Talia Jensen Life and this earth is beautiful and humans make it sad. We are imperfect creatures but with the help of empathy and kindness, humans can experience beautiful moments.
I believe that people are born to create their own meaning or reason for life. We all as humans are born with a completely clean slate. This isn't just a clean slate as in no one is born good or evil, but that we all are born with a path, or fate as you will, that is blank. As we develop from babies to children, from children to adolescents, and to adolescents to adults; our experiences and how we learn from those experiences, begins to outline not just who we are as people, but the paths best suit for us.
Nixonism is the chief principle that every man, women, child and dog should follow blindly. This political philosophy empowers the idealization that politics is the highest influence and position that an individual can obtain. Plato, Hobbes, Jefferson (Not Marx; That guy is awful) are all prominent examples of ideals in which I am interested in. As Kennedy also believed, I believe every citizen should serve their country rather than have their country function for them. The social contract pertains to socioeconomic class and the primary role of government is to improve the standard of living of their citizens through whatever means necessary, granted the people work in conjunction. People are naturally curious and disorganized, but more productive cooperating together, specifically under government.
Many believe that life bears no meaning others think that life has meaning and was brought by an all powerful entity. My philosophy on life is that there is not meaning, we are made up from a large number of mistakes, but I think that someone can find their own meaning without the following of a god.
My philosophy on life is a kind of optimistic nihilism, I guess. I think that because human existence is super fleeting, nothing really matters in the long run. But that doesn’t mean that there is no point in living. Just because everything is eventually going to end doesn’t mean that everyone should just stop living and wait for death! I think this should be taken as an opportunity to be unapologetically yourself, and to better yourself! Just because it doesn’t matter in the long run doesn’t mean life isn’t an opportunity to help yourself and the people around you to improve. Even if you leave an impression that disappears, what matters is that you still left an impression and helped uplift the people around you. I mean, just make the best out of the situation for your own health and the health of those around you. It’s not like there’s much else you can do!
My philosophy on life completely contradicts the majority of the statements on the back of our calendar. First, “day to day existence” shouldn’t have to be filled with anxiety. Taking the time to appreciate the small things in life that you value is important, and while we might have some bad days, our fears and anxiety shouldn’t define our lives. Existence isn’t absurd, because while compared with the rest of the Earth, we may be just one person in a crowd of billions, but we still have our own lives, our own goals, and our own aspirations. Just because we can’t change the world doesn’t mean that we can’t change someone’s lives, or our own lives. Life doesn’t have a “true” meaning, because life means different things to different people. You can’t define life, that would be absurd. ‘Ultimately, I am alone in this world” is completely false. Everything that we experience day to day can define us, and the people that we meet in our lives could change them forever. We may be considered our own people, but it’s impossible for us to not be influenced by the people around us. In life, we shouldn’t be forced to make choices that are entirely for other people or entirely for us, because every situation is different. Sometimes you must sacrifice a little bit for others, and sometimes others will sacrifice for you. It’s also almost impossible to define “what’s best for others”, because we never know. We can’t predict the future. However, one thing that I agree with is that we are born without a preconceived personality. I believe that as we grow up, our environment and the people around us affects us and how our personalities and interests are cultivated. Ultimately, I think that people can reach a state of self-acceptance without having to shed all forms of morality and tradition, as each person has different standards of self-acceptance.
My life philosophy is fairly simple. I don’t believe in any higher beliefs, nor superstitions such as fate determining our paths of life. I quite simply just believe that we have one life (although I really hope God lets me into heaven if it actually does exist). I believe that we should make the most of our lives by being both successful and happy, and passing on values down the family. Since we only have one life, it is important to live it well by being kind to others and allowing others to have pleasure in their lives as well, which at times can overrule personal priorities. Obviously this seems pretty simple and straight-forward, which is how it should be, because I believe it is important to be remembered as a good person who made something of his/her life and helped along others as well.
Your personal philosophy is quite intriguing! I also believe that life is meant to be lived to the fullest, and how humans should strive to be selfless. Personally, along with happiness and success, I feel that mankind must learn how to endure and adapt to physical and emotional hardships. This is because without them, people wouldn't be able to truly cherish the feelings of excitement or joyousness.
As the youngest of three siblings, I have always possessed an insatiable desire to display a degree of superiority over my older brothers. Whether this was accomplished through sports, academics, or simply attaining new experiences, everything that we do ends up becoming a competition. With this being said, some may view sibling rivalries as a negative aspect of a child’s life that ruins the joyous years before the cutthroat nature of adulthood. However, while reflecting upon my current stage of life, I will openly admit that my brothers, along with the competitive environment throughout my childhood, has had a significant influence on who I am as a person. As a result, part of my personal philosophy is that one must remain optimistic and use their circumstances, whether favorable or not, to not only better themselves, but also those in their community. With this kept in mind, I strongly disagree with statement nine, which states, “Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me”. Throughout an individual's life, their parents, teachers, and other prominent figures have a profound impact on their upbringing. Whether they affect their life in a positive or negative manner, the wisdom or knowledge that is passed on will cause the person to act in a certain way. Additionally, if a person claims that they seek to prevent anyone from influencing their characteristics and morals, this assertion should be deemed highly unreasonable, for modern civilization is built upon human interactions. In terms of my situation, my brothers had a major impact on who I am as a person today. Although I am still trying to develop a concrete answers as to what my personal philosophy is, I also kind of agree with the statement, “Day to day existence is filled with a anxiety and fear”. Personally, I feel that human emotions heavily dictates one’s behavior, therefore, determines the components that define their qualities. With this being said, humans often seek aspect of their life that bring about joy. However, it’s important to note that in order to truly cherish the emotion of happiness, there must be experiences and conditions that exist in which instigate a sense of apprehension. As a result, I do agree that fear and anxiety exist in our everyday lives, but there also must be other emotions such as disarray and embarrassment. As a whole, when considering philosophies, it’s crucial to analyse the time in which the idea emerged from. For example, the conditions that influenced the creation of existentialism in the 19th and 20th century are much different than the ones that shaped my own beliefs.
Talia Jensen After reading the list of philosophical statements, I must admit that none seem to correlate with what I believe about life and its mysteries. The majority of the statements felt pessimistic in a way to me, which is interesting and telling when I think about it. I do feel that this reveals much about my personal beliefs. There are certain ideas that I have put a lot of faith into throughout my life and I suppose I continue to do so because of the feelings of assurity and purpose that they provide to me and others. I will start off with a personal thought: I find life to be fascinating and beautiful in a sense. The earth, the way that animals and living things all work together, the cycles and functionings of nature, human relationships, emotions, the human body and mind, etc. are all things that cause me to ponder questions such as: why is this all happening? Is there purpose in these things? Is this life a testament of something bigger? Was this all an accident? I personally choose to have faith that there is purpose in this life. I believe that there are too many coincidences for this to all be a worthless accident. I believe that that there is great relevance in the fact that we all have free will. We have the ability to choose our own paths. From history and from life experience, I feel like I can confidently say that there are some better paths than others because some lead to feelings of joy and accomplishment, and others lead to depression and despair. I also choose to believe that the negative experiences we have are put in place to provide learning experiences, as well as to enhance the positivity generated from the happier times. I feel that in this life, we are here to ponder and search for those things that feel “true” and “happy.” The fact that humans are born with innate behaviours of empathy is a testament of the importance in having other people in our lives who we can share experiences with, learn things with, serve, and search with. From an honest and psychological point of view, I keep the idea that there is more to life after death close to my heart because it provides comfort and feelings of relief. I search for guidance, love, purpose, and comfort and I have found these things in my religion, in the people i surround myself with, and in the beautiful scenery on this planet.
Through his essay, the Myth of Sisyphus, I believe Albert Camus attempts to demonstrate the worthless nature of life. He is essentially stating that the only way to take solace in life is by accepting and acknowledging its worthlessness, which he describes through the analogy of Sisyphus, when Sisyphus has pushed the rock all the way up the hill and pauses to turn around and realize he has to push the rock all the way back up after it tumbles down again. “At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to fate.” Through this quote, Camus immediately identifies his opinion of free will and the absurdity of fate. He believes that only acknowledging our continuous, futile cycle of life we will realize that we are truly the God of our own actions- there is no higher belief, and no meaning to life. This is why Camus believes Sisyphus is happy- because during these pauses he is acknowledges the worthlessness of his actions, which sets him aside from all of the living folk who still believe in a meaning in their lives. This idea can be put into play in our modern day society, relating to Sisyphus’ plight through everyone’s daily agendas. In my case, this is going to school every day. However, my view significantly differs from the super depressing Camus view, as I don’t necessarily see school as a punishment (sometimes). Instead, I know that it will help along my success in my future. Nonetheless, it is an idea to think about, seeing as life as a whole may just be a cycle of nothingness. I prefer not to think about that because I don't think I want to be depressed every day.
Your analysis was quite intriguing! I also found that Camus’ essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, demonstrates the worthless nature of life. However, I would like to argue that instead of causing an individuals to act “depressed everyday”, absurdism provides people with the opportunity to reflect upon their situation and interpret their life however they want. For example, Camus mentions, “It is during the return, the pause, that Sisyphus interests me...that is the hour of consciousness”. Here, by embracing the situations in which the Gods had condemned him to, Sisyphus is able to rid of the hope that had once made his life so dreary, thus, allowing him to be “happy”.
In his novel, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus exhibits the existential concept of absurdism, and how mankind’s search for meaning and order is futile, for life itself is fruitless. According to the myth, Sisyphus, the king of Corinth, was marked by his great wisdom and intelligence. However, after being convicted for chaining death, exchanging Zeus’ secrets for water, and using his deceitful nature to escape Hades’ grasp, Sisyphus was forced to endure a life full of pain and suffering. Due to his great appreciation for the, “curve of the gulf, the sparkling sea, and the smiles of earth”, and his lack of respect for the Gods, Sisyphus was condemned to roll a rock up a hill for the rest of eternity. According to Camus, “It is during the return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me...that is the hour of consciousness”. In modern society, humans will often take drastic measures to avoid having to experience a repetitive act of misery, such as pushing a rock up a hill after watching it plunge back down. As Camus asserts, an individual can escape futile acts of adversity by committing philosophical suicide, physical suicide, or accepting the natural ways of the universe. Out of these three options, this French philosopher rejected the first two, for he believed that they are attempts to escape from the absurd, not overcome it. However, as Sisyphus exhibits, a “freed” individual embodies and acknowledges the truth of the absurd, and embraces the freedom that it bestows upon mankind. In regards to the idea of one’s conscious, Camus implies that when Sisyphus takes a moment to reflect on his situation, he is able to choose how to interpret his life. In other words, despite not being able to change the circumstances in which the Gods had condemned him to, or the inherent meaningless nature of his life, Sisyphus's conscious demonstrates that, “His fate belongs to himself”. According to Camus, “When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in a man’s heart: this is the rock’s victory, this the rock itself”. In spite of this, since Sisyphus is able to embrace the futile meaning of life, and has abandoned the hope that had once made his life so dreary, he is the “absurd hero”, thus, is truly happy. In order to effectively illustrate the concept of absurdism, Camus employs the allusion of Oedipus. In this tragic story, Oedipus Rex was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. However, despite blinding himself with sorrow, Oedipus state that, “...all is well”. In direct relation to Sisyphus, Oedipus is able to accept his suffering, thus, has embraced his fate and lives a “joyous” life.
Wow, very articulate Zac! You did a great job interpreting Camus philosophy. I wrote my blogpost on the moment of time Sisyphus has to think about his life on the way down the hill as well. The thing I would love to hear your opinion on is do you think there are moments in our lives where we experience "repetitive acts of misery"? Like how some people work unimportant jobs they hate every day, or how we're required to take classes we hate. Is Camus comparing our misery to Sisyphus'?
“Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of success upheld him?”
I think this quote is interesting because it brings up a very specific point. If Sisyphus wholeheartedly believed every action he made brought him closer to finally pushing the boulder to the top of the hill, he will never have to feel the crushing disappointment of watching the rock fall all the way back down to the bottom of the hill. In this sense, it seems like the gods’ punishment for Sisyphus is not the physical strain of pushing the boulder up the hill, but the sense of absolute hopelessness when he sees the boulder fall back down, and the misery he feels walking all the way back down the hill, just to start again. Camus then goes on to talk about how the workingman is comparable to Sisyphus, in that they would also do the same tasks every day of his life and somehow still manage to achieve nothing. I think that this is a very interesting concept, because, paraphrasing Camus, Sisyphus only really begins to “become conscious” of the hopelessness of his situation on the way back down the hill. While he’s pushing the boulder, he doesn’t have time to think about it. On his way down, that’s when the torture really begins. So you may ask yourself, why doesn’t Sisyphus just stop trying to push the rock up the hill? Well, Camus answers that too. Pushing the rock up the hill is a compulsion for Sisyphus, and because his compulsory fate of pushing and falling and pushing and falling is so absurd, Sisyphus learns to accept this and may even be considered to be happy. And that’s what Camus is trying to say about the workingmen of the world. Why do you go to work today? Well, because once you accept the absurdity of a fate in which you go and do meaningless tasks for meaningless pieces of paper to buy meaningless things, you can be happy in your limited existence, just like Sisyphus. At least, that’s what I think Camus is trying to say!
After reading the philosophical statements, I feel as though there are parts of existentialism that I agree with and parts I do not. Especially after reading Camus' essay on the myth of Sisyphus. I agree in the freedom of man and the responsibilities that come with it. I believe that we as humans are born to make our own purpose in life. I even believe in the acceptance of the human condition and the situations in which we find ourselves in. But where I seem to differ from existentialism and Camus' argument, is that once you accept situation that is unjust, action must be done to change it. Reasonably, Sisyphus' punishment for the wrongs he had caused towards the gods and maybe even for tricking his wife, but to say he is a universal icon for the working class of the world would be wrong. Although according to existentialism, no one is free of guilt, what makes the entire world population of the working class punishable, and the white collars free of the same condemnations?
Your analysis was quite intriguing! I also agree that humans must embrace the absolute freedom in the world, and use it to establish their own purposes in life. However, I would like to argue that Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure for the working class. In today's world, whether an individual enjoys their profession or not, there are certain aspects of work that are viewed in a negative manner. However, they are completed because money is a part of society that most would argue one could not live without. With this being said, Sisyphus was forced to push a rock up a hill for eternity. Despite being a strenuous task, as he reflects upon his situation at the top of the hill, he is truly able to complete the task without feeling displeasure. As a result, Sisyphus is seen as a universal icon, for individuals can learn form his actions and rid of any negative thoughts they may feel towards a certain aspect of their own lives.
While reading Jean-Paul Sartre's play, No Exit, my group had an intriguing conversation regarding the symbolic nature of the doorbell and eyelids. After Garcin asks, ‘“And if I ring, you’re bound to come?’”, the valet replies with, ‘“Well, yes, that’s so-in a way. But you can never be sure about that bell. There’s something wrong with the wiring, and it doesn’t always work” (Sartre 7). In the four fathers of existentialism article, it states that Sartre believed that there was absolute freedom in the world, and how this freedom brings about anxiety and fear, thus, influencing mankind’s behavior. With this, he argued that individuals must relieve themselves from the order and purpose that religion provides in one’s life, and instead, accept this inherent nature of the world. In regards to the quotes above, doorbells are utilized to call an individual's attention in hopes of seeking assistance. However, Garcin tries to ring the bell multiple times, but is met with disappointment and loneliness. In regards to Sartre’s argument, Garcin hasn’t recognized the independent nature of mankind, therefore, seeks assistance and order, which in this case is from the valet. However, by not receiving help, Sartre emphasizes the point that individuals can only truly be “freed” when they embrace the absolute freedom of the world. This also connects to Camus’ argument on how life is futile, and that humans should embrace the liberation that absurdism bestows upon their lives. In terms of the characters in No Exit, despite continuing to seek order and help by ringing the bell, their efforts are useless. Furthermore, while speaking to the valet, Garcin notes, “‘Your eyelids. We move ours up and down. Blinking, we call it. It’s like a small black shutter that clicks down and makes a break. Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour. Four thousand little respites-just think!’” (5-6). Here, Garcin develops a sense of unease after discovering that the valet does not have eyelids. Once again, this aspect of the plot supports Camus and Sartre’s theory that individuals will try to shield away the absurdism or absolute freedom in society. In this case, the valet, who doesn’t have any eyelids, can never shut his eyes, therefore, truly understands the crude nature of society. However, for Garcin, since he cherishes his “good nights” and “happy little dreams”, he has developed a false perception of mankind. One part of the play that I found interesting was the paper knife. Although the valet acts as if it is an “ordinary” item to possess, I have a strong feeling that Sartre is foreshadowing a significant event in the future.
Your connections between Camus' and Sartre's previous works is really interesting! I think that these details such as the eyelids is a really subtle yet strong point that creates a tone of uneasiness and disconnection from falsehoods. This detail also made me wonder, since Garcin seemed so insistent on the pleasantries of "happy little dreams", is life without any breaks considered a hell for a person?
Something that I noticed that I thought was interesting about Jean Paul Sartre’s No Exit was the juxtaposition between the valet and Garcin in the beginning. The valet has already shed his connection with humanity, by asking Garcin “So you haven’t gotten over your-what-do-you-call-it?-Sense of human dignity? (4).” What intrigues me about this is the strained lack of apathy felt by the valet as he attempts to answer Garcin’s questions about his “room” such as “But after a bit, when they’ve got their nerve back, they start in about their toothbrushes and what-not….What, I ask you, would be the point of brushing your teeth? (4).” These quotes stuck out to me as I felt that they really emphasized the state of existentialism before a person accepts the absurd. By this statement, I mean that Garcin feels inner turmoil and rage at being stuck in this hotel room after his death, so he attempts to keep some semblance of humanity to maintain his dignity and his past life. However, I believe Sartre is trying to make a subtle point of Garcin’s suffering here, implying that clinging onto society’s expectations will only hurt you more and drag you down, rather than letting go of society and accepting the absurd.
Wow Prim, great analysis! I think it could also be interpreted that the Valet is portrayed that way because he and Garcin are on different social levels. One is a bellboy, the other is a man in hell. I think it's interesting because in the play, the roles are actually reversed. The bellboy, who is meant to be demure because they are of a different social class, is actually in a higher position than Garcin. I think this reversal of social roles in the play are interesting! Great job!
Talia Jensen Fabulous commentary Prim! I agree that these residents of hell are all trying to hold on to their previous lives in their own way. They are seeking for opportunities or experiences that resemble what they used to have. They search for companionship or independence. They search for solutions, which seems to be a pointless strategy in their never ending hellish fate.
Talia Jensen Jean Paul Sartre’s theatrical works are filled and interlaced with existentialist ideas and customs that explore human existence and what life means. The beginning of the play is engulfed in descriptions of the scene’s setting, which reveals the fact that the scene’s setting is a large part of the play. The room is described as, “A drawing room in Second Empire style. A massive bronze ornament stands on the mantelpiece” (Satre, 3). The room is envisioned as an elegant place of hobby and the arts, including a statue of bronze. Metal-related diction is used several times throughout the story. A man named Garcin and Valet are conversing about this seemingly “new” environment. He explains, “...why should one want to see oneself in a looking-glass? But that bronze contraption on the mantlepiece, that’s another story. I suppose there will be times when I stare my eyes out at it...A bronze atrocity by-what’s the fellow’s name? - Barbedienne. A collector’s piece” (Satre, 4-5) Throughout this passage, one learns more about what exactly is going and why these two men are in a drawing room. First, Garcin mentions the idea of looking at oneself in a mirror. He questions as to why it should be done, which can allude to the fact that he himself finds it difficult to do so. This implies that he has done something or has a quality that he finds difficult to cope with. He quickly changes the focus in to this distinct bronze statue. The fact that he focuses only on one little accessory of the room and that he will “stare at it” reveals that this room has great relevance to him, almost as if this is where he lives now. He calls the ornament as “bronze atrocity”, which reveals his distaste for the drawing room, and possibly art itself. This could reveal that he immediately dislikes his surroundings, although he has just arrived. The focus on “bronze” and the famous metalworker Ferdinand Barbedienne gives the writing a “hard” and “strict tone” to Garcin’s character and the scene he is in.
My group didn’t talk about anything, as we just read the play, but one thing I wanted to talk about was how the American play uses a lot of slang words and colloquial diction, in contrast to the French play, which has a lot of formal words. One reason that this might have happened is because they might have wanted the American audiences to better understand the play and how the Bell Boy is of a lower class than the rest of the cast and crew. They may have also used slang in the American version to help the audience relate to the characters and see them as people they could have known.
Your analysis was quite intriguing! I also agree that the English version might have used slang in order for the audience to better relate to all of the characters. To build upon your ideas, this concept is further supported by the omission of the words to Inez's song in the English version. When Garcin tells the two women to sit in each corner in silence, Inez sings, "What a crowd in Whitefriars Lane! They’ve set trestles in a row” (Sartre 18). In this quote, Whitefrairs Lane refers to a place in England filled with thieves, debtors, and violence, therefore, symbolizing the lack of freedom in Hell. Perhaps these lines were taken out of the packet's version, for the American audience wouldn't be a able to make connections.
Talia Jensen Now that the room is properly packed with the right residents, the conflict begins. Sartre's utilizes the juxtaposition between Garcin, Estelle, and Inez to establish the theme that “hell is other people” and create a tone of tension and hostility. After revealing to each other their faults and misfortunes, one sees the differences and similarities between the iconic trio. Despite the contrast between characters, Inez sticks them all in the same category by saying, “ Yes, we are criminals - murderers - all three of us. We’re in hell, my pets; they never make mistakes, and people aren’t damned for nothing” (Sartre, 16). To contrast Ines, Estelle and Garcin react with expressions of horror. Estelle exclaims, “Keep quiet! I forbid you to use such disgusting words” (Sartre, 17), and Garcin expresses, “[raising his fist]: Will you keep your mouth shut…” (Sartre, 17). The secretive and harsh diction, such as “damned”, “hell”, “quiet”, “disgusting”, “mouth shut”, reflects the characters dispositions in hell and what they are each internally dealing with. Although they are stuck in a room together, they are individuals with dark secrets that they want to keep hidden and close. Inez reacts to Estelle and Garcin’s demands, she confronts them: “....Ah, I understand now. I know why they’ve put us three together...We’ll stay in this room together, the three of us, for ever and ever….In short, there’s someone absent here, the official torturer….I mean that each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (Sartre, 17). Inez, potentially out of pure anger and frustration, uses hyperbolic diction, like “for ever and ever” to express the panic and discomfort that they inevitable feel,being in hell and such. Inez describes that she speculates that instead of being tortured and mutilated by a devil, it will simply take the company of others to drive each other. Sartre uses the theme that “hell is other people” to touch on some of the main ideas of existentialism.
Nathan Wilson you have some great insight that I haven't yet got to yet it still opens my eyes to the special characteristics of this story line. Your quotes make me think that the fact that they are all in hell yet all deemed as murders connects to Camu and his argument that all humans are guilty, and it is just a fact of life that you have to accept it and move on. This to me sounds much like the absurd and how there is no point in hell and once they figure that out they would all then accept their fate, how they got there.
Nathan Wilson My group is very far behind the other, therefore we haven't noticed too many things different in the translations that would really impact our understanding of the play. However when looking at this play I've noticed some very interesting things.First when we were reading this play it seemed as though the characters could all have known each other in the real world. Sch as Garcin was a writer, Estelle died of pneumonia and Inez died to a gas stove. If you look at this carefully when Estelle first enters the room she sees that garcin has no face, later her and Inez talk about someone from the real world as though they both knew him. This made me think that Estelle killed someone, however Inez saw this take place and committed suicide because the person was close to her, and Garcin died to multiple gunshot wounds because he was writing a story on Estelle, later Estelle died from pneumonia after all the people that knew about her murder died. This scenario seemed very possible to my group and me, however when we asked it was deemed wrong. However this goes to show that the various methods that the writer used can throw people into various variations that move the reader away from the actual story line and makes the ending that much more of a shock. I've really noticed the techniques that the writer used and how they affect the mood and the symbolism surrounding the story.
Your analysis was quite intriguing! However, I don't think that these characters' past lives were related. Instead, I feel that Inez was grouped with Estelle and Garcin because of they way in which they view their situation. Based on the way that they care about how others view them, Estelle and Garcin have not embraced the true nature of their situation, therefore, haven't experienced the absolute freedom of the world. However, Inez seems to accept her situation as what it is. Perhaps by putting them in the same room, Garcin is able to do the same.
While reading the two translations of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, No Exit, it was noted that the French version includes the words to the song in which Inez sings. In the first verse, she says, “What a crowd in Whitefriars Lane! They’ve set trestles in a row,” (Sartre 18). At first, England’s Whitefriars Lane was known for its wealthy population, extravagant mansions, and luxurious shops. However, as time went on, it slowly transformed into a place for debtors, a thieves’ paradise, and a destination of constant war between neighboring regions. In relation to the book, Sartre reveals that most of these characters experienced absolute freedom in their previous lives, thus, implying that they lived like the people in the early years of Whitefriars lane. Although Garcin died from a firing squad, Inez by gas, and Estelle by pneumonia, they were still free to make decisions when they were actually living. For example, Estelle chose to drown her baby, and Garcin independently made the decision to desert the war. However, once they died, they were condemned to live with three other strangers in a room in Hell. In addition, despite spending a short amount of time with one another, tension quickly builds, for Garcin begins to resent the two women. With this kept in mind, Whitefriars Lane represents the slow confiscation of each of the characters’ freedom. As mentioned above, despite being free in the past, they are all now condemned to an afterlife in which most of the decisions are made for them. Then, in the second verse of the song, Inez sings, “The headsman rose at the crack of dawn, He’s a long day’s work in hand, Chopping heads off generals, Priests and peers and admiral” (18). Here, it seems as if Inez is referring to Garcin’s role in Hell. Throughout the play, he makes her and Estelle miserable by forcing them to reveal how they died, as well as making each character sit in separate corners in silence. Then, the song is finished with, “See them standing in line, Ladies all dressed up so fine. But their heads have got to go, Heads and hats roll down below. Come, good folks, to Whitefriars Lane, Come and see the merry show”(18). This quote reflects Estelle and Inez’s situation, and how despite worrying about their physical appearance, they can no longer look in a mirror to fix their makeup. Here, Sartre commentates on how one must not care about societal perception, and instead focus on self-perception. In regards to the English translation, the song is not included. Although I am not completely sure as to why this is, the translator of the book could have added the song from a cultural perspective. Since this version of the play was created in Europe, perhaps the readers could connect to the song and better understand the lives of these three characters. However, in the American version, perhaps the song wouldn’t have enhanced the story, therefore, was omitted.
At the end of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, No Exit, I was heavily intrigued by the symbolic nature of the paper-knife. When Garcin shows some interest in the object, the valet says, “Can’t you see it’s just an ordinary knife” (Sartre 7). Here, although the knife is introduced for the first time, it’s important to note how the attention of the audience is quickly brought back to the conversation between the two men. When I first read this part of the story, I was confused, for it’s strange how Sartre would interrupt the play for an ordinary household item. At this point, I thought that the implementation of this symbol at the very beginning of the plot was to foreshadow a future event in the story. Then, the paper-knife makes a return at the end of the play when Estelle, “picks up the paper-knife from the table, rushes at Inez and stabs her several times” (45). Here, the audience is finally able to recognize the symbolism of the knife, and how it contributes to the overall meaning of the story. According to the four fathers of existentialism article, Sartre believed that there is absolute freedom in the world, and how this freedom brings about anxiety and fear, thus influencing mankind’s behavior. Just as Camus, he thought that the world was futile, and how an individual should instead focus on evaluating how they interpret their own life. In regards to the story, paper knives are dull, therefore, can cause minimal harm to a person. With this kept in mind, along with the fact that all of the characters are dead, Estelle’s attempt to kill Inez was useless. This is synonymous with Sartre’s philosophy, for despite taking drastic measures, a person, such as Estelle, can’t change their situation. Additionally, I was surprised by the way in which Garcin refused the opportunity to escape Hell. Throughout the plot, the audience is informed that Garcin resents his two roommates, and doesn’t understand why they ended up in the same room. This is evident when he says, “So the solution’s easy enough; each of us stays put in his or her corner and takes no notice of the others. You here, you here, and I there. Like soldiers at our post” (). However, when given the chance to abandon his “post”, he decides to shut the door. Personally, I believe that he did this due to Inez’s crude comments. After asking whether or not he was a coward, Inez says, “Do you hear them muttering, Garcin? Mumbling and muttering. ‘Coward! Coward! Coward! Coward!’” (43). Perhaps Garcin does not escape Hell because he needs the approval of others in order to truly feel free.
Talia Jensen
ReplyDeleteLife and this earth is beautiful and humans make it sad. We are imperfect creatures but with the help of empathy and kindness, humans can experience beautiful moments.
Elizabeth Redmond
ReplyDeleteI believe that people are born to create their own meaning or reason for life. We all as humans are born with a completely clean slate. This isn't just a clean slate as in no one is born good or evil, but that we all are born with a path, or fate as you will, that is blank. As we develop from babies to children, from children to adolescents, and to adolescents to adults; our experiences and how we learn from those experiences, begins to outline not just who we are as people, but the paths best suit for us.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNixonism is the chief principle that every man, women, child and dog should follow blindly. This political philosophy empowers the idealization that politics is the highest influence and position that an individual can obtain. Plato, Hobbes, Jefferson (Not Marx; That guy is awful) are all prominent examples of ideals in which I am interested in. As Kennedy also believed, I believe every citizen should serve their country rather than have their country function for them. The social contract pertains to socioeconomic class and the primary role of government is to improve the standard of living of their citizens through whatever means necessary, granted the people work in conjunction. People are naturally curious and disorganized, but more productive cooperating together, specifically under government.
ReplyDeleteMany believe that life bears no meaning others think that life has meaning and was brought by an all powerful entity. My philosophy on life is that there is not meaning, we are made up from a large number of mistakes, but I think that someone can find their own meaning without the following of a god.
ReplyDeleteMy philosophy on life is a kind of optimistic nihilism, I guess. I think that because human existence is super fleeting, nothing really matters in the long run. But that doesn’t mean that there is no point in living. Just because everything is eventually going to end doesn’t mean that everyone should just stop living and wait for death! I think this should be taken as an opportunity to be unapologetically yourself, and to better yourself! Just because it doesn’t matter in the long run doesn’t mean life isn’t an opportunity to help yourself and the people around you to improve. Even if you leave an impression that disappears, what matters is that you still left an impression and helped uplift the people around you. I mean, just make the best out of the situation for your own health and the health of those around you. It’s not like there’s much else you can do!
ReplyDeleteMy philosophy on life completely contradicts the majority of the statements on the back of our calendar. First, “day to day existence” shouldn’t have to be filled with anxiety. Taking the time to appreciate the small things in life that you value is important, and while we might have some bad days, our fears and anxiety shouldn’t define our lives. Existence isn’t absurd, because while compared with the rest of the Earth, we may be just one person in a crowd of billions, but we still have our own lives, our own goals, and our own aspirations. Just because we can’t change the world doesn’t mean that we can’t change someone’s lives, or our own lives. Life doesn’t have a “true” meaning, because life means different things to different people. You can’t define life, that would be absurd. ‘Ultimately, I am alone in this world” is completely false. Everything that we experience day to day can define us, and the people that we meet in our lives could change them forever. We may be considered our own people, but it’s impossible for us to not be influenced by the people around us. In life, we shouldn’t be forced to make choices that are entirely for other people or entirely for us, because every situation is different. Sometimes you must sacrifice a little bit for others, and sometimes others will sacrifice for you. It’s also almost impossible to define “what’s best for others”, because we never know. We can’t predict the future. However, one thing that I agree with is that we are born without a preconceived personality. I believe that as we grow up, our environment and the people around us affects us and how our personalities and interests are cultivated. Ultimately, I think that people can reach a state of self-acceptance without having to shed all forms of morality and tradition, as each person has different standards of self-acceptance.
ReplyDeleteKevin Krenz
ReplyDeleteMy life philosophy is fairly simple. I don’t believe in any higher beliefs, nor superstitions such as fate determining our paths of life. I quite simply just believe that we have one life (although I really hope God lets me into heaven if it actually does exist). I believe that we should make the most of our lives by being both successful and happy, and passing on values down the family. Since we only have one life, it is important to live it well by being kind to others and allowing others to have pleasure in their lives as well, which at times can overrule personal priorities. Obviously this seems pretty simple and straight-forward, which is how it should be, because I believe it is important to be remembered as a good person who made something of his/her life and helped along others as well.
Your personal philosophy is quite intriguing! I also believe that life is meant to be lived to the fullest, and how humans should strive to be selfless. Personally, along with happiness and success, I feel that mankind must learn how to endure and adapt to physical and emotional hardships. This is because without them, people wouldn't be able to truly cherish the feelings of excitement or joyousness.
DeleteAs the youngest of three siblings, I have always possessed an insatiable desire to display a degree of superiority over my older brothers. Whether this was accomplished through sports, academics, or simply attaining new experiences, everything that we do ends up becoming a competition. With this being said, some may view sibling rivalries as a negative aspect of a child’s life that ruins the joyous years before the cutthroat nature of adulthood. However, while reflecting upon my current stage of life, I will openly admit that my brothers, along with the competitive environment throughout my childhood, has had a significant influence on who I am as a person. As a result, part of my personal philosophy is that one must remain optimistic and use their circumstances, whether favorable or not, to not only better themselves, but also those in their community. With this kept in mind, I strongly disagree with statement nine, which states, “Ultimately, I am alone in this world, alienated from everything that attempts to define me”. Throughout an individual's life, their parents, teachers, and other prominent figures have a profound impact on their upbringing. Whether they affect their life in a positive or negative manner, the wisdom or knowledge that is passed on will cause the person to act in a certain way. Additionally, if a person claims that they seek to prevent anyone from influencing their characteristics and morals, this assertion should be deemed highly unreasonable, for modern civilization is built upon human interactions. In terms of my situation, my brothers had a major impact on who I am as a person today. Although I am still trying to develop a concrete answers as to what my personal philosophy is, I also kind of agree with the statement, “Day to day existence is filled with a anxiety and fear”. Personally, I feel that human emotions heavily dictates one’s behavior, therefore, determines the components that define their qualities. With this being said, humans often seek aspect of their life that bring about joy. However, it’s important to note that in order to truly cherish the emotion of happiness, there must be experiences and conditions that exist in which instigate a sense of apprehension. As a result, I do agree that fear and anxiety exist in our everyday lives, but there also must be other emotions such as disarray and embarrassment. As a whole, when considering philosophies, it’s crucial to analyse the time in which the idea emerged from. For example, the conditions that influenced the creation of existentialism in the 19th and 20th century are much different than the ones that shaped my own beliefs.
ReplyDeleteTalia Jensen
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the list of philosophical statements, I must admit that none seem to correlate with what I believe about life and its mysteries. The majority of the statements felt pessimistic in a way to me, which is interesting and telling when I think about it. I do feel that this reveals much about my personal beliefs. There are certain ideas that I have put a lot of faith into throughout my life and I suppose I continue to do so because of the feelings of assurity and purpose that they provide to me and others. I will start off with a personal thought: I find life to be fascinating and beautiful in a sense. The earth, the way that animals and living things all work together, the cycles and functionings of nature, human relationships, emotions, the human body and mind, etc. are all things that cause me to ponder questions such as: why is this all happening? Is there purpose in these things? Is this life a testament of something bigger? Was this all an accident? I personally choose to have faith that there is purpose in this life. I believe that there are too many coincidences for this to all be a worthless accident. I believe that that there is great relevance in the fact that we all have free will. We have the ability to choose our own paths. From history and from life experience, I feel like I can confidently say that there are some better paths than others because some lead to feelings of joy and accomplishment, and others lead to depression and despair. I also choose to believe that the negative experiences we have are put in place to provide learning experiences, as well as to enhance the positivity generated from the happier times. I feel that in this life, we are here to ponder and search for those things that feel “true” and “happy.” The fact that humans are born with innate behaviours of empathy is a testament of the importance in having other people in our lives who we can share experiences with, learn things with, serve, and search with. From an honest and psychological point of view, I keep the idea that there is more to life after death close to my heart because it provides comfort and feelings of relief. I search for guidance, love, purpose, and comfort and I have found these things in my religion, in the people i surround myself with, and in the beautiful scenery on this planet.
Kevin KRezn
ReplyDeleteThrough his essay, the Myth of Sisyphus, I believe Albert Camus attempts to demonstrate the worthless nature of life. He is essentially stating that the only way to take solace in life is by accepting and acknowledging its worthlessness, which he describes through the analogy of Sisyphus, when Sisyphus has pushed the rock all the way up the hill and pauses to turn around and realize he has to push the rock all the way back up after it tumbles down again. “At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to fate.” Through this quote, Camus immediately identifies his opinion of free will and the absurdity of fate. He believes that only acknowledging our continuous, futile cycle of life we will realize that we are truly the God of our own actions- there is no higher belief, and no meaning to life. This is why Camus believes Sisyphus is happy- because during these pauses he is acknowledges the worthlessness of his actions, which sets him aside from all of the living folk who still believe in a meaning in their lives.
This idea can be put into play in our modern day society, relating to Sisyphus’ plight through everyone’s daily agendas. In my case, this is going to school every day. However, my view significantly differs from the super depressing Camus view, as I don’t necessarily see school as a punishment (sometimes). Instead, I know that it will help along my success in my future. Nonetheless, it is an idea to think about, seeing as life as a whole may just be a cycle of nothingness. I prefer not to think about that because I don't think I want to be depressed every day.
Kevin Krenz
DeleteYour analysis was quite intriguing! I also found that Camus’ essay, The Myth of Sisyphus, demonstrates the worthless nature of life. However, I would like to argue that instead of causing an individuals to act “depressed everyday”, absurdism provides people with the opportunity to reflect upon their situation and interpret their life however they want. For example, Camus mentions, “It is during the return, the pause, that Sisyphus interests me...that is the hour of consciousness”. Here, by embracing the situations in which the Gods had condemned him to, Sisyphus is able to rid of the hope that had once made his life so dreary, thus, allowing him to be “happy”.
DeleteIn his novel, The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus exhibits the existential concept of absurdism, and how mankind’s search for meaning and order is futile, for life itself is fruitless. According to the myth, Sisyphus, the king of Corinth, was marked by his great wisdom and intelligence. However, after being convicted for chaining death, exchanging Zeus’ secrets for water, and using his deceitful nature to escape Hades’ grasp, Sisyphus was forced to endure a life full of pain and suffering. Due to his great appreciation for the, “curve of the gulf, the sparkling sea, and the smiles of earth”, and his lack of respect for the Gods, Sisyphus was condemned to roll a rock up a hill for the rest of eternity. According to Camus, “It is during the return, that pause, that Sisyphus interests me...that is the hour of consciousness”. In modern society, humans will often take drastic measures to avoid having to experience a repetitive act of misery, such as pushing a rock up a hill after watching it plunge back down. As Camus asserts, an individual can escape futile acts of adversity by committing philosophical suicide, physical suicide, or accepting the natural ways of the universe. Out of these three options, this French philosopher rejected the first two, for he believed that they are attempts to escape from the absurd, not overcome it. However, as Sisyphus exhibits, a “freed” individual embodies and acknowledges the truth of the absurd, and embraces the freedom that it bestows upon mankind. In regards to the idea of one’s conscious, Camus implies that when Sisyphus takes a moment to reflect on his situation, he is able to choose how to interpret his life. In other words, despite not being able to change the circumstances in which the Gods had condemned him to, or the inherent meaningless nature of his life, Sisyphus's conscious demonstrates that, “His fate belongs to himself”. According to Camus, “When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy arises in a man’s heart: this is the rock’s victory, this the rock itself”. In spite of this, since Sisyphus is able to embrace the futile meaning of life, and has abandoned the hope that had once made his life so dreary, he is the “absurd hero”, thus, is truly happy. In order to effectively illustrate the concept of absurdism, Camus employs the allusion of Oedipus. In this tragic story, Oedipus Rex was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. However, despite blinding himself with sorrow, Oedipus state that, “...all is well”. In direct relation to Sisyphus, Oedipus is able to accept his suffering, thus, has embraced his fate and lives a “joyous” life.
ReplyDeleteWow, very articulate Zac! You did a great job interpreting Camus philosophy. I wrote my blogpost on the moment of time Sisyphus has to think about his life on the way down the hill as well. The thing I would love to hear your opinion on is do you think there are moments in our lives where we experience "repetitive acts of misery"? Like how some people work unimportant jobs they hate every day, or how we're required to take classes we hate. Is Camus comparing our misery to Sisyphus'?
Delete“Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of success upheld him?”
ReplyDeleteI think this quote is interesting because it brings up a very specific point. If Sisyphus wholeheartedly believed every action he made brought him closer to finally pushing the boulder to the top of the hill, he will never have to feel the crushing disappointment of watching the rock fall all the way back down to the bottom of the hill. In this sense, it seems like the gods’ punishment for Sisyphus is not the physical strain of pushing the boulder up the hill, but the sense of absolute hopelessness when he sees the boulder fall back down, and the misery he feels walking all the way back down the hill, just to start again. Camus then goes on to talk about how the workingman is comparable to Sisyphus, in that they would also do the same tasks every day of his life and somehow still manage to achieve nothing. I think that this is a very interesting concept, because, paraphrasing Camus, Sisyphus only really begins to “become conscious” of the hopelessness of his situation on the way back down the hill. While he’s pushing the boulder, he doesn’t have time to think about it. On his way down, that’s when the torture really begins. So you may ask yourself, why doesn’t Sisyphus just stop trying to push the rock up the hill? Well, Camus answers that too. Pushing the rock up the hill is a compulsion for Sisyphus, and because his compulsory fate of pushing and falling and pushing and falling is so absurd, Sisyphus learns to accept this and may even be considered to be happy. And that’s what Camus is trying to say about the workingmen of the world. Why do you go to work today? Well, because once you accept the absurdity of a fate in which you go and do meaningless tasks for meaningless pieces of paper to buy meaningless things, you can be happy in your limited existence, just like Sisyphus. At least, that’s what I think Camus is trying to say!
Elizabeth Redmond
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the philosophical statements, I feel as though there are parts of existentialism that I agree with and parts I do not. Especially after reading Camus' essay on the myth of Sisyphus. I agree in the freedom of man and the responsibilities that come with it. I believe that we as humans are born to make our own purpose in life. I even believe in the acceptance of the human condition and the situations in which we find ourselves in. But where I seem to differ from existentialism and Camus' argument, is that once you accept situation that is unjust, action must be done to change it. Reasonably, Sisyphus' punishment for the wrongs he had caused towards the gods and maybe even for tricking his wife, but to say he is a universal icon for the working class of the world would be wrong. Although according to existentialism, no one is free of guilt, what makes the entire world population of the working class punishable, and the white collars free of the same condemnations?
Your analysis was quite intriguing! I also agree that humans must embrace the absolute freedom in the world, and use it to establish their own purposes in life. However, I would like to argue that Sisyphus can be seen as a universal figure for the working class. In today's world, whether an individual enjoys their profession or not, there are certain aspects of work that are viewed in a negative manner. However, they are completed because money is a part of society that most would argue one could not live without. With this being said, Sisyphus was forced to push a rock up a hill for eternity. Despite being a strenuous task, as he reflects upon his situation at the top of the hill, he is truly able to complete the task without feeling displeasure. As a result, Sisyphus is seen as a universal icon, for individuals can learn form his actions and rid of any negative thoughts they may feel towards a certain aspect of their own lives.
DeleteWhile reading Jean-Paul Sartre's play, No Exit, my group had an intriguing conversation regarding the symbolic nature of the doorbell and eyelids. After Garcin asks, ‘“And if I ring, you’re bound to come?’”, the valet replies with, ‘“Well, yes, that’s so-in a way. But you can never be sure about that bell. There’s something wrong with the wiring, and it doesn’t always work” (Sartre 7). In the four fathers of existentialism article, it states that Sartre believed that there was absolute freedom in the world, and how this freedom brings about anxiety and fear, thus, influencing mankind’s behavior. With this, he argued that individuals must relieve themselves from the order and purpose that religion provides in one’s life, and instead, accept this inherent nature of the world. In regards to the quotes above, doorbells are utilized to call an individual's attention in hopes of seeking assistance. However, Garcin tries to ring the bell multiple times, but is met with disappointment and loneliness. In regards to Sartre’s argument, Garcin hasn’t recognized the independent nature of mankind, therefore, seeks assistance and order, which in this case is from the valet. However, by not receiving help, Sartre emphasizes the point that individuals can only truly be “freed” when they embrace the absolute freedom of the world. This also connects to Camus’ argument on how life is futile, and that humans should embrace the liberation that absurdism bestows upon their lives. In terms of the characters in No Exit, despite continuing to seek order and help by ringing the bell, their efforts are useless. Furthermore, while speaking to the valet, Garcin notes, “‘Your eyelids. We move ours up and down. Blinking, we call it. It’s like a small black shutter that clicks down and makes a break. Everything goes black; one’s eyes are moistened. You can’t imagine how restful, refreshing, it is. Four thousand little rests per hour. Four thousand little respites-just think!’” (5-6). Here, Garcin develops a sense of unease after discovering that the valet does not have eyelids. Once again, this aspect of the plot supports Camus and Sartre’s theory that individuals will try to shield away the absurdism or absolute freedom in society. In this case, the valet, who doesn’t have any eyelids, can never shut his eyes, therefore, truly understands the crude nature of society. However, for Garcin, since he cherishes his “good nights” and “happy little dreams”, he has developed a false perception of mankind. One part of the play that I found interesting was the paper knife. Although the valet acts as if it is an “ordinary” item to possess, I have a strong feeling that Sartre is foreshadowing a significant event in the future.
ReplyDeleteYour connections between Camus' and Sartre's previous works is really interesting! I think that these details such as the eyelids is a really subtle yet strong point that creates a tone of uneasiness and disconnection from falsehoods. This detail also made me wonder, since Garcin seemed so insistent on the pleasantries of "happy little dreams", is life without any breaks considered a hell for a person?
DeleteSomething that I noticed that I thought was interesting about Jean Paul Sartre’s No Exit was the juxtaposition between the valet and Garcin in the beginning. The valet has already shed his connection with humanity, by asking Garcin “So you haven’t gotten over your-what-do-you-call-it?-Sense of human dignity? (4).” What intrigues me about this is the strained lack of apathy felt by the valet as he attempts to answer Garcin’s questions about his “room” such as “But after a bit, when they’ve got their nerve back, they start in about their toothbrushes and what-not….What, I ask you, would be the point of brushing your teeth? (4).” These quotes stuck out to me as I felt that they really emphasized the state of existentialism before a person accepts the absurd. By this statement, I mean that Garcin feels inner turmoil and rage at being stuck in this hotel room after his death, so he attempts to keep some semblance of humanity to maintain his dignity and his past life. However, I believe Sartre is trying to make a subtle point of Garcin’s suffering here, implying that clinging onto society’s expectations will only hurt you more and drag you down, rather than letting go of society and accepting the absurd.
ReplyDeleteWow Prim, great analysis! I think it could also be interpreted that the Valet is portrayed that way because he and Garcin are on different social levels. One is a bellboy, the other is a man in hell. I think it's interesting because in the play, the roles are actually reversed. The bellboy, who is meant to be demure because they are of a different social class, is actually in a higher position than Garcin. I think this reversal of social roles in the play are interesting! Great job!
DeleteTalia Jensen
DeleteFabulous commentary Prim! I agree that these residents of hell are all trying to hold on to their previous lives in their own way. They are seeking for opportunities or experiences that resemble what they used to have. They search for companionship or independence. They search for solutions, which seems to be a pointless strategy in their never ending hellish fate.
Talia Jensen
ReplyDeleteJean Paul Sartre’s theatrical works are filled and interlaced with existentialist ideas and customs that explore human existence and what life means. The beginning of the play is engulfed in descriptions of the scene’s setting, which reveals the fact that the scene’s setting is a large part of the play. The room is described as, “A drawing room in Second Empire style. A massive bronze ornament stands on the mantelpiece” (Satre, 3). The room is envisioned as an elegant place of hobby and the arts, including a statue of bronze. Metal-related diction is used several times throughout the story. A man named Garcin and Valet are conversing about this seemingly “new” environment. He explains, “...why should one want to see oneself in a looking-glass? But that bronze contraption on the mantlepiece, that’s another story. I suppose there will be times when I stare my eyes out at it...A bronze atrocity by-what’s the fellow’s name? - Barbedienne. A collector’s piece” (Satre, 4-5) Throughout this passage, one learns more about what exactly is going and why these two men are in a drawing room. First, Garcin mentions the idea of looking at oneself in a mirror. He questions as to why it should be done, which can allude to the fact that he himself finds it difficult to do so. This implies that he has done something or has a quality that he finds difficult to cope with. He quickly changes the focus in to this distinct bronze statue. The fact that he focuses only on one little accessory of the room and that he will “stare at it” reveals that this room has great relevance to him, almost as if this is where he lives now. He calls the ornament as “bronze atrocity”, which reveals his distaste for the drawing room, and possibly art itself. This could reveal that he immediately dislikes his surroundings, although he has just arrived. The focus on “bronze” and the famous metalworker Ferdinand Barbedienne gives the writing a “hard” and “strict tone” to Garcin’s character and the scene he is in.
My group didn’t talk about anything, as we just read the play, but one thing I wanted to talk about was how the American play uses a lot of slang words and colloquial diction, in contrast to the French play, which has a lot of formal words. One reason that this might have happened is because they might have wanted the American audiences to better understand the play and how the Bell Boy is of a lower class than the rest of the cast and crew. They may have also used slang in the American version to help the audience relate to the characters and see them as people they could have known.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis was quite intriguing! I also agree that the English version might have used slang in order for the audience to better relate to all of the characters. To build upon your ideas, this concept is further supported by the omission of the words to Inez's song in the English version. When Garcin tells the two women to sit in each corner in silence, Inez sings, "What a crowd in Whitefriars Lane! They’ve set trestles in a row” (Sartre 18). In this quote, Whitefrairs Lane refers to a place in England filled with thieves, debtors, and violence, therefore, symbolizing the lack of freedom in Hell. Perhaps these lines were taken out of the packet's version, for the American audience wouldn't be a able to make connections.
DeleteTalia Jensen
ReplyDeleteNow that the room is properly packed with the right residents, the conflict begins. Sartre's utilizes the juxtaposition between Garcin, Estelle, and Inez to establish the theme that “hell is other people” and create a tone of tension and hostility. After revealing to each other their faults and misfortunes, one sees the differences and similarities between the iconic trio. Despite the contrast between characters, Inez sticks them all in the same category by saying, “ Yes, we are criminals - murderers - all three of us. We’re in hell, my pets; they never make mistakes, and people aren’t damned for nothing” (Sartre, 16). To contrast Ines, Estelle and Garcin react with expressions of horror. Estelle exclaims, “Keep quiet! I forbid you to use such disgusting words” (Sartre, 17), and Garcin expresses, “[raising his fist]: Will you keep your mouth shut…” (Sartre, 17). The secretive and harsh diction, such as “damned”, “hell”, “quiet”, “disgusting”, “mouth shut”, reflects the characters dispositions in hell and what they are each internally dealing with. Although they are stuck in a room together, they are individuals with dark secrets that they want to keep hidden and close. Inez reacts to Estelle and Garcin’s demands, she confronts them: “....Ah, I understand now. I know why they’ve put us three together...We’ll stay in this room together, the three of us, for ever and ever….In short, there’s someone absent here, the official torturer….I mean that each of us will act as torturer of the two others” (Sartre, 17). Inez, potentially out of pure anger and frustration, uses hyperbolic diction, like “for ever and ever” to express the panic and discomfort that they inevitable feel,being in hell and such. Inez describes that she speculates that instead of being tortured and mutilated by a devil, it will simply take the company of others to drive each other. Sartre uses the theme that “hell is other people” to touch on some of the main ideas of existentialism.
Nathan Wilson
Deleteyou have some great insight that I haven't yet got to yet it still opens my eyes to the special characteristics of this story line. Your quotes make me think that the fact that they are all in hell yet all deemed as murders connects to Camu and his argument that all humans are guilty, and it is just a fact of life that you have to accept it and move on. This to me sounds much like the absurd and how there is no point in hell and once they figure that out they would all then accept their fate, how they got there.
Nathan Wilson
ReplyDeleteMy group is very far behind the other, therefore we haven't noticed too many things different in the translations that would really impact our understanding of the play. However when looking at this play I've noticed some very interesting things.First when we were reading this play it seemed as though the characters could all have known each other in the real world. Sch as Garcin was a writer, Estelle died of pneumonia and Inez died to a gas stove. If you look at this carefully when Estelle first enters the room she sees that garcin has no face, later her and Inez talk about someone from the real world as though they both knew him. This made me think that Estelle killed someone, however Inez saw this take place and committed suicide because the person was close to her, and Garcin died to multiple gunshot wounds because he was writing a story on Estelle, later Estelle died from pneumonia after all the people that knew about her murder died. This scenario seemed very possible to my group and me, however when we asked it was deemed wrong. However this goes to show that the various methods that the writer used can throw people into various variations that move the reader away from the actual story line and makes the ending that much more of a shock. I've really noticed the techniques that the writer used and how they affect the mood and the symbolism surrounding the story.
Your analysis was quite intriguing! However, I don't think that these characters' past lives were related. Instead, I feel that Inez was grouped with Estelle and Garcin because of they way in which they view their situation. Based on the way that they care about how others view them, Estelle and Garcin have not embraced the true nature of their situation, therefore, haven't experienced the absolute freedom of the world. However, Inez seems to accept her situation as what it is. Perhaps by putting them in the same room, Garcin is able to do the same.
DeleteWhile reading the two translations of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, No Exit, it was noted that the French version includes the words to the song in which Inez sings. In the first verse, she says, “What a crowd in Whitefriars Lane! They’ve set trestles in a row,” (Sartre 18). At first, England’s Whitefriars Lane was known for its wealthy population, extravagant mansions, and luxurious shops. However, as time went on, it slowly transformed into a place for debtors, a thieves’ paradise, and a destination of constant war between neighboring regions. In relation to the book, Sartre reveals that most of these characters experienced absolute freedom in their previous lives, thus, implying that they lived like the people in the early years of Whitefriars lane. Although Garcin died from a firing squad, Inez by gas, and Estelle by pneumonia, they were still free to make decisions when they were actually living. For example, Estelle chose to drown her baby, and Garcin independently made the decision to desert the war. However, once they died, they were condemned to live with three other strangers in a room in Hell. In addition, despite spending a short amount of time with one another, tension quickly builds, for Garcin begins to resent the two women. With this kept in mind, Whitefriars Lane represents the slow confiscation of each of the characters’ freedom. As mentioned above, despite being free in the past, they are all now condemned to an afterlife in which most of the decisions are made for them. Then, in the second verse of the song, Inez sings, “The headsman rose at the crack of dawn, He’s a long day’s work in hand, Chopping heads off generals, Priests and peers and admiral” (18). Here, it seems as if Inez is referring to Garcin’s role in Hell. Throughout the play, he makes her and Estelle miserable by forcing them to reveal how they died, as well as making each character sit in separate corners in silence. Then, the song is finished with, “See them standing in line, Ladies all dressed up so fine. But their heads have got to go, Heads and hats roll down below. Come, good folks, to Whitefriars Lane, Come and see the merry show”(18). This quote reflects Estelle and Inez’s situation, and how despite worrying about their physical appearance, they can no longer look in a mirror to fix their makeup. Here, Sartre commentates on how one must not care about societal perception, and instead focus on self-perception. In regards to the English translation, the song is not included. Although I am not completely sure as to why this is, the translator of the book could have added the song from a cultural perspective. Since this version of the play was created in Europe, perhaps the readers could connect to the song and better understand the lives of these three characters. However, in the American version, perhaps the song wouldn’t have enhanced the story, therefore, was omitted.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play, No Exit, I was heavily intrigued by the symbolic nature of the paper-knife. When Garcin shows some interest in the object, the valet says, “Can’t you see it’s just an ordinary knife” (Sartre 7). Here, although the knife is introduced for the first time, it’s important to note how the attention of the audience is quickly brought back to the conversation between the two men. When I first read this part of the story, I was confused, for it’s strange how Sartre would interrupt the play for an ordinary household item. At this point, I thought that the implementation of this symbol at the very beginning of the plot was to foreshadow a future event in the story. Then, the paper-knife makes a return at the end of the play when Estelle, “picks up the paper-knife from the table, rushes at Inez and stabs her several times” (45). Here, the audience is finally able to recognize the symbolism of the knife, and how it contributes to the overall meaning of the story. According to the four fathers of existentialism article, Sartre believed that there is absolute freedom in the world, and how this freedom brings about anxiety and fear, thus influencing mankind’s behavior. Just as Camus, he thought that the world was futile, and how an individual should instead focus on evaluating how they interpret their own life. In regards to the story, paper knives are dull, therefore, can cause minimal harm to a person. With this kept in mind, along with the fact that all of the characters are dead, Estelle’s attempt to kill Inez was useless. This is synonymous with Sartre’s philosophy, for despite taking drastic measures, a person, such as Estelle, can’t change their situation. Additionally, I was surprised by the way in which Garcin refused the opportunity to escape Hell. Throughout the plot, the audience is informed that Garcin resents his two roommates, and doesn’t understand why they ended up in the same room. This is evident when he says, “So the solution’s easy enough; each of us stays put in his or her corner and takes no notice of the others. You here, you here, and I there. Like soldiers at our post” (). However, when given the chance to abandon his “post”, he decides to shut the door. Personally, I believe that he did this due to Inez’s crude comments. After asking whether or not he was a coward, Inez says, “Do you hear them muttering, Garcin? Mumbling and muttering. ‘Coward! Coward! Coward! Coward!’” (43). Perhaps Garcin does not escape Hell because he needs the approval of others in order to truly feel free.
ReplyDelete