I believe that society enables us to deceive one another. I think that as we grow up we learn from the world around us that deception is not a good thing. However, we are human and we make split second decisions based off of what we think is best for ourselves. I also think that because of society's beliefs and values that people are sometimes forced or pressured into being someone that they’re not. In our society especially we are constantly bombarded with advertisements and magazine covers that have famous people on them and we feel that that is what we should be striving to appear like. However, those celebrities are photoshopped or covered with pounds of makeup and therefore they don’t even look like themselves. As regards to hypocrisy, I think that society frowns upon it but people still use it for their own benefit. For example, in politics you may have a candidate who says they’re in favor of abortion but then supports organizations that are not. In this case, this politician uses it to gain voters and society may allow it because this person is powerful or maybe they're worried about the criticism that they will receive if they point out this flaw.
I do believe that society cultivates deception and hypocrisy on some level. Take the advertising industry for example. Companies spend millions of dollars in order to place their brand and products in various medias and locations such as billboards and television, so that we see and recognize them throughout our daily lives. In order to make us actively want to us to seek and purchase such items, they might resort to modifying their products in their advertising to make it more appealing to the public. Fast food chains have been notorious for such acts. I remember a documentary my class and I watched in third grade, where they showed the various techniques restaurants such as McDonald's practised to make their food more appetizing to viewers. This included placing fake grill marks on meats, making an incision to the back of a burger on the side facing away from the camera and widening the burger from that point in order to make the product larger than it is, and plethora of other ways to otherwise make their products in their ads appear nothing like the actual product they want to sell to you. Although not every brand attempts to deceive their potential customers on the same degree as McDonald’s, or even at all, the fact is that deception is well used in our society to the disadvantage of whoever fails to realize the deceit taking place. Hypocrisy is also present in society. One disturbing example of this can be seen in our very own government no less. With voting season for the United States in full swing, there has been a renewed push by state lawmakers to get their state to pass bills that would require some form of id to be presented in order to vote. These lawmakers say that it would prevent fraudulent voting from taking place, and protect the integrity of voting itself. This issue has been quite controversial, as data suggests that hundreds of thousands of citizens in those very states currently do not have any form of identification that could be used to vote if those bills were to be passed, which would subsequently make them ineligible to vote. But what really is hypocritical about this situation, is the fact that those same lawmakers that are pushing to get such laws that would require identification to vote, have been caught on film pressing other lawmaker’s voting buttons when voting on laws in their legislative building, when they are not present. This is actually a common practice called “ghost voting”, that has been taking place for decades. In fact it is so common practice, that many lawmakers have long sticks with them, in order to quickly vote for others not present around their seat, before another places a vote before them. How can these so called lawmakers want to force their citizens to have id in order to vote to protect against fraudulent voting, when they themselves place fraudulent votes everyday at the state capitol?
I agree that society strongly cultivates not only deception, but hypocrisy. An example that is impactful to daily life, yet is often overlooked is that of social media. People cultivate online personas that they attempt to sell to the world, photographing and publishing for the means of provoking a sense of awe, of detachment or superiority in many cases. This image is agonized over by people following the object of attention, causing self-critiques, a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, or just envy. In reality, the creator of the online persona is a regular person, yet they are lifted in society as deities, such as the 'cult' of celebrities. Not only does deception brew through unrealistic representations of people in society, but hypocrisy is present as well, and is evident when dehumanizing those basking in the limelight. They're criticised for living as a non-famous person would, brewing recrimination for things that are good to have a variation of in life, such as not being stick-thin in body mass or shape, eating junk food, dressing in sweats, or other things that would provide comfort as a human being. When 'regular' people are seen doing this, they aren't as harshly judged as one would do with someone that is under constant pressure to look good for the media, for it would publicize and mock any minor or major slip-up or personal feud that these people could be experiencing. People find entertainment in criticising flaws in others, when they possibly could be their own insecurities projected onto others and analysed, in order to feel better about oneself. Not only does media in society bolster the presence of deception and hypocrisy, but the unnecessary hate and lack of support from person to person, for they attack each other in order to boost self esteem, based on images that portray artificial ideologies, created by the masses or in one's own mind.
I agree with the statement that society cultivates deception and hypocrisy. As sad as it sounds, our culture makes it seem that lying and cheating is ok. The most specific example is in American politics, especially in this upcoming election. Many of today's politicians are very hypocritical of what they say. Everyday, people are promised to have things changed and fixed, but it never happens. I don’t want to mention any specific people, but many of the candidates are promising ridiculous things that will probably never happen. They also deceive the American public, as everyone knows there are things behind the scenes we do not know about. Throughout history, presidents and government officials are “puppeted” by their advisors and peers. I am not saying the government is completely corrupt, but it does have its flaws in which they use deception and hypocrisy. The media helps fire up the deception and hypocrisy, which helps make the government seem more corrupt. However, I believe that the media is almost as hypocritical as the candidates running, as they try to inform the public about information but all they do is help the candidates gain popularity. Especially on social media such as Twitter and Instagram, they indirectly pump up these candidates. Sometimes I feel that some of the news is directly ordered to be released by the political parties, again showing the deception in politics and media. This whole ordeal really brings up the question that society has bestowed on us: Can we trust our government and media to tell truths and not deceive us?
I think as individuals we blame our human faults on culture. Society is something that is not perfect, but that is because of the individuals that create that society. As an example, when someone is on a chair and another is on the ground, it is much easier for the one on the ground to pull the person on the chair down. Just as in society, those with negative feelings or deception, often pull down the ones that have good intentions originally. So, once deception is introduced into a culture, it is nearly impossible to remove it because deception and hypocrisy tend towards expanding to other people in a group. the out group and try and justify our own behaviour. However, no one is perfect and everyone is broken and has fault in their life, so deception is present in all cultures. In everyday life society is cultivating this deception through social media and how someone portrays themselves, and society cultivates this image of a person by either accepting or rejecting them. However, if this is not a deceptive view of the person, society does not only have to cultivate deception, but also positive outcomes. Also, society often portrays aspects in life as ok to do, even if they are ultimately against personal standards. Like white lies, even though they are clearly lies and deception, society seems to portray them as not as fine and not terrible. When a person eats healthy in public, but not at home, where does that desire to eat healthy come from? From peer pressure? Desire to fit in? Maslow's hierarchy of need describes this in the third ‘basic need’, which is love, or society. This shows that society motivates people to become who they are. So if society is portraying deception and hypocrisy as not bad aspects, than we as society will have these aspects cultivated in our own lives.
I feel as if society cultivates deception. I agree with the Tabula Rasa theory that states that an individual is born as a blank slate and society shapes their personality and views throughout their lives. Take a child going through school for example. When a young child first starts school, they wear and act however they want because their parents had accepted them. However, when they start school, if they act different from the other kids, they will be picked on. Individuals single out and pick on people that aren't like them or do something that they do not approve of. This is the reason that Middle school and High School is such a difficult time for students. Some are picked on for what they wear, say, like, or even look like. It’s why everyone strives to wear the newest, most expensive clothes. They want to fit in with everyone around them and not be bullied and be liked. Thus creating deception of both yourself and them because you are changing who you really may be to impress someone else. Someone else may just be saying they don’t like someone because someone they look up to doesn't like it. Then this kid who was comfortable with themselves is now someone they really aren’t because society made them this way.
Albert Camus sees philosophical suicide as undesirable because he feels that everyone and everything has meaning and impact in the world. This can be seen through the actions of Sisyphus. He was punished to an eternity of moving a large rock that would just roll back to where it started. It was such a meaningless task, yet he kept his mind optimistic. He knew why he had to move this rock and it was because of the wrongdoings that he had done in the past. However, in the end of the story, Sisyphus sees that everything has meaning. That no matter how small something maybe, it plays a large part in its own world. It takes everyone and everything to make the world as it is today. Sisyphus also realizes that everyone has their struggles, but that it is what makes them so great or forms them into the person that they are. They wouldn’t be anywhere without them and would be very different just like he said the universe would be different if anything no matter how small it was to no longer be in existence in it. He also brings up the fact that an individual will always be struggling with something. That even though someone may have just gotten through a hardship, the hardship will never end. There will always be something that someone is struggling with, but that is just the way that life is. So he doesn’t agree with suicide because if you were to take yourself from the world, you would change it in more ways than you think.
Albert Camus sees philosophical suicide as undesirable, because he says it annihilates reason. He believes that by simply explaining the problem of the absurd with a supernatural solution, it has the same harmful effects as physical suicide since you cease to use logic and rather replace it with a type of skapegoat. Instead of removing himself from the absurd or the problem that is plaguing the individual, he or she instead removes the world instead with one that is more agreeable. The way to avoid philosophical suicide is by selecting one of the two remaining solutions on coping to the idea of the absurd. One of which is physical suicide. This is where an individual chooses to end his or her life because they decide that a life without an essential purpose is not worth living. Camus rejects this choice however, and considers it cowardly. This leads to the last option, which is the only option that Albert Camus considers to be valid, accepting or embracing absurdity. Since you cannot avoid the absurd, the courageous action in Camus’ is accepting the absurd. He believes that life can be lived with greater quality if it has no meaning, and that we realize that it has now meaning. This will leave us with no moral obligation to do certain things, so it leaves us freedom to do as we please with our lives.
Camus believes that the human beings are poor creatures who are constantly searching for hope and meaning in a hopeless and meaningless world. As humans we search for clarity and transcendence from some spiritual being that never offers us any answers. In Camus’s opinion he views three possible philosophical responses to our struggles. Two of which (physical and philosophical suicide) he condemns avoidance, the other (acceptance of absurdity) he sees as a proper answer. Philosophical suicide is the religious solution of hypothesising a spiritual world of comfort and meaning beyond the Absurd. He believes that adopting a supernatural solution to absurdity, like believing in “leap of faith”, which is where one believes that there is more than the rational life, is to destroy reason. For Camus, destroying reason is as fatal and selfdestructive as physical suicide. The solution that Camus presents is that instead of avoiding confrontation with the absurd, the religious believer needs to remove the displeasing world and create a more appealing alternative. I think that philosophical suicide is avoidable because everyone has a struggle in their life, it may not be like having to eternally push a rock up a mountain, but whatever it is people always have a way of finding something that gives them hope. Albert Camus might not believe in the spiritual world but for many God is a central part of healing for people. Everyone, I believe, can find something that radiates positivity for them in any difficult situation that they may encounter. To believe that “life can be lived all the better if it has no meaning”, is morbid. If everyone thought that way than we’d have a lot more physical suicides, however because most of us believe in some sort of hope, we can rise above any difficult situation.
Albert Camus sees philosophical suicide as undesirable because humans must learn to cope with handling the absurd and to continue living. He believes to adopt a supernatural solution to a problem is wrong, and it forces a person to abandon reason. This directly leads to physical suicide. Camus gives humans three philosophical choices to problems, which are physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and then acceptance of absurdity. He completely disagrees with physical suicide because it is a sign of humans giving up. But philosophical suicide isn’t much different, as a person will remove reason like in physical suicide and replacing the “offended” world with a new agreeable alternative. Camus really emphasizes the acceptance of absurdity, especially in The Stranger. He uses the story of Sisyphus and compares him to Meursault in the story, and how both of them face very controversial and difficult situations but still continue to accept absurdness. Sisyphus is punished and has to push a rock for the rest of his life, while Meursault is sentenced to an eventual death. Its interesting how both don’t choose to commit physical or philosophical suicide, even though both were faced with a life and death predicament. However, Camus expresses that the Absurd and happiness coincide with each other, and both characters had believed in the absurd so therefore they both are happy. Both stories also bring up the idea of being “morally right” but “actually wrong”. Sisyphus is not allowed to go to earth, but decides to go to test his wife’s love. He knows he will face eternal punishment, but wants to enjoy his life. Same with Meursault, as he murders the Arab, but he does not feel as if it is his fault. Technically, a person could justify that it wasn’t his fault, but that judge saw it as intentional murder.
Camus sees only three responses to the problem that there is a collision between finding the purpose of life in the world not giving an answer. He dreams the answer of religion to be undesirable. He considers it to be “philosophical suicide,” a way out of explaining the meaning of life and why we are on the earth in the beginning. Camus describes this decision as a leap of faith that one has to take to see past the question of human desire for order and purpose and decide to move on with life. However, Camus himself has essentially created the absurd as a leap of his own faith that the absurd exists and to continue living with life. Saying that the absurd can only be accepted and is just like putting one's faith in something to just try and find meaning with no explanation, Camus has also not avoided his own questioning of the purpose of life. As with physical suicide, where people just leave the question unanswered, the religious person tries to find an answer in the supernatural. Albert Camus simply asks one to continue living and not even pursue the answer, which would lead to a very depressing life with little to no purpose. So I don’t think one can possibly avoid it, or if they do try and avoid it, they will have no meaning in their life and end up killing themselves, which is morbid.
In the beginning of the book, Camus introduces the reader to Meursault’s emotional indifferences. When Meursault is talking to Raymond Sintes, he tells a story about the violence he committed towards his girlfriend and asks Meursault for advice. The only time Meursault spoke up was when Raymond asked if he wanted to be pals, Meursault replied, “I didn’t say anything, and he asked me again if I wanted to be pals. I said it was fine with me; he seemed pleased” (Camus 29). This quote shows that it really made no difference to Meursault if he was a friend of Raymond’s or not. The fact that he doesn’t contribute to the conversation and that it seems just fine with him to be friends creates the image of indifference. Another example of indifference is when Meursault has to deal with a serious relationship question. After becoming involved with Marie, she eventually asks if he loves her, “I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so” (Camus 35). This is a very blunt statement, which shows Meursault’s ignorance to the emotion behind Marie’s question, however, he was telling the truth that it just didn’t matter. Later Marie asks him if he wants to get married, “it didn’t make a difference to me and that we could if she wanted to...I explained to her that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married” (Camus 41). When the subject of marriage comes up, the reader sees that it again has no effect on him. The only way it would matter was if it made Marie happy. In the end, Meursault seems so passive that he comes off cold and uncaring, which is later taken advantage of during his trial. This emotional indifference shows how no one really knows Meursault’s true character, which leads him to become a stranger to everyone else. From these examples, the reader sees that Meursault shows acceptance only when it seems like it would make the other person happy if he were to comply. The difference between indifference and acceptance is that Meursault shows no emotion towards any personal situations, yet he does contemplate what he should say, however, he succumbs to the “pressure” because it seems to benefit the other person.
Indifference and acceptance are two aspects that are brought up in The Stranger. The main character Meursault, has many impactful events that occur in his life during the novel, but he himself seems quite indifferent to, contrary to others around him. One of the first and most controversial event that is brought up in the story is the death of Meursault’s mother. It would be expected of Meursault to be impacted by this event deeply, like most would considering the close relationships children have with their parents. But instead he surprisingly seems indifferent emotionally to the situation, and shows no signs of being impacted by his mother’s death. One example of his indifference during this event is towards the end of chapter two, when Camus writes, “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed” (Camus 24). The fact that Meursault believes in his mind that “nothing had changed”, shows just how detached he is from his own life. He only sees the physical side of life itself, and the emotional side which can be argued to count as equal or even greater than the physical side, is not apparent to Meursault.The idea that Meursault fails to convey any emotion towards his mother’s passing suggests to me that maybe he cannot accept her death fully, and that he is possibly holding himself back subconsciously from feeling emotion to avoid any unwanted negative effects.
Absurdism is the central theme of this book, and considering this, there really is no difference between acceptance and indifference. If you consider that absurdism is acceptance that it is impossible to find certainty in anything, including meaning in life, actions that drive oneself, or such behaviour life that, then the difference is insignificant. Such an indifference to life is constantly demonstrated by Mersault in the first half of the book, beginning with his detached relationships displayed at the beginning of the book: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know" (Camus 3). With a person that is of a healthy mental state, it is usual that they display some form of attachment to those that should carry some import into their lives, while here the son displays an unusual apathetic state. He displays apathy at the state of his mother's life, and during the funeral, acts as if no feelings are mulled over by him, losing all sense of humanity that was believed of him. His acceptance of the mundane was then extended with the revelation that "...[O]ne more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed" (24). This view is one that surrounds that of absurdism. It is impossible to have an impact on the world, since so many people are alive, too many for one person to really matter, and therefore, whether one is there or not, it makes no difference on what the outcome of Earth will result in. Especially with 'ordinary' people, they are obsessed with leaving a legacy, for they know that once two generations have passed, they will truly be dead, for no one leaves a significant enough impact on the world, and they will decompose, and so will the idea and memory of them die as well.
In the first part of The Stranger, Meursault’s mother dies. Many people see his reaction to her death as uncaring and look down upon him when he is being tried for the murder of the Arab. Although he knew that, “she was happier,” in the home, many people saw this as him not caring about his own mother (4). Meursault had accepted that his mother would die and that death was the only certain thing in life. Being indifferent about a situation shows that one does not care about others’ situations and only care about how it will benefit themselves. This was shown in Raymond's interactions with his girlfriend. He only cared about himself and did not care about how it would affect her or others around him. His only focus was revenge and getting back at her to ease his mind. Another portrayal of indifference is when Marie asks Meursault to marry her and if he loved her and he responds indifferently with, “that her question meant nothing or next to nothing,” to him (42). So the difference between indifference and acceptance is essentially up to oneself. It is often portrayed as indifferent, because society is based on being sympathetic to others and not wanting to accept that death and hardships are inevitable and that life is unpredictable.
What’s the difference between indifference and acceptance in Part 1 of the novel. So in the first part of the novel, Meursault was indifferent to hi other. He had accepted the fact that he didn’t know her very well and never saw her. He had even made excuses as to why he never saw his mother because they hadn’t lived close and he thought that it would have been a hassle for him to ride the bus all the way to her. He had also accepted the fact that when people had asked him how old his mother was he had no idea. The acceptance in the beginning of the novel was when he had to take time off to go to his mother’s funeral. He had felt bad because his boss saw this as an inconvenience, but Meursault told him several times that it wasn’t his fault. He eventually realizes the fact that his boss was mad because that meant that he would have more vacation time but he began to be okay with that.
In “The Stranger”, Camus has split the story into two parts. In part one of the novel, we are introduced to Meursault's everyday life through his narrations. Camus uses sentence structure to reveal Meursault’s personality. For example, Meursault describes his meeting with the caretaker, “he suggested I go to the dining hall for dinner. But I wasn’t hungry. Then he offered to bring me a cup of coffee with milk. I like milk in my coffee, so I said yes, and he came back a few minutes later with a tray. I drank the coffee” (Camus 8). In this quote, Camus used short sentences in this social situation to show that Meursault has no interest in interacting with the caretaker. However, when Meursault talks about things that affect his physical condition, Camus uses long descriptive sentences. An example of this is when Meursault talks about the weather, “but today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhumane and oppressive” (Camus 15). In part two of the book, Meursault’s quiet life has taken a turn for the worst when he is sentenced to prison and later death. Camus also uses part two to depict society’s attempt at manufacturing meaning behind Meursault's actions. The trial is an absurd part of the book in that the judge, prosecutors, lawyers, and jury try to find meaning where there is none. Everyone, except Meursault, has their own reason why he shot the Arab but none of them are, or can be, correct. Finally, even though the book only shows two parts, the reader could consider the last chapter to be part three of the book. In this chapter, Meursault is not far from his execution day, when he experiences an almost transcendence or enlightenment. Meursault comes to terms with death with the help of the chaplain, he says, “the chaplin knew the game well too, I couldn’t tell right away; his gaze never faltered. And his voice didn’t falter, either, when he said, ‘Have you no hope at all? And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing remains?’ ‘Yes,’ I said” (Camus 117). The chaplin expects Meursault to be afraid of death and it’s obvious that this line would have worked on anyone else, however, for Meursault death was a way to free himself. In the end, Meursault rids himself of all hope, which allowed him to be content with his impending death. By splitting the book into three parts, Camus helps the reader understand the process of absurdity.
In the Stranger, Albert Camus uses all of the events to show the personality and his idea of Absurdness in Meursault. At the ending of the story, all of these events are eventually revisited during the court case and shows the “demise” of Meursault’s life. In the beginning of the book, Meursault goes to see his mother after she died. During the wake, he seems very out of it and lost, as if he doesn’t seem to care about the situation. He is surrounded by the residents in the home where she stayed, and they are clearly mourning for her. However, he stays very modest and even falls asleep during the wake. Later, he is offered coffee and even smokes a cigarette during the week with the caretaker. For a person in mourning, this is a sign of disrespect, especially towards his recently deceased mother. During the trial, the caretaker explains that it is partially his fault that Meursault was directly disrespecting the wake, but the prosecutor still scrutinizes his personality against his “uncaring” personality. At first glance, I thought this part of the plot was completely insignificant to the story as a whole, as he goes home and seems rather unaffected by the events. However, this is exactly what Camus wants the reader to think, as Meursault actually doesn’t have any feelings and is stuck in this Absurdity. He has comes to terms with it and lives life with no answers and is very accepting of his fate. Another example is the scene of the crime, where he shoots the Arab with no intention or wanting to murder, but then goes up to the dead man and shoots him multiple times. Again, this shows his uncaring personality and how he doesn’t care about anything in the world, thus showing the idea of absurdity. It’s not until the ending of the book that he realizes that death is significant, after remembering his father’s reaction to the public execution long ago.
As an outsider looking upon Meursault, it can be hard to find any reasoning in many of this main character’s actions. However one can find certain cause for justification with some pause for thought. For example, the death of Meursault's mother is something that is expected by everyone to be an emotional time for Meursault, yet when he is in supposed mourning he has almost no emotion shown for his mother and even refuses to see her one last time before being fully sealed in her coffin. One possible answer to his out behavior, is that Meursault simply desensitizes himself from any emotion he may have, because he does not want to feel emotion, or just does not understand it. Albert Camus writes, “Then I felt like having a smoke. But I hesitated, because I didn’t know if I could do it with Maman right there. I thought about it; it didn’t matter. I offered the caretaker a cigarette and we smoked” (Camus 8). Here Meursault hesitates to smoke with his dead mother right beside him, but then convinces himself to go ahead anyway. At this point we see Meursault have some feeling of guilt with his idea, but instead of going with what he initially felt he brushes it off instead. I believe that the events in this novel unfolds as they do because it pairs nicely with the ideas of Albert Camus, the author. Although Meursault might seem like a stranger to most of us because his lack of “normalness”, he infact is not a bad person. But rather he is portrayed that way by the prosecutor. This ties into Camus’ idea of absurdity, and that Meursault choose to accept absurdity and the morals that is created by him because of that, which he is now being trialed for rather than the murder itself. Society is following physiological suicide, by executing a man they did not fully understand, and rather branded him as a heartless and emotionless human being to make due of the situation.
As one reading this book, I see a great deal of Meursault that is simply just living life as it comes at him, not worrying about the consequences his actions or how they will affect others. I think it is fitting to have the murder be a sort of blurry scene in the blazing sun. Since Meursault did not go out to the beach mentally wanting to kill the Arab as he states later in the trial. When Meursault goes to the beach to get Raymond away from these Arabs, I find it intriguing that the Arabs follow him, as almost a threat to his sanity and well being. By them stabbing Raymond, Meursault finds himself as the next person to avenge his friend. Also, the ocean symbolizes how things are the same, although they are always moving. This is how Meursault sees his life and decisions. He sees that there is no absolute purpose for life and believe in the absurdity and moves on with life knowing that death is the only certain thing. Life may as well go on for others, but in the end it will have no purpose. Also, during the trial I thought it was interesting how the majority of the time was spent contemplating how Meursault had treated his mother in her dying days. Having this event right before the trial shows how much how one treats other people affects how other people treat and perceive us.
The motive behind Mersault's murder is clear and simplistic: it was because of the Sun. Now, most people would delve deeper, give a motive fueled by feelings, or by his life's happenings, yet the truth is, he is detached from all feeling, and is a live-in-the-moment kind of person. He finds death mundane and meaningless, necessary to life and inevitable: "Maman was buried now.. and nothing had changed" (Camus 24). Although everyone views death as inevitable, most fear this sudden lack of consciousness, of existence, while Mersault does not share this outlook. His routine view of life is also expanded on in the end, in his conversation with the Champlain: "Do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing else remains' 'Yes,' I said" (117). He does not find a difference between being condemned to die, and eventually dying; it is all the same, and it is just a routine part of life, helpless, and sometimes quickened with a catalyst, such as the murder he committed. His indifference to life and death are what eventually came back to bite him. When Mersault walked along the beach and encountered the Arab, they both stood there, facing each other, all the while Mersault complained around the heat. It must have been seen as an act of taunting when "the Arab drew his knife and held it up.. in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting up at [Mersault's] forehead" (59). The rounds of shots were fired after this happening, with Mersault later giving reasoning behind this crime as the Sun shining in his face, or physical discomfort. When put in questioning, he explains that his "physical needs often got in the way of... feelings" (65). This whole crime is exemplary of the absurd, for Mersault cares not about human life, and was acting in the moment to remove the physical discomfort he was feeling in the easiest way possible.
Meursault’s reasoning for shooting the Arab on the beach, stems from his utter indifference. He doesn’t see a difference his actions will make, just as he has felt for the entirety of the book. He saw no reason for him to mourn his mother, he saw no reason not to aide Raymond in the affairs with his ex, he saw no reason to as to why he should marry Marie, and he saw no reason to accept or deny the job in Paris. Meursault mentions having ambitions once, but lost them when he dropped his studies, drawing one to conclude that he has been in this state of mind for a while. Due to Meursault’s indifference, he appears easily led by terrible influences like Raymond and Salamano. It is the unlikely friendship sparked with Raymond in particular that leads Meursault to shoot the Arab, and it is only after this event that we as readers witness Meursault experience emotion without a sense of detachment, as though the speed his death approaches with is enough to shock him out of his perpetual existential despair.
Jean Paul Sartre believes that “existence comes before essence”, which means that human beings have no preestablished purpose or nature, nor anything that we have to or ought to be. Because of this belief, he thinks that humans are forced to choose what we will become and to define ourselves by our choice of action. In Sartre’s play, “No Exit” we can see his belief in existence through his characters. The reader finds out that Inez is in Hell because she had seduced her cousin’s wife, then planned to make his life miserable, until he finally stepped in front of a tram and was killed. Inez also brought a lot of guilt upon Florence (her lover), until she finally committed suicide and killed Inez by poisoning them with gas during the night. An example of existentialism is when Inez says, “so I’m done with the earth, it seems, No more alibis for me!” (Sartre 29). When Inez sees the couple “making love” in the room where she lived with Florence, her vision goes black. The reason for her vision fading is because the new couple is occupying the place she once shared with Florence, which is now being filled with anger, causing her to cut ties with the Earth. By doing this, Inez is now entirely present in hell, which means that she has accepted the actions that lead her to being in hell. Inez also states that she has no regret in her actions, she says, “I was what some people down there called ‘a damned bitch’” and later, “you know I don’t regret a thing” (Sartre 25). By showing no remorse for her actions, Inez displays the belief that one must accept their actions. The belief in existence is also shown in Garcin. He explains to the women that he is in hell because he was unkind and unfaithful to his wife. However, Garcin does not wish he had acted differently, he says, “I tell you I regret nothing” (Sartre 24). In this quote, Garcin is following the laws of existentialism because he is acknowledging and owning up to his actions. However, he does violate them later in the book, For example, he becomes preoccupied with the idea that he is a coward and demands that the women object this belief and declare his masculinity. This is anti existentialism because according to its principles, he should not have to rely on others for confidence.
Existence in the play No Exit, is represented in many ways throughout its relatively short length. One example of how existence can be viewed is when Jean-Paul Sartre writes, “Don’t you ever get taken that way? When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn’t help much” (Sartre 19). Here existence can be seen as your physical facial features, and without having any form of mirror to see yourself, you eventually begin to question your very existence such as Estelle. Estelle has only been in the room for a short period of time, and as she is there for eternity she will soon forget what she looks like all in itself. Your physical features are part of who you are, and without you knowing what you appear to be as to others, you lose part of your identity, you become a faceless voice to only yourself. Asking others to describe you is shown as not a solution when Estelle says, “But how can I rely upon your taste? Is it the same as my taste? Oh, how sickening it all is, enough to drive one crazy!” (Sartre 20). Another way existence can be seen in the play, is the idea of being talked or thought about bac on earth. In the play, all three characters have the ability to see and hear what is going on when people are either thinking or talking about them. For example Garcin states, “I asked you to leave me in peace. There’s someone talking about me in the newspaper office and I want to listen” (Sartre 21-22). This interests them very much as they see that they are not forgotten yet by their family, friends, and coworkers, and they wish to see everyone’s reactions to them being dead. To them if they are still remembered on earth by others, it is as if the still exist. This theory is also very similar to what the ancient Egyptians believed in death, which is that being mentioned or thought of when dead is as if you are still living. It would be interesting to figure out if Jean-Paul Sartre in fact had gotten the idea of this from the ideology of the ancient Egyptians.
In the play No Exit, Jean Paul Sartre uses different representations of existence through the three main characters. Estelle is probably the most stereotypical representation of a modern teen in our society, someone who is very self-conscious about looks and how she acts. The most obvious example is when she asks Inez to be her “glass”, or mirror to see what she looks like. Another example would be when the Valet shows that each of them have their own sofa, and she becomes instantly self-conscious about which sofa would go well with the clothes that she was wearing. This idea of existence is the one of acceptance of norms in society, and doesn’t seem to show any signs of believing in existentialism. Another character is Garcin, who is slightly similar to Estelle’s self-conscious personality. However, he seems more content with himself and focuses on his past self rather than his present being. Throughout the chapter, he sits in the corner with his hands on his face trying to go through his thoughts about his life. He also seems very attached to his life, as in the beginning of the play he asks the Valet many “insignificant” questions, like about his toothbrush. This idea of existence is again self-consciousness, but more on the personal level and in reflection of the past and not the present and future. The last character, Inez, seems the one that closely relates to existentialism.
Existence as a philosophical topic is represented in the play in the sense that existence is pointless and potentially hell if spent with the wrong people. In the beginning of the play, Inez, Garcin and Estelle wonder why they are put here. They think that is a mistake and a fluke. They thought that they had lived good lives which shouldn’t have landed them in the hell that they were put in. They were confused as to why there was no torture chamber, nor torture, nor contraptions to torture them. However, as the play went on, they grew to learn that one another were out there to torture each other. Their personalities and wants had been so conflicting that it made it unbarable. Inez wanted the love of Estelle and Estelle wanted the love of the man who didn’t want to love her back, and Garcin wanted nothing to do with Estelle because he hadn’t any feelings to love her. However, Garcin wanted Estelle to think he was brave in exchange for him to love her, but Inez had pointed out that she didn’t mean anything that she was saying and that he was indeed a coward. In the end of the lay, Garcin says that hell is being in the presence of other people and that they still have an eternity to spend together. He says this with no expression because there was no point to have any. No matter what, they were stuck together in misery forever.
In Jean Paul Sartre's play "No Exit", the topic of existence is presented through Sartre's overarching philosophy of 'existence preceding essence'. Sartre describes his philosophy as human beings creating their own meaning and reason to live and for life, for they are born as a 'blank slate', with no purpose in the world and no predisposed personality. People are what they make of themselves, so in this case, the way each character presents themselves through dialogue is how they are viewed by others, and therefore, creating their essence. Estelle does not seem to have a deep understanding of who she is, being very superficial and identifying herself only through her physical being, with no sense of her true personality. She begins by worrying that the clothes she is wearing will clash with her surrounding environment, then calls for constant attention, and when she doesn't receive a mirror in which she can admire herself, she dissociates her existence from her 'life'. This is shown with the conversation she shares with Inez: "Don't you ever get taken that way? When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist" (Sartre 19). Her lack of self visualization leads to a lack of self identity, and according to the existentialist view that Sartre has, she doesn't have an essence, or a true existence, due to a lack of self-definition of such. She lives a life that is defined by Sartre as being-for-others, for she only lives as an object, defining herself in terms of what others think of her. A further example of this way of living is her self-defined innocence until Inez and Garcin make her reveal the true nature of her stay in hell; the murder of a baby. Her attempts to be viewed by others in a positive light, and only feeling guilt for her actions once she is discovered to be otherwise are characteristics of being-for-others, for she does not make the choices herself for the definition of her life, but lets others treat her objectively and decide for themselves what she is.
Existence in No-Exit is one of the main point of controversy. Each person in the room seems to die to the world at different points. Each of their earthly lives end at different points, showing that some people have more attachment to their personal lives and take longer to move forwards with life. Inez sees through the fact that they are dead and each of their existences in the room are as a hell to the others. So them existing together shows that each of them exist, but not for themselves anymore, but merely for the demise of others. Their existence on earth has faded as people forget them, or realize they went to hell for their actions. Garcin, who is the only male, does not seem to care for any of the women in the room and only cares about his reputation on earth. The fact that there are no mirrors in the room or reflection, shows that each person cannot see themselves as they wish they could. They must see themselves through the others, relying on how they see them. This is essentially living through someone else and removes themselves from their own personality and preferences. This is shown when Estelle asks Inez to be her mirror. Showing that although Inez says her makeup is perfect, it may not be in Estelle's eyes, but there is no way to know.
Estelle’s comment, “when I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist” (Sartre 19), shows Estelle retreating into bad faith, something that is Sartre’s existential philosophy strongly resents. “No Exit” is centered around the line, “hell is other people”, and that hell comes through competitiveness and subjectivity. When other people look at Estelle she is turned into an object by that person, however, because of bad faith, Estelle is subjecting herself to becoming an object. By becoming someone else's object, Estelle is relinquishing her freedom and thus, the responsibility that goes with it. This leads her to exist for other people rather than for herself. Estelle is obsessed with mirrors, her own appearance, and getting Garcin’s attention because she wants to make sure that everyone keeps their eyes on her. According to Estelle, even her nicknames back on Earth, “his glancing stream, his crystal” (Sartre 33), have to do with looking and reflecting. Before Estelle died, she would define herself as what she saw through a mirror, which showed how beautiful and refined she was, but in actuality, Estelle is a hypocritical murderer. In Hell, she has no mirror, and thus, has no image, so she is forced to accept herself as Inez and Garcin see her. With the absence of a mirror, she is finally forced to face the truth of her actions.
Try to make sense of Estelle's comment: "When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I think that it can be inferred that Estelle is an attractive woman and the only way that she can find comfort is from seeing herself. She has made mistakes in her life with her husband and child and feel as if she isn’t as pretty on the inside as she is on the out. She takes pride in her beauty because she feels as if it is the only good quality that she has. This is the reason she finds comfort in Inez and why she craves the attention of Garcin. She likes the attention that Inez gives to her. She sees the beauty in Estelle and tries to be everything she wants as acting as her mirror and giving her compliments. However, that isn't enough for her self-esteem. When Garcin shows no interest in Estelle or her beauty, she craves the attention of him more than ever She wants him to crave her and see the beauty in her so she can treat him as she treats Inez. She wants the attention and love of another person to fill the void she has about herself. It also shows within the relationship between her and her husband. When she talks about what happened to him, about his suicide, she takes great pride in it. She is happy to explain that she caused a man to commit suicide over her. It gives her a sense of importance and pleasure, part of the game that she plays.
Estelle only sees her existence through physical features, and without having any mirrors to see oneself, she eventually begins to question her very existence as she has done so when she says, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn’t help much” (Sartre 18). Estelle has only been in the room for a very short period of time, and as she is destined to be there for all of time, her memory of her appearance will soon fade and she will forget who she is physically. Your physical features are part of who you are, and without you knowing what you appear to be as to others, you lose part of your identity, and you eventually become a faceless voice to only yourself. You simply become a voice and mind trapped in a room without purpose or identity, simply just existing because you do. Your physical appearance also shows you where you come from. You look similar to your parents, grandparents, and siblings, and without visual reassurance of where and who you come from on earth you lose a big part of you. Estelle seems to also be very focused on physical desires and wants, rather than emotional ones as well. For example, Estelle only wants Garcin to be hers because she wants only physical pleasure from him. She does not care about what he feels and thinks, and this shows when Estelle states, “You haven’t a coward’s chin, or a coward’s mouth, or a coward’s voice, or a coward’s hair. And it’s for your mouth, your hair, your voice, I love you” (Sartre 40). Estelle essentially says that Garcin does not look like a coward despite his current feelings and emotions, and says he still looks perfectly handsome, which is why she loves him. She has no desire with dealing with Garcin’s morality issue, and only wants to simply feel physical love.
In the play No Exit, Sartre examines the question of existence and essence through the actions of Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. Since they have all recently died, they must confront the existence of their consciousness as their physical bodies are buried on earth. Using each individual's consciousness and the "other" part of him/herself that observes that consciousness, Sartre creates a situation where each character must ignore or accept the judgment of the other two. For example, when they first meet, Inez says that Garcin's mouth looks grotesquely frightened. Since there are no mirrors, Garcin must decide if Inez is right or what he thinks himself is right. In this case, Garcin believes Inez rather than his own judgment. He lets her define his essence, or personal characteristics, and thus, in Sartre's definition, has "bad faith." Sartre uses exposition to introduce his audience to each character by placing them in a strange and unusual situation. Each character thus explains how they died and what they think of their room/hell with out sounding awkward. Sartre also foreshadows many of the major themes of the play in this first section. For example, even though they are already dead and have nothing to hide, each character continues to lie to themselves. Garcin pretends to find the furniture shocking, while Estelle pretends that she is in hell by mistake. Also, Estelle's first impression that Garcin was her dead lover foreshadows their future relationship. Because the two lie to themselves, they are acting in "bad faith”.
I believe that society enables us to deceive one another. I think that as we grow up we learn from the world around us that deception is not a good thing. However, we are human and we make split second decisions based off of what we think is best for ourselves. I also think that because of society's beliefs and values that people are sometimes forced or pressured into being someone that they’re not. In our society especially we are constantly bombarded with advertisements and magazine covers that have famous people on them and we feel that that is what we should be striving to appear like. However, those celebrities are photoshopped or covered with pounds of makeup and therefore they don’t even look like themselves. As regards to hypocrisy, I think that society frowns upon it but people still use it for their own benefit. For example, in politics you may have a candidate who says they’re in favor of abortion but then supports organizations that are not. In this case, this politician uses it to gain voters and society may allow it because this person is powerful or maybe they're worried about the criticism that they will receive if they point out this flaw.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that society cultivates deception and hypocrisy on some level. Take the advertising industry for example. Companies spend millions of dollars in order to place their brand and products in various medias and locations such as billboards and television, so that we see and recognize them throughout our daily lives. In order to make us actively want to us to seek and purchase such items, they might resort to modifying their products in their advertising to make it more appealing to the public. Fast food chains have been notorious for such acts. I remember a documentary my class and I watched in third grade, where they showed the various techniques restaurants such as McDonald's practised to make their food more appetizing to viewers. This included placing fake grill marks on meats, making an incision to the back of a burger on the side facing away from the camera and widening the burger from that point in order to make the product larger than it is, and plethora of other ways to otherwise make their products in their ads appear nothing like the actual product they want to sell to you. Although not every brand attempts to deceive their potential customers on the same degree as McDonald’s, or even at all, the fact is that deception is well used in our society to the disadvantage of whoever fails to realize the deceit taking place.
ReplyDeleteHypocrisy is also present in society. One disturbing example of this can be seen in our very own government no less. With voting season for the United States in full swing, there has been a renewed push by state lawmakers to get their state to pass bills that would require some form of id to be presented in order to vote. These lawmakers say that it would prevent fraudulent voting from taking place, and protect the integrity of voting itself. This issue has been quite controversial, as data suggests that hundreds of thousands of citizens in those very states currently do not have any form of identification that could be used to vote if those bills were to be passed, which would subsequently make them ineligible to vote. But what really is hypocritical about this situation, is the fact that those same lawmakers that are pushing to get such laws that would require identification to vote, have been caught on film pressing other lawmaker’s voting buttons when voting on laws in their legislative building, when they are not present. This is actually a common practice called “ghost voting”, that has been taking place for decades. In fact it is so common practice, that many lawmakers have long sticks with them, in order to quickly vote for others not present around their seat, before another places a vote before them. How can these so called lawmakers want to force their citizens to have id in order to vote to protect against fraudulent voting, when they themselves place fraudulent votes everyday at the state capitol?
I agree that society strongly cultivates not only deception, but hypocrisy. An example that is impactful to daily life, yet is often overlooked is that of social media. People cultivate online personas that they attempt to sell to the world, photographing and publishing for the means of provoking a sense of awe, of detachment or superiority in many cases. This image is agonized over by people following the object of attention, causing self-critiques, a feeling of inferiority or inadequacy, or just envy. In reality, the creator of the online persona is a regular person, yet they are lifted in society as deities, such as the 'cult' of celebrities. Not only does deception brew through unrealistic representations of people in society, but hypocrisy is present as well, and is evident when dehumanizing those basking in the limelight. They're criticised for living as a non-famous person would, brewing recrimination for things that are good to have a variation of in life, such as not being stick-thin in body mass or shape, eating junk food, dressing in sweats, or other things that would provide comfort as a human being. When 'regular' people are seen doing this, they aren't as harshly judged as one would do with someone that is under constant pressure to look good for the media, for it would publicize and mock any minor or major slip-up or personal feud that these people could be experiencing. People find entertainment in criticising flaws in others, when they possibly could be their own insecurities projected onto others and analysed, in order to feel better about oneself.
ReplyDeleteNot only does media in society bolster the presence of deception and hypocrisy, but the unnecessary hate and lack of support from person to person, for they attack each other in order to boost self esteem, based on images that portray artificial ideologies, created by the masses or in one's own mind.
I agree with the statement that society cultivates deception and hypocrisy. As sad as it sounds, our culture makes it seem that lying and cheating is ok. The most specific example is in American politics, especially in this upcoming election. Many of today's politicians are very hypocritical of what they say. Everyday, people are promised to have things changed and fixed, but it never happens. I don’t want to mention any specific people, but many of the candidates are promising ridiculous things that will probably never happen. They also deceive the American public, as everyone knows there are things behind the scenes we do not know about. Throughout history, presidents and government officials are “puppeted” by their advisors and peers. I am not saying the government is completely corrupt, but it does have its flaws in which they use deception and hypocrisy. The media helps fire up the deception and hypocrisy, which helps make the government seem more corrupt. However, I believe that the media is almost as hypocritical as the candidates running, as they try to inform the public about information but all they do is help the candidates gain popularity. Especially on social media such as Twitter and Instagram, they indirectly pump up these candidates. Sometimes I feel that some of the news is directly ordered to be released by the political parties, again showing the deception in politics and media. This whole ordeal really brings up the question that society has bestowed on us: Can we trust our government and media to tell truths and not deceive us?
ReplyDeleteI think as individuals we blame our human faults on culture. Society is something that is not perfect, but that is because of the individuals that create that society. As an example, when someone is on a chair and another is on the ground, it is much easier for the one on the ground to pull the person on the chair down. Just as in society, those with negative feelings or deception, often pull down the ones that have good intentions originally. So, once deception is introduced into a culture, it is nearly impossible to remove it because deception and hypocrisy tend towards expanding to other people in a group. the out group and try and justify our own behaviour. However, no one is perfect and everyone is broken and has fault in their life, so deception is present in all cultures. In everyday life society is cultivating this deception through social media and how someone portrays themselves, and society cultivates this image of a person by either accepting or rejecting them. However, if this is not a deceptive view of the person, society does not only have to cultivate deception, but also positive outcomes. Also, society often portrays aspects in life as ok to do, even if they are ultimately against personal standards. Like white lies, even though they are clearly lies and deception, society seems to portray them as not as fine and not terrible. When a person eats healthy in public, but not at home, where does that desire to eat healthy come from? From peer pressure? Desire to fit in? Maslow's hierarchy of need describes this in the third ‘basic need’, which is love, or society. This shows that society motivates people to become who they are. So if society is portraying deception and hypocrisy as not bad aspects, than we as society will have these aspects cultivated in our own lives.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if society cultivates deception. I agree with the Tabula Rasa theory that states that an individual is born as a blank slate and society shapes their personality and views throughout their lives. Take a child going through school for example. When a young child first starts school, they wear and act however they want because their parents had accepted them. However, when they start school, if they act different from the other kids, they will be picked on. Individuals single out and pick on people that aren't like them or do something that they do not approve of. This is the reason that Middle school and High School is such a difficult time for students. Some are picked on for what they wear, say, like, or even look like. It’s why everyone strives to wear the newest, most expensive clothes. They want to fit in with everyone around them and not be bullied and be liked. Thus creating deception of both yourself and them because you are changing who you really may be to impress someone else. Someone else may just be saying they don’t like someone because someone they look up to doesn't like it. Then this kid who was comfortable with themselves is now someone they really aren’t because society made them this way.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus sees philosophical suicide as undesirable because he feels that everyone and everything has meaning and impact in the world. This can be seen through the actions of Sisyphus. He was punished to an eternity of moving a large rock that would just roll back to where it started. It was such a meaningless task, yet he kept his mind optimistic. He knew why he had to move this rock and it was because of the wrongdoings that he had done in the past. However, in the end of the story, Sisyphus sees that everything has meaning. That no matter how small something maybe, it plays a large part in its own world. It takes everyone and everything to make the world as it is today. Sisyphus also realizes that everyone has their struggles, but that it is what makes them so great or forms them into the person that they are. They wouldn’t be anywhere without them and would be very different just like he said the universe would be different if anything no matter how small it was to no longer be in existence in it. He also brings up the fact that an individual will always be struggling with something. That even though someone may have just gotten through a hardship, the hardship will never end. There will always be something that someone is struggling with, but that is just the way that life is. So he doesn’t agree with suicide because if you were to take yourself from the world, you would change it in more ways than you think.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus sees philosophical suicide as undesirable, because he says it annihilates reason. He believes that by simply explaining the problem of the absurd with a supernatural solution, it has the same harmful effects as physical suicide since you cease to use logic and rather replace it with a type of skapegoat. Instead of removing himself from the absurd or the problem that is plaguing the individual, he or she instead removes the world instead with one that is more agreeable. The way to avoid philosophical suicide is by selecting one of the two remaining solutions on coping to the idea of the absurd. One of which is physical suicide. This is where an individual chooses to end his or her life because they decide that a life without an essential purpose is not worth living. Camus rejects this choice however, and considers it cowardly. This leads to the last option, which is the only option that Albert Camus considers to be valid, accepting or embracing absurdity. Since you cannot avoid the absurd, the courageous action in Camus’ is accepting the absurd. He believes that life can be lived with greater quality if it has no meaning, and that we realize that it has now meaning. This will leave us with no moral obligation to do certain things, so it leaves us freedom to do as we please with our lives.
ReplyDeleteCamus believes that the human beings are poor creatures who are constantly searching for hope and meaning in a hopeless and meaningless world. As humans we search for clarity and transcendence from some spiritual being that never offers us any answers. In Camus’s opinion he views three possible philosophical responses to our struggles. Two of which (physical and philosophical suicide) he condemns avoidance, the other (acceptance of absurdity) he sees as a proper answer. Philosophical suicide is the religious solution of hypothesising a spiritual world of comfort and meaning beyond the Absurd. He believes that adopting a supernatural solution to absurdity, like believing in “leap of faith”, which is where one believes that there is more than the rational life, is to destroy reason. For Camus, destroying reason is as fatal and selfdestructive as physical suicide. The solution that Camus presents is that instead of avoiding confrontation with the absurd, the religious believer needs to remove the displeasing world and create a more appealing alternative. I think that philosophical suicide is avoidable because everyone has a struggle in their life, it may not be like having to eternally push a rock up a mountain, but whatever it is people always have a way of finding something that gives them hope. Albert Camus might not believe in the spiritual world but for many God is a central part of healing for people. Everyone, I believe, can find something that radiates positivity for them in any difficult situation that they may encounter. To believe that “life can be lived all the better if it has no meaning”, is morbid. If everyone thought that way than we’d have a lot more physical suicides, however because most of us believe in some sort of hope, we can rise above any difficult situation.
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus sees philosophical suicide as undesirable because humans must learn to cope with handling the absurd and to continue living. He believes to adopt a supernatural solution to a problem is wrong, and it forces a person to abandon reason. This directly leads to physical suicide. Camus gives humans three philosophical choices to problems, which are physical suicide, philosophical suicide, and then acceptance of absurdity. He completely disagrees with physical suicide because it is a sign of humans giving up. But philosophical suicide isn’t much different, as a person will remove reason like in physical suicide and replacing the “offended” world with a new agreeable alternative. Camus really emphasizes the acceptance of absurdity, especially in The Stranger. He uses the story of Sisyphus and compares him to Meursault in the story, and how both of them face very controversial and difficult situations but still continue to accept absurdness. Sisyphus is punished and has to push a rock for the rest of his life, while Meursault is sentenced to an eventual death. Its interesting how both don’t choose to commit physical or philosophical suicide, even though both were faced with a life and death predicament. However, Camus expresses that the Absurd and happiness coincide with each other, and both characters had believed in the absurd so therefore they both are happy. Both stories also bring up the idea of being “morally right” but “actually wrong”. Sisyphus is not allowed to go to earth, but decides to go to test his wife’s love. He knows he will face eternal punishment, but wants to enjoy his life. Same with Meursault, as he murders the Arab, but he does not feel as if it is his fault. Technically, a person could justify that it wasn’t his fault, but that judge saw it as intentional murder.
ReplyDeleteCamus sees only three responses to the problem that there is a collision between finding the purpose of life in the world not giving an answer. He dreams the answer of religion to be undesirable. He considers it to be “philosophical suicide,” a way out of explaining the meaning of life and why we are on the earth in the beginning. Camus describes this decision as a leap of faith that one has to take to see past the question of human desire for order and purpose and decide to move on with life. However, Camus himself has essentially created the absurd as a leap of his own faith that the absurd exists and to continue living with life. Saying that the absurd can only be accepted and is just like putting one's faith in something to just try and find meaning with no explanation, Camus has also not avoided his own questioning of the purpose of life. As with physical suicide, where people just leave the question unanswered, the religious person tries to find an answer in the supernatural. Albert Camus simply asks one to continue living and not even pursue the answer, which would lead to a very depressing life with little to no purpose. So I don’t think one can possibly avoid it, or if they do try and avoid it, they will have no meaning in their life and end up killing themselves, which is morbid.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the book, Camus introduces the reader to Meursault’s emotional indifferences. When Meursault is talking to Raymond Sintes, he tells a story about the violence he committed towards his girlfriend and asks Meursault for advice. The only time Meursault spoke up was when Raymond asked if he wanted to be pals, Meursault replied, “I didn’t say anything, and he asked me again if I wanted to be pals. I said it was fine with me; he seemed pleased” (Camus 29). This quote shows that it really made no difference to Meursault if he was a friend of Raymond’s or not. The fact that he doesn’t contribute to the conversation and that it seems just fine with him to be friends creates the image of indifference. Another example of indifference is when Meursault has to deal with a serious relationship question. After becoming involved with Marie, she eventually asks if he loves her, “I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so” (Camus 35). This is a very blunt statement, which shows Meursault’s ignorance to the emotion behind Marie’s question, however, he was telling the truth that it just didn’t matter. Later Marie asks him if he wants to get married, “it didn’t make a difference to me and that we could if she wanted to...I explained to her that it didn’t really matter and that if she wanted to, we could get married” (Camus 41). When the subject of marriage comes up, the reader sees that it again has no effect on him. The only way it would matter was if it made Marie happy. In the end, Meursault seems so passive that he comes off cold and uncaring, which is later taken advantage of during his trial. This emotional indifference shows how no one really knows Meursault’s true character, which leads him to become a stranger to everyone else. From these examples, the reader sees that Meursault shows acceptance only when it seems like it would make the other person happy if he were to comply. The difference between indifference and acceptance is that Meursault shows no emotion towards any personal situations, yet he does contemplate what he should say, however, he succumbs to the “pressure” because it seems to benefit the other person.
ReplyDeleteIndifference and acceptance are two aspects that are brought up in The Stranger. The main character Meursault, has many impactful events that occur in his life during the novel, but he himself seems quite indifferent to, contrary to others around him. One of the first and most controversial event that is brought up in the story is the death of Meursault’s mother. It would be expected of Meursault to be impacted by this event deeply, like most would considering the close relationships children have with their parents. But instead he surprisingly seems indifferent emotionally to the situation, and shows no signs of being impacted by his mother’s death. One example of his indifference during this event is towards the end of chapter two, when Camus writes, “It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed” (Camus 24). The fact that Meursault believes in his mind that “nothing had changed”, shows just how detached he is from his own life. He only sees the physical side of life itself, and the emotional side which can be argued to count as equal or even greater than the physical side, is not apparent to Meursault.The idea that Meursault fails to convey any emotion towards his mother’s passing suggests to me that maybe he cannot accept her death fully, and that he is possibly holding himself back subconsciously from feeling emotion to avoid any unwanted negative effects.
ReplyDeleteAbsurdism is the central theme of this book, and considering this, there really is no difference between acceptance and indifference. If you consider that absurdism is acceptance that it is impossible to find certainty in anything, including meaning in life, actions that drive oneself, or such behaviour life that, then the difference is insignificant. Such an indifference to life is constantly demonstrated by Mersault in the first half of the book, beginning with his detached relationships displayed at the beginning of the book: "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don't know" (Camus 3). With a person that is of a healthy mental state, it is usual that they display some form of attachment to those that should carry some import into their lives, while here the son displays an unusual apathetic state. He displays apathy at the state of his mother's life, and during the funeral, acts as if no feelings are mulled over by him, losing all sense of humanity that was believed of him. His acceptance of the mundane was then extended with the revelation that "...[O]ne more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed" (24). This view is one that surrounds that of absurdism. It is impossible to have an impact on the world, since so many people are alive, too many for one person to really matter, and therefore, whether one is there or not, it makes no difference on what the outcome of Earth will result in. Especially with 'ordinary' people, they are obsessed with leaving a legacy, for they know that once two generations have passed, they will truly be dead, for no one leaves a significant enough impact on the world, and they will decompose, and so will the idea and memory of them die as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the first part of The Stranger, Meursault’s mother dies. Many people see his reaction to her death as uncaring and look down upon him when he is being tried for the murder of the Arab. Although he knew that, “she was happier,” in the home, many people saw this as him not caring about his own mother (4). Meursault had accepted that his mother would die and that death was the only certain thing in life. Being indifferent about a situation shows that one does not care about others’ situations and only care about how it will benefit themselves. This was shown in Raymond's interactions with his girlfriend. He only cared about himself and did not care about how it would affect her or others around him. His only focus was revenge and getting back at her to ease his mind. Another portrayal of indifference is when Marie asks Meursault to marry her and if he loved her and he responds indifferently with, “that her question meant nothing or next to nothing,” to him (42). So the difference between indifference and acceptance is essentially up to oneself. It is often portrayed as indifferent, because society is based on being sympathetic to others and not wanting to accept that death and hardships are inevitable and that life is unpredictable.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s the difference between indifference and acceptance in Part 1 of the novel. So in the first part of the novel, Meursault was indifferent to hi other. He had accepted the fact that he didn’t know her very well and never saw her. He had even made excuses as to why he never saw his mother because they hadn’t lived close and he thought that it would have been a hassle for him to ride the bus all the way to her. He had also accepted the fact that when people had asked him how old his mother was he had no idea. The acceptance in the beginning of the novel was when he had to take time off to go to his mother’s funeral. He had felt bad because his boss saw this as an inconvenience, but Meursault told him several times that it wasn’t his fault. He eventually realizes the fact that his boss was mad because that meant that he would have more vacation time but he began to be okay with that.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Stranger”, Camus has split the story into two parts. In part one of the novel, we are introduced to Meursault's everyday life through his narrations. Camus uses sentence structure to reveal Meursault’s personality. For example, Meursault describes his meeting with the caretaker, “he suggested I go to the dining hall for dinner. But I wasn’t hungry. Then he offered to bring me a cup of coffee with milk. I like milk in my coffee, so I said yes, and he came back a few minutes later with a tray. I drank the coffee” (Camus 8). In this quote, Camus used short sentences in this social situation to show that Meursault has no interest in interacting with the caretaker. However, when Meursault talks about things that affect his physical condition, Camus uses long descriptive sentences. An example of this is when Meursault talks about the weather, “but today, with the sun bearing down, making the whole landscape shimmer with heat, it was inhumane and oppressive” (Camus 15). In part two of the book, Meursault’s quiet life has taken a turn for the worst when he is sentenced to prison and later death. Camus also uses part two to depict society’s attempt at manufacturing meaning behind Meursault's actions. The trial is an absurd part of the book in that the judge, prosecutors, lawyers, and jury try to find meaning where there is none. Everyone, except Meursault, has their own reason why he shot the Arab but none of them are, or can be, correct. Finally, even though the book only shows two parts, the reader could consider the last chapter to be part three of the book. In this chapter, Meursault is not far from his execution day, when he experiences an almost transcendence or enlightenment. Meursault comes to terms with death with the help of the chaplain, he says, “the chaplin knew the game well too, I couldn’t tell right away; his gaze never faltered. And his voice didn’t falter, either, when he said, ‘Have you no hope at all? And do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing remains?’ ‘Yes,’ I said” (Camus 117). The chaplin expects Meursault to be afraid of death and it’s obvious that this line would have worked on anyone else, however, for Meursault death was a way to free himself. In the end, Meursault rids himself of all hope, which allowed him to be content with his impending death. By splitting the book into three parts, Camus helps the reader understand the process of absurdity.
ReplyDeleteIn the Stranger, Albert Camus uses all of the events to show the personality and his idea of Absurdness in Meursault. At the ending of the story, all of these events are eventually revisited during the court case and shows the “demise” of Meursault’s life. In the beginning of the book, Meursault goes to see his mother after she died. During the wake, he seems very out of it and lost, as if he doesn’t seem to care about the situation. He is surrounded by the residents in the home where she stayed, and they are clearly mourning for her. However, he stays very modest and even falls asleep during the wake. Later, he is offered coffee and even smokes a cigarette during the week with the caretaker. For a person in mourning, this is a sign of disrespect, especially towards his recently deceased mother. During the trial, the caretaker explains that it is partially his fault that Meursault was directly disrespecting the wake, but the prosecutor still scrutinizes his personality against his “uncaring” personality. At first glance, I thought this part of the plot was completely insignificant to the story as a whole, as he goes home and seems rather unaffected by the events. However, this is exactly what Camus wants the reader to think, as Meursault actually doesn’t have any feelings and is stuck in this Absurdity. He has comes to terms with it and lives life with no answers and is very accepting of his fate. Another example is the scene of the crime, where he shoots the Arab with no intention or wanting to murder, but then goes up to the dead man and shoots him multiple times. Again, this shows his uncaring personality and how he doesn’t care about anything in the world, thus showing the idea of absurdity. It’s not until the ending of the book that he realizes that death is significant, after remembering his father’s reaction to the public execution long ago.
ReplyDeleteAs an outsider looking upon Meursault, it can be hard to find any reasoning in many of this main character’s actions. However one can find certain cause for justification with some pause for thought. For example, the death of Meursault's mother is something that is expected by everyone to be an emotional time for Meursault, yet when he is in supposed mourning he has almost no emotion shown for his mother and even refuses to see her one last time before being fully sealed in her coffin. One possible answer to his out behavior, is that Meursault simply desensitizes himself from any emotion he may have, because he does not want to feel emotion, or just does not understand it. Albert Camus writes, “Then I felt like having a smoke. But I hesitated, because I didn’t know if I could do it with Maman right there. I thought about it; it didn’t matter. I offered the caretaker a cigarette and we smoked” (Camus 8). Here Meursault hesitates to smoke with his dead mother right beside him, but then convinces himself to go ahead anyway. At this point we see Meursault have some feeling of guilt with his idea, but instead of going with what he initially felt he brushes it off instead. I believe that the events in this novel unfolds as they do because it pairs nicely with the ideas of Albert Camus, the author. Although Meursault might seem like a stranger to most of us because his lack of “normalness”, he infact is not a bad person. But rather he is portrayed that way by the prosecutor. This ties into Camus’ idea of absurdity, and that Meursault choose to accept absurdity and the morals that is created by him because of that, which he is now being trialed for rather than the murder itself. Society is following physiological suicide, by executing a man they did not fully understand, and rather branded him as a heartless and emotionless human being to make due of the situation.
ReplyDeleteAs one reading this book, I see a great deal of Meursault that is simply just living life as it comes at him, not worrying about the consequences his actions or how they will affect others. I think it is fitting to have the murder be a sort of blurry scene in the blazing sun. Since Meursault did not go out to the beach mentally wanting to kill the Arab as he states later in the trial. When Meursault goes to the beach to get Raymond away from these Arabs, I find it intriguing that the Arabs follow him, as almost a threat to his sanity and well being. By them stabbing Raymond, Meursault finds himself as the next person to avenge his friend. Also, the ocean symbolizes how things are the same, although they are always moving. This is how Meursault sees his life and decisions. He sees that there is no absolute purpose for life and believe in the absurdity and moves on with life knowing that death is the only certain thing. Life may as well go on for others, but in the end it will have no purpose. Also, during the trial I thought it was interesting how the majority of the time was spent contemplating how Meursault had treated his mother in her dying days. Having this event right before the trial shows how much how one treats other people affects how other people treat and perceive us.
ReplyDeleteThe motive behind Mersault's murder is clear and simplistic: it was because of the Sun. Now, most people would delve deeper, give a motive fueled by feelings, or by his life's happenings, yet the truth is, he is detached from all feeling, and is a live-in-the-moment kind of person. He finds death mundane and meaningless, necessary to life and inevitable: "Maman was buried now.. and nothing had changed" (Camus 24). Although everyone views death as inevitable, most fear this sudden lack of consciousness, of existence, while Mersault does not share this outlook. His routine view of life is also expanded on in the end, in his conversation with the Champlain: "Do you really live with the thought that when you die, you die, and nothing else remains' 'Yes,' I said" (117). He does not find a difference between being condemned to die, and eventually dying; it is all the same, and it is just a routine part of life, helpless, and sometimes quickened with a catalyst, such as the murder he committed.
ReplyDeleteHis indifference to life and death are what eventually came back to bite him. When Mersault walked along the beach and encountered the Arab, they both stood there, facing each other, all the while Mersault complained around the heat. It must have been seen as an act of taunting when "the Arab drew his knife and held it up.. in the sun. The light shot off the steel and it was like a long flashing blade cutting up at [Mersault's] forehead" (59). The rounds of shots were fired after this happening, with Mersault later giving reasoning behind this crime as the Sun shining in his face, or physical discomfort. When put in questioning, he explains that his "physical needs often got in the way of... feelings" (65). This whole crime is exemplary of the absurd, for Mersault cares not about human life, and was acting in the moment to remove the physical discomfort he was feeling in the easiest way possible.
Meursault’s reasoning for shooting the Arab on the beach, stems from his utter indifference. He doesn’t see a difference his actions will make, just as he has felt for the entirety of the book. He saw no reason for him to mourn his mother, he saw no reason not to aide Raymond in the affairs with his ex, he saw no reason to as to why he should marry Marie, and he saw no reason to accept or deny the job in Paris. Meursault mentions having ambitions once, but lost them when he dropped his studies, drawing one to conclude that he has been in this state of mind for a while. Due to Meursault’s indifference, he appears easily led by terrible influences like Raymond and Salamano. It is the unlikely friendship sparked with Raymond in particular that leads Meursault to shoot the Arab, and it is only after this event that we as readers witness Meursault experience emotion without a sense of detachment, as though the speed his death approaches with is enough to shock him out of his perpetual existential despair.
ReplyDeleteJean Paul Sartre believes that “existence comes before essence”, which means that human beings have no preestablished purpose or nature, nor anything that we have to or ought to be. Because of this belief, he thinks that humans are forced to choose what we will become and to define ourselves by our choice of action. In Sartre’s play, “No Exit” we can see his belief in existence through his characters. The reader finds out that Inez is in Hell because she had seduced her cousin’s wife, then planned to make his life miserable, until he finally stepped in front of a tram and was killed. Inez also brought a lot of guilt upon Florence (her lover), until she finally committed suicide and killed Inez by poisoning them with gas during the night. An example of existentialism is when Inez says, “so I’m done with the earth, it seems, No more alibis for me!” (Sartre 29). When Inez sees the couple “making love” in the room where she lived with Florence, her vision goes black. The reason for her vision fading is because the new couple is occupying the place she once shared with Florence, which is now being filled with anger, causing her to cut ties with the Earth. By doing this, Inez is now entirely present in hell, which means that she has accepted the actions that lead her to being in hell. Inez also states that she has no regret in her actions, she says, “I was what some people down there called ‘a damned bitch’” and later, “you know I don’t regret a thing” (Sartre 25). By showing no remorse for her actions, Inez displays the belief that one must accept their actions. The belief in existence is also shown in Garcin. He explains to the women that he is in hell because he was unkind and unfaithful to his wife. However, Garcin does not wish he had acted differently, he says, “I tell you I regret nothing” (Sartre 24). In this quote, Garcin is following the laws of existentialism because he is acknowledging and owning up to his actions. However, he does violate them later in the book, For example, he becomes preoccupied with the idea that he is a coward and demands that the women object this belief and declare his masculinity. This is anti existentialism because according to its principles, he should not have to rely on others for confidence.
ReplyDeleteExistence in the play No Exit, is represented in many ways throughout its relatively short length. One example of how existence can be viewed is when Jean-Paul Sartre writes, “Don’t you ever get taken that way? When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn’t help much” (Sartre 19). Here existence can be seen as your physical facial features, and without having any form of mirror to see yourself, you eventually begin to question your very existence such as Estelle. Estelle has only been in the room for a short period of time, and as she is there for eternity she will soon forget what she looks like all in itself. Your physical features are part of who you are, and without you knowing what you appear to be as to others, you lose part of your identity, you become a faceless voice to only yourself. Asking others to describe you is shown as not a solution when Estelle says, “But how can I rely upon your taste? Is it the same as my taste? Oh, how sickening it all is, enough to drive one crazy!” (Sartre 20). Another way existence can be seen in the play, is the idea of being talked or thought about bac on earth. In the play, all three characters have the ability to see and hear what is going on when people are either thinking or talking about them. For example Garcin states, “I asked you to leave me in peace. There’s someone talking about me in the newspaper office and I want to listen” (Sartre 21-22). This interests them very much as they see that they are not forgotten yet by their family, friends, and coworkers, and they wish to see everyone’s reactions to them being dead. To them if they are still remembered on earth by others, it is as if the still exist. This theory is also very similar to what the ancient Egyptians believed in death, which is that being mentioned or thought of when dead is as if you are still living. It would be interesting to figure out if Jean-Paul Sartre in fact had gotten the idea of this from the ideology of the ancient Egyptians.
ReplyDeleteIn the play No Exit, Jean Paul Sartre uses different representations of existence through the three main characters. Estelle is probably the most stereotypical representation of a modern teen in our society, someone who is very self-conscious about looks and how she acts. The most obvious example is when she asks Inez to be her “glass”, or mirror to see what she looks like. Another example would be when the Valet shows that each of them have their own sofa, and she becomes instantly self-conscious about which sofa would go well with the clothes that she was wearing. This idea of existence is the one of acceptance of norms in society, and doesn’t seem to show any signs of believing in existentialism. Another character is Garcin, who is slightly similar to Estelle’s self-conscious personality. However, he seems more content with himself and focuses on his past self rather than his present being. Throughout the chapter, he sits in the corner with his hands on his face trying to go through his thoughts about his life. He also seems very attached to his life, as in the beginning of the play he asks the Valet many “insignificant” questions, like about his toothbrush. This idea of existence is again self-consciousness, but more on the personal level and in reflection of the past and not the present and future. The last character, Inez, seems the one that closely relates to existentialism.
ReplyDeleteExistence as a philosophical topic is represented in the play in the sense that existence is pointless and potentially hell if spent with the wrong people. In the beginning of the play, Inez, Garcin and Estelle wonder why they are put here. They think that is a mistake and a fluke. They thought that they had lived good lives which shouldn’t have landed them in the hell that they were put in. They were confused as to why there was no torture chamber, nor torture, nor contraptions to torture them. However, as the play went on, they grew to learn that one another were out there to torture each other. Their personalities and wants had been so conflicting that it made it unbarable. Inez wanted the love of Estelle and Estelle wanted the love of the man who didn’t want to love her back, and Garcin wanted nothing to do with Estelle because he hadn’t any feelings to love her. However, Garcin wanted Estelle to think he was brave in exchange for him to love her, but Inez had pointed out that she didn’t mean anything that she was saying and that he was indeed a coward. In the end of the lay, Garcin says that hell is being in the presence of other people and that they still have an eternity to spend together. He says this with no expression because there was no point to have any. No matter what, they were stuck together in misery forever.
ReplyDeleteIn Jean Paul Sartre's play "No Exit", the topic of existence is presented through Sartre's overarching philosophy of 'existence preceding essence'.
ReplyDeleteSartre describes his philosophy as human beings creating their own meaning and reason to live and for life, for they are born as a 'blank slate', with no purpose in the world and no predisposed personality. People are what they make of themselves, so in this case, the way each character presents themselves through dialogue is how they are viewed by others, and therefore, creating their essence.
Estelle does not seem to have a deep understanding of who she is, being very superficial and identifying herself only through her physical being, with no sense of her true personality. She begins by worrying that the clothes she is wearing will clash with her surrounding environment, then calls for constant attention, and when she doesn't receive a mirror in which she can admire herself, she dissociates her existence from her 'life'. This is shown with the conversation she shares with Inez: "Don't you ever get taken that way? When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist" (Sartre 19). Her lack of self visualization leads to a lack of self identity, and according to the existentialist view that Sartre has, she doesn't have an essence, or a true existence, due to a lack of self-definition of such. She lives a life that is defined by Sartre as being-for-others, for she only lives as an object, defining herself in terms of what others think of her. A further example of this way of living is her self-defined innocence until Inez and Garcin make her reveal the true nature of her stay in hell; the murder of a baby. Her attempts to be viewed by others in a positive light, and only feeling guilt for her actions once she is discovered to be otherwise are characteristics of being-for-others, for she does not make the choices herself for the definition of her life, but lets others treat her objectively and decide for themselves what she is.
Existence in No-Exit is one of the main point of controversy. Each person in the room seems to die to the world at different points. Each of their earthly lives end at different points, showing that some people have more attachment to their personal lives and take longer to move forwards with life. Inez sees through the fact that they are dead and each of their existences in the room are as a hell to the others. So them existing together shows that each of them exist, but not for themselves anymore, but merely for the demise of others. Their existence on earth has faded as people forget them, or realize they went to hell for their actions. Garcin, who is the only male, does not seem to care for any of the women in the room and only cares about his reputation on earth.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are no mirrors in the room or reflection, shows that each person cannot see themselves as they wish they could. They must see themselves through the others, relying on how they see them. This is essentially living through someone else and removes themselves from their own personality and preferences. This is shown when Estelle asks Inez to be her mirror. Showing that although Inez says her makeup is perfect, it may not be in Estelle's eyes, but there is no way to know.
Estelle’s comment, “when I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist” (Sartre 19), shows Estelle retreating into bad faith, something that is Sartre’s existential philosophy strongly resents. “No Exit” is centered around the line, “hell is other people”, and that hell comes through competitiveness and subjectivity. When other people look at Estelle she is turned into an object by that person, however, because of bad faith, Estelle is subjecting herself to becoming an object. By becoming someone else's object, Estelle is relinquishing her freedom and thus, the responsibility that goes with it. This leads her to exist for other people rather than for herself. Estelle is obsessed with mirrors, her own appearance, and getting Garcin’s attention because she wants to make sure that everyone keeps their eyes on her. According to Estelle, even her nicknames back on Earth, “his glancing stream, his crystal” (Sartre 33), have to do with looking and reflecting. Before Estelle died, she would define herself as what she saw through a mirror, which showed how beautiful and refined she was, but in actuality, Estelle is a hypocritical murderer. In Hell, she has no mirror, and thus, has no image, so she is forced to accept herself as Inez and Garcin see her. With the absence of a mirror, she is finally forced to face the truth of her actions.
ReplyDeleteTry to make sense of Estelle's comment: "When I can't see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I think that it can be inferred that Estelle is an attractive woman and the only way that she can find comfort is from seeing herself. She has made mistakes in her life with her husband and child and feel as if she isn’t as pretty on the inside as she is on the out. She takes pride in her beauty because she feels as if it is the only good quality that she has. This is the reason she finds comfort in Inez and why she craves the attention of Garcin. She likes the attention that Inez gives to her. She sees the beauty in Estelle and tries to be everything she wants as acting as her mirror and giving her compliments. However, that isn't enough for her self-esteem. When Garcin shows no interest in Estelle or her beauty, she craves the attention of him more than ever She wants him to crave her and see the beauty in her so she can treat him as she treats Inez. She wants the attention and love of another person to fill the void she has about herself. It also shows within the relationship between her and her husband. When she talks about what happened to him, about his suicide, she takes great pride in it. She is happy to explain that she caused a man to commit suicide over her. It gives her a sense of importance and pleasure, part of the game that she plays.
ReplyDeleteEstelle only sees her existence through physical features, and without having any mirrors to see oneself, she eventually begins to question her very existence as she has done so when she says, “When I can’t see myself I begin to wonder if I really and truly exist. I pat myself just to make sure, but it doesn’t help much” (Sartre 18). Estelle has only been in the room for a very short period of time, and as she is destined to be there for all of time, her memory of her appearance will soon fade and she will forget who she is physically. Your physical features are part of who you are, and without you knowing what you appear to be as to others, you lose part of your identity, and you eventually become a faceless voice to only yourself. You simply become a voice and mind trapped in a room without purpose or identity, simply just existing because you do. Your physical appearance also shows you where you come from. You look similar to your parents, grandparents, and siblings, and without visual reassurance of where and who you come from on earth you lose a big part of you. Estelle seems to also be very focused on physical desires and wants, rather than emotional ones as well. For example, Estelle only wants Garcin to be hers because she wants only physical pleasure from him. She does not care about what he feels and thinks, and this shows when Estelle states, “You haven’t a coward’s chin, or a coward’s mouth, or a coward’s voice, or a coward’s hair. And it’s for your mouth, your hair, your voice, I love you” (Sartre 40). Estelle essentially says that Garcin does not look like a coward despite his current feelings and emotions, and says he still looks perfectly handsome, which is why she loves him. She has no desire with dealing with Garcin’s morality issue, and only wants to simply feel physical love.
ReplyDeleteIn the play No Exit, Sartre examines the question of existence and essence through the actions of Garcin, Inez, and Estelle. Since they have all recently died, they must confront the existence of their consciousness as their physical bodies are buried on earth. Using each individual's consciousness and the "other" part of him/herself that observes that consciousness, Sartre creates a situation where each character must ignore or accept the judgment of the other two. For example, when they first meet, Inez says that Garcin's mouth looks grotesquely frightened. Since there are no mirrors, Garcin must decide if Inez is right or what he thinks himself is right. In this case, Garcin believes Inez rather than his own judgment. He lets her define his essence, or personal characteristics, and thus, in Sartre's definition, has "bad faith."
ReplyDeleteSartre uses exposition to introduce his audience to each character by placing them in a strange and unusual situation. Each character thus explains how they died and what they think of their room/hell with out sounding awkward. Sartre also foreshadows many of the major themes of the play in this first section. For example, even though they are already dead and have nothing to hide, each character continues to lie to themselves. Garcin pretends to find the furniture shocking, while Estelle pretends that she is in hell by mistake. Also, Estelle's first impression that Garcin was her dead lover foreshadows their future relationship. Because the two lie to themselves, they are acting in "bad faith”.