Kierkegaard's Influence On The Existentialist
Melinda MacInnis
Professor Santos
Expository Writing
3 May 2010
Kierkegaard’s Influence on the Existentialists Known as the “father of existentialism,” Kierkegaard’s works emphasize mankind’s despair. In his book The Sickness Unto Death, published in 1849, Kierkegaard attempts to show how one is lost without God, and how one’s separation from God leads to sin or despair. Though Kierkegaard did incorporate the notions of God and sin into his works, his philosophy is still existential and influenced later existentialists, such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, who were atheists. Existentialism emphasizes mankind’s state of being, and their need to explain the world around them, while at the same time not understanding it. This idea led to absurdism which stresses the absurdity that exists between man and the world. The …show more content…
philosophies of existentialism and absurdism influenced many modern and post modern authors, such as Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco, who picked up existential and absurd themes in their work, especially the ideas of the absurd and of the individual. Though existential works do not give answers, they help the reader understand their absurdity and help them deal better in a confusing world. Kierkegaard emphasizes despair as something not separate from one’s being. It is this emphasis on mankind’s state of being that led to existential thought. Later, Camus also emphasizes despair as a human state of being. Both identify this despair (or absurdity) as the consciousness of death. Kierkegaard attributed this despair to sin. According to Kierkegaard, this despair or sin comes from one’s separation from God. Kierkegaard states that one becomes despondent when one believes that the universe cannot be explained as a creation of God, which is existential. Kierkegaard, though, also posits that the disbelief in God is faulty reasoning, whereas later existentialists, like Camus, believe that the world truly cannot be explained by humans. Kierkegaard believes that one could be cured of their despair or sin through God, or more specifically, through Christianity, whereas no man can be cured of his absurdity, except through death, according to Camus. Kierkegaard defines the “sickness unto death” as a rejection of the belief that life is everlasting. Put plainly, Kierkegaard calls the denial of Christian doctrine a sickness, the sickness which causes despair. This sickness is not of the body or mind, but of the spirit (Kierkegaard 57). Those who do not believe in Christian doctrine are therefore unaware of their sickness—of their despair. Those who are aware of their despair can be cured, and so, according to Kierkegaard, it is better for one to be in despair and realize it (Kierkegaard 56). Kierkegaard, then, believed that one could be cured of their despair, whereas later existentialists did not hold this to be true. Kierkegaard defines the self as consciousness. This idea has become a basic existential thought: that human beings are beings existing, and that is all. As consciousness rises, so does one’s despair. One who is unaware of their despair is of the most common form of despair, according to Kierkegaard (75). Even though one may not be aware of their despair—they still despair. This despair lies underneath and can at any time arise and manifest itself with a “quake” (Kierkegaard 74). When describing the self, Kierkegaard makes another one of his leaps when he states that one cannot become a full self until one can answer directly to God, or to at least have the “concept” of God (Hannay 7). Though Kierkegaard believes that God was necessary in order to become a self, it is his stress on the individual that makes his philosophy existential. Kierkegaard, like later existentialists, valued the individual and warned against conformity. The self, when in despair, may notice the “multitude of people around it,” (Kierkegaard 63) and may forget himself and find that “being himself [is] too risky,” and that “it much easier and safer to be like others, to become a copy, a number, along with the crowd” (Kierkegaard 64). To do this, though, is to be in despair. One will lose oneself, and may become a “pawn” (Kierkegaard 65) to the world. Even if such an action leads to wealth and success, one will be without a self, and therefore be in despair. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the individual is important to his philosophy. Kierkegaard did believe that the self requires God, but he also shows that to become a self requires a self-exploration, which cannot be obtained through a church. To be a self, first one must look inside one’s self, and resist the urge to conform to a larger group. Kierkegaard explains that the self may become lost when it loses its balance between the possibility and the necessity (66). If one becomes focused only on the possible, then one will run after the possible and lose one’s self while doing so. Kierkegaard likens this to the common scene in fairy-tales where the knight chases a bird into the forest, eventually becoming lost because of it. Kierkegaard also warns against not looking at the possible at all and only focusing on the necessity. Kierkegaard describes this individual as one who “pursues with melancholic love one of dread’s possibilities, which in the end takes him away from himself, so he perishes in the dread” (67). Camus will later state that focusing on life’s meaninglessness will bring about suicide, but revolting will make life worth living. Kierkegaard explains that one needs God because in God all is possible. God is therefore both the possible and the necessity. Man is limited, and so, for man alone, salvation is not possible. Salvation is possible through God, however, and so one needs faith (Kierkegaard 70). Though Kierkegaard does make leaps in his philosophy in order to include God, his ideas were revolutionary for the time. Living during a time where the church was the center of everything, one could not expect Kierkegaard to completely reject God in his philosophy. As time progressed, other philosophers, such as Camus and Sartre, picked up where Kierkegaard left off, describing the self without God or the concept of sin. Albert Camus’ essay “The Myth of Sisyphus,” concerns the most important philosophical question: that of suicide. The absurd world is devoid of meaning, and therefore makes it seem that life is not worth living. In Camus’ essay, he explains why suicide is not the logical answer. Camus begins by defining the absurd. Camus ends his essay by describing the absurd hero: Sisyphus, who is condemned to roll a rock up a mountain for all eternity. The absurd exists not in man or in the world, but with the two existing together (Camus 17). Man first realizes his absurdity when he sees the disconnection between his self and his life. Camus describes this as the difference between the actor and the setting. When one first comes to this realization, one contemplates suicide (Camus 5). This also leads one to revolt against one’s flesh, which is the absurd. The world becomes absurd when things are no longer attributed to God, which makes it unrecognizable and strange. This comes from man’s need to understand the world, to see it in human terms. Man wants the universe to “love” and to “suffer” as man does. When one comes to the realization that it does not, life may seem meaningless (Camus 8-10). People, according to Camus, pretend “to believe that refusing to grant a meaning to life necessarily leads to declaring that it is not worth living” (6). Camus argues against this. Camus agrees with Heidegger on the point that man’s consciousness is not separate from his anxiety, which Camus calls the absurd. This anxiety or absurdity is the consciousness of death (Camus 14). Camus rejects other philosophers, such as Kierkegaard, because they make leaps in their philosophies in order to include God. Kierkegaard, according to Camus, needs to be “cured in his frenzied wish,” his wish for there to be a God, an order (Camus 21). Though Camus disagrees with Kierkegaard’s notions of a God, he agrees with Kierkegaard that despair comes from a separation. Kierkegaard believes this separation is between man and God, while Camus states that this despair, or absurdity, comes from one’s separation from the universe (McGregor) and his no longer attributing the world to a creator. Camus comes to the conclusion that the realization of the absurd does not require suicide, but revolt. It is the revolt that makes life worth living. This revolt is man’s realization of his “crushing fate” without resigning to it (Camus 28). As Camus states, “The point is to live” (Camus 34). Like Kierkegaard, Camus warns against focusing on the negative, but instead emphasizes the positives that life has to offer, though, according to Camus, life in itself is meaningless. In Camus’ final chapter, he describes the absurd hero: Sisyphus. In Greek mythology, Sisyphus put Death in chains so that no man needed to die. Death eventually escapes, and when Sisyphus is to die, he finds a way to evade it. The Gods capture Sisyphus and condemn him to live all of eternity by rolling a big rock up a mountain, which, when it reaches the top, rolls back down. Sisyphus must continue rolling the rock up the mountain forever (Camus 36). Sisyphus is the absurd hero. He has such passion for life and a hatred for death; he is willing to live even when he knows that life is meaningless. But, Camus concludes, “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy” (Camus 37). One can be happy while still being aware of one’s absurdity and life can have meaning, if one gives it meaning. Though Camus seems to reject some existential philosophers, his own philosophy is quite existential. Camus states that “I can say…that this heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction” (11). This is the basis for later existential thought. Camus’ concern with suicide is important because those who do accept existential or absurdist views of the world may be inclined to believe that life is not worth living. The connection Camus makes to the Myth of Sisyphus and mankind in general is a powerful statement of humanity, of man’s will to live despite everything. In 1946, four years after Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” was published, Jean-Paul Sartre gave a lecture defending existentialism. In Sartre’s lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sartre explains existentialism as fundamentally optimistic in its view of human beings. Existentialism does not, as Christians claim, emphasize mankind’s “evil” side, but instead emphasizes human choice. Sartre explains: Indeed their [Christians’] excessive protests make me suspect that what is annoying them is not so much our pessimism, but, much more likely, our optimism. For at bottom, what is alarming in the doctrine that I am about to try to explain to you is – is it not? – that it confronts man with a possibility of choice (“Existentialism”).
Sartre, then, shows that Christians during that time did not really find fault with the philosophy’s pessimism, but rather its emphasis on a human being’s freedom, their freedom from God, therefore giving a human being choice. Though Sartre was an atheist, his philosophy does contain some of Kierkegaard’s thoughts. Kierkegaard also emphasizes a human’s choice. A person is capable of becoming a self or not, or becoming an individual or not, all based on their choices. A person is not born an individual, according to Kierkegaard, nor are they born a self. As Sartre explains, what makes something existential is simple—that “existence comes before essence” (“Existentialism”). Sartre believes that one becomes something through their choice, that one defines one’s self. One does not come from God’s conception, but rather becomes what one chooses to be. Sartre explains that despair comes from, what Heidegger calls “abandonment,” or the realization that God does not exist. Because a man is responsible for defining himself and deciding right and wrong (as God does not exist and therefore no such morals exist beyond humans), he in turn becomes responsible for defining right and wrong for all of humanity. Sartre explains that each person must choose the best way to live, and in living in this way, a person will be making a statement about the best way for all to live. Sartre’s philosophy is Kantian in that he believes each person should “fashion” themselves as how they believe each man should be. In this way, existentialism is not anarchic, as many Christians have accused it of being. Though existentialism does state that everything is permitted; an individual would choose the best way to live for themselves, as well as for all of humanity (“Existentialism”). Sartre goes on to describe existential fiction and its place in defining existentialism. Sartre, an existential author himself, explains that existential fiction portrays “evil” or “cowardly” characters, though these characters are not shown to be victims of forces beyond their control. These characters are often shown to be responsible for their own cowardice or moral degradation, highlighting a person’s ability to choose who they are (“Existentialism”). Alastair Hannay states, in his introduction to The Sickness Unto Death: “There is no doubt that Kierkegaard saw his own mission as a writer as that of assisting his readers to the consciousness of their own despair” (6). Though Kierkegaard had the agenda of pushing Christianity, later existentialist philosophers and authors had a similar mission: to help their readers understand their place in the world. Camus wanted to convince his readers that life is worth living even when it is meaningless. Existential authors such as Samuel Beckett, Jean-Paul Sartre and Eugene Ionesco wanted to show through their literature the dangers of living without understanding that the world is absurd. Absurdist authors, then, present absurdity through drama, short stories and novels. Though themes of hopelessness are present in many of these works, there is optimism in them, too. These writers emphasized freedom—freedom from a God or any restrictive force. They also stress individualism and the dangers of giving up one’s individuality. Absurd works of literature portray worlds that do not make sense, and contain characters that are often lost and confused.
Jean-Paul Sartre presents a world like this in his play No Exit, which premiered in 1944. The three characters go through a cycle of mentally torturing each other, miserable in each other’s company. Garcin is desperate to leave, though he believes he is trapped in the room with Estelle and Inez forever. When he becomes completely overwhelmed, he tries to open the door and finds that after much pushing it opens: “Inez: ‘Well, Garcin? You’re free to go.’ Garcin [meditatively]: ‘Now I wonder why that door opened.’ Inez: ‘What are you waiting for? Hurry up and go.’ Garcin: ‘I shall not go.’ Inez: ‘And you, Estelle?’ [Estelle does not move]” (Sartre 42). One would expect that Garcin would leave, and would be overjoyed at finding out that there really is an escape, where before he believed there to be none—and yet Garcin stays. Garcin and Estelle recall Kierkegaard’s idea of becoming lost in the melancholy, of forgetting the “possible” and only looking at life’s “necessity,” therefore becoming engrossed in
despair. One of the best known examples of an absurd work is Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, which premiered eight years after No Exit. Waiting for Godot presents two characters struggling to make time pass more quickly. The world that Beckett presents is absurd: the two tramps do nothing but wait, and cannot even remember why they are waiting for Godot, or who Godot even is. Vladimir and Estragon seem trapped and lost in this world, unable to leave it. What makes it absurd is that the two are capable of leaving, constantly make the choice to leave, and yet stay: “Vladimir: ‘Well? Shall we go?’ Estragon: ‘Yes, let’s go.’ They do not move” (Beckett 476). Beckett’s characters recall Kierkegaard’s idea of becoming lost in the possible. They wait for the possible, waiting to see what Godot “has to offer” (Beckett 381) becoming lost in the possible, and are therefore in despair. According to Kierkegaard, one must take action in order to eliminate one’s despair. Estragon and Vladimir take no action but only wait for things to happen. Camus also states that for life to have meaning, one must “revolt,” which again requires action. In both plays, the characters are trapped in an absurd world, seemingly unable to leave. According to Camus and other absurdists, there is no escaping the absurd world. As Camus states, the absurd world is absurd because it does not have any meaning, and human beings cannot make sense of it. Though absurdists held this to be true, they also emphasized the fact that human beings still have a conscious choice. Vladimir and Estragon, as well as Garcin and Estelle have the ability to leave. There are no outside forces keeping them where they are. No Exit’s setting, hell, would lead one to expect there to be an outside force entrapping the characters, and yet they are free to go. The characters entrap themselves. Vladimir and Estragon stay in their misery for the hope of something that will never come. Garcin and Estelle stay because they need others for reinforcement, Garcin needing Inez to convince him that he is not a coward, and Estelle needing a man to convince her that she is desirable. The existentialists stressed individualism and warned against giving up one’s individuality to another. Being an individual does not come naturally, and one must work against the institution in order to be an individual. As Thomas R. Flynn states, in his book Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction: “Because of the almost irresistible pull toward conformity in modern society, what we shall call ‘existential individuality’ is an achievement, and not a permanent one at that. We are born biological beings but we must become existential individuals by accepting responsibility for our actions” (Flynn iii). In an absurd world, it is easy and most comforting to conform, what Flynn calls the “irresistible pull.” Existentialists, though, moved away from this and emphasized individuality, just as Kierkegaard did. Lucky can be seen as Beckett’s warning against conformity. Lucky “goes with the flow” and allows Pozzo to decide all of his actions. Pozzo keeps Lucky on a leash and orders him to do his chores, and has him do tricks. Lucky does not even think on his own, and only “thinks” when Pozzo tells him to. Lucky’s “thinking” is one of his tricks that he does for Pozzo, and does not consist of anything original or meaningful: “Lucky: ‘Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua…it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labors of men…’ ” (Beckett 413). When ordered to think, Lucky spews out rhetoric used by others in a jumbled mess. Lucky is not an individual. He gives his life no meaning or purpose, and allows it to be controlled by Pozzo. Eugene Ionesco’s play Rhinoceros also emphasizes the individual. Berenger’s town becomes plagued with rhinoceroses, and the pull to become a part of the rhinoceros group is strong. The most “logical” become rhinoceroses, and Berenger must fight the urge to become a rhinoceros throughout the play. By the end, Berenger is the only human being left, and he is still adamant that he will never change. Though Berenger’s reasons for staying human are not lofty ones, they are sufficient enough. When reasoning with his friend, Jean, who is transforming into a rhinoceros in front of Berenger, Berenger states: “You must admit that we have a philosophy that animals don’t share, and an irreplaceable set of values, which it’s taken centuries of human civilization to build up” (Ionesco 67). Berenger does not state that a human being must stay human because of a higher purpose instilled by a creator. Instead, Berenger uses philosophy as the reason why one should be human. It is a human’s ability to reason that justifies its being human. Camus calls this reason the “revolt,” that even when one knows that one’s existence is meaningless and will ultimately result in death, one must live anyway, and it is this revolt that makes life worth living. Ionesco’s idea of the increasing group mentality again recalls Kierkegaard’s warning of losing one’s self to the group. Reading and understanding existential works leads one to a better understanding of one’s self. Many feel lost and confused in attempting to understand the world around them, while others explain away all of life’s questions through a creator. Though Kierkegaard did believe that God is necessary, and that Christianity can cure a human being of their despair, his works influenced later philosophers who explained how one can live a meaningful life in an absurd world, devoid of a creator. Existential works do not give answers, but instead help the reader deal with their absurdity, and how to remain an individual despite the pull to conform to society.
Works Cited
Beckett, Samuel. A Samuel Beckett Reader. Trans. Richard W Seaver. New York: Grove Press, 1976. Print.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Trans. Justin O’Brien. Paris: Vintage Books, 1955. Print.
Flynn, Thomas R. Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Hannay, Alastair. Introduction. The Sickness Unto Death. By Soren Kierkegaard. 1963. London: Penguin Books, 1989. 1-39. Print.
Ionesco, Eugene. Rhinoceros and Other Plays. Trans. Derek Prouse. New York: Grove Press, 1960. Print.
Kierkegaard, Soren. The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Alastair Hannay. London: Penguin Books, 1989. Print.
McGregor, Rob Roy. “Camus’s ‘The Silent Men’ and ‘The Guest’ Depictions of the Absurd Awareness.” Studies in Short Fiction 34.3 (1997): 307. Literature Resource Center. Web. 14 April 2010.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Marxists.org. Web. 24 April 2010.
---. No Exit and Other Plays. Trans. Lionel Abel. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.
Professor Santos
Expository Writing
3 May 2010
Kierkegaard’s Influence on the Existentialists Known as the “father of existentialism,” Kierkegaard’s works emphasize mankind’s despair. In his book The Sickness Unto Death, published in 1849, Kierkegaard attempts to show how one is lost without God, and how one’s separation from God leads to sin or despair. Though Kierkegaard did incorporate the notions of God and sin into his works, his philosophy is still existential and influenced later existentialists, such as Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre, who were atheists. Existentialism emphasizes mankind’s state of being, and their need to explain the world around them, while at the same time not understanding it. This idea led to absurdism which stresses the absurdity that exists between man and the world. The …show more content…
philosophies of existentialism and absurdism influenced many modern and post modern authors, such as Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco, who picked up existential and absurd themes in their work, especially the ideas of the absurd and of the individual. Though existential works do not give answers, they help the reader understand their absurdity and help them deal better in a confusing world. Kierkegaard emphasizes despair as something not separate from one’s being. It is this emphasis on mankind’s state of being that led to existential thought. Later, Camus also emphasizes despair as a human state of being. Both identify this despair (or absurdity) as the consciousness of death. Kierkegaard attributed this despair to sin. According to Kierkegaard, this despair or sin comes from one’s separation from God. Kierkegaard states that one becomes despondent when one believes that the universe cannot be explained as a creation of God, which is existential. Kierkegaard, though, also posits that the disbelief in God is faulty reasoning, whereas later existentialists, like Camus, believe that the world truly cannot be explained by humans. Kierkegaard believes that one could be cured of their despair or sin through God, or more specifically, through Christianity, whereas no man can be cured of his absurdity, except through death, according to Camus. Kierkegaard defines the “sickness unto death” as a rejection of the belief that life is everlasting. Put plainly, Kierkegaard calls the denial of Christian doctrine a sickness, the sickness which causes despair. This sickness is not of the body or mind, but of the spirit (Kierkegaard 57). Those who do not believe in Christian doctrine are therefore unaware of their sickness—of their despair. Those who are aware of their despair can be cured, and so, according to Kierkegaard, it is better for one to be in despair and realize it (Kierkegaard 56). Kierkegaard, then, believed that one could be cured of their despair, whereas later existentialists did not hold this to be true. Kierkegaard defines the self as consciousness. This idea has become a basic existential thought: that human beings are beings existing, and that is all. As consciousness rises, so does one’s despair. One who is unaware of their despair is of the most common form of despair, according to Kierkegaard (75). Even though one may not be aware of their despair—they still despair. This despair lies underneath and can at any time arise and manifest itself with a “quake” (Kierkegaard 74). When describing the self, Kierkegaard makes another one of his leaps when he states that one cannot become a full self until one can answer directly to God, or to at least have the “concept” of God (Hannay 7). Though Kierkegaard believes that God was necessary in order to become a self, it is his stress on the individual that makes his philosophy existential. Kierkegaard, like later existentialists, valued the individual and warned against conformity. The self, when in despair, may notice the “multitude of people around it,” (Kierkegaard 63) and may forget himself and find that “being himself [is] too risky,” and that “it much easier and safer to be like others, to become a copy, a number, along with the crowd” (Kierkegaard 64). To do this, though, is to be in despair. One will lose oneself, and may become a “pawn” (Kierkegaard 65) to the world. Even if such an action leads to wealth and success, one will be without a self, and therefore be in despair. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the individual is important to his philosophy. Kierkegaard did believe that the self requires God, but he also shows that to become a self requires a self-exploration, which cannot be obtained through a church. To be a self, first one must look inside one’s self, and resist the urge to conform to a larger group. Kierkegaard explains that the self may become lost when it loses its balance between the possibility and the necessity (66). If one becomes focused only on the possible, then one will run after the possible and lose one’s self while doing so. Kierkegaard likens this to the common scene in fairy-tales where the knight chases a bird into the forest, eventually becoming lost because of it. Kierkegaard also warns against not looking at the possible at all and only focusing on the necessity. Kierkegaard describes this individual as one who “pursues with melancholic love one of dread’s possibilities, which in the end takes him away from himself, so he perishes in the dread” (67). Camus will later state that focusing on life’s meaninglessness will bring about suicide, but revolting will make life worth living. Kierkegaard explains that one needs God because in God all is possible. God is therefore both the possible and the necessity. Man is limited, and so, for man alone, salvation is not possible. Salvation is possible through God, however, and so one needs faith (Kierkegaard 70). Though Kierkegaard does make leaps in his philosophy in order to include God, his ideas were revolutionary for the time. Living during a time where the church was the center of everything, one could not expect Kierkegaard to completely reject God in his philosophy. As time progressed, other philosophers, such as Camus and Sartre, picked up where Kierkegaard left off, describing the self without God or the concept of sin. Albert Camus’ essay “The Myth of Sisyphus,” concerns the most important philosophical question: that of suicide. The absurd world is devoid of meaning, and therefore makes it seem that life is not worth living. In Camus’ essay, he explains why suicide is not the logical answer. Camus begins by defining the absurd. Camus ends his essay by describing the absurd hero: Sisyphus, who is condemned to roll a rock up a mountain for all eternity. The absurd exists not in man or in the world, but with the two existing together (Camus 17). Man first realizes his absurdity when he sees the disconnection between his self and his life. Camus describes this as the difference between the actor and the setting. When one first comes to this realization, one contemplates suicide (Camus 5). This also leads one to revolt against one’s flesh, which is the absurd. The world becomes absurd when things are no longer attributed to God, which makes it unrecognizable and strange. This comes from man’s need to understand the world, to see it in human terms. Man wants the universe to “love” and to “suffer” as man does. When one comes to the realization that it does not, life may seem meaningless (Camus 8-10). People, according to Camus, pretend “to believe that refusing to grant a meaning to life necessarily leads to declaring that it is not worth living” (6). Camus argues against this. Camus agrees with Heidegger on the point that man’s consciousness is not separate from his anxiety, which Camus calls the absurd. This anxiety or absurdity is the consciousness of death (Camus 14). Camus rejects other philosophers, such as Kierkegaard, because they make leaps in their philosophies in order to include God. Kierkegaard, according to Camus, needs to be “cured in his frenzied wish,” his wish for there to be a God, an order (Camus 21). Though Camus disagrees with Kierkegaard’s notions of a God, he agrees with Kierkegaard that despair comes from a separation. Kierkegaard believes this separation is between man and God, while Camus states that this despair, or absurdity, comes from one’s separation from the universe (McGregor) and his no longer attributing the world to a creator. Camus comes to the conclusion that the realization of the absurd does not require suicide, but revolt. It is the revolt that makes life worth living. This revolt is man’s realization of his “crushing fate” without resigning to it (Camus 28). As Camus states, “The point is to live” (Camus 34). Like Kierkegaard, Camus warns against focusing on the negative, but instead emphasizes the positives that life has to offer, though, according to Camus, life in itself is meaningless. In Camus’ final chapter, he describes the absurd hero: Sisyphus. In Greek mythology, Sisyphus put Death in chains so that no man needed to die. Death eventually escapes, and when Sisyphus is to die, he finds a way to evade it. The Gods capture Sisyphus and condemn him to live all of eternity by rolling a big rock up a mountain, which, when it reaches the top, rolls back down. Sisyphus must continue rolling the rock up the mountain forever (Camus 36). Sisyphus is the absurd hero. He has such passion for life and a hatred for death; he is willing to live even when he knows that life is meaningless. But, Camus concludes, “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy” (Camus 37). One can be happy while still being aware of one’s absurdity and life can have meaning, if one gives it meaning. Though Camus seems to reject some existential philosophers, his own philosophy is quite existential. Camus states that “I can say…that this heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction” (11). This is the basis for later existential thought. Camus’ concern with suicide is important because those who do accept existential or absurdist views of the world may be inclined to believe that life is not worth living. The connection Camus makes to the Myth of Sisyphus and mankind in general is a powerful statement of humanity, of man’s will to live despite everything. In 1946, four years after Camus’ “The Myth of Sisyphus” was published, Jean-Paul Sartre gave a lecture defending existentialism. In Sartre’s lecture “Existentialism is a Humanism,” Sartre explains existentialism as fundamentally optimistic in its view of human beings. Existentialism does not, as Christians claim, emphasize mankind’s “evil” side, but instead emphasizes human choice. Sartre explains: Indeed their [Christians’] excessive protests make me suspect that what is annoying them is not so much our pessimism, but, much more likely, our optimism. For at bottom, what is alarming in the doctrine that I am about to try to explain to you is – is it not? – that it confronts man with a possibility of choice (“Existentialism”).
Sartre, then, shows that Christians during that time did not really find fault with the philosophy’s pessimism, but rather its emphasis on a human being’s freedom, their freedom from God, therefore giving a human being choice. Though Sartre was an atheist, his philosophy does contain some of Kierkegaard’s thoughts. Kierkegaard also emphasizes a human’s choice. A person is capable of becoming a self or not, or becoming an individual or not, all based on their choices. A person is not born an individual, according to Kierkegaard, nor are they born a self. As Sartre explains, what makes something existential is simple—that “existence comes before essence” (“Existentialism”). Sartre believes that one becomes something through their choice, that one defines one’s self. One does not come from God’s conception, but rather becomes what one chooses to be. Sartre explains that despair comes from, what Heidegger calls “abandonment,” or the realization that God does not exist. Because a man is responsible for defining himself and deciding right and wrong (as God does not exist and therefore no such morals exist beyond humans), he in turn becomes responsible for defining right and wrong for all of humanity. Sartre explains that each person must choose the best way to live, and in living in this way, a person will be making a statement about the best way for all to live. Sartre’s philosophy is Kantian in that he believes each person should “fashion” themselves as how they believe each man should be. In this way, existentialism is not anarchic, as many Christians have accused it of being. Though existentialism does state that everything is permitted; an individual would choose the best way to live for themselves, as well as for all of humanity (“Existentialism”). Sartre goes on to describe existential fiction and its place in defining existentialism. Sartre, an existential author himself, explains that existential fiction portrays “evil” or “cowardly” characters, though these characters are not shown to be victims of forces beyond their control. These characters are often shown to be responsible for their own cowardice or moral degradation, highlighting a person’s ability to choose who they are (“Existentialism”). Alastair Hannay states, in his introduction to The Sickness Unto Death: “There is no doubt that Kierkegaard saw his own mission as a writer as that of assisting his readers to the consciousness of their own despair” (6). Though Kierkegaard had the agenda of pushing Christianity, later existentialist philosophers and authors had a similar mission: to help their readers understand their place in the world. Camus wanted to convince his readers that life is worth living even when it is meaningless. Existential authors such as Samuel Beckett, Jean-Paul Sartre and Eugene Ionesco wanted to show through their literature the dangers of living without understanding that the world is absurd. Absurdist authors, then, present absurdity through drama, short stories and novels. Though themes of hopelessness are present in many of these works, there is optimism in them, too. These writers emphasized freedom—freedom from a God or any restrictive force. They also stress individualism and the dangers of giving up one’s individuality. Absurd works of literature portray worlds that do not make sense, and contain characters that are often lost and confused.
Jean-Paul Sartre presents a world like this in his play No Exit, which premiered in 1944. The three characters go through a cycle of mentally torturing each other, miserable in each other’s company. Garcin is desperate to leave, though he believes he is trapped in the room with Estelle and Inez forever. When he becomes completely overwhelmed, he tries to open the door and finds that after much pushing it opens: “Inez: ‘Well, Garcin? You’re free to go.’ Garcin [meditatively]: ‘Now I wonder why that door opened.’ Inez: ‘What are you waiting for? Hurry up and go.’ Garcin: ‘I shall not go.’ Inez: ‘And you, Estelle?’ [Estelle does not move]” (Sartre 42). One would expect that Garcin would leave, and would be overjoyed at finding out that there really is an escape, where before he believed there to be none—and yet Garcin stays. Garcin and Estelle recall Kierkegaard’s idea of becoming lost in the melancholy, of forgetting the “possible” and only looking at life’s “necessity,” therefore becoming engrossed in
despair. One of the best known examples of an absurd work is Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot, which premiered eight years after No Exit. Waiting for Godot presents two characters struggling to make time pass more quickly. The world that Beckett presents is absurd: the two tramps do nothing but wait, and cannot even remember why they are waiting for Godot, or who Godot even is. Vladimir and Estragon seem trapped and lost in this world, unable to leave it. What makes it absurd is that the two are capable of leaving, constantly make the choice to leave, and yet stay: “Vladimir: ‘Well? Shall we go?’ Estragon: ‘Yes, let’s go.’ They do not move” (Beckett 476). Beckett’s characters recall Kierkegaard’s idea of becoming lost in the possible. They wait for the possible, waiting to see what Godot “has to offer” (Beckett 381) becoming lost in the possible, and are therefore in despair. According to Kierkegaard, one must take action in order to eliminate one’s despair. Estragon and Vladimir take no action but only wait for things to happen. Camus also states that for life to have meaning, one must “revolt,” which again requires action. In both plays, the characters are trapped in an absurd world, seemingly unable to leave. According to Camus and other absurdists, there is no escaping the absurd world. As Camus states, the absurd world is absurd because it does not have any meaning, and human beings cannot make sense of it. Though absurdists held this to be true, they also emphasized the fact that human beings still have a conscious choice. Vladimir and Estragon, as well as Garcin and Estelle have the ability to leave. There are no outside forces keeping them where they are. No Exit’s setting, hell, would lead one to expect there to be an outside force entrapping the characters, and yet they are free to go. The characters entrap themselves. Vladimir and Estragon stay in their misery for the hope of something that will never come. Garcin and Estelle stay because they need others for reinforcement, Garcin needing Inez to convince him that he is not a coward, and Estelle needing a man to convince her that she is desirable. The existentialists stressed individualism and warned against giving up one’s individuality to another. Being an individual does not come naturally, and one must work against the institution in order to be an individual. As Thomas R. Flynn states, in his book Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction: “Because of the almost irresistible pull toward conformity in modern society, what we shall call ‘existential individuality’ is an achievement, and not a permanent one at that. We are born biological beings but we must become existential individuals by accepting responsibility for our actions” (Flynn iii). In an absurd world, it is easy and most comforting to conform, what Flynn calls the “irresistible pull.” Existentialists, though, moved away from this and emphasized individuality, just as Kierkegaard did. Lucky can be seen as Beckett’s warning against conformity. Lucky “goes with the flow” and allows Pozzo to decide all of his actions. Pozzo keeps Lucky on a leash and orders him to do his chores, and has him do tricks. Lucky does not even think on his own, and only “thinks” when Pozzo tells him to. Lucky’s “thinking” is one of his tricks that he does for Pozzo, and does not consist of anything original or meaningful: “Lucky: ‘Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua…it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labors of men…’ ” (Beckett 413). When ordered to think, Lucky spews out rhetoric used by others in a jumbled mess. Lucky is not an individual. He gives his life no meaning or purpose, and allows it to be controlled by Pozzo. Eugene Ionesco’s play Rhinoceros also emphasizes the individual. Berenger’s town becomes plagued with rhinoceroses, and the pull to become a part of the rhinoceros group is strong. The most “logical” become rhinoceroses, and Berenger must fight the urge to become a rhinoceros throughout the play. By the end, Berenger is the only human being left, and he is still adamant that he will never change. Though Berenger’s reasons for staying human are not lofty ones, they are sufficient enough. When reasoning with his friend, Jean, who is transforming into a rhinoceros in front of Berenger, Berenger states: “You must admit that we have a philosophy that animals don’t share, and an irreplaceable set of values, which it’s taken centuries of human civilization to build up” (Ionesco 67). Berenger does not state that a human being must stay human because of a higher purpose instilled by a creator. Instead, Berenger uses philosophy as the reason why one should be human. It is a human’s ability to reason that justifies its being human. Camus calls this reason the “revolt,” that even when one knows that one’s existence is meaningless and will ultimately result in death, one must live anyway, and it is this revolt that makes life worth living. Ionesco’s idea of the increasing group mentality again recalls Kierkegaard’s warning of losing one’s self to the group. Reading and understanding existential works leads one to a better understanding of one’s self. Many feel lost and confused in attempting to understand the world around them, while others explain away all of life’s questions through a creator. Though Kierkegaard did believe that God is necessary, and that Christianity can cure a human being of their despair, his works influenced later philosophers who explained how one can live a meaningful life in an absurd world, devoid of a creator. Existential works do not give answers, but instead help the reader deal with their absurdity, and how to remain an individual despite the pull to conform to society.
Works Cited
Beckett, Samuel. A Samuel Beckett Reader. Trans. Richard W Seaver. New York: Grove Press, 1976. Print.
Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays. Trans. Justin O’Brien. Paris: Vintage Books, 1955. Print.
Flynn, Thomas R. Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print.
Hannay, Alastair. Introduction. The Sickness Unto Death. By Soren Kierkegaard. 1963. London: Penguin Books, 1989. 1-39. Print.
Ionesco, Eugene. Rhinoceros and Other Plays. Trans. Derek Prouse. New York: Grove Press, 1960. Print.
Kierkegaard, Soren. The Sickness Unto Death. Trans. Alastair Hannay. London: Penguin Books, 1989. Print.
McGregor, Rob Roy. “Camus’s ‘The Silent Men’ and ‘The Guest’ Depictions of the Absurd Awareness.” Studies in Short Fiction 34.3 (1997): 307. Literature Resource Center. Web. 14 April 2010.
Sartre, Jean-Paul. “Existentialism is a Humanism.” Marxists.org. Web. 24 April 2010.
---. No Exit and Other Plays. Trans. Lionel Abel. New York: Vintage Books, 1989. Print.