Examining the meaning of existence: "Metamorphosis"

This is the poem in Korean. I admit that this is meaningless
but attach it for you to see original because my translation is awful!

Examining the meaning of existence through <Metamorphosis>

 Once I have read a poem, which has the same title, “The Sickness unto Death” with the work of Kierkegaard. The poem starts like this. 

“Despite Descartes saying, ‘I think therefore I am’, there is a woman who is thinking and then falling asleep, repeating death and live even several times a day.”

 This sentence makes us reflect on the language of Descartes, which had opened the era filled with the Modernity using reason, rationality and enlightenment. He has got existence subjected to reason and this process is based on skepticism about our objective world. This is the perspective not toward inner side of us, but toward outer one. This tradition had formed the mainstream of philosophy on Europe during the period of modernity. However, long after, Kierkegaard appeared, arguing the point of view which is totally different from Descartes’ one. Thoroughly from his own experience, he set the attitude toward life as ‘Der Einzelne’ by reflection on himself and pursued the subjective truth, existential attitude. It seems obvious that his arguing that the subjective truth by oneself saves one’s life is totally located opposite to Descartes’ arguing.

From now on, I would like to inspect Kafka’s <Metamorphosis> closely as a great medium to ponder over explanation of existence in both Descartes’ and Kierkegaard’s ways. The main character, Gregor is an ordinary person who manages to earn his living day by day, but one day he realized and discovered himself being transformed into a bug. From then on, He keeps thinking over and over about many things which surrounds his life. From his discovering himself as a bug to his literal dying, is his existence proved, if any, in which way, or failed to prove?

In other words, the questions which engaged me are like these things: The way of Descartes stipulating existence –the most famous and popular saying, I guess- and the way of Kierkegaard are setting definitely different direction philosophically and interpreting <Metamorphosis> by each way, what could we bring about as an answer to existence? And to conclude, does a bug-human, Gregor, exist in a meaningful way? (And obviously, as the goal of literature is universal, there is an important premise that Gregor and we, the readers, are not much of different. Kafka is such a brilliant writer at extending narrative to humans in general through some rare settings.)

Arthur Pita's piece of dance, <Metamorphosis>.
He makes an awesome visualization  in which
the black creature, despair, draws Gregor into a new life as an insect.

Is Gregor alive as existence in <Metamorphosis>: Descartes and Kierkegaard

 The novel starts off with Gregor realizing himself becoming a bug. Generally the bug reminds us of unpleasant and blackish thing or short lifespan and these are strong allegories of Gregor’s life. Does his life become corrupt only through metamorphosis which suddenly came to him one day? Not at all. It is just not until then that he realizes his whole life is much more of a kind of life similar to bug, not humane. In that point, becoming a bug does not change his life, but just show how his life has been by visualization. This form of life starts with dystopia, the other name of modern. More concretely, there exists the mechanical world run continuously at the hidden side of the modern times. This makes people face crisis of subjective identity. Subjectivity, or existence, is all about human, therefore he is identified with the bug symbolizing the complete opposite of being human.

 First of all, the Descartes’ perspective of existence is supposed to fail in Gregor’s narrative. Descartes claims that the awareness of external world, that is “Objective Truth” followed by Hegel later guarantee our life. Nevertheless Gregor can not exist as himself even though he still has ability to think in the way reason works. Rather, the view dominated by reason and efficiency denies his existence and situates him in an insect. In the extension of reason and modernity inevitably is human alienation, and there the one could not exist unless he chooses to be a component of the system. Since Gregor is marginalized from labor, now he is denied and excluded from worlds. At least, Gregor turning into the insect is no more recognized as Gregor. In short, Gregor cannot exist as himself in the perspective starting with Descartes.

 On the other hand, If we take viewpoint of Kierkegaard, that alters the case. Now Gregor is the man who are finally prepared, becoming the insect, to face the subjective truth. Paradoxically It is the strange imagery of inner anxiety which is projecting toward conscious that makes him not degenerated but advance toward freedom which he never got before, in the way that he becomes to reject everyday life, especially the unconscious labor. Before, he had been escaping from freedom full of anxiety and dread, just conforming to the given way of life. This man who was willing to deceive himself in his life is now facing the truth and finally meeting the authentic self by despair. Gregor is now to cultivate his self in anxiety consisting of freedom. Therefore the process of Gregor’s metamorphosis is the huge allegory for attitude we also have to take to become ‘Der Einzelne’ searching for the existence we had lost, in Kierkegaard’s way.

Vital or destructive?

 Nevertheless Kierkegaard leaves an important doubt challenged by reality: Does our way to Only One mean denial of social nature of human and becoming public? If so, does the conclusion of the way indicate literal death as Gregor? Even if <Metamorphosis> does not suggest simply there need regain of relationship as naive solution, Kierkegaard’s conviction putting stress on rejection to become public is only to bring about another destructive alienation. It is strange that the methodology of life brings about the death–at least literal, physical death-. Is his lesson meaningful to us, ‘sociable animal’? Then how do we make it possible to apply his theory to our life?

And below is a kind of trailers for Arthur Pita's piece, <Metamorphosis>. You'll love them.