Gregor Samsa, Sara Goldfarb and Kit Carruthers: representations of existence vacuity according to Søren Kierkegaard and Jean-Paul Sartre

Existing is a certainty: we exist, but being represents a hard task. Indeed, #Kierkegaard’s philosophy says to us: “Existence is nothing”. He teaches us that existence consists to practise his life by different ways, and this how is determining who we are. Our life, our own existence, is a subjective truth: it contains all our actions, and this infinite list embodies our being. This subjective truth about each one reaches its perfection in the end of our life, joining the only objective truth about humans: all humans die.

However, this teleological view can’t be felt by humans during their life. Then, they feel free to do what they want. Then, they follow the main orientations of the life: school, university, job, have a family, … Meanwhile, when those steps are achieved, or not realised, humans feel the nothingness of life. They can do everything, but this freedom affrays them, and they don’t know what doing. We call this absence of will Vacuity.

Then, we can notice this Vacuity with protagonists of artistic realisations. We can talk specially about Gregor Samsa, a sales representative who has to meet his family’s needs and transformed into a cockroach in Metamorphosis by Franz #Kafka; Sara Goldfarb, an old woman living alone after that her sun left the home in Requiem for a dream by Darren Aronofsky; Kit Carruthers, a young man fired by his work of garbage man in Badlands by Terrence Malik.

Those 3 protagonists test the experience of Vacuity, and have very interesting reactions to struggle against.

+ Sara Goldfarb represents a typical case which is studied by Jean-Paul #Sartre in his book Being and Nothingness. In this book, the French philosopher analyzes the waiter’s behaviour. He highlights that the man who is waiter realises some actions awkwardly, and seems not to feel at ease. It’s because this man is not a waiter, he is playing the role of waiter. Therefore, he can’t do perfectly according to standards of waiter. I repeat, he IS NOT a waiter, contrary to a glass which IS just a glass. If the man stopped to be a waiter, he would follow to exist, as human. Nevertheless, if the glass is broken, it stops to be and to exist. #Sartre calls “être-en-soi” the characteristic of glass: it is a thing, and just this thing. Human is rather an “être-pour-soi”: he knows who he is, and can play another role in a “bad faith”.

What role can I play now?

Sara Goldfarb is aware of her life, she has an “être-pour-soi”. She notices that her life is monotonous now, after her sun is left from family home and her husband dies. She feels alone, and doesn’t have activities anymore. At this time, she is going to make a new role to play, after she received a call saying to her she would participate to a TV show. She wants to be THE FORMER Sara Goldfarb, when she was young, thin and beautiful. To make it real, she is on a diet and dyes her hair red. Colour of her hair shift appears as will to change her personality, and be thinner is just in order to be able to wear her old red dress. So, we have another personality, and special clothe: it’s like wearing a uniform for a new job no?? All those physical and mental shifts are done to play a role. By being the former Sara Goldfarb, current Sara Goldfarb occupies her spirit, her life, and then, her existence. Her transformations are ways to struggle against Vacuity whose she suffers. However, as we have said, humans play a role, and are awkward for that since they do that in “bad faith”. There is evidence of Sara’s clumsiness. First attempt to dye her hair red fails: her hair becomes orange, as her body wanted to remain like that, and struggle against bad shift. Moreover, the only way she finds to be thinner consists to take drugs, amphetamines precisely.

Those errors are a good indicator to show that humans can’t be another thing like themselves currently, notwithstanding necessity to play a role to run away from frightening Vacuity allowed by nothingness of existence.

+ Vacuity provokes in humans feeling of meaningless life. Why must I live if freedom of possibilities prevents me from doing anything?

Kit Carruthers and Gregor Samsa can allow us to understand why continue to live.

- Kit Carruthers is a young man, without real purpose in life. His activity of garbage man is stopped by his dismissal. Then, his life is meaningless, although he meets Holly, a fifteen years old girl. As #Kierkegaard says in Sickness unto Death, existence is based on experiences. Those experiences can bring risks. Therefore, risks have a positive point: they permit somebody to approach Death, and then be able to face to his own life. By adopting this new point of view, humans can grasp their existence, and see it better. That’s why Kit and Holly are going to lead a life of crimes. Kit kills some people during their travel, and becomes a wanted murderer. There is so a constant threat on them, which makes them make the most of their moments together. Kit created this situation, unconsciously, by murdering. Why so I say “unconsciously”? In the end of the movie, Holly asks Kit why he murdered people they met. He just answers: “I don’t know”. It’s his human instinct which intervened to fight against his human condition of hopeless Vacuity.

A life full of risks, this is what humans need to make the most of their life. So, risks aren’t an element of human life, but rather a way to live with feeling of fullness.

Damocles’ sword: Fear as way to live better?

- Gregor Samsa’s story is a good illustration of life when risks are evicted. Indeed, his former life as sales representative was cool, granted a little boring, but advantageous, and above all riskless! In this way, his metamorphosis into a cockroach has to be assimilated to a simulation of Death: just thinking, without doing anything else. Then, he can do a retrospective about his life. What a disaster! His thoughts are full of regrets: Why did he not tell his sister he wanted to register her to the Music College? Why did he not pay more attention to his father who seems like a stranger now?

His story is a good lesson for us, because it teaches us to appropriate our existence. Granted we do actions to occupy it, but we need to pay attention to our choice of life. Whether we don’t do it, Death will be a hard moment of regrets and of desolation.

This text was to make us think about our existence and decisions. Shall we do actions without thinking and make the most of our freedom? Or shall we limit rather our freedom to make sense our existence and concretely being?

So, I’d like to open a debate with 2 issues:

* (1) Is it necessary to rein our freedom to be instead of existing?

* (2) What’s the best: be full of remorse or have regrets?

Thank you for reading!