This past week we started to read "Waiting for Godot" in class. So far, I'm really enjoying it, even though I don't agree with the philosophy. It's absurdness makes it quite funny in a unique way, despite the existentalist spin. In reality, the writer is trying to point out that the dilemma of modern humanity is that it's pointless. The existential philosopher, Albert Camus, and other philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre used the term "Theatre of the Absurd" to express their inability to find any rational explanation for human life. I think the title of the play is symbolic, meaning that life is a stage, and we are the absurd actors.
From the play so far, and what I've read online, I've gathered that an existentialist thinks:
1. Life has no meaning.
2. Life brings unhappiness.
3. Rules are not meant to be broken, because there are no rules.
4. No matter what, choices will always lead to a strong kick in the backside. Nothing positive will come out of them, ever.
5. A person who is all talk, no action will never make any value out of his/her life.
As I said before, I do not agree with the existentialist point of view.
Point 1: In my mind, it's obvious that life has meaning. Every moment is precious, and should not be taken for granted. Just by spending time with family, laughing with friends, playing with the family pet, or looking at the world, you can see that it means something. Even looking back at memories shows that it was worth something.
Point 2: I read a quote somewhere that without the bad times, you won't appreciate the good ones. Life does bring unhappiness sometimes, but it makes us stronger people learning how to deal with it, or fix the problem, and move on.
Point 3: Without rules, the world would be even more messed up than it already is, regarding crime, etc. End of story.
Point 4: Bad choices do lead to negative consequences, but a person needs to consider what the best choice for them, and the people they love may be before they decide. There are good decisions, and they will lead to positive outcomes.
Point 5: This point is the only one I somewhat agree with. I think every person's life has meaning, but they can make it more meaningfull if they take action. For instance, a person who devotes themselves to becoming a doctor, nurse, or medical researcher is dedicating their life to helping others, and this makes their life more meaningful. This point can also obviously be directly related to the play. It's nonsensical dialogue and meaningless action, including a generous amount of cliches, puns, and repetition can be seen while the two main characters are waiting to meet up with Godot. They take no action to make any decisions about what they are going to do. They just stand there for a massive amount of time until they have a conversation with what seems like a crazed slave owner. None of it makes sense, and what they were doing had no meaning whatsoever. They just talked about what they wanted to do, but never actually followed through.
So, existentalism isn't my cup of tea, but I'm enjoying reading the play :)
Very good Sam. I'm so impressed with what you grasped about this play. Very perseptive! I don't really consider myself an existentialist, but I'm pretty sure how an existentialist would respond to some of what you've said. They would say that you're #1 and #2 are not actually a meaning to life... they are what you have created for yourself as a meaning in order to bring value to your existence, because otherwise you would be lost in the despair of a meaningless existence... very cheerful huh? ;-) For your next blog, remember to make a very clear and specific societal connection!
ReplyDelete