Sartre’s Existentialism

Existentialism is oft misunderstood for its deceptive complexity. In reality, existentialist philosopher pro piles ar so angiotensin-converting enzymer simple to understand. They were exemplified in Sartres No Exit, in which the author presented his visual sense of kind-hearted identity. This paper is centered on evaluating and re-considering existentialist philosophy in Sartres No Exit. Sartres Existentialism Introduction Existentialism has become the military issue of the fruitful creative work of Jean-Paul Sartre. His works argon exceedingly philosophic, and one or sotimes needs to undertake several reading efforts to understand the implications of Sartres works.It not a secret, that his No Exit is the bright representation of existentialist ideas. Sartre was capable of including anything he scene about life into this short play. He did not need too homophiley characters, or too earthly concerny scenes to carry the most important philosophical messages to the reader. This was the proof of his talent and the proneness to change hatfuls ideas about their inward motives and identities. The play takes run in the sm e very(prenominal) room with doddery furniture and somewhat crazy style.The troika flock Garcin, Estelle, and Inez ar closed in that room. The question what these three hatful do in that respect is simple to answer the room is Sartres representation of netherworld. The three people are the three dead souls who appeared in underworld after their dyings. Each of them possesses their own character, and to each one has something to tell. However, there are profound implications in their constant interaction, bearing in mind that they pose no different way out, and they preservenot be as free as they apply to be in their earth lives.We will find close all existentialist ideas expressed in this small just extremely complex piece of writing. It is purge much interesting to consider each of them separately. Man is prudent for what he is. Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts e precise homo in possession of himself as he is, and places the entire obligation for his globe squarely upon his own shoulders (Sartre 1989, p. 132). The role of Sartres existentialism has initially been in the attempt to explain the positive sides of that philosophical trend.Sartre was aiming at proving that existentialism was not a negative notion in the society moreover, he too cute to show that existentialism did not mean neglecting benevolent values and leading immoral way of life. On the contrary, he positioned existentialists as those who had to create themselves and to be responsible for what they were (Heter 2006, p. 29). Was this true? Yes, it was, and No Exit proven it. The examples of Garcin and Estelle only support these assumptions.We can understand why these deuce people found themselves in booby hatch however yet we come to discretion that Sartre describes hell only with the help of indirect hints found throughout the play. It is even more interesting, that while Sartre justified a person for being a human, and displayed the importance of a person creating oneself without after-school(prenominal) help, we similarly see the changing attitudes of Estelle and Garcin towards their earth lives. These changes are viewed in the gradual process of their revelation and recognizing the life-threatening realities of their previous lives.Meeting Garcin and Estelle for the first time, we become aware of their stories, but these stories are shown in their personal interpretation I lost my parents when I was a kid, and I had my young brother to bring up. We were terribly poor and when an old friend of my people asked me to marry him I said yes. He was very well off, and quite nice. My brother was a very delicate tike and needed all sorts of attention, so really that was the right thing for me to do, entert you agree? My husband was old enough to be my father, but for s ix years we had a happy married life.Then two years ago I met the man I was fated to love. (Sartre, 1944) neertheless reaching the end of the play we come to understanding that Estelles report had not been as innocent as she tried to depict it. Moreover, she had left over(p) its most significant part beyond the limits of our sentience. What she had to tell later scared the reader, yet helped to realize that Sartre was right in his existentialist provisions people create themselves as they want to they take over their will, they are conscious, and they check to be fully responsible for what they do (Flynn 2005, p. 8). The fact that Garcin and Estelle appeared in hell was the behavior of that certificate of indebtedness, or rather, the consequences of the responsibility all of us have to carry for our actions. Garcin had to fill in the fact that he had tortured his wife his open adulteries, alcohol, and total languor to her as a human being had not pushed him to a though t that he had been doing something wrong. He forgot that each of us is not only responsible for ourselves, but for everyone around us. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be, in fashioning myself I fashion man (Sartre 1989, p. 137). The profound truth of this idea is also displayed through Estelles and Garcins conduct. In being so indifferent towards his wife, Garcin has also made his alternative about her, putting her into a tragic position of always time lag for him (Heter 2006, p. 30). He had to admit that she never cried, never uttered a sacred scripture of reproach. Only her eyes spoke (Sartre, 1944), but it was not only her filling.That was the choice of Garcin, too, and they both contributed enough to create the picture of a never happy family. Estelle made her choice, too, and it is im workable but to admit that she had also been responsible for at to the lowest degree the two lives next to he r the life of her small pip-squeak, and the life of her lover. Surely, she wanted to avoid respectable conflicts in her life, and she was proud to conjure that her husband never knew the truth. Yet she forgot to mention that the lives of her lover and her child were also dependent on her. She became the cause of their death, either direct or indirect.In any case, the hell has become her refuge, her revelation, and the proof of her inner responsibility for her deeds (Flynn 2005, p. 51). No event how hard we may try to conceal our real feelings, we cannot consort inner moral tortures for what we have once performed. This is why the inventiveness of Sartres hell is in not showing it with traditional attributes fire, tortures, Satan, etc. We are the tortures to ourselves, and our consciousness tells for us. Hell is the mere representation of our fears, and it does not necessarily have to be in the form of the burning fires.In this existentialist analysis of Estelle and Garcin we ha ve forgotten about the third participant of the discussed events. It is not surprising Inez also had her sins and had to confess she had become the reason of the three deaths, including her own, but in Sartres play she better served a kind of a mirror, in which the sins of the other two were reflected Suppose I try to be your glass? go down and pay me a visit, dear. Heres the place for you on my sofa. (Sartre, 1944) The construct of God is even more interesting to be viewed through the prism of existentialism. Sartre was keeping to the so-called atheistic existentialism.This did not though mean that Sartre was denying existence of God at all he rather explained the connection of God, his absence seizure in human imagination, and as a consequence, the absence of moral and ethical standards according to which a person should act. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. (Sartre 1989, p. 138). However, existentialist vision of God is rather contradictory and cadaver that in the discussed play. First of all, can we suggest that there is no God, if Sartre depicts Estelle, Inez, and Garcin in hell?Hell is initially a well known antipode of paradise, and it is possible to suggest that if hell exists, there is also paradise. As a consequence, if those who used to deny usual moral standards in their lives appear in hell, doesnt this mean that those who led positive way of life could appear in paradise? Second, Sartre was very rigid in terms of morality as it is he used to assume that we could not follow moral standards from outside (Flynn 2005, p. 52). According to existentialist ideas, moral standards are brought to us from the depth of our souls, and what we have to do is to realize, what our inner identity tells us.All characters of the play have finally turn out what Sartre wanted to show there were no God, but there were also no human values. This is why all three appeared in hell. Existentialism is not the denial of God it is the set of ideas according to which people should be responsible for their heating plants. In this sense existentialist teaching is very similar to Christianity, how other this may sound. The existentialist does not believe in the power of passion. He will never regard a special K passion as a destructive torrent upon which a man is swept into certain actions as by fate, and which, therefore, is an excuse for them (Sartre 1989, p. 41). in that location is no need to repeat, that Estelle, Garcin, and Inez are Sartres chassiss of this interesting idea. Their passions have led them to hell and they are meant to spend eternity in the room with weird angles and strange furniture, behind the door which is never opened, and with no sleep, as their eyes do not have eyelids. Garcin had a passion towards women and entertainment he had passion towards pacifism and did not think of its possible negative consequences. Inezs pa ssions resulted in the death of the three persons, and Estelles passion led to the death of her child, and later, her lover.The man is responsible for his passions, and we can easily see the conjunction of the responsibility for passions, and responsibility for other people. Actually, these are similar expressions of the same philosophical interactions, or these can be built in a logical line we are responsible for our passions, which impact the lives of other people, and thus through our actions we are also responsible for others. None of the three characters will be able to escape the inner responsibility for the lost lives.This realization becomes even brighter, caused not by sensual tortures as we traditionally imagine them in hell, but by conversations between Estelle, Inez, and Garcin, in which they make each other reveal their truths. As a result, hell is not outside and not in physical pain it is inside us and it eats us from inside. Moreover, hell is in people who direct u s towards seeing the truth about ourselves. As far as we are what we want to be, people around us create an image of ourselves which we have to accept.Hell is in being clinical towards ourselves Sartre recognized the human nature, and the difficulty with which we recognize our identities (Sartre 1989, p. 131). This is why this recognition is the embodiment of hell for us. Estelle is a bright representation of existentialist vision. As unyielding as Sartres ideas related to the human opportunity to choose, she had clearly proved the importance and possibility of human choice. Of course, killing ones child is possibly the human choice in its most radical form, but it seems that Sartre had to use this complex context to make existentialist vision more understandable to the reader.There is surely, the risk that the reader might misunderstand the propose of this tragic plot, but it is more probable that Estelles actions will not be misinterpreted. While conventional reader will try to pronounce Inez, Estelle, and Garcin through the prism of widely accepted moral norms, these are the existentialists who state the absence or the small role of the external societal standards (Heter 2006, p. 35). There is no common morality which could push us towards these or those actions.As a result, depicting three negative personalities is the heart and soul of clarifying the staple existentialist provisions responsibility for actions, responsibility for passions, and the absence of God and everyday moral standards. This work is not meant to judge whether existentialism in Sartres works was negative or positive. The meaning of existentialism is in trying to view ourselves through Sartres viewpoint, and to think whether we can accept his vision of our lives. Conclusion Contrary to many traditional opinions, Sartres existentialism is dead humanistic.When we read his No Exit, we may conclude that the play is absolutely negative and absolutely immoral open adultery, suicides, and childs murders constitute a brief but colored picture of the play. However, these are the backgrounds, without which it would hardly be possible to notice the humanitarianism, about which we speak. Existentialism is directly connected with humanism if people condemn our works of fiction, in which we describe characters that are base, weak, yellow-bellied and sometimes even frankly evil, it is not only because those characters are base, weak, trepid or evil (Sartre 1989, p. 142).The importance of existentialist humanism is not in pushing us towards the thought that our cowardice or our passions are the results of some external societal factors. The humanism of existentialism is in showing human responsibility for these evils and actions. As a result, cowardice and evil are obstinate not by some external attributes (for example, being a coward means being bad), but by the actions of people (for example, when certain passions cause the death of an innocent child). No Exit is th e example of short and consistent existentialist vision of our lives, our identities, and the consequences of our reasonable choices.