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!
Hey,
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with you, especially when you write that we have to appropriate our own lives. Indeed, I feel concerned by Gregor Samsa’s existence, but you give me a new interpretation and I will thank you for that.
However, I disagree with you because I think that you make an amalgam between a riskless existence and a meaningless existence. Today, we can say that we have riskless existences, even if some recent evenings can modify this viewpoint, but it is not for that reason that our existences are condemned to absurdity. We can appropriate our existence even if we have a boring job. For example, if Gregor Samsa lives today, he could find a meaning to his life helping these unfortunate refugees, giving us hospitality and fighting against racism and discriminations.
In this viewpoint, I would answer yes to your second final question and no to the first. According to me, freedom is not doing whatever you want, whenever you want. It is the opportunity of doing things that make you happy and that permit you to reach the realization of your life, its real sense. “Making sense our existence and concretely being”, like you write, is not limiting our freedom: it is freedom, more simply.
Aha, I'm touched by your agreements^^
DeleteAbout rickless existence, I consider living a full of risks life is not necessary reined with a personal real-life experience only. I mean that our friends’ life and our family’s life are also a part of our consideration of risks. Indeed, if a friend was run over by a car, it would be our own perception of life which would be affected. “It could be me…” we say often…
With the case of migrants, it’s their own exposition to danger which touches us. We imagine that we would be able to be in the same situation. This possibility of risk makes us think, and then we can keep in mind our wonderful life, without danger. That’s why persons want to save them, by compassion, and by comprehension.
You say “reach the realization of your life, its real sense”, but how can you tell me that there is a sense? I said before that teleological approach can’t be used by humans until they die. You talk about “opportunity”, but how can we know which possibility is an opportunity, whereas the other one is a trap?