similar shown by their lack of respect to one another. Essentially the torture that Sartre supports is the emotional pain that people cause one another rather than the physical pain; evident by the lack of any torture devices. But their seemingly arbitrary combination may also be support that any combination of people, as long as they are people they will bring Hell.
ReplyDelete