Eugene Ionesco, the Romanian born Absurdist playwright, once summarized the spirit of tragi-comedy like this:
"The fact of being astonishes us, in a world that seems all illusion and pretense in which all human behavior tells of absurdity and all history of absolute futility; all reality and language appear to lose their articulation, to disintegrate and collapse, so what possible reaction is there left, when everything has ceased to matter, but laugh at it all."
In addition to Ionesco, I like these two other dramatists from the so-called theater of the absurd:Originally Posted by The Unnamable
Friedrich Durrenmatt (best work "The Physicists")
Luigi Pirandello (best work "Six Characters In Search Of An Author")
Unfortuanately existentialism is too big an umbrella to summarize works by all existentialists in order to give you a very specific answer unless I pick one, and I guess Sartre will have to do. In his works (the few I have read, No Exit and a few more plays, also Nausea and a little of Being and Nothingness, which is so somplex to me that it becomes absurd in-itself {haha see my little joke oh I'm so funny} and makes me laugh from the sheer complexity) he seems to be stressing almost complete hopelessness, as in No Exit the message is Hell is other people, the interaction with people we despise is unfortunately necessary in this world, and it destracts from being-for itself or something like that. While Camus' short story The Artist At Work, leads to the same thing basically, but at the end he escapes the drearyness of forced human interaction by creating a painting that has only the word Solitary in the middle of it.
Sartre seems to have given up the chase (in the works I have read), so to speak, while in all of Camus' works (I've read a little more but not much more) there is a turning point wherein the character escapes the absurdity of existence by being in-the world and not... for-the world, i think.
Phew. did the best I could. Admittedly I kind of cosider Absurdism to be a brand of existentialism with subtle but important differences rather than something entirely different.
Ignore my previous post.. I might be right but I don't feel qualified to give you what I feel to be an appropriate answer... sorry. It seems to boil down to aesthetics in their writing styles rather than of core belief. I like Camus' somewhat more kindhearted approach rather than the dreariness of Sartre, so I haven't read enough Sartre to justify my previous post. Sorry.
A great way to explore this question in more depth is to read "FEAR and TREMBLING" By Kierkegaard. In this story the idea of the "absurd" is the way in which Abraham gets isaac back. By teleological suspension of the ethical, Abraham is able to rise above the universal (ethical). By doing this he is seen as a knight of fatih, and by virtue of the absurd, he feels that by suspending the ethical he will get a new Isaac. The main difference between Knights of faith and Knights of infinite resignation is that the knight of faith is able to hold so tight to his unconditional commitment that despite seeing the sword hanging above his head, he still maintains his ability to put all his faith in his commitment. "Only the man who draws the knife gets Isaac". This is why Knight's of infinite resignation can never be knights of faith.
Kurtz: Sounds like knights of faith is just another way of Kierkegaard's "Leap of Faith" claim or 'Lessing's Ditch,' the abyss of absurdity and the leap "from" reason.
I'm not necessarily convinved that Sartre gave up "the chase" because the character in Nausea is clearly an egomaniac, caught up in innane observations of the external and is pathologically introspective. The cunning way he strives to obtain her, what he thinks privately versus his words and actions, don't come off to me as giving up. There is something dark and deeply disturbing to me about Sartre that I don't like.
Camus is on the other end of the existential spectrum, giving us a more light-hearted view of the absurd, which is devoid of the effects of the cultural, social, and political milieu in which we dwell and that is part and parcel of the self. In one of his books - The Stranger, I think- the character is placed on trial and witnesses testify how unconcerned he was about his mother's death. He's later found guilty and imprisoned awaiting the gallows, where he's confronted by a chaplin, whom he finds reviling and sends away because the chaplin is trying to crack him open. Later,the prisoner is in his cell and "feels" guilt; this is Camus at his best, because this is the crossroads between living life and living the absurd.
jon1jt: Yep, It is the same concept. Abandoing the ethical is the first step towards the absurd.
I almost forgot to mention a short book by Camus (The Stranger). This story is usually thought to deal with Camus' version of the absurd. The split self within the main character (Meursault) is a fascinating look into the world of existentialism. At the beginning of the novel he gives way to his sensual side and usually acts in a unreflecting way. By the end of the book he makes a transition that can only be dealt with in an existential way. A really quick and great read.
Another book that brilliantly explores the complicated world of existentialism is "The Brothers Karamozov". If what you are looking for is a good overview of existentialism I suggest you read this book. I would suggest reading it along with "The stranger". There are many complimentary ideas and characters in both works.
Nietzsche seemed to have great influence on modern existentialists that it is natural and admirable for him to struggle with all obstacles, accepting both good and bad, because of the will to life which accord with the Dioneysos spirit from the ancient Greek. Camus should be an existentialist as he said to commit suicide means to agree with absurdity, to give up and in his analysis The Myth of Sisyphus, he demonstrated the absurdity of fate as well as the constant struggle. In the field of theatre of the absurd, playwriter Samuel Beckett dealed with the absurd things but never had his characters commit suicide.This observation seems important.
I like to look for little statements such as this which boil things down to a manageable idea.
Last edited by white camellia; 08-02-2006 at 04:32 AM.
There is no polite way
of being happy
Well said. It spurned me to think how Nietzsche believed that conflict IS the law of reality---from atoms and molecules to germs to humans to entire societies. Self-reflection and mind are the great obstacles of human existence as is language, all of which love to parse the world into subject-object and therein create the notion of conflict. But we are simply energy states, the will to power, but there is no free will in the willing. Like Buddha, Nietzsche felt that "willed actions" perpetuate the illusion of separate consciousness. Cause-effect and our own forward-looking orientation are illusory and contributes to our tragic break from pre-Socratic/Dionysian life. Thinking, morality, doctrine, hamper the natural condition---the unfolding of the Dionysian spirit. Unlike Buddhism which denies the individual, Nietsche uplifts it because it is a portal through which will unfolds. If I can try to tie Nietzsche's contribution to existentialism, meaning, value, is part and parcel of willing---rolling a rock up a hill an infinite number of times (Sissyphus) matters because "I" says so. We write on the world; the world does not write on us.
Kurz--- I read Brothers Karamozov, which was too long but anyway Dostoeyvsky manages to keep the plot intact right up to the end with the murder trial. It exposes the fatal flaw of human beings, our achilles heel, madness as a function of shame. I thought this book was more a psychological piece reflecting Jung's Unconscious and some Freudian theory. The famous dream scene - "The Grand Inquisitor" chapter - Jesus returns and is imprisoned and chooses to remain silent while the king chastises him, and only after does Jesus break his silence by getting up and laying a kiss on the king's cheek leaving him absolutely perplexed. It's the strongest statement against the absurd I've ever read. I don't really see anything "existential" in the book---perhaps someone will be kind enough to enlighten me? By the way, is there even a working definition of the term, "existential"? I read somewhere that both Camus and Sartre vehemently rejected the label.
Last edited by jon1jt; 08-02-2006 at 10:45 AM.
I can see where you would get the impression that it is a more Freudian work than existential, and while you are right in the respect of intepreting it as a psychological thriller/murder mystery, I think you are overlooking several important existential factors. One important factor that deals directly with character development is that all of the brothers (Dmitri,Ivan, Alyosha) possess the divided parts of the self. The latter was a very important deal in existential literature at the time. If you refer back to Kierkegaard, especially "SICKNESS UNTO DEATH" you will see just how important the definition of the self is to existentialism. For instance each brother describes his divided self by two terms. Dmitri the eldest son (the one who suffers the greatest) has Sodom and Madonna, Ivan, has the insect/angel, and Alyosha's are vauge but in a close reading it becomes clear that his two sides are simply light/dark. One of the high points of the novel for me was the way each character tries to solve their existential problem of the self. In my opinion Dmitri can be directly compared to Camus's "THE STRANGER". One way in which they are similiar is that they are both sensualist. This is evident by Dmitri spending his money on girls, vodka, sweet meats, and chocolate (both before and after the death of Fyodor), This is directly compared to Meursault's foray with Marie. On the madonna side of the self both Dmitri and meursault beleive strongly in truth and justice, and only through great existential suffering are they both able to make sense of their lives and become an individual.
Another brilliant existential move on Dostoevsky's part is that each main character (Fydor, Dmitri,Ivan, Alyosha) has a female existential double. They are as follows:
1. Fyodor/Madame Hohlakov
2. Dmitri/Grushenka
3. Ivan/Katerina Ivanova
4. Alyosha/Liza
There are oodles of quotes throughout the book that illuminate this idea. It is probably most notable in the relationship of Dmitri/Grushenka. But I assure you it is there for all the others as well.
Man, I can go on and on about the existential ideas and themes present in the book. But for now I will stop.
One impotant thing I would like to add has to do with the "Grand inquisitor"
Though it reads like a dream, I assure you it is not. It is a story Ivan tells to Alyosha while the are dining. The argument that the chapter presents is called an antinomy. The main thing to remeber when dealing with an antinomy is that it can only be solved by a third choice. Here is a quick break down of the inquisitor.
Jesus(Christian) represents the pure being and his teaching are largely right. He teaches that humans should be individuals and leave the sensual behind. This basically means to live an asetic life on nothing but roots and tubers found in the desert/ esentially every man should know his way without mediation. (an existentialized version of this is found in the character of Father Ferapont).
The Grand Inquisitor (Roman Catholic) The Inquisitor agrees with Jesus, but says that even though it is the right way, he can not expect people to be held to the rigourous life of ascetism. The Inquisitor himself is able to lead a life of indiviadual purity. He also knows that for the peasents this life is not possible because he believes people are weak and need leadership and food (the latter is important because it shows that Dostoevsky sees that Russia is moving towards communism). Basically the inquisitor tells Jesus that he(Jesus) is asking from everbody what only a handfull of rare asectic people can lead. This is the mistake the inquisitor condems upon Jesus. The Inquisitor's job and that of the Roman Catholic church is to change Jesus's Christianty to a religion that normal people can lead.
So, what is the third choice, the thing that will save them from the antinomy? It is positively the Russian Orthodox Church. Though it is vague here is the proof.
Alyosha- "But.... that's absurd!" he cried flushing. "Your poem is in praise of Jesus, not in blam of him-as you meant it to be. And who will believe you about freedom? Is that the way to understand it? That's not the idea of it in the Orthodox church...... That's Rome, and not even the whole of Rome, it's false-those are the worst of the Catholics, the inquisitors, the Jesuits!.....
There are plent more existential themes. if you are curious to learn more I can keep going.
You presented many terrific ideas that I want to read your comments again. For now, let me focus on one aspect of your reflection which perhaps we can open up some. You said that Meursault believes strongly in "truth and justice." His neighbor is a seedy character who beats women, kicks his dog, and so on, and is the antithesis of truth and justice, no? When Marie tells Meursault that they should call the cops and report him for beating his girlfriend, Meursault answers, "I don't like cops." Much later in the book we're told he shoots the thug on the beach after the lyrical display of watching the sunlight bounce from the knife as it sweeps down on him. There is no justice in his consideration, just impulse. It's been a while since I've read that book, but I don't exactly recall Meursault appealing to justice in court either, he leaves it all up to his lawyer who doesn't care about him. Where is truth and justice in this book? Dmitri, on the other hand, is hedonistic, and/or reckless, however way you want to see him. But I don't see him as epitomizing justice or searching for truth in any significant way either. And what exactly is "the existential problem with the self?" You say "tries to solve" as if the self has a choice in the matter or handle on the "problem," when, in my mind, the solution emerges from the wellspring of existence itself. Look forward to your remarks and others. Thanks.
Very good point. To many people it might seem that Meursault is an unapologetic, non-reflecting, sensual individual. While this is true for the first half of the book, I dont think it is the same for the second part. During the trial a public official makes a passing remark where he says that if Meursault repents and accepts christianity he will be saved. Despite this temptation, Meursault holds true to his beliefs: instead of taking the seemingly easier (false truth ) and more rewarding path (to some people). Furthermore, he also feels that he should be punished for his actions, and refuses to try and escape, or avoid justice. I think that this once again proves that Meursault possesses the existential problem of the self just like Dmitri. Meursault is also a base and non-reflective individual in the first part of the book. When we get to the second half we seemingly find a very different Meursault. He becomes reflective, and it is only through this reflection that he can supress his sensual side and solve his problem of the self. Another point about truth is that before the trial he questions the need for a lawyer claiming that "the truth should speak for itself".
What is the existential problem of the self? Wow, this is a complicated question to answer. In my previous post I highlighted the different types of self and the female existential doubles and their correlative division of the self. within these divisons of the self, there are several existential choices that can seemingly solve the problem of the self. The most important way is a more Kierkegaardian method. The negative relation of a self relating to itself is extremely important. The way in which the self is defined only by repressing the other half of the self is the negative relation (this is not the self). If the relation relates to its whole self (instead of just supressing half) this is the positive relation (spirit/passion) and in this positive relation the true self is found. This is why it is important for a character to relate to both sides of the self instead of just repressing the negative and/or positive side. This is the reason why Father Zossima bows down to Dmitri during the discussion. Zossima sees that Dmitri will suffer and even more so will suffer in the right way (relating to both sodom/madonna, Insect/Angel etc..). This is even more obvious when we look at Ivan's self. Ivan is clearly in despair from trying to supress one side and/or merge the sides. In this way he is not relating to his whole self (like Dmitri, Grushenka, Meursault). He is trying to cleans his self and he realizes that it is impossible to get both sides of the self togethor and sinks into despair (remeber what happens to him at the end)
Another way to solve the problem of the self is to have an unconditional commitment. This is the way in which the self relates itself to itself by virtue of another (does not have to be a person). Several examples that promote this idea are Dante and Beatrice, Kierkegarrd and Regina, Martin Luther King Jr and civil rights, etc.... An unconditinal commitment gives the Individual an identity and it is through this identity that the problem of the self is solved. An unconditional commitment is also what seperates the Individual from the lower immediecy (moods, urges, feelings, base emotions) and is the starting point for Knights of Faith anf Knights of infinite resignation. This character in the "Brothers Karamazov" is Alyosha. He has an unconditional comitment to zossima and even forgets Dmitirs problems when Zossima dies. It is also important to notice that upon Zossimas death, Rakitian (who is an existentialized devil) tempts Alyosha with sausage, Vodka, and Grushenka (also remeber the tempation of Christ in the "Grand Inquisitor"). This is also one way to see the divided self within Alyosha. If you remeber he accepts all three temptations and it is only by relating to his whole self (light/dark) is he able to perform a miracle and relate his self to his whole self by his unconditional commitment.
Last edited by Kurtz; 08-03-2006 at 05:25 PM.
So many interesting points Kurtz I don't know where to begin! Before I forget, one that leaps out at me is your claim that Meursault has "beliefs" which intimates he is guided by some inner moral compass in his "refusing to try and escape or avoid justice." He is no Socrates. He is an individual stripped of moral and ethical compunction. Or more simply, he lacks a conscience. While I don't see him as detached, aloof, ambivalent, I see him as a spectator, but not necessarily actively calculating or engaged in the world. He's on the periphery. I see your point about the second part of the book, which is his journey toward the interior. This is deliberate of Camus, who, in my mind, wants us to see how "codes" shake the foundations of the self thereby making Mersault "human." It's a lengthy process. First he needs to be wrested from the doldrums of his true nature and the trial places him front and center. As far as his claim to the lawyer that "the truth should speak for itself," I see this statement in the sense of a Platonic form, something outside human reason and unattainable, and equally dissatisfying as getting to Kant's "thing in itself"? Besides, just because the truth should speak for itself doesn't mean it will, ever. Who said it must or will ever be spoken from the mind of a human being? There is no truth, just perspectives of truth. I hate to take credit for that line, I think that was Nietzsche.Interesting stuff, this Camus gives us, huh?
Last edited by jon1jt; 08-03-2006 at 06:11 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote