“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
I disagree with this statement. On some levels, this statement is accurate because the needs of an individual are very important to meet in order to live a happy and meaningful life, although that does not mean that choosing what is best for that individual should come before what is best for a community of people. I believe that it is true that the actions of most people come back to themselves in one way or another, but I think that one should always have others in mind when deciding to do something. There are often moments when it is important to do what is right for oneself, but that cannot be used as an excuse to commit crimes or act with dishonesty. If the mindset of everyone were to do what is best for them without regards to anyone else, there would be corruption amongst the entire population. This would be because people would try to benefit themselves by acting irrationally. On the other hand, taking care of oneself should be the number one priority of everyone, but just because one is taking care of him/herself does not mean that he/she should not have others in mind. I strongly believe that humans should try to be successful and benefit themselves as best they can while remembering that what they do has the potential to affect somebody else.
I both agree and disagree that decisions should be based on what's best for individual. Being selfish can be good in some ways, such as when dealing with competition, sports, and school but bad in others. Often times people only think of what's best for themselves and how they will directly benefit from certain situations. In life choices should be made both based on what one feels is the best decision. In some cases this decision may help others, while other times it may hurt them. The feelings of other individuals should always be considered. For example, if someone decides they want to bully another student because they believe it will make them stronger does it really? No. In this case they are only considering their own feelings and what will help THEM rather than the individual they are bullying. On the other hand, making decisions on things such as college is much different. The approach one takes on while considering colleges is based on an individual's preference and should not be affected or altered based on other people's opinions. Choices should be made both based on your future and what is best for other individuals rather than just considering yourself and what's best for you.
"In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me."
Regarding other statements in this assignment in class, I personally believe a being exists truly to find their meaning on earth, however this cannot be accomplished fully because you never find your meaning on earth until after death, which in this case you are not alive; thus the meaning cannot be fulfilled. That is why a person uses the tool of religion and God to find out their true existence in life. I believe that a vague reason why we exist is to personally find out meaning. In reality, everyone is alone in the world, trying to find their meaning in life. Therefore making a decision based on another person is unfaithful and does not necessarily cover the goal of one's purpose in life, which is to find the meaning of one's existence on earth. In much simpler terms, I believe one's physical body cooresponds and exists with another physical body, but the mental/ moral and souls of one does not connect and is rather disconnected from others. So making a decision based on another's morals leans one's search for their existence away from completion.
“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.” I agree and disagree with this statement for various reasons. Firstly, the choices you make in life is dependant to yourself, not others, because it eventually defines who you are and the path you create in your life. However, making choices just to benefit yourself, which might not help others in any situation is also an act of selfishness and egoism. The fact that it is healthy and good for one’s self to help and aid others, specially close friends or relatives helps to further improve and develop our personal being. Therefore, I think that it just depends on what the decision is, and I would consider the outcomes of the choice made.
In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me. I believe that I -and everyone else- should make decisions that they believe are the best for what they believe is the right thing to do, what decision will have positive energy. I also believe that everyone knows what is good and wrong, regardless of what you are taught, or what you learn because I believe both right and wrong have positive and negative energies in the world that are established within the property of life. Everyone knows what the right thing to do is, they can feel it within themselves, while some people choose to disregard their feelings, and will act on instinct, intuition or hate. I think making choices based off of what is best for that individual is an incredibly selfish trait to possess. Every human has responsibility to help each other man and to live in harmony, and if a decision is for your personal gain but will cause harm to others, it is automatically the wrong decision. People should do whatever they can to avoid harming others in their life. I don't know what happens after death, or before life, but if this is the only life we live then I think everyone should live under the same principle of creating positive energy and making decisions that won't only not harm others for personal gain, but will aid others as if they are yourself. The Old and new testament says something about loving thy neighbor as thyself, i'm not very religious but I do agree with this, if you can genuinely love others as you do yourself then everyone will experience a world of harmony and peace, and that starts with making decisions that benefit others and to not disregard others as unequal to yourself.
“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
This is a difficult question to answer because of the implications which can be taken. If you answer one way you are too selfish, if you answer another way you are lying to yourself. However, can there be a grey area in this, or is it purely black and white?
I think that while this may be an unpopular opinion, I have to choose what is best for myself. While everyone does have people that care for them and vice versa, I believe that it is an individuals responsibility to make decisions that benefit themselves. However, a large part of benefit for yourself, is being able to empathize with and take care of others. Sometimes it is necessary to make decisions that directly benefit others, to in turn benefit yourself. Perhaps this way of thinking is self absorbed and unaffected, but I believe that fulfilling yourself and your needs is indispensable. I do also think that there is a real value in helping others and committing actions for the greater good, but does that mean that it doesn't benefit you? I think what I am trying to get at is that even if an individual truly does something seen as selfless, is there absolutely no benefit for their own personal gain? Nonetheless, I plan on carrying out my life with a penchant for my personal gain.
“Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self-sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?”
First of all, to connect this response to the last question we blogged on, this stance reveals how Camus believes that one must make decisions regardless of what’s best for others. That very idea is seen as something heroic because one is making the conscious decision to help him/herself before anyone else. Choosing defiance instead of self-sacrifice is a decision that many people make to protect themselves rather than help others. Usually one would think that choosing self-sacrifice would be the more noble option, yet choosing defiance is seen as heroic in this case. This stance is heroic because Sisyphus is following his passion rather than giving in to sacrifice himself. I think what Camus is trying to convey here is that it is crucial for one to follow his/her passion and rid oneself of all hope in order to reach ultimate happiness. Sisyphus can be seen as the absurd hero because he recognizes his fate and even dismays his hope in order to be happy. This is very similar to Meursault in The Stranger at the end of part II where he realizes that he is indifferent to the world and that the time of death does not matter because it is inevitable for everyone. At this point, Meursault comes to the realization that he is ironically happy and at ease with his life when is about to die. Both Sisyphus and Meursault are seen as absurd heroes because they revolt and display their uses of freedom while following their passions.
Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self-sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
In Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus expresses the significance of defiance over self sacrifice when committing to one’s faith or destiny. Sisyphus rebellious attitude towards the Gods, like chaining Death and condemning Zeus, lead to his imprisonment in the underworld, which he managed to free himself in order to scold his wife. The defiant attitude of Sisyphus in this myth, like rebelling against the Gods and his death, show his passion to live life on Earth, and his eagerness to do so. When above, and knowing his destiny, he prefers to act in accordance of his own well being and happiness instead of others, because he knows he will die and not be able to enjoy and live in Earth as he did. This connects to the previous statement analyzed in our first blog post of the unit, which stated: In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me. Similarly to Sisyphus, he makes choices regardless of what’s best for others, since he knows that enjoying life and fulfilling it is in his hands and depends entirely on him. This is similar to the way Meursault viewed the world: he knew he was to die and that it was his inevitable destiny. That we are all doomed to die and depends entirely on him to make the most of it as he can living. Therefore, Sisyphus and Meursault both are aware of their inevitable fate, and that happiness depends entirely on their willingness to be so. It is heroic how Sisyphus, being punished in the underworld and condemned by the Gods, does find his stroke of happiness, the same way Meursault finds the joy in life in prison.
Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
In the his writing “Myths of Sisyphus”, Albert Camus defends his argument that defiance should be chosen over self sacrifice. Sisyphus, who was punished for his deceitfulness and trickery was condemned to pushing a rock up and down a hill for eternity. He can be viewed as “heroic” as rather than ignoring his fate, he accepted it and continued to be passionate about his life. The defiance and open mindedness of Sisyphus is shown when Camus writes, “his scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing”. He then writes, “when the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory…” Mankind ultimately loses when the absurdity of the world overcomes themselves. Only so much can be absorbed by an individual before it becomes too overpowering and overbearing. In this instance, the “rocks” Camus mentions directly correlates to the action of committing a self sacrifice. Individuals must accept the world's absurdity and appreciate what life has to offer. This stance is heroic as it takes strength to overcome and accept the hardships individuals are challenged with. Camus then writes, “but crushing truths perish from being acknowledged”. Through his writing, Camus explains how rather than let the feeling of failure conquer, absurdity of the world must be acknowledged and accepted to truly attain happiness.
“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
I agree with this statement, because at the end of the day you have to do what makes you happy. If your entire life your parents teach you that the only way to be successful in life is to contribute to society in a traditional way, like a doctor or a lawyer, and you are miserable in these jobs then you are not leading a full life. The only way to live a full life is to understand yourself, and to find a job that fits your personality like a puzzle piece. If you live your entire life trying to please others around you, and only doing things for the sake of others, you will most likely lead a miserable life yourself. This does not mean that you should always be selfish and commit heinous acts and crimes, it is quite the opposite. In the long run crime does not help you out. It usually leads to prison time and sometimes even drug use. This is not looking out for yourself. It might be a bad reason to do good things, but it is certainly in your best interest to be nice to others, as others will usually return the favor. The key to life in fact is not money, it is happiness. I would rather be a poor janitor that lives a full and happy life with a loving family, than a lonely sad wealthy CEO, so when I make choices i always make choices on whether or not this will work out for me in the long run. I almost never think how my actions will make others think about me, because if i decide to wear a certain article of clothing, or i have a certain opinion that i voice and someone does not like me because of it, they are not someone i want around me anyway.
Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
Being defiant, or openly speaking up against what you believe is wrong opposed to self-sacrifice is a mindset that is very crucial to many people. Allowing yourself to not be restful or sit quietly while something occurs you disagree with in my point of view at least is a very respectful quality. I believe people should be “pulling their own strings”, being defiant while simultaneously being arrogant or rude is only a way to look at the defiance. Some may view certain examples of defiances as heroic or noble, like speaking out against crime, fascism, hate while it is still defiance. If one is not defiant than he is self-sacrificing himself and his beliefs to everybody else around him/her. In “Myths of Sisyphus” Sisyphus has a rebellious nature to the Gods, and the natural world in which he lives, this leads to his punishment. The challenging or questioning of one’s surroundings and situation is something inside everyone and I believe is a place in everybody that should be explored. Camus is writing about the importance of defiance and how it will help us learn about the world we live in. Defiance can be seen as a heroic or noble act in the sense that speaking up for what you beleive in -which may appear defiant- is always a heroic action, and can lead to justice in many specific situations around the world.
(Hey sorry, my house had wifi problems, as we switched connection providers, so I uploaded this at school when I had wifi)
Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
Looking on what self sacrifice and defiance ultimately is, I see that self sacrifice is the act of sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others. While defiance is more of a personal action. To defy oneself is to prove one's existence, while self sacrifice is to leave an imprint on others, for the benefit of others. Overall, defiance is personal and self sacrifice is not. In "Myths of Sisyphus", Sisyphus is a more defiant character, as he was rebellious towards the gods, and he didn't have much of a self sacrifice aspect. Meaning that he ultimatley ended up pushing that rock up. So, looking at the situation, the reason why this would be considered noble or heroic, is because defiance leaves a deeper affect on others than self sacrifice does. Camus, according to his beliefs; says that he believes that there is not really self sacrifice that leaves such an affect on him, more of defiance, because he also believes that you should do actions for yourself not others.
(Sorry about turning this in late... our wifi should be fixed tonight)
Weather and is effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in part 1
In his book “The Stranger”, Albert Camus incorporates weather imagery to explain the motives and thoughts behind the protagonist of the novel, Meursault. The weather throughout part one sets the tone for each passage. Brighter weather connotes with good situations while dark, gory weather creates a ridiculous and negative tone. After the death of Meursault's mother takes place, Camus writes, “darkness had gathered, quickly, above the skylight”(8). The “darkness” referred to creates a depressing tone. Although Meursault presents little emotion, this instance exemplifies how his thoughts and feelings are impacted by the death. As the novel and his character develops, Camus writes, “The sky changed again. Above the rooftops the sky had taken on a reddish glow, and with evening coming on the streets came to life” (23). The changes in the sky and weather mirror the changing emotions of Meursault. Red normally represents extremes and in this case, it is the passion and emotions that rush through Meursault as he sits and observes his surroundings. His character becomes stronger as he makes questionable decisions. After he shoots the Arab man in the beach he states, “The whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back” (59). The pain and guilt Meursault feels is his punishment for the murder he commits. Symbolism surrounding the sun is used to justify the feelings of Meursault. Throughout part one of his novel, Camus uses the imagery of weather to better characterize the actions and feelings of Meursault.
Topic: Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in part 1.
Throughout "The Stranger", Albert Camus uses weather to reveal the motivations of characters and foreshadow later events in the novel. Nearly on every page there is a reference to the forecast in that moment. In the beginning of the book when Meursault is at Maman’s funeral, Camus writes, “the sky was streaked with red” (Camus 12). Usually when the sky is red that means there is a storm that is going to come later. That being said, this foreshadows that a disaster will happen later in the novel. The sun is described as hot and intense not only at this moment but also when Meursault kills the Arab and when he is in the trial. All three of these moments are high-intensity events in which Meursault cannot escape. This reflects how the absurdity of life is inescapable. Later in the book Camus writes, “When the sun got too hot, she dove off and I followed” (Camus 20). At this point in the novel, it is the day after Maman dies and Meursault is at the nearby beach with Marie. This quote characterizes Meursault as someone who is carefree and makes decisions based on what is best for him because he is not mourning his mother’s death but rather at the beach having a good time. Also, this can be seen as a metaphor saying that when things get too rough or unbearable, Meursault disregards them and moves on. In this book, the sun can be a symbol for moments of distress and Meursault’s indifferent reactions show the absurd view he has on life.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
Like many authors who choose to incorporate symbolism of weather in their writing, Camus utilizes weather in a way such that it foreshadows events to happen in the future. Camus' incorporation of weather is written in a way which creates an aura and feeling much like expected. Darker and rainier weather is often associated with a foreshadow to a negative event; whilst a sunnier weather foreshadows to a more positive event. However, if the weather is hotter than normal, this may be a foreshadow for a harsher event. Along with these examples, weather is often used to give a sense of guilt. Since Mersault committed the crime of murder, Camus often includes diction and syntax with a harsh and hotter tone to create another sense of guilt for the reader. All in all, Camus incorporated weather into his work to validate the foreshadowing of future events, and to predict what will happen to certain characters in the novella.
Depending on its intensity, the sun either makes Meursault sleepy, angry, happy, or resentful. For a guy with a limited range of emotions to begin with, this is quite extensive. It's almost as though Meursault is using the sun as an excuse to justify every feeling he has. And the murder he commits. So let's take a look at this murder bit. Just as Meursault is about to turn around, to leave the beach altogether, we hear this line: "But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back." "But," he says. He would have left, but the sun was too intense. The sun "[makes him] move forward" toward the spring (and therefore, toward the Arab). What kind of guy lets the weather dictate his actions? As we've seen many times before, Meursault is a "path of least resistance" kind of guy. He's also mentioned that his "physical needs often [get] in the way of [his] feelings." We see these both at play here; it's easier for Meursault to step towards the cool water and away from the sun, and his feelings of apprehension (probably about the impending showdown at high noon) are inhibited by his physical need to cool off. It's also perfectly reasonable to claim that Meursault is like an element of nature himself. After all, he claims at the end of the text that he's found a kinship with world—that it is so much like himself, a "brother," really.
In Albert Camus’ “The Stranger”, weather is used throughout the novel in order to foreshadow the book’s future events, as well as change the moods of the characters drastically. For example “The sky was green; I felt good.” (1.3.3). Here the reader is given a view of how Meursault’s emotions can be directed by the weather, as well as he is conscious of this. The reader is also given a color symbol green, which can symbolize fortune, clarity, and the coming of summer or warmth, which the opposite ironically happens to Meursault being put in court for murder. Weather is a common symbol in the books we have read this year, usually in order to contrast both demonstration of a character’s inner feelings, and the powerlessness and uncontrollability that man has against nature, creating a man v.s nature conflict. Weather also is a very common tool for foreshadowing because it is not will not come off to the reader necessarily as an attempt to foreshadow, but as author’s details in their work. Weather also literally foreshadows events of the world, such as if it rains, then plants will grow, if it is sunny then animals and other life will spring out, meaning weather is already subconsciously a force of foreshadowing in the natural world. Camus uses his weather in a similar way to foreshadow the events of the book, but primarily uses it to demonstrate character’s emotions and feelings, and to foreshadow how a character’s feelings might change throughout the book, opposed to the literal events of the story.
Many characters throughout the novel symbolize the roles individuals in society play. In his novel “The Stranger”, Albert Camus uses the characters of Salamano and his dog to symbolize the absurdity of humanity. Salamon, who is introduced in part one, had bought a dog after the heartbreaking death of his wife. While discussing Salamano's dog and the brutal punishments he is put through, Camus writes, “when the dog wants to urinate, the old man won't give him enough time and yanks at him… If the dog has an accident in the room, it gets beaten” Camus 27). Although Salamano loves his dog, he abuses him and treats him with little respect. The dog is unable to live his life freely, but instead is beaten and punished for living like a dog. Camus then writes, “he's always there. Then he left, yanking at the animal letting itself be dragged along, whimpering” (28). Even though both characters become annoyed with each other, their inseparable relation shows the reliance they have on one another. Often times individuals treat the ones they love the roughest. This relationship can also be mimicked through the the relationships between siblings who may act as if they hate each other when on the inside, it's really love. The human race as a whole does not always consider the impacts made on each individual's life. Through the actions towards his dog, Salamano demonstrates the carelessness and inhumanity individuals may treat the ones they treasure most with.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond
In The Stranger, the character of Raymond has different functions and symbolic representation that relate to the character to Meursault. To begin with, Raymond is a clear foil to the character of Meursault, since he is immoral, whilst Meursault is amoral. This can be seen clearly in his aggressive behavior towards his lover, and her Arab brother, which he, in both cases, evokes to violence to deal with the situation. However, the character of Meursault seems to deal with this situations more passively, due to his indifference in the world, but refuses to use violence in order to look for a solution. Therefore, with this in mind, we can say that Raymond, symbolically, represents the conflict in the novel, as he is the one that draws Meursault into what he has committed. In chapter 3, Raymond tells Meursault about the fact that he beat his mistress up, and uses Meursault to help write her a letter as an act of courtesy and respect for what he has done. He then invites Meursault over to his friends beach house, where he spots his mistress’s arab brother and his gang. Raymond gives Meursault a gun, and causes him to kill the Arab, which led Meursault to prison. If we look at it this way, we can see Raymond as the culpable of Meursault’s despair, and death, but there’s another way to see his symbolic representation. Raymond is also the cause of Meursault’s finding of his ‘Enlightenment’. If it weren’t for the fact that Raymond has involved Meursault in his conflict, handed him a gun and led him to kill the Arab, Meursault wouldn’t have gone to prison and realized and thought about his existence in life. Therefore he wouldn’t have reached his enlightenment if it weren’t for Raymond.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
In The Stranger, Camus includes minor characters throughout the novel to symbolize different aspects of the book and his philosophy. Salamano and his dog are a major symbol that can help readers understand the idea of absurdity in The Stranger. When talking about Salamano and his dog, Camus writes, “the two of them have been inseparable for eight years...he beats the dog and swears at it” (26-27). Even though it seems as if Salamano hates his dog because he abuses him, Salamano is constantly with him. This relationship in which Salamano and his dog have displays the idea that anyone can get used to anything: an essential part of Camus’ existential philosophy. There are several times when this is enforced by Meursault talking about how he believes there is no point for people to wish that they had a different life. The fact that Salamano takes care of his dog and is upset when he runs away shows Camus’ philosophical idea that everyone’s life is good enough to make them happy. In addition, Salamano and his dog exemplify Camus’ idea that everyone is made equal by death. Camus writes, “[Salamano] told me he’d gotten [his dog] after his wife died” (44). After Salamano’s wife passed away, his dog took her place. This reveals the idea that all life can function at the same level; an animal can take the place of a human. This comes back to the idea that everyone is dying, and that death is the most authentic part of life because it makes everyone and everything hold equal value.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
In "The Stranger", Camus symbolizes both Salamano and his dog as places in society. Salamano, for example, is a symbol of Mersault's mother, as she is in a sense not totally informed about Mersault. But after they are separated they realize their connection. Salamano's dog is also a symbol for being out of place in society; much like Mersault's personality. The dog has a fur condition in which is not likely to happen in most dogs. After the dog passes away, does Slamano have this deeper understanding and compassion towards the dog. As before he was a greedy and unfaithful owner. In a basic understanding, the dog is a symbol for the dead, lost and injured. Mersault is also lost in a sense; not having the same or correct mindset of others in society. There is this analogous connection between Mersault and his mother with Salamano and his dog. Both incidences realize the true meaning of the other after they are separated from each other.
The Robotic Woman, in Camus’ “The Stranger”, the robotic woman appears merely as nothing more than a random character whose appearance in the story is all random in the same. This mystery woman who gets Meursault’s attention with her robotic or machine styled actions and behavior would leave many readers curious to the purpose of such a character in the novel. The robotic woman’s symbolism in the book is most likely archetype of what Meursault wants to be, she is his goal. Meursault who equipts himself with characteristics of emotionless, unable to experience love, pain, or emotion is nothing more than a standard of what he wishes to be, an impossible goal to reach, and only when he sees the robotic woman does he see how out of place his desire is. When he is in court and sees the same woman again staring down at him without any emotion, he feels something, the woman gives him discomfort and I believe is almost giving him a face that makes him feel guilt, almost as if the woman is a mirror, sharing similar qualities of disclusion from the world. The robotic woman may serve as a self reflection for Meursault, a way for him to see himself in the world, being a robotic emotionless, and loveless creature amongst society, and only Meursault sees how strange the robotic woman is compared to everyone, because he as well feels that exclusion from everyone else.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
In his play, “No Exit”, Jean-Paul Sartre portrays death as an inevitable event. The reader is first introduced to three characters by the names of Joseph Garcin, Estelle Rigault, and Inez Serrano. All three had taken part in murderous and deadly activities which evidently forced them into the dark and tormenting hell. While discussing the reasons behind each death, Garcia states “I fear I’m not good company among the dead” (Sartre 10). Followed by Estelle who replies, “Please, please don’t use that word. It’s so--so crude. In terribly bad taste, really. I suggest we call ourselves… absentees” (10). Although all dead in the play, all of the characters decide to refer to themselves as “absentees” rather than “dead people”. Throughout the first half of the play gthe term “absentees” is used in correspondence to how and why each of them has passed. This word however, seems as if it the character’s way of instilling hope into themselves as they strive to be more than just “dead”. Once first admitted into hell, Estelle cannot come to her senses that she has really been placed there. She states, “somehow I feel we’ve never been so much alive as now…” (10) Death throughout Sartre’s play is viewed as a hard topic to and status to accept. Although all of the characters knew they would be sentenced to hell based on their pasts, they continue to fight their dead fate. Just as the three are placed into an enclosed room while in hell, death also is an inescapable and inevitable burden that they must face.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Most philosophers have very specific ideas pertaining to death (the meaning of death, what happens after death, etc.). Throughout No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre uses three main characters to portray the motif of death. First of all, the fact that this play is about three people who are dead yet seem very much alive is really interesting. Sartre probably did this so that he could reveal his ideas on death through characters that have experienced it first hand. Another concept that Sartre touches on is the idea that death is inevitable. After Inez arrives in the room in hell with Garcin, Garcin says, “the door’s locked” (Sartre 9). Just like how these characters cannot escape the room in hell, everyone cannot escape death. That being said, this could be symbolic of the idea that everyone will die at some point just like the thoughts of Meursault in The Stranger. Moments later in the play, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez are talking about how they died and Garcin mentions the word “dead” which Estelle responds to saying, “please, please don’t use that word. It’s so-so crude...I feel we’ve never been so much alive as now” (12). This reveals how Estelle has not yet adjusted to the fact that she is dead and not ever going to be alive again. If Estelle doesn’t want to hear or use words like “dead” then perhaps she still feels like she is alive which is reinforced by the second part of this quote. Because of this, it seems that Sartre might be trying to belittle the significance of life by making hell not seem too different.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Death is portrayed by the characters of Garcin, Inez and Estelle in No Exit, in which they are doomed in hell. The reason why they are in hell is because of the lives they led on Earth: Garcin as a coward, Inez as a damned women, and Estelle as a child-killer. I think that what Paul Sartre is trying to represent with the theme of death is that it is inevitable. He juxtaposed life and death due to the fact that, in this hell, the three characters live forever, there is no other death, only eternity. On one hand, death is portrayed as an imprisonment, a never ending jail that will try to consume you non-stop for eternity, and the fact that there is no management or knowledgement of time means that this imprisonment could end up consuming the characters, until they are actually dead. I think that Paul Sartre has not proclaimed death to his characters yet, but has introduced us to the fear of dying. The fact that we don’t know what happens when we die is the same fear we humans share with the idea of eternity and imprisonment. How could you manage your life, incarcerated forever? I think that death in No Exit will end up consuming the characters, up until the point in which we will never know. On the other hand, I think that death is seen as an escape, or even a punishment of what these three characters have done in their lives. Death is the only way in which they can acknowledge and learn what they have done in their lives, which is seen when the characters see what is going on down in Earth.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Jean paul Sartre in No Exit portrays death as a confusing and inevitable force. Even the dead themselves seem to refuse the fact that they are actually dead. It is a hard concept to wrap your head around. One second you are here, and the next you are gone. It shows everyone's mortality, and everyone's vulnerability. Every man will die, and according to Jean Paul Sartre, almost no one will understand it. The people No Exit prefer the term “absentees” instead of the term “dead”. It seems too harsh, for them. This shows that they still have some hope that they are not really dead, and it further leads to Jean Paul Sartre's opinion that people do not understand their own deaths. Jean Paul Sartre also shows that death is not the end, there is an afterlife. Death is only the beginning to your eternal life. The play does not mention heaven, but the characters are all in hell, so we can assume that there is one. The characters are all naive in thinking that they do not belong in hell. The reader slowly realizes that each character is far more innocent than we originally believed. He creates a theme of fearing death. Most people have a strong urge to live, and when they do die they hope to go to heaven, but this is not always the case.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
In “No Exit” Death being the major theme of the play, with the entirety of the play taking place in Hell, with all the characters being dead. Death philosophically is seen as a restful passage of one’s being, an end to rest, however with no exit, death does not stop the restlessness and pain of living. “Life without breaks”. Death in “No Exit” doesn't seem so dead in a sense, all the characters feel as though they are on their way to their final punishment, or death or final place of rest. Estelle even decides that using the word death is too improper and wants to use the word absent to better suit their situation, and absent may better suit the situation of these characters than death, because they are all absent until they help each other and find themselves, and find why they are in the room, and why together. The play uses death as a way for the characters to all come together and look deep into themselves and have epiphanies regarding their life, and their mistakes. Sartre's creative take on death allows for a unique discussion of one’s own life in a reflective manner and the fact that the characters are no longer living allows for them to open up to each other and act and speak instinctively not limited by social norms.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
In the play No Exit, Sartre uses the role of sight/vision/eyes to portray human conditions. For instance, the fact that there are no mirrors, which would provide the characters a mere image and reflection of themselves, show the extent of their torture in hell, as well as self centeredness in humans. This can be seen in the character of Estelle, when she states how she “always made sure there was one (mirror) near by in which [she] could be able to see [her]self”. (Sartre, 20). I feel like, philosophically, what Sartre is trying to convey with the fact of not having any mirrors as a way of ‘torture’ in this hell is the egoism in human beings. The fact that Estelle needs a mirror to be able to see herself while she is talking with other people shows the extent of human egoism and self centeredness, since she relies upon seen herself through the reflection on Inez’s eye, even in the state she is in (dead). Another way in which eye’s play a role in this play is in the idea of freedom. He states how having the ability of being able to blink is “restful” and “refreshing” (Sartre, 5), as it gives life “for thousand little rests per hour” (Sartre, 5). Knowing that his eyes are paralyzed, in other words, not able to blink, shows another form of the author's way of conveying torture, not only physically but psychologically, since, according to Sartre, eyes can torture a being because expose us to the muddled and dizzy world. Therefore, the fact that the characters are not able to blink shows how they are condemned to live this hell without peace, without being able to take a break from what are ayes see.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
Throughout No Exit, Sartre makes references to sight/vision/eyes very frequently. In dreaming, the eyes represent an opening into a new dimension. Sartre writes about eyes to help reveal the most evident theme: “Hell is other people”. In No Exit, the three main characters, Garcin, Inez and Estelle are introduced into a new dimension: Hell, and through this new place, they realize that Hell is literally the presence of other people with no escaping. In the beginning of the play when the Valet is taking Garcin into the room in hell, Garcin notices that the Valet is not blinking. When talking about blinking Garcin says, “Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour” (Sartre 5). Garcin is discussing how blinking is crucial for relaxation. This one little luxury that people have when they are alive is about to be taken away from him, which is part of his punishment in Hell. Garcin is not being physically tortured, but he is still being tortured in the way that he is losing his peace. Also, little does he know at this point in the play, he will have to be around two women forever without the option to close his eyes and relax. To further add on to this point, later in the play Estelle says, “you’ll be under my eyes all the time” (36). For the rest of eternity, Estelle, Inez and Garcin have to be together without rest; Sartre is trying to convey that that is the strongest form of torture that exists.
In his play “No Exit”, Jean-Paul Sartre makes many references to sight, vision, and eyes, to portray the trapped and rather different feeling that hell offers. This differentiates from real life as characters Garcin, Inez, and Estelle are punished in hell for the sins they had committed. The action of seeing and being able to view the world is symbolic of the freedom the living are given. In the beginning of the play, Garcin makes an observation that the Valet who had led them to their room had not blunk. While describing the action of blinking and reassurance it brings Garcin states, “You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour” (Sartre 5). Blinking is a necessity in everyday life as it both cleans and moisturizes the eyes. Without this ability, eyes would become sore and dry as they get covered in dirt particles. This small, yet very important thing is given to the living but stripped from those in hell as a punishment. The role of eyes in this scenario is to separate the world from the sinners in hell. No longer are the characters able to look down upon “what could have been” as the entering of hell results in getting cut off and being barred from viewing the living. Garcin and the others never get physically tortured as they had once viewed hell as offering but instead, are given circumstances where their peace and happiness are stripped from the. After days of being in hell Garcin, Inez, and Estelle come to realize that hell is truly “other people” and their presence as it has no exits. Through the action of seeing, Jean-Paul Sartre conveys how torture and punishment can take on a variety of forms.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
In Sartre's play "No Exit", sight and vision is quite prevalent, as this is a recurring motif in the play to symbolize the unknown and to foreshadow their existence in hell. On page 19, Inez brings up the fact that mirrors were a tool in which they took for granted in the normal world. She explains that "I can see them. But they don't see me." (Sartre 19), implying this idea that one does not realize what he/she takes advantage of every day. Mirrors and windows; which are not in the room during the scene, is something in which people use every day, but people don't realize they truly can't function without it, until it is taken away from them. This furthers the idea that Sartre had when creating "No Exit", having the sense that they are living in this hell created specifically for them to realize what they are capable of without their so called 'necessities'. Without their necessities, they must face this eternity of boredom. As said on page 4, Garcin complains that he must "Stare my eyes out.." (4) meaning that he realizes that he cannot mentally function without his so called necessities.
In Jean-Paul Sartre's "No Exit", the idea of vision/sight/eyes is heavily referenced throughout the play. One example of this is in how their are no mirrors in hell, Estelle being self obsessed is distressed by the idea of not being able to see herself at all times, she panics and needs someone to tell her she's pretty. The idea of not having vision of her own beauty is a form of hell for people who are self obsessed and materialistic like Estelle. Eyes are also referenced when Garcin is talking to the Valet about the how restful blinking is for the living, he brings this up because the eyes being able to blink or rest is something only for the living Garcin soon learns, and the blinking can symbolize the small rests we may take for granted, which is not something capable of doing in hell. I believe Sartre in a lot of ways is saying that sight can be a form of hell, for Estelle not feeling beautiful is a form of hell, like it is for a lot of people, and the world around us can be hell like, but a blink can break us from reality--even if it is for an incredibly brief amount of time--so in hell we are not given the luxury of even a fractionated break from reality. Vision or sight can be a treterches form of hell for the living for it exposes us to truth and reality, and in Sartre's hell reality has no rests.
Jean paul sartre refers to sight, vision, and someone's own reflection a lot in No Exit. He uses these in order to portray the characters trapped in a hell, that does not seem like hell. It is so vague. There is no direct torture in this hell, there is no physical pain. Instead it is a hell of boredom. They are not allowed anything other than couches, each others company, and their own thoughts for all eternity. This is not what anyone expects from hell, and two of the characters even ask if the other person is the executioner. After a while of trying to make it through the monotonous environment, the annoying people, and their relentless conscious the characters wish that they could be tortured. This is truly the worst kind of hell imaginable. There is no greater pain than emotional one. There is no worse feeling than hopeless boredom. The characters do not even have a mirror, so that they can check on their own appearance. They all ask for a mirror or a glass. This is a perfect example of something that you have everyday, and take for granted. You would not realize how much you use a mirror until you do not have one. That is just one of the many things that they do not have access to. Hopefully this hell does not exist, it would be the worst thing imaginable.
“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this statement. On some levels, this statement is accurate because the needs of an individual are very important to meet in order to live a happy and meaningful life, although that does not mean that choosing what is best for that individual should come before what is best for a community of people. I believe that it is true that the actions of most people come back to themselves in one way or another, but I think that one should always have others in mind when deciding to do something. There are often moments when it is important to do what is right for oneself, but that cannot be used as an excuse to commit crimes or act with dishonesty. If the mindset of everyone were to do what is best for them without regards to anyone else, there would be corruption amongst the entire population. This would be because people would try to benefit themselves by acting irrationally. On the other hand, taking care of oneself should be the number one priority of everyone, but just because one is taking care of him/herself does not mean that he/she should not have others in mind. I strongly believe that humans should try to be successful and benefit themselves as best they can while remembering that what they do has the potential to affect somebody else.
I both agree and disagree that decisions should be based on what's best for individual. Being selfish can be good in some ways, such as when dealing with competition, sports, and school but bad in others. Often times people only think of what's best for themselves and how they will directly benefit from certain situations. In life choices should be made both based on what one feels is the best decision. In some cases this decision may help others, while other times it may hurt them. The feelings of other individuals should always be considered. For example, if someone decides they want to bully another student because they believe it will make them stronger does it really? No. In this case they are only considering their own feelings and what will help THEM rather than the individual they are bullying. On the other hand, making decisions on things such as college is much different. The approach one takes on while considering colleges is based on an individual's preference and should not be affected or altered based on other people's opinions. Choices should be made both based on your future and what is best for other individuals rather than just considering yourself and what's best for you.
ReplyDelete"In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me."
ReplyDeleteRegarding other statements in this assignment in class, I personally believe a being exists truly to find their meaning on earth, however this cannot be accomplished fully because you never find your meaning on earth until after death, which in this case you are not alive; thus the meaning cannot be fulfilled. That is why a person uses the tool of religion and God to find out their true existence in life. I believe that a vague reason why we exist is to personally find out meaning. In reality, everyone is alone in the world, trying to find their meaning in life. Therefore making a decision based on another person is unfaithful and does not necessarily cover the goal of one's purpose in life, which is to find the meaning of one's existence on earth. In much simpler terms, I believe one's physical body cooresponds and exists with another physical body, but the mental/ moral and souls of one does not connect and is rather disconnected from others. So making a decision based on another's morals leans one's search for their existence away from completion.
Oh dear I just realized I'm a big introvert...
Delete“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
ReplyDeleteI agree and disagree with this statement for various reasons. Firstly, the choices you make in life is dependant to yourself, not others, because it eventually defines who you are and the path you create in your life. However, making choices just to benefit yourself, which might not help others in any situation is also an act of selfishness and egoism. The fact that it is healthy and good for one’s self to help and aid others, specially close friends or relatives helps to further improve and develop our personal being. Therefore, I think that it just depends on what the decision is, and I would consider the outcomes of the choice made.
In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that I -and everyone else- should make decisions that they believe are the best for what they believe is the right thing to do, what decision will have positive energy. I also believe that everyone knows what is good and wrong, regardless of what you are taught, or what you learn because I believe both right and wrong have positive and negative energies in the world that are established within the property of life. Everyone knows what the right thing to do is, they can feel it within themselves, while some people choose to disregard their feelings, and will act on instinct, intuition or hate. I think making choices based off of what is best for that individual is an incredibly selfish trait to possess. Every human has responsibility to help each other man and to live in harmony, and if a decision is for your personal gain but will cause harm to others, it is automatically the wrong decision. People should do whatever they can to avoid harming others in their life. I don't know what happens after death, or before life, but if this is the only life we live then I think everyone should live under the same principle of creating positive energy and making decisions that won't only not harm others for personal gain, but will aid others as if they are yourself. The Old and new testament says something about loving thy neighbor as thyself, i'm not very religious but I do agree with this, if you can genuinely love others as you do yourself then everyone will experience a world of harmony and peace, and that starts with making decisions that benefit others and to not disregard others as unequal to yourself.
“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult question to answer because of the implications which can be taken. If you answer one way you are too selfish, if you answer another way you are lying to yourself. However, can there be a grey area in this, or is it purely black and white?
I think that while this may be an unpopular opinion, I have to choose what is best for myself. While everyone does have people that care for them and vice versa, I believe that it is an individuals responsibility to make decisions that benefit themselves. However, a large part of benefit for yourself, is being able to empathize with and take care of others. Sometimes it is necessary to make decisions that directly benefit others, to in turn benefit yourself. Perhaps this way of thinking is self absorbed and unaffected, but I believe that fulfilling yourself and your needs is indispensable. I do also think that there is a real value in helping others and committing actions for the greater good, but does that mean that it doesn't benefit you? I think what I am trying to get at is that even if an individual truly does something seen as selfless, is there absolutely no benefit for their own personal gain? Nonetheless, I plan on carrying out my life with a penchant for my personal gain.
“Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self-sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?”
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, to connect this response to the last question we blogged on, this stance reveals how Camus believes that one must make decisions regardless of what’s best for others. That very idea is seen as something heroic because one is making the conscious decision to help him/herself before anyone else. Choosing defiance instead of self-sacrifice is a decision that many people make to protect themselves rather than help others. Usually one would think that choosing self-sacrifice would be the more noble option, yet choosing defiance is seen as heroic in this case. This stance is heroic because Sisyphus is following his passion rather than giving in to sacrifice himself. I think what Camus is trying to convey here is that it is crucial for one to follow his/her passion and rid oneself of all hope in order to reach ultimate happiness. Sisyphus can be seen as the absurd hero because he recognizes his fate and even dismays his hope in order to be happy. This is very similar to Meursault in The Stranger at the end of part II where he realizes that he is indifferent to the world and that the time of death does not matter because it is inevitable for everyone. At this point, Meursault comes to the realization that he is ironically happy and at ease with his life when is about to die. Both Sisyphus and Meursault are seen as absurd heroes because they revolt and display their uses of freedom while following their passions.
Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self-sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
ReplyDeleteIn Myth of Sisyphus, Albert Camus expresses the significance of defiance over self sacrifice when committing to one’s faith or destiny. Sisyphus rebellious attitude towards the Gods, like chaining Death and condemning Zeus, lead to his imprisonment in the underworld, which he managed to free himself in order to scold his wife. The defiant attitude of Sisyphus in this myth, like rebelling against the Gods and his death, show his passion to live life on Earth, and his eagerness to do so. When above, and knowing his destiny, he prefers to act in accordance of his own well being and happiness instead of others, because he knows he will die and not be able to enjoy and live in Earth as he did. This connects to the previous statement analyzed in our first blog post of the unit, which stated: In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me. Similarly to Sisyphus, he makes choices regardless of what’s best for others, since he knows that enjoying life and fulfilling it is in his hands and depends entirely on him. This is similar to the way Meursault viewed the world: he knew he was to die and that it was his inevitable destiny. That we are all doomed to die and depends entirely on him to make the most of it as he can living. Therefore, Sisyphus and Meursault both are aware of their inevitable fate, and that happiness depends entirely on their willingness to be so. It is heroic how Sisyphus, being punished in the underworld and condemned by the Gods, does find his stroke of happiness, the same way Meursault finds the joy in life in prison.
ReplyDeleteWhy does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
In the his writing “Myths of Sisyphus”, Albert Camus defends his argument that defiance should be chosen over self sacrifice. Sisyphus, who was punished for his deceitfulness and trickery was condemned to pushing a rock up and down a hill for eternity. He can be viewed as “heroic” as rather than ignoring his fate, he accepted it and continued to be passionate about his life. The defiance and open mindedness of Sisyphus is shown when Camus writes, “his scorn of the gods, his hatred of death, and his passion for life won him that unspeakable penalty in which the whole being is exerted toward accomplishing nothing”. He then writes, “when the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory…” Mankind ultimately loses when the absurdity of the world overcomes themselves. Only so much can be absorbed by an individual before it becomes too overpowering and overbearing. In this instance, the “rocks” Camus mentions directly correlates to the action of committing a self sacrifice. Individuals must accept the world's absurdity and appreciate what life has to offer. This stance is heroic as it takes strength to overcome and accept the hardships individuals are challenged with. Camus then writes, “but crushing truths perish from being acknowledged”. Through his writing, Camus explains how rather than let the feeling of failure conquer, absurdity of the world must be acknowledged and accepted to truly attain happiness.
“In life, I must make choices regardless of what’s best for others. I can only choose what’s best for me.”
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement, because at the end of the day you have to do what makes you happy. If your entire life your parents teach you that the only way to be successful in life is to contribute to society in a traditional way, like a doctor or a lawyer, and you are miserable in these jobs then you are not leading a full life. The only way to live a full life is to understand yourself, and to find a job that fits your personality like a puzzle piece. If you live your entire life trying to please others around you, and only doing things for the sake of others, you will most likely lead a miserable life yourself. This does not mean that you should always be selfish and commit heinous acts and crimes, it is quite the opposite. In the long run crime does not help you out. It usually leads to prison time and sometimes even drug use. This is not looking out for yourself. It might be a bad reason to do good things, but it is certainly in your best interest to be nice to others, as others will usually return the favor. The key to life in fact is not money, it is happiness. I would rather be a poor janitor that lives a full and happy life with a loving family, than a lonely sad wealthy CEO, so when I make choices i always make choices on whether or not this will work out for me in the long run. I almost never think how my actions will make others think about me, because if i decide to wear a certain article of clothing, or i have a certain opinion that i voice and someone does not like me because of it, they are not someone i want around me anyway.
Why does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
ReplyDeleteBeing defiant, or openly speaking up against what you believe is wrong opposed to self-sacrifice is a mindset that is very crucial to many people. Allowing yourself to not be restful or sit quietly while something occurs you disagree with in my point of view at least is a very respectful quality. I believe people should be “pulling their own strings”, being defiant while simultaneously being arrogant or rude is only a way to look at the defiance. Some may view certain examples of defiances as heroic or noble, like speaking out against crime, fascism, hate while it is still defiance. If one is not defiant than he is self-sacrificing himself and his beliefs to everybody else around him/her. In “Myths of Sisyphus” Sisyphus has a rebellious nature to the Gods, and the natural world in which he lives, this leads to his punishment. The challenging or questioning of one’s surroundings and situation is something inside everyone and I believe is a place in everybody that should be explored. Camus is writing about the importance of defiance and how it will help us learn about the world we live in. Defiance can be seen as a heroic or noble act in the sense that speaking up for what you beleive in -which may appear defiant- is always a heroic action, and can lead to justice in many specific situations around the world.
(Hey sorry, my house had wifi problems, as we switched connection providers, so I uploaded this at school when I had wifi)
ReplyDeleteWhy does Camus ultimately opt for defiance over self sacrifice? How is this stance noble, even heroic?
Looking on what self sacrifice and defiance ultimately is, I see that self sacrifice is the act of sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others. While defiance is more of a personal action. To defy oneself is to prove one's existence, while self sacrifice is to leave an imprint on others, for the benefit of others. Overall, defiance is personal and self sacrifice is not. In "Myths of Sisyphus", Sisyphus is a more defiant character, as he was rebellious towards the gods, and he didn't have much of a self sacrifice aspect. Meaning that he ultimatley ended up pushing that rock up. So, looking at the situation, the reason why this would be considered noble or heroic, is because defiance leaves a deeper affect on others than self sacrifice does. Camus, according to his beliefs; says that he believes that there is not really self sacrifice that leaves such an affect on him, more of defiance, because he also believes that you should do actions for yourself not others.
(Sorry about turning this in late... our wifi should be fixed tonight)
Weather and is effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in part 1
ReplyDeleteIn his book “The Stranger”, Albert Camus incorporates weather imagery to explain the motives and thoughts behind the protagonist of the novel, Meursault. The weather throughout part one sets the tone for each passage. Brighter weather connotes with good situations while dark, gory weather creates a ridiculous and negative tone. After the death of Meursault's mother takes place, Camus writes, “darkness had gathered, quickly, above the skylight”(8). The “darkness” referred to creates a depressing tone. Although Meursault presents little emotion, this instance exemplifies how his thoughts and feelings are impacted by the death. As the novel and his character develops, Camus writes, “The sky changed again. Above the rooftops the sky had taken on a reddish glow, and with evening coming on the streets came to life” (23). The changes in the sky and weather mirror the changing emotions of Meursault. Red normally represents extremes and in this case, it is the passion and emotions that rush through Meursault as he sits and observes his surroundings. His character becomes stronger as he makes questionable decisions. After he shoots the Arab man in the beach he states, “The whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back” (59). The pain and guilt Meursault feels is his punishment for the murder he commits. Symbolism surrounding the sun is used to justify the feelings of Meursault. Throughout part one of his novel, Camus uses the imagery of weather to better characterize the actions and feelings of Meursault.
Topic: Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in part 1.
ReplyDeleteThroughout "The Stranger", Albert Camus uses weather to reveal the motivations of characters and foreshadow later events in the novel. Nearly on every page there is a reference to the forecast in that moment. In the beginning of the book when Meursault is at Maman’s funeral, Camus writes, “the sky was streaked with red” (Camus 12). Usually when the sky is red that means there is a storm that is going to come later. That being said, this foreshadows that a disaster will happen later in the novel. The sun is described as hot and intense not only at this moment but also when Meursault kills the Arab and when he is in the trial. All three of these moments are high-intensity events in which Meursault cannot escape. This reflects how the absurdity of life is inescapable. Later in the book Camus writes, “When the sun got too hot, she dove off and I followed” (Camus 20). At this point in the novel, it is the day after Maman dies and Meursault is at the nearby beach with Marie. This quote characterizes Meursault as someone who is carefree and makes decisions based on what is best for him because he is not mourning his mother’s death but rather at the beach having a good time. Also, this can be seen as a metaphor saying that when things get too rough or unbearable, Meursault disregards them and moves on. In this book, the sun can be a symbol for moments of distress and Meursault’s indifferent reactions show the absurd view he has on life.
Weather and its effect on the motivations of characters or foreshadowing plot events in Part 1.
ReplyDeleteLike many authors who choose to incorporate symbolism of weather in their writing, Camus utilizes weather in a way such that it foreshadows events to happen in the future. Camus' incorporation of weather is written in a way which creates an aura and feeling much like expected. Darker and rainier weather is often associated with a foreshadow to a negative event; whilst a sunnier weather foreshadows to a more positive event. However, if the weather is hotter than normal, this may be a foreshadow for a harsher event. Along with these examples, weather is often used to give a sense of guilt. Since Mersault committed the crime of murder, Camus often includes diction and syntax with a harsh and hotter tone to create another sense of guilt for the reader. All in all, Camus incorporated weather into his work to validate the foreshadowing of future events, and to predict what will happen to certain characters in the novella.
Depending on its intensity, the sun either makes Meursault sleepy, angry, happy, or resentful. For a guy with a limited range of emotions to begin with, this is quite extensive. It's almost as though Meursault is using the sun as an excuse to justify every feeling he has.
ReplyDeleteAnd the murder he commits.
So let's take a look at this murder bit. Just as Meursault is about to turn around, to leave the beach altogether, we hear this line: "But the whole beach, throbbing in the sun, was pressing on my back." "But," he says. He would have left, but the sun was too intense. The sun "[makes him] move forward" toward the spring (and therefore, toward the Arab).
What kind of guy lets the weather dictate his actions? As we've seen many times before, Meursault is a "path of least resistance" kind of guy. He's also mentioned that his "physical needs often [get] in the way of [his] feelings." We see these both at play here; it's easier for Meursault to step towards the cool water and away from the sun, and his feelings of apprehension (probably about the impending showdown at high noon) are inhibited by his physical need to cool off.
It's also perfectly reasonable to claim that Meursault is like an element of nature himself. After all, he claims at the end of the text that he's found a kinship with world—that it is so much like himself, a "brother," really.
In Albert Camus’ “The Stranger”, weather is used throughout the novel in order to foreshadow the book’s future events, as well as change the moods of the characters drastically. For example “The sky was green; I felt good.” (1.3.3). Here the reader is given a view of how Meursault’s emotions can be directed by the weather, as well as he is conscious of this. The reader is also given a color symbol green, which can symbolize fortune, clarity, and the coming of summer or warmth, which the opposite ironically happens to Meursault being put in court for murder. Weather is a common symbol in the books we have read this year, usually in order to contrast both demonstration of a character’s inner feelings, and the powerlessness and uncontrollability that man has against nature, creating a man v.s nature conflict. Weather also is a very common tool for foreshadowing because it is not will not come off to the reader necessarily as an attempt to foreshadow, but as author’s details in their work. Weather also literally foreshadows events of the world, such as if it rains, then plants will grow, if it is sunny then animals and other life will spring out, meaning weather is already subconsciously a force of foreshadowing in the natural world. Camus uses his weather in a similar way to foreshadow the events of the book, but primarily uses it to demonstrate character’s emotions and feelings, and to foreshadow how a character’s feelings might change throughout the book, opposed to the literal events of the story.
ReplyDeleteMany characters throughout the novel symbolize the roles individuals in society play. In his novel “The Stranger”, Albert Camus uses the characters of Salamano and his dog to symbolize the absurdity of humanity. Salamon, who is introduced in part one, had bought a dog after the heartbreaking death of his wife. While discussing Salamano's dog and the brutal punishments he is put through, Camus writes, “when the dog wants to urinate, the old man won't give him enough time and yanks at him… If the dog has an accident in the room, it gets beaten” Camus 27). Although Salamano loves his dog, he abuses him and treats him with little respect. The dog is unable to live his life freely, but instead is beaten and punished for living like a dog. Camus then writes, “he's always there. Then he left, yanking at the animal letting itself be dragged along, whimpering” (28). Even though both characters become annoyed with each other, their inseparable relation shows the reliance they have on one another. Often times individuals treat the ones they love the roughest. This relationship can also be mimicked through the the relationships between siblings who may act as if they hate each other when on the inside, it's really love. The human race as a whole does not always consider the impacts made on each individual's life. Through the actions towards his dog, Salamano demonstrates the carelessness and inhumanity individuals may treat the ones they treasure most with.
ReplyDeleteChoose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, the character of Raymond has different functions and symbolic representation that relate to the character to Meursault. To begin with, Raymond is a clear foil to the character of Meursault, since he is immoral, whilst Meursault is amoral. This can be seen clearly in his aggressive behavior towards his lover, and her Arab brother, which he, in both cases, evokes to violence to deal with the situation. However, the character of Meursault seems to deal with this situations more passively, due to his indifference in the world, but refuses to use violence in order to look for a solution. Therefore, with this in mind, we can say that Raymond, symbolically, represents the conflict in the novel, as he is the one that draws Meursault into what he has committed. In chapter 3, Raymond tells Meursault about the fact that he beat his mistress up, and uses Meursault to help write her a letter as an act of courtesy and respect for what he has done. He then invites Meursault over to his friends beach house, where he spots his mistress’s arab brother and his gang. Raymond gives Meursault a gun, and causes him to kill the Arab, which led Meursault to prison. If we look at it this way, we can see Raymond as the culpable of Meursault’s despair, and death, but there’s another way to see his symbolic representation. Raymond is also the cause of Meursault’s finding of his ‘Enlightenment’. If it weren’t for the fact that Raymond has involved Meursault in his conflict, handed him a gun and led him to kill the Arab, Meursault wouldn’t have gone to prison and realized and thought about his existence in life. Therefore he wouldn’t have reached his enlightenment if it weren’t for Raymond.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
ReplyDeleteIn The Stranger, Camus includes minor characters throughout the novel to symbolize different aspects of the book and his philosophy. Salamano and his dog are a major symbol that can help readers understand the idea of absurdity in The Stranger. When talking about Salamano and his dog, Camus writes, “the two of them have been inseparable for eight years...he beats the dog and swears at it” (26-27). Even though it seems as if Salamano hates his dog because he abuses him, Salamano is constantly with him. This relationship in which Salamano and his dog have displays the idea that anyone can get used to anything: an essential part of Camus’ existential philosophy. There are several times when this is enforced by Meursault talking about how he believes there is no point for people to wish that they had a different life. The fact that Salamano takes care of his dog and is upset when he runs away shows Camus’ philosophical idea that everyone’s life is good enough to make them happy. In addition, Salamano and his dog exemplify Camus’ idea that everyone is made equal by death. Camus writes, “[Salamano] told me he’d gotten [his dog] after his wife died” (44). After Salamano’s wife passed away, his dog took her place. This reveals the idea that all life can function at the same level; an animal can take the place of a human. This comes back to the idea that everyone is dying, and that death is the most authentic part of life because it makes everyone and everything hold equal value.
Choose ONE of the following characters and discuss his or her symbolic significance in the novel: Raymond, Salamano (and his dog), Maman, The Robot Woman.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Stranger", Camus symbolizes both Salamano and his dog as places in society. Salamano, for example, is a symbol of Mersault's mother, as she is in a sense not totally informed about Mersault. But after they are separated they realize their connection. Salamano's dog is also a symbol for being out of place in society; much like Mersault's personality. The dog has a fur condition in which is not likely to happen in most dogs. After the dog passes away, does Slamano have this deeper understanding and compassion towards the dog. As before he was a greedy and unfaithful owner. In a basic understanding, the dog is a symbol for the dead, lost and injured. Mersault is also lost in a sense; not having the same or correct mindset of others in society. There is this analogous connection between Mersault and his mother with Salamano and his dog. Both incidences realize the true meaning of the other after they are separated from each other.
The Robotic Woman, in Camus’ “The Stranger”, the robotic woman appears merely as nothing more than a random character whose appearance in the story is all random in the same. This mystery woman who gets Meursault’s attention with her robotic or machine styled actions and behavior would leave many readers curious to the purpose of such a character in the novel. The robotic woman’s symbolism in the book is most likely archetype of what Meursault wants to be, she is his goal. Meursault who equipts himself with characteristics of emotionless, unable to experience love, pain, or emotion is nothing more than a standard of what he wishes to be, an impossible goal to reach, and only when he sees the robotic woman does he see how out of place his desire is. When he is in court and sees the same woman again staring down at him without any emotion, he feels something, the woman gives him discomfort and I believe is almost giving him a face that makes him feel guilt, almost as if the woman is a mirror, sharing similar qualities of disclusion from the world. The robotic woman may serve as a self reflection for Meursault, a way for him to see himself in the world, being a robotic emotionless, and loveless creature amongst society, and only Meursault sees how strange the robotic woman is compared to everyone, because he as well feels that exclusion from everyone else.
ReplyDeleteHow is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn his play, “No Exit”, Jean-Paul Sartre portrays death as an inevitable event. The reader is first introduced to three characters by the names of Joseph Garcin, Estelle Rigault, and Inez Serrano. All three had taken part in murderous and deadly activities which evidently forced them into the dark and tormenting hell. While discussing the reasons behind each death, Garcia states “I fear I’m not good company among the dead” (Sartre 10). Followed by Estelle who replies, “Please, please don’t use that word. It’s so--so crude. In terribly bad taste, really. I suggest we call ourselves… absentees” (10). Although all dead in the play, all of the characters decide to refer to themselves as “absentees” rather than “dead people”. Throughout the first half of the play gthe term “absentees” is used in correspondence to how and why each of them has passed. This word however, seems as if it the character’s way of instilling hope into themselves as they strive to be more than just “dead”. Once first admitted into hell, Estelle cannot come to her senses that she has really been placed there. She states, “somehow I feel we’ve never been so much alive as now…” (10) Death throughout Sartre’s play is viewed as a hard topic to and status to accept. Although all of the characters knew they would be sentenced to hell based on their pasts, they continue to fight their dead fate. Just as the three are placed into an enclosed room while in hell, death also is an inescapable and inevitable burden that they must face.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteMost philosophers have very specific ideas pertaining to death (the meaning of death, what happens after death, etc.). Throughout No Exit, Jean-Paul Sartre uses three main characters to portray the motif of death. First of all, the fact that this play is about three people who are dead yet seem very much alive is really interesting. Sartre probably did this so that he could reveal his ideas on death through characters that have experienced it first hand. Another concept that Sartre touches on is the idea that death is inevitable. After Inez arrives in the room in hell with Garcin, Garcin says, “the door’s locked” (Sartre 9). Just like how these characters cannot escape the room in hell, everyone cannot escape death. That being said, this could be symbolic of the idea that everyone will die at some point just like the thoughts of Meursault in The Stranger. Moments later in the play, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez are talking about how they died and Garcin mentions the word “dead” which Estelle responds to saying, “please, please don’t use that word. It’s so-so crude...I feel we’ve never been so much alive as now” (12). This reveals how Estelle has not yet adjusted to the fact that she is dead and not ever going to be alive again. If Estelle doesn’t want to hear or use words like “dead” then perhaps she still feels like she is alive which is reinforced by the second part of this quote. Because of this, it seems that Sartre might be trying to belittle the significance of life by making hell not seem too different.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteDeath is portrayed by the characters of Garcin, Inez and Estelle in No Exit, in which they are doomed in hell. The reason why they are in hell is because of the lives they led on Earth: Garcin as a coward, Inez as a damned women, and Estelle as a child-killer. I think that what Paul Sartre is trying to represent with the theme of death is that it is inevitable. He juxtaposed life and death due to the fact that, in this hell, the three characters live forever, there is no other death, only eternity. On one hand, death is portrayed as an imprisonment, a never ending jail that will try to consume you non-stop for eternity, and the fact that there is no management or knowledgement of time means that this imprisonment could end up consuming the characters, until they are actually dead. I think that Paul Sartre has not proclaimed death to his characters yet, but has introduced us to the fear of dying. The fact that we don’t know what happens when we die is the same fear we humans share with the idea of eternity and imprisonment. How could you manage your life, incarcerated forever? I think that death in No Exit will end up consuming the characters, up until the point in which we will never know. On the other hand, I think that death is seen as an escape, or even a punishment of what these three characters have done in their lives. Death is the only way in which they can acknowledge and learn what they have done in their lives, which is seen when the characters see what is going on down in Earth.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteJean paul Sartre in No Exit portrays death as a confusing and inevitable force. Even the dead themselves seem to refuse the fact that they are actually dead. It is a hard concept to wrap your head around. One second you are here, and the next you are gone. It shows everyone's mortality, and everyone's vulnerability. Every man will die, and according to Jean Paul Sartre, almost no one will understand it. The people No Exit prefer the term “absentees” instead of the term “dead”. It seems too harsh, for them. This shows that they still have some hope that they are not really dead, and it further leads to Jean Paul Sartre's opinion that people do not understand their own deaths. Jean Paul Sartre also shows that death is not the end, there is an afterlife. Death is only the beginning to your eternal life. The play does not mention heaven, but the characters are all in hell, so we can assume that there is one. The characters are all naive in thinking that they do not belong in hell. The reader slowly realizes that each character is far more innocent than we originally believed. He creates a theme of fearing death. Most people have a strong urge to live, and when they do die they hope to go to heaven, but this is not always the case.
How is DEATH, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn “No Exit” Death being the major theme of the play, with the entirety of the play taking place in Hell, with all the characters being dead. Death philosophically is seen as a restful passage of one’s being, an end to rest, however with no exit, death does not stop the restlessness and pain of living. “Life without breaks”. Death in “No Exit” doesn't seem so dead in a sense, all the characters feel as though they are on their way to their final punishment, or death or final place of rest. Estelle even decides that using the word death is too improper and wants to use the word absent to better suit their situation, and absent may better suit the situation of these characters than death, because they are all absent until they help each other and find themselves, and find why they are in the room, and why together. The play uses death as a way for the characters to all come together and look deep into themselves and have epiphanies regarding their life, and their mistakes. Sartre's creative take on death allows for a unique discussion of one’s own life in a reflective manner and the fact that the characters are no longer living allows for them to open up to each other and act and speak instinctively not limited by social norms.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn the play No Exit, Sartre uses the role of sight/vision/eyes to portray human conditions. For instance, the fact that there are no mirrors, which would provide the characters a mere image and reflection of themselves, show the extent of their torture in hell, as well as self centeredness in humans. This can be seen in the character of Estelle, when she states how she “always made sure there was one (mirror) near by in which [she] could be able to see [her]self”. (Sartre, 20). I feel like, philosophically, what Sartre is trying to convey with the fact of not having any mirrors as a way of ‘torture’ in this hell is the egoism in human beings. The fact that Estelle needs a mirror to be able to see herself while she is talking with other people shows the extent of human egoism and self centeredness, since she relies upon seen herself through the reflection on Inez’s eye, even in the state she is in (dead). Another way in which eye’s play a role in this play is in the idea of freedom. He states how having the ability of being able to blink is “restful” and “refreshing” (Sartre, 5), as it gives life “for thousand little rests per hour” (Sartre, 5). Knowing that his eyes are paralyzed, in other words, not able to blink, shows another form of the author's way of conveying torture, not only physically but psychologically, since, according to Sartre, eyes can torture a being because expose us to the muddled and dizzy world. Therefore, the fact that the characters are not able to blink shows how they are condemned to live this hell without peace, without being able to take a break from what are ayes see.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteThroughout No Exit, Sartre makes references to sight/vision/eyes very frequently. In dreaming, the eyes represent an opening into a new dimension. Sartre writes about eyes to help reveal the most evident theme: “Hell is other people”. In No Exit, the three main characters, Garcin, Inez and Estelle are introduced into a new dimension: Hell, and through this new place, they realize that Hell is literally the presence of other people with no escaping. In the beginning of the play when the Valet is taking Garcin into the room in hell, Garcin notices that the Valet is not blinking. When talking about blinking Garcin says, “Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour” (Sartre 5). Garcin is discussing how blinking is crucial for relaxation. This one little luxury that people have when they are alive is about to be taken away from him, which is part of his punishment in Hell. Garcin is not being physically tortured, but he is still being tortured in the way that he is losing his peace. Also, little does he know at this point in the play, he will have to be around two women forever without the option to close his eyes and relax. To further add on to this point, later in the play Estelle says, “you’ll be under my eyes all the time” (36). For the rest of eternity, Estelle, Inez and Garcin have to be together without rest; Sartre is trying to convey that that is the strongest form of torture that exists.
ReplyDeleteIn his play “No Exit”, Jean-Paul Sartre makes many references to sight, vision, and eyes, to portray the trapped and rather different feeling that hell offers. This differentiates from real life as characters Garcin, Inez, and Estelle are punished in hell for the sins they had committed. The action of seeing and being able to view the world is symbolic of the freedom the living are given. In the beginning of the play, Garcin makes an observation that the Valet who had led them to their room had not blunk. While describing the action of blinking and reassurance it brings Garcin states, “You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour” (Sartre 5). Blinking is a necessity in everyday life as it both cleans and moisturizes the eyes. Without this ability, eyes would become sore and dry as they get covered in dirt particles. This small, yet very important thing is given to the living but stripped from those in hell as a punishment. The role of eyes in this scenario is to separate the world from the sinners in hell. No longer are the characters able to look down upon “what could have been” as the entering of hell results in getting cut off and being barred from viewing the living. Garcin and the others never get physically tortured as they had once viewed hell as offering but instead, are given circumstances where their peace and happiness are stripped from the. After days of being in hell Garcin, Inez, and Estelle come to realize that hell is truly “other people” and their presence as it has no exits. Through the action of seeing, Jean-Paul Sartre conveys how torture and punishment can take on a variety of forms.
What is the role of sight/vision/eyes in the play?
ReplyDeleteIn Sartre's play "No Exit", sight and vision is quite prevalent, as this is a recurring motif in the play to symbolize the unknown and to foreshadow their existence in hell. On page 19, Inez brings up the fact that mirrors were a tool in which they took for granted in the normal world. She explains that "I can see them. But they don't see me." (Sartre 19), implying this idea that one does not realize what he/she takes advantage of every day. Mirrors and windows; which are not in the room during the scene, is something in which people use every day, but people don't realize they truly can't function without it, until it is taken away from them. This furthers the idea that Sartre had when creating "No Exit", having the sense that they are living in this hell created specifically for them to realize what they are capable of without their so called 'necessities'. Without their necessities, they must face this eternity of boredom. As said on page 4, Garcin complains that he must "Stare my eyes out.." (4) meaning that he realizes that he cannot mentally function without his so called necessities.
In Jean-Paul Sartre's "No Exit", the idea of vision/sight/eyes is heavily referenced throughout the play. One example of this is in how their are no mirrors in hell, Estelle being self obsessed is distressed by the idea of not being able to see herself at all times, she panics and needs someone to tell her she's pretty. The idea of not having vision of her own beauty is a form of hell for people who are self obsessed and materialistic like Estelle. Eyes are also referenced when Garcin is talking to the Valet about the how restful blinking is for the living, he brings this up because the eyes being able to blink or rest is something only for the living Garcin soon learns, and the blinking can symbolize the small rests we may take for granted, which is not something capable of doing in hell. I believe Sartre in a lot of ways is saying that sight can be a form of hell, for Estelle not feeling beautiful is a form of hell, like it is for a lot of people, and the world around us can be hell like, but a blink can break us from reality--even if it is for an incredibly brief amount of time--so in hell we are not given the luxury of even a fractionated break from reality. Vision or sight can be a treterches form of hell for the living for it exposes us to truth and reality, and in Sartre's hell reality has no rests.
ReplyDeleteJean paul sartre refers to sight, vision, and someone's own reflection a lot in No Exit. He uses these in order to portray the characters trapped in a hell, that does not seem like hell. It is so vague. There is no direct torture in this hell, there is no physical pain. Instead it is a hell of boredom. They are not allowed anything other than couches, each others company, and their own thoughts for all eternity. This is not what anyone expects from hell, and two of the characters even ask if the other person is the executioner. After a while of trying to make it through the monotonous environment, the annoying people, and their relentless conscious the characters wish that they could be tortured. This is truly the worst kind of hell imaginable. There is no greater pain than emotional one. There is no worse feeling than hopeless boredom. The characters do not even have a mirror, so that they can check on their own appearance. They all ask for a mirror or a glass. This is a perfect example of something that you have everyday, and take for granted. You would not realize how much you use a mirror until you do not have one. That is just one of the many things that they do not have access to. Hopefully this hell does not exist, it would be the worst thing imaginable.
ReplyDelete