What does Nietzsche mean when talking about a "death of
God?" Tons of people have misunderstood his theory, thinking he meant that God literally stopped to exist. But he explains himself in The Gay Science, published in 1882. He actually says that "we have killed Him". He thinks that human beings destroyed all the supreme structures which were linked to God, that they consciously avoided the eternal and the temporal to interact. He says that human beings are plunging themselves into chaos as atheism is raising. His theory isn't much about theology but he believes that the Western societies have been built on religious structures, all their logic is linked to it. If they destroy their religious roots, they will be totally put upside down, so they could fall into nihilism which is the most dangerous thing, according to Nietzsche. Nihilism is the fact people don't believe in anything anymore, they think humanity is denuded of any form of values, norms, aim or finality. Humanity is absurd as it has no sense, no reason to be what it is, but is just what it is.
Some absolutely disagreed with him, like Albert Camus who said that this death of god was inconsequential as human beings don't need a higher moral authority to live a moral and valuable life.
I tend to agree with Nietzsche, and even more when confronting his theory to Becket's Waiting for Godot, written in 1948. In this novel, Vladimir and Estragon, two of the main characters, are waiting on a country road, below a tree, for someone who's name is Godot. They stay here for minutes, maybe hours, discussing, arguing about life, pleasure, absurdity and death, waiting for someone - we discover - they hardly know. They don't know what they look like or why they're waiting for him. But we see, as the story goes, that Godot is the only reason they keep on hook on life. Godot may be linked to Jesus, which is expected to appear at the end of time i the three monotheisms. Even if they never personally met him, they believe Godot exists, they hang on their belief and try to put order in their life while waiting. Conversely, Pozzo, which seems to be the owner of the locality, thinks waiting for Godot is absurd, and that Vladimir and Estragon are wasting their time ; he then could be linked to Albert Camus' theory. But comparing the both friends to Pozzo, we see that this last character lives without morality as he treats his lackey, Lucky, the worst way ; he even succeed in convincing the two vagabonds to treat Lucky bad, spreading his lack of morality.
Beckett has always refused this interpretation, he even said, in a letter he wrote to Michel Polac in 1952 that he doesn't "know who is Godot" but that it could be "possible" to find a sense to his story. Do you agree with this interpretation? Do you think his novel reflects the analysis Nietzsche made about the "death of God" and nihilism?
Hi Tony,
ReplyDeleteI think that Samuel Beckett could have called his play “Godot is dead” instead of “Waiting for Godot” !
There are many parallels and points of similarity between the themes of the play Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett and the themes explored by Friedrich Nietzsche. Waiting for Godot shares many of the premises and conclusions of Nietzsche’s philosophy, the play can also be interpreted as a critique of the same.
The characters are as far removed from the heroic Overman ideal as can be imagined, unable to harness the Will to Power, which is absent or distorted or even unknowable. Communication is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty.
The dynamic of the Eternal Recurrence is present but rather than being affirmed it is a source of crushing boredom, tediousness and existential “angst”. They suffer from a vague recollection of the past while projecting their hopes into the future in order to diminish the unbearable suffering of the existing present, or state of perpetual becoming.
Beckett can thus be said to be offering a satirical critique of the concept of salvation, both in its traditional religious sense as well as in the sense implied by Nietzsche’s concept of the Eternal Recurrence.
However, Beckett does offer a sense of hope by suggesting, paradoxically, that the abandonment of hope of salvation may lead to a sort of salvation of resignation.
Your theory seems quite right. As I explained, the fact is that Beckett didn't want to spread one and unique theory but wanted people not to be stuck in the same pattern of thinking. I agree it may be, at the same time, a critic to the absurdity of waiting for the signs of the Eternal to appear as the lives of Vladimir and Estragon thus seem to be totally messy and unclear, empty of sense, and all. But I don't get the point when you say that "the abandonment of hope of salvation may lead to a sort of salvation of resignation".
Delete