No Exit Analysis
First and foremost, the title of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play No Exit is a subtle yet overt foreshadowing of the underlying existentialist philosophy present in the text; being that, within existence, there is no escape from the inherent burden felt due to the conflicts of man’s unfathomably absolute freedom, and the weight of responsibility for each action one makes under the weight of our human condition.
We are the Gods of our own values; only we have the power to create them. In being so, all of the characters must believe that they deserve to suffer on some fundamental level, therefore they suffer. Moreover, each character is living in a different form of bad faith, which ultimately constitutes the basis of their personalized …show more content…
The paper knife is used as a reference to production preceding existence in contrast to essence preceding existence in existentialism is a humanism. Estelle believes in the ‘essential purpose’ of a knife- to stab, or to cut, thereby inflicting damage to the victim. Yet, when she tries to stab Inez, no damage is done to her at all. This is one of the few direct confrontations to absurdity that Estelle encounters, where it is portrayed that essence is a flawed concept, and never …show more content…
However, if morality is inherently subjective, how could Sartre intend for the setting of this play to be in hell? For, if it were so, there would have to be a presupposition of objective morality deeming one’s conduct as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Being so, this would insinuate a form of fundamental essentialism, which would contradict Sartre’s basic explanation of existentialism; that existence precedes essence, thus man is inherently free. One may argue that this hell is created by the simple presence of other people, as this causes us to question who we are, thereby limiting our existence to their fragmented perceptions (or, at the very least, not act completely according to our own will, but under a distorted influence derived from fear of judgement). Perhaps, then, the afterlife being portrayed in ‘No Exit’ is simply a mundane room, thereby leaving each character to themselves in taking full responsibility for what they make of their situation. For, if there is nothing besides what one makes existence to be, it is clear that each individual in the play has, in fact, chosen that they are to suffer, thus creating hell for themselves. In fact, the room in the afterlife resembles a typical setting that would be found in the real world around us, resonating that conceivably we, too, hold the responsibility for what we make our lives, and whether or not they are filled with
First and foremost, the title of Jean-Paul Sartre’s play No Exit is a subtle yet overt foreshadowing of the underlying existentialist philosophy present in the text; being that, within existence, there is no escape from the inherent burden felt due to the conflicts of man’s unfathomably absolute freedom, and the weight of responsibility for each action one makes under the weight of our human condition.
We are the Gods of our own values; only we have the power to create them. In being so, all of the characters must believe that they deserve to suffer on some fundamental level, therefore they suffer. Moreover, each character is living in a different form of bad faith, which ultimately constitutes the basis of their personalized …show more content…
The paper knife is used as a reference to production preceding existence in contrast to essence preceding existence in existentialism is a humanism. Estelle believes in the ‘essential purpose’ of a knife- to stab, or to cut, thereby inflicting damage to the victim. Yet, when she tries to stab Inez, no damage is done to her at all. This is one of the few direct confrontations to absurdity that Estelle encounters, where it is portrayed that essence is a flawed concept, and never …show more content…
However, if morality is inherently subjective, how could Sartre intend for the setting of this play to be in hell? For, if it were so, there would have to be a presupposition of objective morality deeming one’s conduct as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Being so, this would insinuate a form of fundamental essentialism, which would contradict Sartre’s basic explanation of existentialism; that existence precedes essence, thus man is inherently free. One may argue that this hell is created by the simple presence of other people, as this causes us to question who we are, thereby limiting our existence to their fragmented perceptions (or, at the very least, not act completely according to our own will, but under a distorted influence derived from fear of judgement). Perhaps, then, the afterlife being portrayed in ‘No Exit’ is simply a mundane room, thereby leaving each character to themselves in taking full responsibility for what they make of their situation. For, if there is nothing besides what one makes existence to be, it is clear that each individual in the play has, in fact, chosen that they are to suffer, thus creating hell for themselves. In fact, the room in the afterlife resembles a typical setting that would be found in the real world around us, resonating that conceivably we, too, hold the responsibility for what we make our lives, and whether or not they are filled with