I agree with this statement. First of all I feel that I would not gain authenticity even through death – that rather than give meaning to the life that is coming to an end, it is a release. The freedom that has been so elusive has finally become visible, and although Camus calls it cowardly to see suicide as an escape from or solution to the absurd, I have never claimed to be anything more. Death is ceasing the fight of waking up each day to push the same boulder up the same hill time after time – an endless task that becomes more difficult to continue each time the boulder falls down. To face the absurd and ultimately realize that the universe would not be lessened by your leaving is to lose meaning in everything you do – if no one cares, then why do you live? Is death then not preferable to a pointless struggle? It takes near Herculean feats of strength to continue on in the face of an endless wall of blank indifference from the world. In the moment of death, perhaps there is a sudden change of heart – a burning feeling that speaks of all the things you never said and all the things you could have done that lie just outside your grasp and all the people and the places that you will never see again and perhaps suddenly all the colors are more vivid than you remember and there is a sharp burning regret that despite the fact that nothing matters in the end you feel like you should have fought harder. Maybe something would have come of enduring the dissonance for just a bit longer – a resolution, at least, in knowing that you made the most of this bitterly transient lifespan. Death, then, is the moment of truth, in whether it is a release or a bunch of uncleanly severed ends – a true and final peace or deep regret. It is a reflection of who you truly are when everything is coming to an end at a breakneck pace and there is no time left to be afraid of anything.
I agree with this statement. I believe that death is the most authentic moment in life because it is the only thing that we know is absolutely going to happen. Everyone knows that death is inevitable, and that is just part of life. It is the most authentic moment because it is expected. Throughout our lives we may expect several things to happen, and we may think these moments will happen for sure. The truth is we never know something is certainly going to happen, besides death. There is no way around death, and at some point everyone will have to face it. Death is our most authentic moment also because it is the only we know is real, and cannot question. We may question how someone died, or why they died, or questions concerning death, but there is no questioning whether or not death is real. It is the only truly authentic moment we experience. I also think death is the most authentic moment of our lives because it is what gives our lives meaning. If death did not exist, we would live forever, and live for no purpose. Knowing and anticipating death allows us to live our lives to their greatest potential, and fulfill our lives before we die. If death did not exist we would not have this motivation to go out and do something with our lives, and make the most of them, because we would know we had forever to do this. Death makes our lives more authentic by pushing us to make the most of our lives, and motivating us to reach our full potential.
I agree with this statement. Authenticity refers to something real, true, and genuine. The knowledge of death allows people to grow to their greatest potential because many people strive to make an impact on the world before departing. Life is composed of a series of moments that our actions and decisions impact and change for better or for worse. When, how, and where a person dies is unchangeable and inevitable. This quality make death the most authentic moment in life. In that moment, a person is able to experience his/her true self. Many situations in life may shape and give us the appearance of a true identity, but ultimately, a person’s actions and decisions in the few moments before death and during death will portray and allow a person to truly see him/herself. When a person is about to die, it is his/her last opportunity to say or do what the one thing he/she needs of say. It is the ultimate moment of truth and reality because a person does not want to waste his.her last breath, last moment on something other than the complete and utter truth. People who still have time left typically create identities for themselves that allow them to fit society’s beliefs and trends. This false identity is manipulated with the changes in society’s beliefs, but in death this mask is stripped off, revealing the absolute, real, truth. The knowledge provided by death inspires people to truly live rather than simply stay in a state of ongoing nothingness. Death gives life meaning. It is also a bittersweet experience because though it means we will depart from the things we most cherish, it is a peaceful reprieve from the difficulty of living.
Along with every other statement on the list, I disagree with this idea. In all honesty, reading these statements made me so sad for the people who believed them to be true. I personally found these ideas to be extremely depressing. Those who live by these statements probably lead very unhappy and meaningless lives. I believe that there is a purpose to life, and that purpose is that life is a sort of test. I believe that we came to this earth so we can obtain bodies in order to further learn and grow, and ultimately become like God, our loving Heavenly Father. With this in mind, death is a large part of this process, as it brings us back to His presence, but this does not define our lives. I think that our actions in this life are our most authentic moments. The choices we make set us on a path. We can choose which path we take, and this course of action, I believe is what is most authentic in our lives. Death is only a pathway to the next part of our eternal journey.
I disagree with this statement for a few reasons. Making the statement that death is the “most” authentic event is very difficult to stand by, because so many events happen in everyday life that are real and genuine. Breathing is something authentic and real that must be done every second to avoid death. It is challenging to say death is “more” authentic than that, or any of the many possibilities of events within a person’s life. There is no life on Earth that is identical to another. Every person’s life has different high and low points, however all life starts and ends the same. This displays that one cannot directly say death is the most authentic without knowing what everyone has gone through. Any everyday event or even rare event could just be as authentic and real. Death is something that no one can run away from completely. No matter how much money, fame, or any possession you have, it is impossible to escape death. Even though some may be able to hide from it for a short period of time, no one can escape it. This is a moment that happens and ends every life. Which may make it an authentic part of life. However, it is hard to say it is the most authentic, because something very similar happens during birth, the creation of life that is certain with every human being. Everyone experiences different relative and friend deaths throughout their life, with different causes of death. It is hard to define death as the most authentic moment in life because that would require generalizing the life of every human on Earth.
When I first saw this question I immediately disagreed because I thought the most authentic moment in life was being born or falling in love, or something. Yet after really contemplation it I now agree with this statement. At first, I looked at death as; you see the light then you’re gone, that’s it, but death is so much more than that. When you are dying your whole life is instantly recapped before your eyes. You remember all the amazing moments and memories and look back on all your achievements. Death is so authentic because it the realist, most certain thing anyone can go through. The reality of death is that once someone is gone, they are gone forever; there is no getting them back. It is a very hard thing for most people to accept and people contemplate the meaning and reason behind death throughout their whole lives. It is the realist moment in your life, you realize that nothing you have done can be changed. Once death is upon you there is no going back that’s what makes it so real, you may be able to slow the process towards your death down but you can never change the fact that you will die eventually. Death gives life meaning, it gives people a purpose and a reason to live life to the fullest, for they can’t live forever. Death can also teach people lessons and change people’s world view for the better. Death is a bittersweet thing.
Death is a topic and event that occurs in people’s lives that many decide not to even speak or think of due to all the other events that occur along with it. Although for some it may be difficult to even speak of, it is an event that happens within every single human being’s life time, no matter how old or young. Alongside it, nothing is alive without the event of birth as well; two events that are utterly unavoidable. Personally, the only other event that happens in one’s life that could possibly compare to the authenticness of death, is birth. Birth is a beautiful thing that is a necessity to our world today that is such an incredible idea and moment in everyone’s life that experiences it verein me to believe that birth is possibly the most authentic moment in life compared to death. Although all the positive implications around birth and the idea of a new living object comes things like; heartache, pain, mental tol, exhaustion, etc. A mother that partakes in a natural birth experiences pain like no other just for the baby to be born which is not something pure nor authentic for one to have to endure. A child that is born could possibly not be wanted and given up for adoption putting a mental toll on the child for the rest of their life while they are led to believe that they are never wanted. Birth is an amazing thing, but also an event that can cause great horror and the complete opposite of a miracle; that leading me to believe that although very close, birth is not the most authentic moment, death is. Everyone and everything dies, it’s as simple as that and there is absolutely no way that one or anything that could avoid death. Whether one believes in the idea of reincarnation or heaven and hell, everyone and thing has one life on this Earth before it dies. My death will either be painful or painless, no matter how I die, there will always be heartache that people will experience when I die; along with every other death within this world. Pain will always be experienced, heartache will always be a factor and it is a sad but universal truth that everyone and thing must face when they die. It is the purest thing that one, and I will and must face within their and my life.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
Albert Camus portrays Sisyphus as the ultimate absurd hero because he recognizes his fate, has lost all hope, and therefore can transcend his eternal fate. Camus writes about the few moments where Sisyphus is free of his burden and he is aware of his eternal, futile struggle with the boulder. As long as he is aware, his fate is no worse than the burdens people endure in life. An absurd man is aware of his situation as Sisyphus is. This myth is a tragedy that is viewed with horror because Sisyphus is forever condemned to perform this futile, hopeless labor. In Camus’ essay and analysis of this myth he shows that life is, like Sisyphus’ struggle, is devoid of hope and futile. However, Sisyphus has lost the hope of receiving a more pleasant fate. This suggests that happiness comes when all hope of a brighter future, life, or fate is lost. Without hope, people will be able to appreciate the lives they live. The Gods cannot punish Sisyphus like they intended to because he does not hold to hope. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy” this is because if Sisyphus is not happy then true happiness will only come from avoiding awareness of the absurd and having hope, which is the completely opposite point Camus is trying to convey to the readers (Camus). Essentially Camus is saying Sisyphus must be happy if true happiness is possible. This is applied to life because he implies that if Sisyphus can find happiness in his circumstance then others can too if they are void of hope and do not live in denial of their situations/fates. Camus believes that this life and these experiences are the only things that are real and accepting them without relying on anything beyond them will bring true happiness. In this way, Sisyphus is a universal figure because his fate and supposed acceptance/awareness portray that if happiness is possible for him, then by the same steps, happiness is possible for others.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
Camus depicts Sisyphus as on that is “doomed to eternal labor at his rock, fully conscious of the essential hopelessness of his plight, nevertheless he pushes on.” In other words, Sisyphus is one that has realized his own self doom and that he obtains no real hope in life, although he still pushes through each hardship and works for what needs to be done. The perseverance that Sisyphus must obtain is an amount undescribable while he is forced to work for eternity knowing that the work will get him nowhere in life what so ever. I believe that the idea of Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure by being one that must work for his wrongdoings and shows that everyone in this world must work to get to a certain point in life. Although he is working for no real win nor gain, he is working for the reason that put himself in his current position; just like every other human being on this planet. We all must work for what we wish to obtain in this world, or if we have wrongdoings, we must work to rid of our mistakes. No one is able to get far in life by just sitting on their couch watching tv all day as they must work hard and put in the time and effort to get to a position they wish to obtain.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
Sisyphus displays aspects of a universal figure, because he goes through what many people in the world endure. Sisyphus attempts to work towards something that he will never achieve. After Sisyphus pushes the stone up the mountain he must watch, “the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again toward the summit”. Being forced to watch your goals slip away, then being able to try again, repeatedly it very challenging and hard for humans to do, especially since giving up can seem so easy. However, Sisyphus continues to push that rock up everyday, even to the point where he is aware that he will be unable to reach the top. Pushing the rock up the hill gives Sisyphus no loss or gain, but it demonstrates him working for what he wants to obtain in life, and the rock is holding him back. When Sisyphus walks back down the mountain to go try again, “he is stronger than his rock”. This demonstrates the idea that he is stronger than the thing pulling him down from his dreams, because he looks passed it, not always happily, to try again. Sisyphus was originally deemed this labor as a punishment, “there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor”, which is a common view within the world, that hard and seemingly pointless work is horrendous. However, Sisyphus manages to eventually become okay with his work, as if it’s almost meaningless. He experiences no gains and losses coming from the rock falling down the hill, but he is able to continue on and try again, something hard to find motivation for in today’s world.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure? In the Underworld, Sisyphus is being punished for all eternity by having to roll a boulder to the top of a hill, only to have it fall all the way back down, and he would have to keep repeating this task until the end of time. According to Camus, this myth can be seen as a metaphor for the everyday struggle of man to face the absurd – the dissonance of the indifference of the cosmos and man’s desperate search and desire for a meaning in life. The tragedy comes from the consciousness of one’s situation – whether Sisyphus’ fate of toiling to push his boulder or man’s continuous everyday labor to seemingly no end at all. The beginning of every day is like starting at the bottom of the hill, painful to wake up and face the world once again. Reaching the end of the day is a small triumph, like cresting the rise, but the boulder always falls back down and life becomes a battle in which there is no chance of victory. However, to rise up and face this battle day after day is to live with a spirit of defiance against the absurd, and this acceptance of hopelessness and determination to continue living takes far more courage than physical or philosophical suicide. Like Sisyphus, who is fully conscious of his condition, he nevertheless pushes on against it, becoming a symbol of revolt and spiritual courage.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
In Sisyphus’ story he was condemned to push a boulder up a hill, only for it to fall back down. Each day, he was destined to repeat these steps, knowing that it would all be for nothing. In most cases, I would assume that this would be a very hard task, not only for the physical labor of it, but also because of how utterly depressing it would be. On the contrary, Camus describes this as a moment of pride, courage, and happiness. Due to this, people across the world can learn from this story. For one thing, they learn that they need to be careful about what they do and say so they avoid these negative consequences. They can also learn to be courageous in what they do. And when difficulty befalls them, they can still see the good and be happy. Sisyphus may seem to be a depressing story, but Camus describes it as one we may learn from. One that teaches of righteousness, courage, and happiness.
Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure in many ways. First, Sisyphus is forced to engage in a repetitive, tedious, daily routine. This is very similar to how the majority of people in the universe have repetitive jobs, that become a routine to them. They aren’t doing something they enjoy, but forced to repeat this routine over and over again. They do it in order to survive, because they need the money to live. Another universal characteristic of Sisyphus is his hatred for death, and passion for life. Death is a sore subject for a lot of people, and definitely seen as a negative event. Having a hatred of death is very common, and universal. Death is not normally seen as a great thing, and it is uncommon for people to love death, and wish for it. Sisyphus’s passion for life is universal because life is meant to be fulfilled, and lived to its greatest potential. His passion for life shows the importance Sisyphus puts on making his life great. He is a genuinely happy person, even in the unhappy situations and circumstances he encounters. Sisyphus is also a universal figure because in this myth, Sisyphus encounters his fate. His fate in this case is the repetitive labor of pushing this boulder up the mountain, just to watch it roll down again. Sisyphus’s fate brought him to this t[point, and t is fate that he will continue this job. Overall, Sisyphus has several characteristics that can portray him as a universal figure.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
Sisyphus is a universal character because his struggle is everyone's struggle. We are always searching for the meaning of life, some people turn to fate and religion while others take on other conclusions. Camus concludes that life is absurd and there is no reason to what happens in day to day life all that matters is the attitude people have towards the absurd events plaguing everyone’s existence. Sisyphus had been cursed with the endless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain only for the boulder to fall back down again. Camus’ main interest is in the reflective period of Sisyphus’ descent, the time where Sisyphus is completely conscious of the fact that he must repeat this task again the next day. When talking about Sisyphus during his descent Camus writes, “At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock.“ The gods are forcing Sisyphus do this absurd task to make him suffer and the only way Sisyphus can have any say in his fate is to decide whether or not he will be content with his fate. It is the only identity he can hold onto, his happiness. Him consciously deciding to continue his never ending task reflects the fact the Sisyphus is stronger than the object he is pushing. Camus also writes, “Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable.” Existentialist can be content with themselves because, unlike everyone else, they understand that life holds no meaning. Since they are not trying to find a higher power to life, they have more time to focus on improving their attitudes towards meaningless events. They do not have to worry about being let down by the fact that there is no true meaning to life other than being happy. Thus, Camus implies the idea that how you live your life is more about your attitude rather than your actions.
Marie and Meursault have a unique relationship as a couple. From Meursault’s perspective the relationship seems to be purely physical. This is because he does not show any actual emotion towards Marie, besides lust. “I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals. You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower” often he will describe her and say that he wants her because of her looks and for lust not for her personality and other traits (Camus 34). He seems detached from the relationship and acts as if it is meaningless to him. This is not what typical intimate relationships are like. Usually both partners are invested in each other emotionally and physically. Meursault is only invested in Marie physically. However, Marie appears to be emotionally invested in him. “... I was peculiar, that that was probably why she loved me…” Marie feels an emotional connection to Meursault that he cannot reciprocate (42). She asks if he would have accepted a proposal from any other women to which he replies he would have because marriage is not a serious thing. Again, this shows his detachment from life and emotions and he does not feel the need to participate in the absurdity of life and finding a purpose and meaning for it all. The force that ties Marie and Meursault is attraction. Both people feel a physical attraction to each other, but only Marie feels an emotional attraction to Meursault. This relationship is more one sided because only Marie is truly invested, physically and emotionally, in it, but Meursault is only physically invested. Their relationship does not seem true and valid because Meursault’s failure to feel and show real, deep emotions about and towards Marie. Lust is an emotion expressed by Meursault, but again this only connects them physically. For a relationship to be true and valid they must share a connection deeper than just physical feelings.
We see several relationships dominate Part I. Pick ONE such relationship (Salamano & his dog; Marie & Meursault; Raymond & Meursault, etc.) What ties these individuals together? Do you think this relationship is true or valid?
Marie and Meursault's relationship seems unlikely and almost random to the reader. They say opposites attract, but these two are really opposites. Marie is a fun-loving character, greatly contradicting Meursault’s emotionless attitude. Meursault first sees and flirts with Marie, quickly following his mother’s funeral, but Marie went along with it anyway. Meursault's attitude is displayed in this relationship, “I’d promised to spend the day with a girlfriend” ( Camus 40). He does not specify that the girlfriend he is spending time with is his, but rather describes her as a general girlfriend, demonstrating his lack of dedication, and interest in general. She asks if she loves her, to which he replies, “it didn’t mean anything, but that I probably didn’t love her” (41). Following that, Marie proposes to Meursault and receives a rejection. Marie was trying to find out is Meursault would accept a similar request from another women and he says, “sure”. The premises of this relationship makes the reader sympathize for Marie as she stays with a man who shows no love towards her, or feelings toward anything. Their relationship is primarily a sexual relationship, as they both seem to accept that. Meursault not caring to change it, but Marie thinking about more. Marie is intrigued by Meursault's personality, which is not a good basis for a relationship. I do not think this relationship is genuine, because their relationship is based off of physical attraction rather than real feelings.
The relationship between Meursault and Marie is one of the most interesting aspects of the novel. Meursault seems to only want Marie for her looks, and doesn’t care much for her otherwise. His descriptions of her are mostly about her beauty or of his desire for her, as he says “I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals. You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower” (34). While he thinks of her as just an object (not literally) of his desire, Marie seems to be happy to be with him – in the days they spend together at the beach, she laughs a lot, and returns his feelings for her. However, her feelings are not reciprocated: “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so. She looked sad” (35). Here, Meursault’s saying that he didn’t love Marie is an indication that he really only stays with her out of lust. Later, she asks him if he wants to marry her and he replies that he would but it makes no difference to him, even if he doesn’t love her; when she asks if he would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, he says that he would. This reaffirms Meursault’s detachment from the world – even with someone whom he is so intimately involved, he shows no indication of really caring about them at all, saying that marriage was such a not-serious thing that he would marry someone he didn’t really love. Such detachment, also evidenced in other situations such as when he helps Raymond with his situation, puts Meursault further in the position of a “stranger,” seemingly observing the world in a detached manner (a characterization often seen in Camus’s works.) In Part 2, Marie’s love for him shows in that she visited him in prison and came to encourage him at his trials; as the days go on, it becomes more uncertain that Meursault didn’t care for her, as after he was sentenced to death he began to feel how much he had taken for granted the times when he had been happy, with his friends and with Marie; and when the chaplain asked him to look for the face of god in the sweating stones of his cell, the only face he could find was Marie’s, bright as the sun.
Salamano and his dog share probably the most unique relationship in this book. Salamano and his dog seem to despise one another, but really share a deep connection. This relationship outlines the absurd, and parallels Meursaults view on life. When the dog goes missing, Salamano searches everywhere. People tell him it must have gotten ran over. This is similar to a search for meaning in life, where there is none. This also describes Mersault, as he is completely indifferent to his circumstances up until the last moment, when he wishes for life again. Salamano and his dog foreshadow this change in thought, as it reveals to readers that one may not know the value of something until it is lost.
We see several relationships dominate Part I. Pick ONE such relationship (Salamano & his dog; Marie & Mersault; Raymond & Mersault, etc.) What ties these individuals together? Do you think this relationship is true or valid?
I feel as if the relationships within the first part of the book are ones that are not realistic or ones that are forced and are easily depicted as fake love; for example, Marie and Mersault. Raymond’s and Mersault’s relationship seems less of a relationship/friendship and more as a reliancy. Raymond has no real friends that are introduced in the novel so he is forced to result to Mersault in order from him to relieve his issues since he is the only option companion he knows. Mersault may have killed a man that involved Raymond but the death and murder of the Arab was not due to the relationship of the two men, it was due to the fact of the sun impacting his view of judgment.
The only relationship that is one that I believe is one made of true love is the one between Salamano and his dog. Salamano’s and the dog’s relationship began when his wife died and the dog was his real own companion, sadly; but it blossomed into the relationship they had to the current day. The relationship was easily a love hate relationship and it may be hard for someone to believe that Salamano actually loved his dog but once the dog was lost, Salamano experienced great sadness. On page thirty eight, Meursault states, “His bed creaked. And from the peculiar little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying.” This was stated after Salamano had come to Meursault to ask if he had seen his lost dog. This quote shows that the relationship between the dog and the man was based off true love; a man similar to Salamano, very negative and constantly cranky, is not one to ever cry unless in a dire situation. The relationship was different and not one that was forced or based of the lack of companionship similar to the ones that Meursault had with Marie and Raymond.
Salamano and his dog did not get along, or so it seemed. They would constantly be fighting and if Salamano was not cursing the dog out, he was for sure hitting him. However, once the dog dies, Salamano suddenly reveals a hidden love for his old, crummy dog. the dog is a symbol for that which is lost, dead, or abused. Camus uses the relationship of these two characters to reveal the existentialist idea that most people, like Salamano, are addicted to the culture of death and guilt. As a result, they refuse to live meaningful lives. He got the dog after his wife died, for companionship, but the dog never truly filled the void, Salamano had never really been happy. So he took his sadness, like people do, and brought it upon others. If he couldn.t be happy, then neither can his dog. Secondly, many people are resistant to change. They become comfortable with their lives and don’t dare to venture outside of the box. People fear that things can not get any worse than they already are and therefore stay “content” with their lives as they are because it is safe. this is seen a lot in society. For example, the senior class is divided by those who are ready for what lies ahead and those who wish that they could stay in high school forever, not because they just love high school that much, because it’s safe. Salamano and his dog represent that part of society that just wants to feel secure, whether they are happy or not. When Meursault suggests that he get a new dog, Salamano replies that he “was used to this one.” It’s not about loving the dog, it was about feeling comfortable and “used to” the routine that they had together. People say that “misery loves company”- which is exactly the case with Salamano. Their relationship is not valid because it is not the dog that Salamano truly loves, it is the thought of it. The thought of having a companion.
Out of the many relationships that are revealed throughout this novel, I think the relationship between Salamano and his dog is one of the most interesting, and the most valid. When introduced to these two characters, it is hard to distinguish any “love” between these characters. Camus writes, “Then he beats the dog and swears at it” (Camus 27). Again, when first introduced to the characters Camus writes “He was saying, ‘Filthy, stinking bastard!” (27). It seems a bit crazy to say that this is one of the most valid, and loving relationships encountered in the book, but I believe this to be true. One his dog goes missing, Salamano’s passionate side for the dog comes out, and his true feelings for the poor dog are revealed. When telling Mersault about his situation Salamano says, “We’d have a run-in every now and then. But he was a good dog just the same” (45). Salamano’s dog goes missing, and he starts to panic a little. After Salamano’s beating and swearing at the dog, it seems odd he would be upset about his dog’s disappearance. It turned out that Salamano had this dog for a long time, and they grew old together. Deep down he really loved the dog, just didn’t always show it. When Salamano says he was a good dog just the same, we can see that he never really thought of the dog as bad, but just had irritating moments. This relationship contrasts Mersault and his Maman’s relationship. Camus writes, “He said he supposed I must be very sad since Maman died, and I didn’t say anything” (45). Throughout the novel, it is very evident that Mersault is unaffected by his Maman’s death. He is more concerned with small, physical aspects of his life. This is the complete opposite of Salamano and his dog’s relationship. Salamano is devested at the loss of his dog, while Mersault doesn’t care at all that his Maman died. This proves the validity of Salamano and his dog’s relationship.
“Then, in the dark hour before dawn, sirens blasted. They were announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me. For the first time in a long time I thought about Maman. I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a “fiancé,” why she had played at beginning again. Even there, in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her. And I felt ready to live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with sign and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” (122-123)
In the last moments of the book, Meursault seems to reach a point of realization, if not a sort of enlightenment in a way. The “dark hour before dawn” could be symbolic of a new beginning with daybreak, even as his life is about to end, as he mentions later on. The sirens “announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me” is an indication of Meursault’s acknowledgement of the blank indifference of the universe, and he faces it with the same disregard in kind – and the fact that nothing mattered before this moment supports the idea that death is one’s most authentic moment. His reflection on his mother’s life just before her death reinforces this—so close to death and so sure of it, nothing is the same; there comes a sense of freedom, of liberation from the absurd; without hope, there is nothing to lose, and with this freedom in sight, anything becomes possible. He finds that the “gentle indifference of the world” is so like his own self, so unemotional and unconcerned—except that the world will not give and never will, and having lost hope and become aware of his own tragic situation, he is happy – much as Sisyphus was happy in his endless struggle with his boulder. For there to be a large crowd filled with hate at his execution is, to him, better than having to face his death with nothing but the indifference of the world; knowing that anyone cares at all, in any way, is better than the despair of the absurd.
“I would always begin by assuming the worst: my appeal was denied. “Well, so I’m going to die.” Sooner than other people will, obviously. But everyone knows life isn’t worth living. Deep down I knew perfectly that it doesn’t much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living-and for thousands of years. In fact, nothing could be clearer. Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying. At that point, what would disturb my train of thought was the terrifying leap I would feel my heart take at the idea of having twenty more years of life ahead of me. But I simply had to stifle it by imagining what I’d be thinking in twenty years when it would all come down to the same thing anyway. Since we’re all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter. Therefore (and the difficult thing was not to lose sight of all the reasoning that went into this “therefore”), I had to accept the rejection of my appeal” (Camus 114).
In this moment Meursault is considering the darker of the two possible outcomes, which seems to portray his absurdist views. He appears indifferent to life and death. He reasons and ultimately accepts this scenario through the realization that the time one spends living is irrelevant because death is inevitable. A person living to be twenty is no different than a person living to be eighty because either way it ends in death. He believes that life has no purpose and therefore it is not worth living. This passage reflects existential philosophy because Meursault is void of hope. Camus’ essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus”, he reasons that Sisyphus is happy though he is without hope. Meursault can be seen in the same way because he has reasoned away all hope and yet he does not seem to mind. This is because of his indifference to living since death is inevitable. To him, it does not matter if death comes tomorrow or if he really does have twenty more years. If he does live, he will go back to the same routine and nothing will change in his life. If he dies he does not have to continue living through the pointless, repetitive life he has led. Meursault, as well as everyone else, is not free to choose the amount of time he has to live, but he is capable of choosing his feelings of the inevitable moment when death comes. This passage shows that he has chosen to accept immediate death as a reprieve from the burden of living and waiting for death to take him if he was pardoned.
What do you think is the most impactful/important quote of the ENTIRE novel in terms of existential philosophy? Include this quote at the beginning of your response, then explain your reasoning.
“These things happen….Anyway, after that, remembering Marie meant nothing to me. I wasn’t interested in her dead. That seemed perfectly normal to me, since I understood very well that people would forget me when I am dead. They wouldn’t have anything more to do with me. I wasn’t even able to tell myself that it was hard to think those things” (Camus 115)
Throughout the novel, Meursault is characterized as one that seems to have no real care for any somewhat emotional event within his lifetime here on Earth. He is constantly telling himself that nothing matters and that he does not care no matter the importance. Above, Meursault states ‘remembering Marie mean[s] nothing to me’ which I personally find difficult to believe. Marie was a huge part of his life and the fact that he believes that it causes no emotion what so ever for him to think of her makes me drawn to believe that he is constantly lying to himself throughout the whole book. Meursault believes that no one would remember him once he is dead and I feel as if this is due to the fact that he is afraid to admit that people will miss him in our world today and that deep down he has emotion and care towards each of the people in his life. He is hiding from the fact that it is the true reality, proven on the last line where he states, “I wasn’t even able to tell myself that it was hard to think those things.” Meursault is finally beginning to come into realization that he withholds emotion that he has been hiding from his whole life and now at this moment, it is far too difficult for him to process. He is lying to himself while trying to hide his real emotions.
“Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” (Camus 3).
This is the opening quote of the novel and immediately characterizes Meursault and his existential outlook on life. His separation from human life is demonstrated with his lack of emotion towards his mom’s death. It demonstrates that he is apathetic, unemotional, and unaware of other’s emotions. This allows the reader to foreshadow the continual lack of emotion towards human life throughout the novel, especially when he murders a random wandering man. His mother, his closest relative, who had lived with him for a while, had just passed away and he shows no sign of sadness or regret. Meursault is already displaying that human life has no importance and that when it ends, it is just the end, nothing worth mourning over since life has no point. He even flat out says, “that doesn’t mean anything”, conveying his total lack of interest towards his mother’s death. Along with not caring about the death in general, Meursault doesn’t even ask, or care to ask, what day she died on. In fact, he doesn’t even care! This is the first thing the reader sees, already making them question Meursault’ view on life. Early on, the reader is able to see the, what is now considered odd, view on life that Meursault displays. This opening paragraph of the novel, also emphasizes the extent of Meursault’s view since it is the first thing the reader learns about this protagonist. Emphasizing the importance of the Meursault’s view early in the novel, allows readers to not necessarily connect with him, but possibly see where he is coming from.
“But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had. … I had lived my life one way and I could have just as well have lived it another. … Nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why.” (pg. 120-121) This quote clearly captures Meursault’s existentialist view. At this point in the book, Meursault is about to go to his death, and reflects on his life. He concludes that life is meaningless, and he can just as well die now. This quote follows Meursault’s thoughts as they line up with that of existentialism. That his own life doesn't matter, that death was and would always be the only surety, that there was no meaning in life. Meursault’s statement of views reveals the underlying theme of existentialism throughout the book.
“I said that people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all” (1.5.41).
This is Meursault's response to his boss’s offer of a position in Paris. Meursault’s statement shows his belief in a certain rigidity or inertia to human existence. The belief that life is absurd and true meaning in life is impossible. In this case, there is no purpose in Meursault taking this offer or not because in the end it means nothing. His comment that “one life was as good as another” maintains that although details may change, one’s life remains essentially constant. This comment also reveals the idea that everyone is equal and that no one is any more or less important than another because, again, life is meaningless. Earlier he tells his boss “it’s all the same to me.” This is another good quote to sum up existentialism. Nothing is ever any important than another thing. We see this idea when his mom dies and he is indifferent to feeling emotion and yet again when he kills a man and he still seems to feel nothing.The reason he feels nothing is because it is all the same to him. His mom dieing is the same as him making a sandwich, it is just a thing that happens in his life. At this point in the novel, Meursault offers no explanation for his belief in the equality of human lives. In the novel’s final chapter, he identifies death as the force responsible for the constant and unchangeable nature of human life. A comparison of this quotation to Meursault’s ideas following his death sentence highlights Meursault’s development as a character whose understanding of the human condition deepens as a result of his experiences.
“Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness” (Camus 24)
I think this quote is the most impactful quote because it really shows how detached Meursault is from humanity. We see this happen multiple times, like when his Maman dies, but this is the most extreme in my opinion. Although the Arab is already dead due to the gunshot, Meursault keeps shooting him. He shoots the Arab 4 times after the body is motionless. These gunshots are completely unnecessary, and prove that Meursault is detached from humanity. If Meursault really cared about other humans and their feelings, he would have stopped shooting, especially if the Arab was already killed. I think this really emphasizes the existentialism in this book. This quote supports “the absurd” philosophy of Albert Camus as well. “The absurd” refers to a person’s tendency and inability to find the meaning of life. This quote is an example of this because Meursault has failed to find the meaning of life in general by killing the Arab. If he had found the true meaning of life for himself, he may have had more empathy for the rest of humanity. I also think this quote is the most impactful because it is part of the final action in part 1, which is what causes everything in part 2 . Part 1 ends with Meursault killing the Arab, which is what this quote is about. In part 2 Meursault is put on trial for the murder of the Arab. Throughout the trial, Meursault is criticized for his lack of emotion, empathy, and connection with humanity. One huge instance that is used against him is his maman’s death. He doesn’t care about her death, and shows no emotion. This quote is a great example of this lack of emotion and connection with humanity because the kept shooting the dead body. Because of this, Meursault’s trial did not end very well. The judge took his lack of emotion into consideration, and gave Meursault the death penalty. In conclusion, I think this quote is very important and impactful because it emphasizes Meursault’s distance from humanity.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Jean Paul Sartre portrays the theme of freedom through the characters’ reactions to their condemnation to be free and the consequences of that freedom. This theme of freedom is based on Sartre’s theory that existence precedes essence. This means that humans differ from inanimate objects because humans have the ability to define themselves and their characteristics. This is known as the essence part of his theory. With freedom comes responsibility for one’s actions. The play portrays the rejection of freedom and responsibility through the characters Garcin and Estelle. Both allow Inez to choose for them to avoid their condemned freedom. Estelle has a difficult time accepting that she exists if she is unable to see herself in a mirror. Inez pretends to be Estelle’s mirror and tells Estelle she has a pimple on her face. Inez defines Estelle’s essence and Estelle accepts this because she rejects her condemned freedom. All three character’s decide that they are put in the same room as a method of torturing each other. They choose and attempt to ignore each other to avoid torturing one another, but Estelle is unable to handle going without a mirror because she bases her very existence off of her reflection. At this point Inez and Garcin get into an argument and reveal why they believe they have been sent to Hell. Both characters then force Estelle to tell them why she was sent there too. Being placed in a room together in Hell is the consequence for the freedom they used when they were alive. All three people did some horrible act and this is the responsibility given to them because of those actions. Estelle rejects responsibility by rejecting her freedom. Before revealing her actions she continuously states that she has combed through her life and was unable to find any fault that would cause her to be condemned to Hell. She denies her actions to avoid the consequence and escape responsibility. Jean Paul Sartre portrays the philosophical topic, freedom, through the characters’ reactions to their actions in life, which has led to the inevitable consequence of being stuck with each other in Hell.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play? “No Exit" thoroughly represents Jean-Paul Sartre’s views on Freedom in the circumstances surrounding the characters. Sartre believes that freedom is both a curse as well as a blessing. A blessing in that it allows us to make our own choices, and have our own personalities or preferences. A curse because, as we make decisions, we are condemned to face the consequences. In “No Exit,” Sartre displays his view of freedom as a form of condemnation. Garcin, Estelle, and Inez each made poor decisions in life and are forced to pay the consequences of their actions. Garcin treated his wife terribly and lusted over another woman, Inez was rude and coarse and lusted after a woman, and Estelle killed her own child. Each of them had committed grievous sins which condemned them to hell. Sartre further displays freedom as he portrays hell as simply, a place where they can no longer be free. Their misuse of freedom forced them not to fire and brimstone, but to live with the decisions they can never change.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Freedom is far more a philosophical thought due to the fact that no one in this world is truly free as there are laws and rules one must follow for the sake and safety of others. The essence of freedom is the idea that one is completely shed from the tasks and rules that burden people each and every day. The idea of freedom, though, is represented in the play by the fact that each individual does not obtain ultimate freedom, even in Hell. As they are allowed to do what pleases them within their own hotel room, they are locked within the room for eternity. They have no freedom to leave the room, be by themselves within the room, nor do they have the freedom to leave hell as a whole. Each had no freedom within the real world as well giving them the reason as to why they are in hell; none was permitted the freedom to partake in an act so horrid that lead them to hell within their after life. Sartre portrays freedom within the play as a philosophical idea by showing the audience that neither of the three truly obtains any freedom within their life; on earth and in hell.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Jean Paul-Sartre demonstrates the idea that one has the freedom to make any choice they desire, however, they must deal with the consequences or events following that choice. Estelle, Garcin, and Inez, now all trapped in hell, are dealing with the consequences of the decisions they made in their life. Garcin finds it easy to treat his wife poorly before the consequences, “It was so easy. A word was enough to make her flinch. Like a sensitive-plant.” (24). He found it easy to be unfair and rude prior to the consequences. But does he feel remorse for his actions? Estelle, was very aware of what had landed her in hell after her death. However, originally she hides it and attempts to act as if she was confused as to why she was there. The inability to discuss her horrible actions displays her remorse toward the choices she had made, “I haven’t a notion, not the foggiest. In fact, I’m wondering if there hasn’t been some ghastly mistake” (15) She is embarrassed of them, and does not want to be known by her action. But after realizing that everyone is there for something, she is able to open up to the others, because she is aware that they are unable to judge her for her actions. Estelle made that decision on her own “it pleased him no end, having a daughter. It didn’t please me” (28), obviously against the baby father’s wishes, and is facing the consequences. But the father, who did nothing wrong and had no choice or decision, had received punishment as well. This allows the reader to question the idea of freedom of choice coming with consequences, because an innocent man received punishment. However, in a sense Sartre’s idea of freedom is in fact karma and that events that follow your decisions reflect the choices you’ve made. And in the end, Estelle is enduring consequences for her actions.
Jean Paul Sartre was an ardent atheist who believed that there was no God in whose mind our properties had been conceived. Nor did he believe there to be any other external source of values. Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it. He did, however, argue that there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before being defined by any concept, and this being is man. Man’s situation is an unhappy one. He must decide between what is good and what is evil and if one chooses to reject the notion of God then there is no one to tell him. So man must go through obstacles in life to establish his own list of good and evil. The theme of freedom comes from Sartre’s philosophy that “existence comes before essence”. By this he means, human beings have no pre-established purpose or nature, and thus we are forced to chose what we will become, to define ourselves by our choice of action. All that is given to man is that we are, not what we are; it is up to us to define that. An individual is responsible for making himself into an essence and with that he also holds the power to lift himself beyond the level of mere existence. with this freedom of choice comes the absolute responsibility for one's action. The fear and anxiety of this responsibility leads many people to ignore both their freedom and their responsibility by letting other people make their choices for them, resulting in bad faith. In the play No Exit Sartre illustrates these ideas through the characters. When Inez first walks in she immediately thinks that Garcin is “the torturer” which plays off of Sartre’s idea that everyone is torture. There are two reasons people are torture, the first is that they are capable of denying one's existence and one's freedom by treating one as an object. The second is that others judge you, observe you without taking into consideration your intentions. The image they have of you may not correspond to the one you have of yourself. But you can't do without them because only they can tell you who you are. Sartre offers different ways of defending from the torture of “the others” The first is disguise. The character that holds this defense mechanism is Estelle. When they all are giving their reasons for being in Hell both Inez and Garcin are blatantly honest, but Estelle lies and tells them that there is no reason for her to be there. Another is evasion/ avoidance this mechanism is used by Garcin when he repeatedly asks his roommates to stop talking and to leave him in peace. Lastly, there is the defense mechanism of emotion which Inez uses by inspiring emotions such as love and friendship in others to try and make them all like her. No Exit is a play about the "devouring" gaze of the other and how it restricts one's freedom, incorporated into the play itself and played out on stage through the gaze of the audience members. The characters constantly look for mirrors in order to avoid the judging gaze of each other, while their failure is played out by the constant stare of the play's spectators. Sartre's underlying argument of the play is "Hell is other people". By using only three people and an empty room, Sartre evokes scenes of utter torture and despair and this is there “Hell”.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Freedom can be represented in many ways throughout this play. First, freedom goes along with the theme of responsibility throughout the play. The play takes place in hell, and because of the setting, we automatically assume each of the characters has committed a crime, or sin, harsh enough to bring them to hell. In the real world, all these characters had the freedom of life. They were able to make their own decisions, and do what they want. For example, Estelle had the freedom to marry a man thrice her age in order to support herself and brother. She then had the freedom to throw her baby of a balcony, resulting in her appearance in hell. All the other members of the play also committed crimes like this, and with freedom comes responsibility. In this case, they showed their responsibility through consequence. This consequence for all of them was an afterlife in hell. I think that Sartre was trying to get the theme across that with freedom comes responsibility. He wanted to show that the two together, and that each character’s freedom resulting in a consequence. Freedom is also represented in this play by the lack of freedom in some instances. When observing the room, Inez: “I tell you they've thought it all out. Down to the last detail. Nothing was left to chance. This room was all set for us.” (14). In this scene, Inez realizes that they have been confined in a room that has been set solely for them. This is a way the characters have absolutely no freedom. They had no choice in the furnishing of this room, the room itself, or the people within the room. The lack of freedom goes along with their punishment and responsibility for their abusing freedom in the past.
"One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
People tend to never be satisfied with life – they die too soon, before they have a chance to really live, to reach their potential or do what they wanted to do, or too late, with too much suffering and bitterness. But death is a moment of authenticity within life – with everything drawing to an end, there is no time left for pretenses, and what one becomes in that hour is remarkably genuine. No matter when one’s life ends, it is a final, irreversible change, regardless of one’s belief about what happens after death. Even if there are loose ends, one’s life must be considered complete, and that is all one gets when one is judged, and the sum of one’s value is placed in that short time, with no room for regrets or remorse. In this way, one’s identity after death is defined by their words and actions in life, summed up and judged by entirely by others. Everything else is diminished due to one’s absence, and only the most outstanding aspects of one’s life, whether good or bad, are remembered – and once that life is forgotten, one becomes nothing.
What do you make of Inez' statement; "One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (Sartre 43).
The typical thought of a person on his or her death bed is of his/her loved ones, the things he/she could have done with more time, and his/her regrets. Some feel that it is not fair to die at that moment because they have not actually lived yet. Others wish death had come sooner to take them with their loved one, to prevent them from committing a horrible deed, or to end their suffering. This is what Inez means when she says “One always dies too soon--or too late” (Sartre 43). The moment of death severes people’s abilities to make an impact. After death people are remembered and judged for their actions. Death is the end to one’s story whether or not things are left resolved and whole. At that moment one can no longer influence how people view him/her. People are free to remember someone, who has passed on, as they please to. Thus this statement, “You are--your life, and nothing else” has some truth to it because people will remember you by remembering your life (43). This connects to the idea that existence precedes essence because once people are dead they no longer literally exist (by this I mean they become memories so they do not physically exist anymore) so they no longer have the ability to define themselves. They no longer physically exist and once their life is forgotten they are completely gone and it is almost as if they never actually existed. The lives led by people are judged openly once they have passed on and only their lives are used to judge them since they can no longer impact how others view them.
What do you make of Inez' statement; "One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
Once death starts knocking on someone’s door they tend to think of all of their regrets and everything they didn’t accomplish rather than what they did. Something along these lines in psychology is the idea of scarcity. Once their chance at living is gone, it seems as though they wish they had more of it. However, when they were living there were some times when they had wished one day would end or that they could fast-forward something, but now that all of those opportunities is gone, they wish to have them back. Inez is talking about how what you do during your life, and not what you wished you did or what you want to do, are what make you memorable to people. Whether this be good or bad. Considering all of these characters end in hell, the reader can tell that they were remembered for the crime or sin they committed rather than an heroic deed which they wish they were remembered for. Inez is also describing people’s total discontent with their life immediately prior to their death, “one always dies too soon--or too late” (43). This discontent can lead the person to believe they had an unsuccessful life, once again looking too much at the negatives. When looking back at their lives once they have passed has also allowed them to see how they are remembered. When Olga takes Estelle’s place she learns that she is just remembered as her life, and they continued on as if Estelle’s memory wasn’t even existent.
"One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
At this point, Sartre is definitely speaking through Inez. "You are your life, and nothing else," is a key tenet of existentialism. The line “One always dies too soon-or too late” Is Inez saying that once death is near people begin to dwell on all they have not done in life and they begin to appreciate life more. Also, they really wish they had lived life to the fullest. However she then says the opposite “or too late” and this is her saying that while most people realize the scarcity of their life and begin to really appreciate it others are in bed sick just wishing they could die already because they believe they will be in a happier place then. She goes on to say “And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up.” This is Inez saying that people can’t really make up for all the moments in life they did not live to the fullest. By this point in life, it is over. There is no going back or forward, you are done living and that’s it. She ends by saying, “You are--your life, and nothing else" and this is her reiterating on the idea that it’s your actions, not your opinions that matter. This meaning that it’s all about how you live your life. If you don’t want to grieve your death then you must live your life to the fullest and always with a good attitude, because in the end, nothing else matters than how you lived your life. Also because daily life does not matter, life is absurd but emotions are not. I think people tend to take existentialism as a very negative philosophy but I truly find this point enlightening and very optimistic.
Inez: "One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
I think this statement by Inez is very powerful, and really emphasizes Sartre’s existentialism found throughout the book. Inez says, “You are--your life, and nothing else” which I really think plays on to the theme of confinement. Here Inez emphasizes that we are only as big or as great as our lives. Our lives define us, and that is what makes us trapped, or contained. There is no escaping our lives. Not even death. This is shown through all the characters in the play, whom are living in hell. Along with this, the beginning of Inez’s line where she says “One always dies too soon--or too late,” shows human’s dissatisfaction with their lives. It seems as though very few are satisfied with their lives. Here she mentions how we either live too long or too short. I think this is very true, and that most people when asked, “if you were to die today would you be satisfied with your life?” would answer no, they are not satisfied. I think this is the point Inez is trying to get across by saying that we either have too much time to live, or not enough time. When she says one’s whole life is complete at that moment, I think of the statement that death is our most authentic moment in life. Inez is saying that death defines our lives, and basically says death is the most authentic moment in life. Death is what completes our lives. I agree with this because death is the one thing in life that is completely and 100% inevitable. We cannot stop it. Overall, Inez’s line is very powerful, and brings up a lot of existentialist questions and emphasizes the play’s themes.
Each and every single person on this planet lives a life here on Earth and only has one life on Earth; there are no real option besides the one life that each of us live. The quote that Inez states reminds me of the fact and saying that each of us are all different and not one person is the same as the other; when specifically looking at the last sentence, “You are--your life, and nothing else.” I believe what Inez is attempting to say is that we are nothing more than the one life we live, what we do with our life while on this planet is the only real thing that we possess. Many people believe that life is too short, referring to Inez’s statement, “One always dies too soon;” although there are people in this world that suffer their whole life causing their life to end “too late.” At the moment when someone dies though, the happiness, enjoyment, pain, and suffering all end in an instant. There is nothing beyond that point and that human being is completely gone from the planet for all eternity which is what I believe Inez is trying to convey when she states, “And yet one’s whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up.” No matter how one fulfills their life on this planet, it all ends the same and within one instant it is completely over and there is no returning back there after. We all only have one life on this Earth and whether one dies too shortly or lives too long, nothing will change the fact that we only have one opportunity before everything comes to a complete and absolute end.
amber mao
ReplyDeleteMy most authentic moment in life is death.
I agree with this statement. First of all I feel that I would not gain authenticity even through death – that rather than give meaning to the life that is coming to an end, it is a release. The freedom that has been so elusive has finally become visible, and although Camus calls it cowardly to see suicide as an escape from or solution to the absurd, I have never claimed to be anything more. Death is ceasing the fight of waking up each day to push the same boulder up the same hill time after time – an endless task that becomes more difficult to continue each time the boulder falls down. To face the absurd and ultimately realize that the universe would not be lessened by your leaving is to lose meaning in everything you do – if no one cares, then why do you live? Is death then not preferable to a pointless struggle? It takes near Herculean feats of strength to continue on in the face of an endless wall of blank indifference from the world. In the moment of death, perhaps there is a sudden change of heart – a burning feeling that speaks of all the things you never said and all the things you could have done that lie just outside your grasp and all the people and the places that you will never see again and perhaps suddenly all the colors are more vivid than you remember and there is a sharp burning regret that despite the fact that nothing matters in the end you feel like you should have fought harder. Maybe something would have come of enduring the dissonance for just a bit longer – a resolution, at least, in knowing that you made the most of this bitterly transient lifespan. Death, then, is the moment of truth, in whether it is a release or a bunch of uncleanly severed ends – a true and final peace or deep regret. It is a reflection of who you truly are when everything is coming to an end at a breakneck pace and there is no time left to be afraid of anything.
My most authentic moment in life is death.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. I believe that death is the most authentic moment in life because it is the only thing that we know is absolutely going to happen. Everyone knows that death is inevitable, and that is just part of life. It is the most authentic moment because it is expected. Throughout our lives we may expect several things to happen, and we may think these moments will happen for sure. The truth is we never know something is certainly going to happen, besides death. There is no way around death, and at some point everyone will have to face it. Death is our most authentic moment also because it is the only we know is real, and cannot question. We may question how someone died, or why they died, or questions concerning death, but there is no questioning whether or not death is real. It is the only truly authentic moment we experience. I also think death is the most authentic moment of our lives because it is what gives our lives meaning. If death did not exist, we would live forever, and live for no purpose. Knowing and anticipating death allows us to live our lives to their greatest potential, and fulfill our lives before we die. If death did not exist we would not have this motivation to go out and do something with our lives, and make the most of them, because we would know we had forever to do this. Death makes our lives more authentic by pushing us to make the most of our lives, and motivating us to reach our full potential.
My most authentic moment in life is death.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Authenticity refers to something real, true, and genuine. The knowledge of death allows people to grow to their greatest potential because many people strive to make an impact on the world before departing. Life is composed of a series of moments that our actions and decisions impact and change for better or for worse. When, how, and where a person dies is unchangeable and inevitable. This quality make death the most authentic moment in life. In that moment, a person is able to experience his/her true self. Many situations in life may shape and give us the appearance of a true identity, but ultimately, a person’s actions and decisions in the few moments before death and during death will portray and allow a person to truly see him/herself. When a person is about to die, it is his/her last opportunity to say or do what the one thing he/she needs of say. It is the ultimate moment of truth and reality because a person does not want to waste his.her last breath, last moment on something other than the complete and utter truth. People who still have time left typically create identities for themselves that allow them to fit society’s beliefs and trends. This false identity is manipulated with the changes in society’s beliefs, but in death this mask is stripped off, revealing the absolute, real, truth. The knowledge provided by death inspires people to truly live rather than simply stay in a state of ongoing nothingness. Death gives life meaning. It is also a bittersweet experience because though it means we will depart from the things we most cherish, it is a peaceful reprieve from the difficulty of living.
My most authentic moment in life is death.
ReplyDeleteAlong with every other statement on the list, I disagree with this idea. In all honesty, reading these statements made me so sad for the people who believed them to be true. I personally found these ideas to be extremely depressing. Those who live by these statements probably lead very unhappy and meaningless lives. I believe that there is a purpose to life, and that purpose is that life is a sort of test. I believe that we came to this earth so we can obtain bodies in order to further learn and grow, and ultimately become like God, our loving Heavenly Father. With this in mind, death is a large part of this process, as it brings us back to His presence, but this does not define our lives. I think that our actions in this life are our most authentic moments. The choices we make set us on a path. We can choose which path we take, and this course of action, I believe is what is most authentic in our lives. Death is only a pathway to the next part of our eternal journey.
ReplyDeleteThe most authentic moment in life is death.
I disagree with this statement for a few reasons. Making the statement that death is the “most” authentic event is very difficult to stand by, because so many events happen in everyday life that are real and genuine. Breathing is something authentic and real that must be done every second to avoid death. It is challenging to say death is “more” authentic than that, or any of the many possibilities of events within a person’s life. There is no life on Earth that is identical to another. Every person’s life has different high and low points, however all life starts and ends the same. This displays that one cannot directly say death is the most authentic without knowing what everyone has gone through. Any everyday event or even rare event could just be as authentic and real. Death is something that no one can run away from completely. No matter how much money, fame, or any possession you have, it is impossible to escape death. Even though some may be able to hide from it for a short period of time, no one can escape it. This is a moment that happens and ends every life. Which may make it an authentic part of life. However, it is hard to say it is the most authentic, because something very similar happens during birth, the creation of life that is certain with every human being. Everyone experiences different relative and friend deaths throughout their life, with different causes of death. It is hard to define death as the most authentic moment in life because that would require generalizing the life of every human on Earth.
My most authentic moment in life is death.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first saw this question I immediately disagreed because I thought the most authentic moment in life was being born or falling in love, or something. Yet after really contemplation it I now agree with this statement. At first, I looked at death as; you see the light then you’re gone, that’s it, but death is so much more than that. When you are dying your whole life is instantly recapped before your eyes. You remember all the amazing moments and memories and look back on all your achievements. Death is so authentic because it the realist, most certain thing anyone can go through. The reality of death is that once someone is gone, they are gone forever; there is no getting them back. It is a very hard thing for most people to accept and people contemplate the meaning and reason behind death throughout their whole lives. It is the realist moment in your life, you realize that nothing you have done can be changed. Once death is upon you there is no going back that’s what makes it so real, you may be able to slow the process towards your death down but you can never change the fact that you will die eventually. Death gives life meaning, it gives people a purpose and a reason to live life to the fullest, for they can’t live forever. Death can also teach people lessons and change people’s world view for the better. Death is a bittersweet thing.
Death is a topic and event that occurs in people’s lives that many decide not to even speak or think of due to all the other events that occur along with it. Although for some it may be difficult to even speak of, it is an event that happens within every single human being’s life time, no matter how old or young. Alongside it, nothing is alive without the event of birth as well; two events that are utterly unavoidable. Personally, the only other event that happens in one’s life that could possibly compare to the authenticness of death, is birth. Birth is a beautiful thing that is a necessity to our world today that is such an incredible idea and moment in everyone’s life that experiences it verein me to believe that birth is possibly the most authentic moment in life compared to death. Although all the positive implications around birth and the idea of a new living object comes things like; heartache, pain, mental tol, exhaustion, etc. A mother that partakes in a natural birth experiences pain like no other just for the baby to be born which is not something pure nor authentic for one to have to endure. A child that is born could possibly not be wanted and given up for adoption putting a mental toll on the child for the rest of their life while they are led to believe that they are never wanted. Birth is an amazing thing, but also an event that can cause great horror and the complete opposite of a miracle; that leading me to believe that although very close, birth is not the most authentic moment, death is.
ReplyDeleteEveryone and everything dies, it’s as simple as that and there is absolutely no way that one or anything that could avoid death. Whether one believes in the idea of reincarnation or heaven and hell, everyone and thing has one life on this Earth before it dies. My death will either be painful or painless, no matter how I die, there will always be heartache that people will experience when I die; along with every other death within this world. Pain will always be experienced, heartache will always be a factor and it is a sad but universal truth that everyone and thing must face when they die. It is the purest thing that one, and I will and must face within their and my life.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
ReplyDeleteAlbert Camus portrays Sisyphus as the ultimate absurd hero because he recognizes his fate, has lost all hope, and therefore can transcend his eternal fate. Camus writes about the few moments where Sisyphus is free of his burden and he is aware of his eternal, futile struggle with the boulder. As long as he is aware, his fate is no worse than the burdens people endure in life. An absurd man is aware of his situation as Sisyphus is. This myth is a tragedy that is viewed with horror because Sisyphus is forever condemned to perform this futile, hopeless labor. In Camus’ essay and analysis of this myth he shows that life is, like Sisyphus’ struggle, is devoid of hope and futile. However, Sisyphus has lost the hope of receiving a more pleasant fate. This suggests that happiness comes when all hope of a brighter future, life, or fate is lost. Without hope, people will be able to appreciate the lives they live. The Gods cannot punish Sisyphus like they intended to because he does not hold to hope. “One must imagine Sisyphus happy” this is because if Sisyphus is not happy then true happiness will only come from avoiding awareness of the absurd and having hope, which is the completely opposite point Camus is trying to convey to the readers (Camus). Essentially Camus is saying Sisyphus must be happy if true happiness is possible. This is applied to life because he implies that if Sisyphus can find happiness in his circumstance then others can too if they are void of hope and do not live in denial of their situations/fates. Camus believes that this life and these experiences are the only things that are real and accepting them without relying on anything beyond them will bring true happiness. In this way, Sisyphus is a universal figure because his fate and supposed acceptance/awareness portray that if happiness is possible for him, then by the same steps, happiness is possible for others.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
ReplyDeleteCamus depicts Sisyphus as on that is “doomed to eternal labor at his rock, fully conscious of the essential hopelessness of his plight, nevertheless he pushes on.” In other words, Sisyphus is one that has realized his own self doom and that he obtains no real hope in life, although he still pushes through each hardship and works for what needs to be done. The perseverance that Sisyphus must obtain is an amount undescribable while he is forced to work for eternity knowing that the work will get him nowhere in life what so ever. I believe that the idea of Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure by being one that must work for his wrongdoings and shows that everyone in this world must work to get to a certain point in life. Although he is working for no real win nor gain, he is working for the reason that put himself in his current position; just like every other human being on this planet. We all must work for what we wish to obtain in this world, or if we have wrongdoings, we must work to rid of our mistakes. No one is able to get far in life by just sitting on their couch watching tv all day as they must work hard and put in the time and effort to get to a position they wish to obtain.
ReplyDeleteIn what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
Sisyphus displays aspects of a universal figure, because he goes through what many people in the world endure. Sisyphus attempts to work towards something that he will never achieve. After Sisyphus pushes the stone up the mountain he must watch, “the stone rush down in a few moments toward that lower world whence he will have to push it up again toward the summit”. Being forced to watch your goals slip away, then being able to try again, repeatedly it very challenging and hard for humans to do, especially since giving up can seem so easy. However, Sisyphus continues to push that rock up everyday, even to the point where he is aware that he will be unable to reach the top. Pushing the rock up the hill gives Sisyphus no loss or gain, but it demonstrates him working for what he wants to obtain in life, and the rock is holding him back. When Sisyphus walks back down the mountain to go try again, “he is stronger than his rock”. This demonstrates the idea that he is stronger than the thing pulling him down from his dreams, because he looks passed it, not always happily, to try again. Sisyphus was originally deemed this labor as a punishment, “there is no more dreadful punishment than futile and hopeless labor”, which is a common view within the world, that hard and seemingly pointless work is horrendous. However, Sisyphus manages to eventually become okay with his work, as if it’s almost meaningless. He experiences no gains and losses coming from the rock falling down the hill, but he is able to continue on and try again, something hard to find motivation for in today’s world.
ambmer mao
ReplyDeleteIn what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
In the Underworld, Sisyphus is being punished for all eternity by having to roll a boulder to the top of a hill, only to have it fall all the way back down, and he would have to keep repeating this task until the end of time. According to Camus, this myth can be seen as a metaphor for the everyday struggle of man to face the absurd – the dissonance of the indifference of the cosmos and man’s desperate search and desire for a meaning in life. The tragedy comes from the consciousness of one’s situation – whether Sisyphus’ fate of toiling to push his boulder or man’s continuous everyday labor to seemingly no end at all. The beginning of every day is like starting at the bottom of the hill, painful to wake up and face the world once again. Reaching the end of the day is a small triumph, like cresting the rise, but the boulder always falls back down and life becomes a battle in which there is no chance of victory. However, to rise up and face this battle day after day is to live with a spirit of defiance against the absurd, and this acceptance of hopelessness and determination to continue living takes far more courage than physical or philosophical suicide. Like Sisyphus, who is fully conscious of his condition, he nevertheless pushes on against it, becoming a symbol of revolt and spiritual courage.
In what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
ReplyDeleteIn Sisyphus’ story he was condemned to push a boulder up a hill, only for it to fall back down. Each day, he was destined to repeat these steps, knowing that it would all be for nothing. In most cases, I would assume that this would be a very hard task, not only for the physical labor of it, but also because of how utterly depressing it would be. On the contrary, Camus describes this as a moment of pride, courage, and happiness. Due to this, people across the world can learn from this story. For one thing, they learn that they need to be careful about what they do and say so they avoid these negative consequences. They can also learn to be courageous in what they do. And when difficulty befalls them, they can still see the good and be happy. Sisyphus may seem to be a depressing story, but Camus describes it as one we may learn from. One that teaches of righteousness, courage, and happiness.
Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure in many ways. First, Sisyphus is forced to engage in a repetitive, tedious, daily routine. This is very similar to how the majority of people in the universe have repetitive jobs, that become a routine to them. They aren’t doing something they enjoy, but forced to repeat this routine over and over again. They do it in order to survive, because they need the money to live. Another universal characteristic of Sisyphus is his hatred for death, and passion for life. Death is a sore subject for a lot of people, and definitely seen as a negative event. Having a hatred of death is very common, and universal. Death is not normally seen as a great thing, and it is uncommon for people to love death, and wish for it. Sisyphus’s passion for life is universal because life is meant to be fulfilled, and lived to its greatest potential. His passion for life shows the importance Sisyphus puts on making his life great. He is a genuinely happy person, even in the unhappy situations and circumstances he encounters. Sisyphus is also a universal figure because in this myth, Sisyphus encounters his fate. His fate in this case is the repetitive labor of pushing this boulder up the mountain, just to watch it roll down again. Sisyphus’s fate brought him to this t[point, and t is fate that he will continue this job. Overall, Sisyphus has several characteristics that can portray him as a universal figure.
ReplyDeleteIn what ways can Sisyphus be seen as a universal figure?
ReplyDeleteSisyphus is a universal character because his struggle is everyone's struggle. We are always searching for the meaning of life, some people turn to fate and religion while others take on other conclusions. Camus concludes that life is absurd and there is no reason to what happens in day to day life all that matters is the attitude people have towards the absurd events plaguing everyone’s existence. Sisyphus had been cursed with the endless task of pushing a boulder up a mountain only for the boulder to fall back down again. Camus’ main interest is in the reflective period of Sisyphus’ descent, the time where Sisyphus is completely conscious of the fact that he must repeat this task again the next day. When talking about Sisyphus during his descent Camus writes, “At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock.“ The gods are forcing Sisyphus do this absurd task to make him suffer and the only way Sisyphus can have any say in his fate is to decide whether or not he will be content with his fate. It is the only identity he can hold onto, his happiness. Him consciously deciding to continue his never ending task reflects the fact the Sisyphus is stronger than the object he is pushing. Camus also writes, “Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable.” Existentialist can be content with themselves because, unlike everyone else, they understand that life holds no meaning. Since they are not trying to find a higher power to life, they have more time to focus on improving their attitudes towards meaningless events. They do not have to worry about being let down by the fact that there is no true meaning to life other than being happy. Thus, Camus implies the idea that how you live your life is more about your attitude rather than your actions.
Marie and Meursault have a unique relationship as a couple. From Meursault’s perspective the relationship seems to be purely physical. This is because he does not show any actual emotion towards Marie, besides lust. “I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals. You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower” often he will describe her and say that he wants her because of her looks and for lust not for her personality and other traits (Camus 34). He seems detached from the relationship and acts as if it is meaningless to him. This is not what typical intimate relationships are like. Usually both partners are invested in each other emotionally and physically. Meursault is only invested in Marie physically. However, Marie appears to be emotionally invested in him. “... I was peculiar, that that was probably why she loved me…” Marie feels an emotional connection to Meursault that he cannot reciprocate (42). She asks if he would have accepted a proposal from any other women to which he replies he would have because marriage is not a serious thing. Again, this shows his detachment from life and emotions and he does not feel the need to participate in the absurdity of life and finding a purpose and meaning for it all. The force that ties Marie and Meursault is attraction. Both people feel a physical attraction to each other, but only Marie feels an emotional attraction to Meursault. This relationship is more one sided because only Marie is truly invested, physically and emotionally, in it, but Meursault is only physically invested. Their relationship does not seem true and valid because Meursault’s failure to feel and show real, deep emotions about and towards Marie. Lust is an emotion expressed by Meursault, but again this only connects them physically. For a relationship to be true and valid they must share a connection deeper than just physical feelings.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWe see several relationships dominate Part I. Pick ONE such relationship (Salamano & his dog; Marie & Meursault; Raymond & Meursault, etc.) What ties these individuals together? Do you think this relationship is true or valid?
Marie and Meursault's relationship seems unlikely and almost random to the reader. They say opposites attract, but these two are really opposites. Marie is a fun-loving character, greatly contradicting Meursault’s emotionless attitude. Meursault first sees and flirts with Marie, quickly following his mother’s funeral, but Marie went along with it anyway. Meursault's attitude is displayed in this relationship, “I’d promised to spend the day with a girlfriend” ( Camus 40). He does not specify that the girlfriend he is spending time with is his, but rather describes her as a general girlfriend, demonstrating his lack of dedication, and interest in general. She asks if she loves her, to which he replies, “it didn’t mean anything, but that I probably didn’t love her” (41). Following that, Marie proposes to Meursault and receives a rejection. Marie was trying to find out is Meursault would accept a similar request from another women and he says, “sure”. The premises of this relationship makes the reader sympathize for Marie as she stays with a man who shows no love towards her, or feelings toward anything. Their relationship is primarily a sexual relationship, as they both seem to accept that. Meursault not caring to change it, but Marie thinking about more. Marie is intrigued by Meursault's personality, which is not a good basis for a relationship. I do not think this relationship is genuine, because their relationship is based off of physical attraction rather than real feelings.
amebre maoo
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between Meursault and Marie is one of the most interesting aspects of the novel. Meursault seems to only want Marie for her looks, and doesn’t care much for her otherwise. His descriptions of her are mostly about her beauty or of his desire for her, as he says “I wanted her so bad when I saw her in that pretty red-and-white striped dress and leather sandals. You could make out the shape of her firm breasts, and her tan made her face look like a flower” (34). While he thinks of her as just an object (not literally) of his desire, Marie seems to be happy to be with him – in the days they spend together at the beach, she laughs a lot, and returns his feelings for her. However, her feelings are not reciprocated: “A minute later she asked me if I loved her. I told her it didn’t mean anything but that I didn’t think so. She looked sad” (35). Here, Meursault’s saying that he didn’t love Marie is an indication that he really only stays with her out of lust. Later, she asks him if he wants to marry her and he replies that he would but it makes no difference to him, even if he doesn’t love her; when she asks if he would have accepted the same proposal from another woman, he says that he would. This reaffirms Meursault’s detachment from the world – even with someone whom he is so intimately involved, he shows no indication of really caring about them at all, saying that marriage was such a not-serious thing that he would marry someone he didn’t really love. Such detachment, also evidenced in other situations such as when he helps Raymond with his situation, puts Meursault further in the position of a “stranger,” seemingly observing the world in a detached manner (a characterization often seen in Camus’s works.) In Part 2, Marie’s love for him shows in that she visited him in prison and came to encourage him at his trials; as the days go on, it becomes more uncertain that Meursault didn’t care for her, as after he was sentenced to death he began to feel how much he had taken for granted the times when he had been happy, with his friends and with Marie; and when the chaplain asked him to look for the face of god in the sweating stones of his cell, the only face he could find was Marie’s, bright as the sun.
Salamano and his dog share probably the most unique relationship in this book. Salamano and his dog seem to despise one another, but really share a deep connection. This relationship outlines the absurd, and parallels Meursaults view on life. When the dog goes missing, Salamano searches everywhere. People tell him it must have gotten ran over. This is similar to a search for meaning in life, where there is none. This also describes Mersault, as he is completely indifferent to his circumstances up until the last moment, when he wishes for life again. Salamano and his dog foreshadow this change in thought, as it reveals to readers that one may not know the value of something until it is lost.
ReplyDeleteWe see several relationships dominate Part I. Pick ONE such relationship (Salamano & his dog; Marie & Mersault; Raymond & Mersault, etc.) What ties these individuals together? Do you think this relationship is true or valid?
ReplyDeleteI feel as if the relationships within the first part of the book are ones that are not realistic or ones that are forced and are easily depicted as fake love; for example, Marie and Mersault. Raymond’s and Mersault’s relationship seems less of a relationship/friendship and more as a reliancy. Raymond has no real friends that are introduced in the novel so he is forced to result to Mersault in order from him to relieve his issues since he is the only option companion he knows. Mersault may have killed a man that involved Raymond but the death and murder of the Arab was not due to the relationship of the two men, it was due to the fact of the sun impacting his view of judgment.
The only relationship that is one that I believe is one made of true love is the one between Salamano and his dog. Salamano’s and the dog’s relationship began when his wife died and the dog was his real own companion, sadly; but it blossomed into the relationship they had to the current day. The relationship was easily a love hate relationship and it may be hard for someone to believe that Salamano actually loved his dog but once the dog was lost, Salamano experienced great sadness. On page thirty eight, Meursault states, “His bed creaked. And from the peculiar little noise coming through the partition, I realized he was crying.” This was stated after Salamano had come to Meursault to ask if he had seen his lost dog. This quote shows that the relationship between the dog and the man was based off true love; a man similar to Salamano, very negative and constantly cranky, is not one to ever cry unless in a dire situation. The relationship was different and not one that was forced or based of the lack of companionship similar to the ones that Meursault had with Marie and Raymond.
Salamano and his dog did not get along, or so it seemed. They would constantly be fighting and if Salamano was not cursing the dog out, he was for sure hitting him. However, once the dog dies, Salamano suddenly reveals a hidden love for his old, crummy dog. the dog is a symbol for that which is lost, dead, or abused. Camus uses the relationship of these two characters to reveal the existentialist idea that most people, like Salamano, are addicted to the culture of death and guilt. As a result, they refuse to live meaningful lives. He got the dog after his wife died, for companionship, but the dog never truly filled the void, Salamano had never really been happy. So he took his sadness, like people do, and brought it upon others. If he couldn.t be happy, then neither can his dog. Secondly, many people are resistant to change. They become comfortable with their lives and don’t dare to venture outside of the box. People fear that things can not get any worse than they already are and therefore stay “content” with their lives as they are because it is safe. this is seen a lot in society. For example, the senior class is divided by those who are ready for what lies ahead and those who wish that they could stay in high school forever, not because they just love high school that much, because it’s safe. Salamano and his dog represent that part of society that just wants to feel secure, whether they are happy or not. When Meursault suggests that he get a new dog, Salamano replies that he “was used to this one.” It’s not about loving the dog, it was about feeling comfortable and “used to” the routine that they had together. People say that “misery loves company”- which is exactly the case with Salamano. Their relationship is not valid because it is not the dog that Salamano truly loves, it is the thought of it. The thought of having a companion.
ReplyDeleteOut of the many relationships that are revealed throughout this novel, I think the relationship between Salamano and his dog is one of the most interesting, and the most valid. When introduced to these two characters, it is hard to distinguish any “love” between these characters. Camus writes, “Then he beats the dog and swears at it” (Camus 27). Again, when first introduced to the characters Camus writes “He was saying, ‘Filthy, stinking bastard!” (27). It seems a bit crazy to say that this is one of the most valid, and loving relationships encountered in the book, but I believe this to be true. One his dog goes missing, Salamano’s passionate side for the dog comes out, and his true feelings for the poor dog are revealed. When telling Mersault about his situation Salamano says, “We’d have a run-in every now and then. But he was a good dog just the same” (45). Salamano’s dog goes missing, and he starts to panic a little. After Salamano’s beating and swearing at the dog, it seems odd he would be upset about his dog’s disappearance. It turned out that Salamano had this dog for a long time, and they grew old together. Deep down he really loved the dog, just didn’t always show it. When Salamano says he was a good dog just the same, we can see that he never really thought of the dog as bad, but just had irritating moments. This relationship contrasts Mersault and his Maman’s relationship. Camus writes, “He said he supposed I must be very sad since Maman died, and I didn’t say anything” (45). Throughout the novel, it is very evident that Mersault is unaffected by his Maman’s death. He is more concerned with small, physical aspects of his life. This is the complete opposite of Salamano and his dog’s relationship. Salamano is devested at the loss of his dog, while Mersault doesn’t care at all that his Maman died. This proves the validity of Salamano and his dog’s relationship.
ReplyDeleteamebr maoa
ReplyDelete“Then, in the dark hour before dawn, sirens blasted. They were announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me. For the first time in a long time I thought about Maman. I felt as if I understood why at the end of her life she had taken a “fiancé,” why she had played at beginning again. Even there, in that home where lives were fading out, evening was a kind of wistful respite. So close to death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry over her. And I felt ready to live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with sign and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate.” (122-123)
In the last moments of the book, Meursault seems to reach a point of realization, if not a sort of enlightenment in a way. The “dark hour before dawn” could be symbolic of a new beginning with daybreak, even as his life is about to end, as he mentions later on. The sirens “announcing departures for a world that now and forever meant nothing to me” is an indication of Meursault’s acknowledgement of the blank indifference of the universe, and he faces it with the same disregard in kind – and the fact that nothing mattered before this moment supports the idea that death is one’s most authentic moment. His reflection on his mother’s life just before her death reinforces this—so close to death and so sure of it, nothing is the same; there comes a sense of freedom, of liberation from the absurd; without hope, there is nothing to lose, and with this freedom in sight, anything becomes possible. He finds that the “gentle indifference of the world” is so like his own self, so unemotional and unconcerned—except that the world will not give and never will, and having lost hope and become aware of his own tragic situation, he is happy – much as Sisyphus was happy in his endless struggle with his boulder. For there to be a large crowd filled with hate at his execution is, to him, better than having to face his death with nothing but the indifference of the world; knowing that anyone cares at all, in any way, is better than the despair of the absurd.
“I would always begin by assuming the worst: my appeal was denied. “Well, so I’m going to die.” Sooner than other people will, obviously. But everyone knows life isn’t worth living. Deep down I knew perfectly that it doesn’t much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living-and for thousands of years. In fact, nothing could be clearer. Whether it was now or twenty years from now, I would still be the one dying. At that point, what would disturb my train of thought was the terrifying leap I would feel my heart take at the idea of having twenty more years of life ahead of me. But I simply had to stifle it by imagining what I’d be thinking in twenty years when it would all come down to the same thing anyway. Since we’re all going to die, it’s obvious that when and how don’t matter. Therefore (and the difficult thing was not to lose sight of all the reasoning that went into this “therefore”), I had to accept the rejection of my appeal” (Camus 114).
ReplyDeleteIn this moment Meursault is considering the darker of the two possible outcomes, which seems to portray his absurdist views. He appears indifferent to life and death. He reasons and ultimately accepts this scenario through the realization that the time one spends living is irrelevant because death is inevitable. A person living to be twenty is no different than a person living to be eighty because either way it ends in death. He believes that life has no purpose and therefore it is not worth living. This passage reflects existential philosophy because Meursault is void of hope. Camus’ essay, “The Myth of Sisyphus”, he reasons that Sisyphus is happy though he is without hope. Meursault can be seen in the same way because he has reasoned away all hope and yet he does not seem to mind. This is because of his indifference to living since death is inevitable. To him, it does not matter if death comes tomorrow or if he really does have twenty more years. If he does live, he will go back to the same routine and nothing will change in his life. If he dies he does not have to continue living through the pointless, repetitive life he has led. Meursault, as well as everyone else, is not free to choose the amount of time he has to live, but he is capable of choosing his feelings of the inevitable moment when death comes. This passage shows that he has chosen to accept immediate death as a reprieve from the burden of living and waiting for death to take him if he was pardoned.
This is Mckenna Zandecki's blogpost
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think is the most impactful/important quote of the ENTIRE novel in terms of existential philosophy? Include this quote at the beginning of your response, then explain your reasoning.
“These things happen….Anyway, after that, remembering Marie meant nothing to me. I wasn’t interested in her dead. That seemed perfectly normal to me, since I understood very well that people would forget me when I am dead. They wouldn’t have anything more to do with me. I wasn’t even able to tell myself that it was hard to think those things” (Camus 115)
Throughout the novel, Meursault is characterized as one that seems to have no real care for any somewhat emotional event within his lifetime here on Earth. He is constantly telling himself that nothing matters and that he does not care no matter the importance. Above, Meursault states ‘remembering Marie mean[s] nothing to me’ which I personally find difficult to believe. Marie was a huge part of his life and the fact that he believes that it causes no emotion what so ever for him to think of her makes me drawn to believe that he is constantly lying to himself throughout the whole book. Meursault believes that no one would remember him once he is dead and I feel as if this is due to the fact that he is afraid to admit that people will miss him in our world today and that deep down he has emotion and care towards each of the people in his life. He is hiding from the fact that it is the true reality, proven on the last line where he states, “I wasn’t even able to tell myself that it was hard to think those things.” Meursault is finally beginning to come into realization that he withholds emotion that he has been hiding from his whole life and now at this moment, it is far too difficult for him to process. He is lying to himself while trying to hide his real emotions.
ReplyDelete“Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe, I don’t know. I got a telegram from the home: “Mother deceased. Funeral tomorrow. Faithfully yours.” That doesn’t mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday.” (Camus 3).
This is the opening quote of the novel and immediately characterizes Meursault and his existential outlook on life. His separation from human life is demonstrated with his lack of emotion towards his mom’s death. It demonstrates that he is apathetic, unemotional, and unaware of other’s emotions. This allows the reader to foreshadow the continual lack of emotion towards human life throughout the novel, especially when he murders a random wandering man. His mother, his closest relative, who had lived with him for a while, had just passed away and he shows no sign of sadness or regret. Meursault is already displaying that human life has no importance and that when it ends, it is just the end, nothing worth mourning over since life has no point. He even flat out says, “that doesn’t mean anything”, conveying his total lack of interest towards his mother’s death. Along with not caring about the death in general, Meursault doesn’t even ask, or care to ask, what day she died on. In fact, he doesn’t even care! This is the first thing the reader sees, already making them question Meursault’ view on life. Early on, the reader is able to see the, what is now considered odd, view on life that Meursault displays. This opening paragraph of the novel, also emphasizes the extent of Meursault’s view since it is the first thing the reader learns about this protagonist. Emphasizing the importance of the Meursault’s view early in the novel, allows readers to not necessarily connect with him, but possibly see where he is coming from.
“But I was sure about me, about everything, surer than he could ever be, sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had. … I had lived my life one way and I could have just as well have lived it another. … Nothing, nothing mattered, and I knew why.” (pg. 120-121)
ReplyDeleteThis quote clearly captures Meursault’s existentialist view. At this point in the book, Meursault is about to go to his death, and reflects on his life. He concludes that life is meaningless, and he can just as well die now. This quote follows Meursault’s thoughts as they line up with that of existentialism. That his own life doesn't matter, that death was and would always be the only surety, that there was no meaning in life. Meursault’s statement of views reveals the underlying theme of existentialism throughout the book.
“I said that people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and that I wasn’t dissatisfied with mine here at all” (1.5.41).
ReplyDeleteThis is Meursault's response to his boss’s offer of a position in Paris. Meursault’s statement shows his belief in a certain rigidity or inertia to human existence. The belief that life is absurd and true meaning in life is impossible. In this case, there is no purpose in Meursault taking this offer or not because in the end it means nothing. His comment that “one life was as good as another” maintains that although details may change, one’s life remains essentially constant. This comment also reveals the idea that everyone is equal and that no one is any more or less important than another because, again, life is meaningless. Earlier he tells his boss “it’s all the same to me.” This is another good quote to sum up existentialism. Nothing is ever any important than another thing. We see this idea when his mom dies and he is indifferent to feeling emotion and yet again when he kills a man and he still seems to feel nothing.The reason he feels nothing is because it is all the same to him. His mom dieing is the same as him making a sandwich, it is just a thing that happens in his life. At this point in the novel, Meursault offers no explanation for his belief in the equality of human lives. In the novel’s final chapter, he identifies death as the force responsible for the constant and unchangeable nature of human life. A comparison of this quotation to Meursault’s ideas following his death sentence highlights Meursault’s development as a character whose understanding of the human condition deepens as a result of his experiences.
“Then I fired four more times at the motionless body where the bullets lodged without leaving a trace. And it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness” (Camus 24)
ReplyDeleteI think this quote is the most impactful quote because it really shows how detached Meursault is from humanity. We see this happen multiple times, like when his Maman dies, but this is the most extreme in my opinion. Although the Arab is already dead due to the gunshot, Meursault keeps shooting him. He shoots the Arab 4 times after the body is motionless. These gunshots are completely unnecessary, and prove that Meursault is detached from humanity. If Meursault really cared about other humans and their feelings, he would have stopped shooting, especially if the Arab was already killed. I think this really emphasizes the existentialism in this book. This quote supports “the absurd” philosophy of Albert Camus as well. “The absurd” refers to a person’s tendency and inability to find the meaning of life. This quote is an example of this because Meursault has failed to find the meaning of life in general by killing the Arab. If he had found the true meaning of life for himself, he may have had more empathy for the rest of humanity. I also think this quote is the most impactful because it is part of the final action in part 1, which is what causes everything in part 2 . Part 1 ends with Meursault killing the Arab, which is what this quote is about. In part 2 Meursault is put on trial for the murder of the Arab. Throughout the trial, Meursault is criticized for his lack of emotion, empathy, and connection with humanity. One huge instance that is used against him is his maman’s death. He doesn’t care about her death, and shows no emotion. This quote is a great example of this lack of emotion and connection with humanity because the kept shooting the dead body. Because of this, Meursault’s trial did not end very well. The judge took his lack of emotion into consideration, and gave Meursault the death penalty. In conclusion, I think this quote is very important and impactful because it emphasizes Meursault’s distance from humanity.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteJean Paul Sartre portrays the theme of freedom through the characters’ reactions to their condemnation to be free and the consequences of that freedom. This theme of freedom is based on Sartre’s theory that existence precedes essence. This means that humans differ from inanimate objects because humans have the ability to define themselves and their characteristics. This is known as the essence part of his theory. With freedom comes responsibility for one’s actions. The play portrays the rejection of freedom and responsibility through the characters Garcin and Estelle. Both allow Inez to choose for them to avoid their condemned freedom. Estelle has a difficult time accepting that she exists if she is unable to see herself in a mirror. Inez pretends to be Estelle’s mirror and tells Estelle she has a pimple on her face. Inez defines Estelle’s essence and Estelle accepts this because she rejects her condemned freedom. All three character’s decide that they are put in the same room as a method of torturing each other. They choose and attempt to ignore each other to avoid torturing one another, but Estelle is unable to handle going without a mirror because she bases her very existence off of her reflection. At this point Inez and Garcin get into an argument and reveal why they believe they have been sent to Hell. Both characters then force Estelle to tell them why she was sent there too. Being placed in a room together in Hell is the consequence for the freedom they used when they were alive. All three people did some horrible act and this is the responsibility given to them because of those actions. Estelle rejects responsibility by rejecting her freedom. Before revealing her actions she continuously states that she has combed through her life and was unable to find any fault that would cause her to be condemned to Hell. She denies her actions to avoid the consequence and escape responsibility. Jean Paul Sartre portrays the philosophical topic, freedom, through the characters’ reactions to their actions in life, which has led to the inevitable consequence of being stuck with each other in Hell.
How is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDelete“No Exit" thoroughly represents Jean-Paul Sartre’s views on Freedom in the circumstances surrounding the characters. Sartre believes that freedom is both a curse as well as a blessing. A blessing in that it allows us to make our own choices, and have our own personalities or preferences. A curse because, as we make decisions, we are condemned to face the consequences. In “No Exit,” Sartre displays his view of freedom as a form of condemnation. Garcin, Estelle, and Inez each made poor decisions in life and are forced to pay the consequences of their actions. Garcin treated his wife terribly and lusted over another woman, Inez was rude and coarse and lusted after a woman, and Estelle killed her own child. Each of them had committed grievous sins which condemned them to hell. Sartre further displays freedom as he portrays hell as simply, a place where they can no longer be free. Their misuse of freedom forced them not to fire and brimstone, but to live with the decisions they can never change.
This is Mckenna Zandecki's blogpost:
ReplyDeleteHow is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Freedom is far more a philosophical thought due to the fact that no one in this world is truly free as there are laws and rules one must follow for the sake and safety of others. The essence of freedom is the idea that one is completely shed from the tasks and rules that burden people each and every day. The idea of freedom, though, is represented in the play by the fact that each individual does not obtain ultimate freedom, even in Hell. As they are allowed to do what pleases them within their own hotel room, they are locked within the room for eternity. They have no freedom to leave the room, be by themselves within the room, nor do they have the freedom to leave hell as a whole. Each had no freedom within the real world as well giving them the reason as to why they are in hell; none was permitted the freedom to partake in an act so horrid that lead them to hell within their after life. Sartre portrays freedom within the play as a philosophical idea by showing the audience that neither of the three truly obtains any freedom within their life; on earth and in hell.
ReplyDeleteHow is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
Jean Paul-Sartre demonstrates the idea that one has the freedom to make any choice they desire, however, they must deal with the consequences or events following that choice. Estelle, Garcin, and Inez, now all trapped in hell, are dealing with the consequences of the decisions they made in their life. Garcin finds it easy to treat his wife poorly before the consequences, “It was so easy. A word was enough to make her flinch. Like a sensitive-plant.” (24). He found it easy to be unfair and rude prior to the consequences. But does he feel remorse for his actions? Estelle, was very aware of what had landed her in hell after her death. However, originally she hides it and attempts to act as if she was confused as to why she was there. The inability to discuss her horrible actions displays her remorse toward the choices she had made, “I haven’t a notion, not the foggiest. In fact, I’m wondering if there hasn’t been some ghastly mistake” (15) She is embarrassed of them, and does not want to be known by her action. But after realizing that everyone is there for something, she is able to open up to the others, because she is aware that they are unable to judge her for her actions. Estelle made that decision on her own “it pleased him no end, having a daughter. It didn’t please me” (28), obviously against the baby father’s wishes, and is facing the consequences. But the father, who did nothing wrong and had no choice or decision, had received punishment as well. This allows the reader to question the idea of freedom of choice coming with consequences, because an innocent man received punishment. However, in a sense Sartre’s idea of freedom is in fact karma and that events that follow your decisions reflect the choices you’ve made. And in the end, Estelle is enduring consequences for her actions.
Jean Paul Sartre was an ardent atheist who believed that there was no God in whose mind our properties had been conceived. Nor did he believe there to be any other external source of values. Thus, there is no human nature since there is no God to conceive it. He did, however, argue that there is at least one being in whom existence precedes essence, a being who exists before being defined by any concept, and this being is man. Man’s situation is an unhappy one. He must decide between what is good and what is evil and if one chooses to reject the notion of God then there is no one to tell him. So man must go through obstacles in life to establish his own list of good and evil. The theme of freedom comes from Sartre’s philosophy that “existence comes before essence”. By this he means, human beings have no pre-established purpose or nature, and thus we are forced to chose what we will become, to define ourselves by our choice of action. All that is given to man is that we are, not what we are; it is up to us to define that. An individual is responsible for making himself into an essence and with that he also holds the power to lift himself beyond the level of mere existence. with this freedom of choice comes the absolute responsibility for one's action. The fear and anxiety of this responsibility leads many people to ignore both their freedom and their responsibility by letting other people make their choices for them, resulting in bad faith. In the play No Exit Sartre illustrates these ideas through the characters. When Inez first walks in she immediately thinks that Garcin is “the torturer” which plays off of Sartre’s idea that everyone is torture. There are two reasons people are torture, the first is that they are capable of denying one's existence and one's freedom by treating one as an object. The second is that others judge you, observe you without taking into consideration your intentions. The image they have of you may not correspond to the one you have of yourself. But you can't do without them because only they can tell you who you are. Sartre offers different ways of defending from the torture of “the others” The first is disguise. The character that holds this defense mechanism is Estelle. When they all are giving their reasons for being in Hell both Inez and Garcin are blatantly honest, but Estelle lies and tells them that there is no reason for her to be there. Another is evasion/ avoidance this mechanism is used by Garcin when he repeatedly asks his roommates to stop talking and to leave him in peace. Lastly, there is the defense mechanism of emotion which Inez uses by inspiring emotions such as love and friendship in others to try and make them all like her. No Exit is a play about the "devouring" gaze of the other and how it restricts one's freedom, incorporated into the play itself and played out on stage through the gaze of the audience members. The characters constantly look for mirrors in order to avoid the judging gaze of each other, while their failure is played out by the constant stare of the play's spectators. Sartre's underlying argument of the play is "Hell is other people". By using only three people and an empty room, Sartre evokes scenes of utter torture and despair and this is there “Hell”.
ReplyDeleteHow is FREEDOM, as a philosophical topic, represented in the play?
ReplyDeleteFreedom can be represented in many ways throughout this play. First, freedom goes along with the theme of responsibility throughout the play. The play takes place in hell, and because of the setting, we automatically assume each of the characters has committed a crime, or sin, harsh enough to bring them to hell. In the real world, all these characters had the freedom of life. They were able to make their own decisions, and do what they want. For example, Estelle had the freedom to marry a man thrice her age in order to support herself and brother. She then had the freedom to throw her baby of a balcony, resulting in her appearance in hell. All the other members of the play also committed crimes like this, and with freedom comes responsibility. In this case, they showed their responsibility through consequence. This consequence for all of them was an afterlife in hell. I think that Sartre was trying to get the theme across that with freedom comes responsibility. He wanted to show that the two together, and that each character’s freedom resulting in a consequence. Freedom is also represented in this play by the lack of freedom in some instances. When observing the room, Inez: “I tell you they've thought it all out. Down to the last detail. Nothing was left to chance. This room was all set for us.” (14). In this scene, Inez realizes that they have been confined in a room that has been set solely for them. This is a way the characters have absolutely no freedom. They had no choice in the furnishing of this room, the room itself, or the people within the room. The lack of freedom goes along with their punishment and responsibility for their abusing freedom in the past.
amebr maoaaa
ReplyDelete"One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
People tend to never be satisfied with life – they die too soon, before they have a chance to really live, to reach their potential or do what they wanted to do, or too late, with too much suffering and bitterness. But death is a moment of authenticity within life – with everything drawing to an end, there is no time left for pretenses, and what one becomes in that hour is remarkably genuine. No matter when one’s life ends, it is a final, irreversible change, regardless of one’s belief about what happens after death. Even if there are loose ends, one’s life must be considered complete, and that is all one gets when one is judged, and the sum of one’s value is placed in that short time, with no room for regrets or remorse. In this way, one’s identity after death is defined by their words and actions in life, summed up and judged by entirely by others. Everything else is diminished due to one’s absence, and only the most outstanding aspects of one’s life, whether good or bad, are remembered – and once that life is forgotten, one becomes nothing.
What do you make of Inez' statement; "One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (Sartre 43).
ReplyDeleteThe typical thought of a person on his or her death bed is of his/her loved ones, the things he/she could have done with more time, and his/her regrets. Some feel that it is not fair to die at that moment because they have not actually lived yet. Others wish death had come sooner to take them with their loved one, to prevent them from committing a horrible deed, or to end their suffering. This is what Inez means when she says “One always dies too soon--or too late” (Sartre 43). The moment of death severes people’s abilities to make an impact. After death people are remembered and judged for their actions. Death is the end to one’s story whether or not things are left resolved and whole. At that moment one can no longer influence how people view him/her. People are free to remember someone, who has passed on, as they please to. Thus this statement, “You are--your life, and nothing else” has some truth to it because people will remember you by remembering your life (43). This connects to the idea that existence precedes essence because once people are dead they no longer literally exist (by this I mean they become memories so they do not physically exist anymore) so they no longer have the ability to define themselves. They no longer physically exist and once their life is forgotten they are completely gone and it is almost as if they never actually existed. The lives led by people are judged openly once they have passed on and only their lives are used to judge them since they can no longer impact how others view them.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of Inez' statement; "One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
Once death starts knocking on someone’s door they tend to think of all of their regrets and everything they didn’t accomplish rather than what they did. Something along these lines in psychology is the idea of scarcity. Once their chance at living is gone, it seems as though they wish they had more of it. However, when they were living there were some times when they had wished one day would end or that they could fast-forward something, but now that all of those opportunities is gone, they wish to have them back. Inez is talking about how what you do during your life, and not what you wished you did or what you want to do, are what make you memorable to people. Whether this be good or bad. Considering all of these characters end in hell, the reader can tell that they were remembered for the crime or sin they committed rather than an heroic deed which they wish they were remembered for. Inez is also describing people’s total discontent with their life immediately prior to their death, “one always dies too soon--or too late” (43). This discontent can lead the person to believe they had an unsuccessful life, once again looking too much at the negatives. When looking back at their lives once they have passed has also allowed them to see how they are remembered. When Olga takes Estelle’s place she learns that she is just remembered as her life, and they continued on as if Estelle’s memory wasn’t even existent.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
ReplyDeleteAt this point, Sartre is definitely speaking through Inez. "You are your life, and nothing else," is a key tenet of existentialism. The line “One always dies too soon-or too late” Is Inez saying that once death is near people begin to dwell on all they have not done in life and they begin to appreciate life more. Also, they really wish they had lived life to the fullest. However she then says the opposite “or too late” and this is her saying that while most people realize the scarcity of their life and begin to really appreciate it others are in bed sick just wishing they could die already because they believe they will be in a happier place then. She goes on to say “And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up.” This is Inez saying that people can’t really make up for all the moments in life they did not live to the fullest. By this point in life, it is over. There is no going back or forward, you are done living and that’s it. She ends by saying, “You are--your life, and nothing else" and this is her reiterating on the idea that it’s your actions, not your opinions that matter. This meaning that it’s all about how you live your life. If you don’t want to grieve your death then you must live your life to the fullest and always with a good attitude, because in the end, nothing else matters than how you lived your life. Also because daily life does not matter, life is absurd but emotions are not. I think people tend to take existentialism as a very negative philosophy but I truly find this point enlightening and very optimistic.
Inez: "One always dies too soon--or too late. And yet one's whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up. You are--your life, and nothing else" (43).
ReplyDeleteI think this statement by Inez is very powerful, and really emphasizes Sartre’s existentialism found throughout the book. Inez says, “You are--your life, and nothing else” which I really think plays on to the theme of confinement. Here Inez emphasizes that we are only as big or as great as our lives. Our lives define us, and that is what makes us trapped, or contained. There is no escaping our lives. Not even death. This is shown through all the characters in the play, whom are living in hell. Along with this, the beginning of Inez’s line where she says “One always dies too soon--or too late,” shows human’s dissatisfaction with their lives. It seems as though very few are satisfied with their lives. Here she mentions how we either live too long or too short. I think this is very true, and that most people when asked, “if you were to die today would you be satisfied with your life?” would answer no, they are not satisfied. I think this is the point Inez is trying to get across by saying that we either have too much time to live, or not enough time. When she says one’s whole life is complete at that moment, I think of the statement that death is our most authentic moment in life. Inez is saying that death defines our lives, and basically says death is the most authentic moment in life. Death is what completes our lives. I agree with this because death is the one thing in life that is completely and 100% inevitable. We cannot stop it. Overall, Inez’s line is very powerful, and brings up a lot of existentialist questions and emphasizes the play’s themes.
Each and every single person on this planet lives a life here on Earth and only has one life on Earth; there are no real option besides the one life that each of us live. The quote that Inez states reminds me of the fact and saying that each of us are all different and not one person is the same as the other; when specifically looking at the last sentence, “You are--your life, and nothing else.” I believe what Inez is attempting to say is that we are nothing more than the one life we live, what we do with our life while on this planet is the only real thing that we possess.
ReplyDeleteMany people believe that life is too short, referring to Inez’s statement, “One always dies too soon;” although there are people in this world that suffer their whole life causing their life to end “too late.” At the moment when someone dies though, the happiness, enjoyment, pain, and suffering all end in an instant. There is nothing beyond that point and that human being is completely gone from the planet for all eternity which is what I believe Inez is trying to convey when she states, “And yet one’s whole life is complete at that moment, with a line drawn neatly under it, ready for the summing up.”
No matter how one fulfills their life on this planet, it all ends the same and within one instant it is completely over and there is no returning back there after. We all only have one life on this Earth and whether one dies too shortly or lives too long, nothing will change the fact that we only have one opportunity before everything comes to a complete and absolute end.