“We can always find something, eh Didi, to make us feel like we exist? »[1] Estragon, Samuel Beckett's character, asks his friend Vladimir in Beckett's tragicomedy, Waiting for Godot. This postmodernist play has generated a great deal of analysis, commentary and criticism since its first performance in 1953. Intellectuals have continued to attempt to interpret Beckett's intentions in creating such an obscure and disconcerting "story", if the We could go so far as to call it that. The confrontations around the entities of self and existence that arise from such work give rise to a demand for deeper understanding that arises from each person's quest for truth. However, Beckett famously remained silent in the face of all inquiries on the subject of his work. He said: “My job is to produce fundamental sounds as fully as possible, and I accept no responsibility for the rest. If people want to have headaches among the harmonics, let them do so. And provide their own aspirin. »[2]Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Martin Esslin looks at Beckett and his conception of art and this very refusal to apply specific meaning to his work. He says: “[Beckett's literary creations], through their uncompromising focus on existential experience, also demand attention as human documents of great importance; for they constitute an exploration, on a hitherto almost unprecedented scale, of the nature of a human being's mode of existence, and therefore of the nature of human existence itself. [3] Esslin argues that because Beckett denies the observer a set of pre-existing concepts or ideas in his works, these "constitute the culmination of existential thought itself." existentialist philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche and many others. However, this essay focuses on Beckett's Waiting for Godot and how it parallels Albert Camus' specific philosophy of absurdism as described in his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" and argues that the description of existence by Beckett illustrates the consequences of failure to achieve fulfillment. through acceptance and revolt in an existence such as that described by Camus. To best illustrate the parallels between these texts, we must begin with a discussion of Waiting for Godot's immediate association with the absurd. Both the play and Samuel Beckett himself are at the forefront of most discussions regarding what is today called "Theatre of the Absurd." The term was used following Martin Esslin's 1962 book of the same title, in which Esslin defines his goal: "The Theater of the Absurd strives to express its sense of absurdity with regard to the human condition and the insufficiency of the rational approach on the part of the open abandonment of rational devices and discursive thinking. absurd vision of existence proposed by Albert Camus. In “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus picks up where existential philosophy leaves off. By recognizing an atheistic universe, the reality that existence precedes essence and that life has no objective meaning, he asserts that existence is intrinsically absurd and that it is the only reconcilable truth to which man can hang on. Absurdity, he deduces, arises from “the confrontation of that irrational and wild desire for clarity whose call resonates in the human heart. »[6] This desire for clarity, understanding and unity is the one which, according to Camus,is inherent to the human being. existence, and he describes it as “nostalgia”. The truth that man must exist in a world without reason, without understanding and without hope is truly absurd. Beckett's depiction of the world through the voices and actions of the characters Estragon and Vladimir is indicative of the irrationality of the world and its inability to satisfy human desires and needs. Camus says: “The deepest desire of the mind, even in its most elaborate operations, is parallel to man's unconscious feeling towards his universe: it is an insistence on familiarity, an appetite for clarity. »[7] The absurd reality is that the world cannot be that for us. The world is intrinsically dissociated from man, inhuman, and will forever escape man's understanding. As mentioned previously, it is the confluence of this unintelligibility and man's desire to understand it that constitutes the very essence of absurdity. The universe created by Beckett, composed of aimless acts, repetitive dialogues that constantly negate themselves, disjointed times and short memories, lacks all the elements of an understandable reality. There is a lack of objective conclusion or truth to many things, which contributes to the feeling of anxiety and dissonance that results from the play's overall theme of eternal waiting and suspension. The tension and dissatisfaction of the characters existing in this environment is evident. After Estragon wakes up "desperately" from his dream, Vladimir loudly protests that he not share what he dreamed. Estragon, “gesturing towards the universe” as Beckett indicates in the stage directions, responds: “Is this one enough for you? "[8] Throughout the play, Estragon and Vladimir both make outbursts such as, "I can't go on like this." this!" and "It's horrible!" in response to their conditions.[9] The world in which they exist is completely irrational and completely unbearable. Besides an irrational universe, the absurdity arises from humanity's desire to s According to Camus, this desire can never be realized. The absurdist vision, alongside existentialism, is committed to the absolute truth that there is no tomorrow and there certainly is. no eternal – there is only the present moment in which one can exist, making life completely meaningless. However, the history of man is a history which constantly creates and gives credence to the fact that the. Life has meaning and purpose. This is evident in religions in particular and in any commitment to the eternal. But it is also evident in the average man who dedicates his daily life to working for the future, for tomorrow. The need for man to give purpose and order to his life is fundamental and also, from an absurd point of view, impossible. It is a fallacy to live for anything, to aspire to anything. The culmination of the goal of the era of Vladimir and Estragon awaits Godot. This is why they find themselves in an unknown and empty place where “nothing happens, no one comes, no one leaves”.[10] Waiting for Godot gives Vladimir and Estragon a purpose in life, albeit a terribly boring and monotonous one. Most devastating is that Godot never comes, which can and has been interpreted as an indication of the futility of existence and the tragedy of devoting one's life to higher orders than the present moment. “Habit is the ballast that chains the dog to his vomit. »[11] Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus had similar ideas about the place of habit in modern life. Camus explains that the absurdity of a life needlessly committed to the future is cultivated largely by habit. But it is from this monotony, from this habit, which often arises what he calls "moments of lucidity”, moments where absurdity is realized.[12] One of the ways in which the absurd world arises in consciousness is the emergence of “why” from daily repetition and rhythm. Camus states that after this awakening to the absurdity of life, there is either a gradual return to old rhythms, or a "definitive awakening" from which results either ultimate despair and suicide, or healing.[13] This moment can be detected in Waiting for Godot after Pozzo's exit in Vladimir's monologue in which he reflects on his confusion with reality, his inability to make sense of what is happening around him. “Was I sleeping while the others were suffering? Am I sleeping now? Tomorrow, when I wake up, or think I wake up, what will I say about today? That with Estragon my friend, in this place, until nightfall, I waited for Godot? That Pozzo came by, with his career, that he spoke to us? Probably. But in all this, what truth will there be? Is he going back to his monotonous life? Does he accept this reality? And if so, should he accept it or despair? Camus begins his argument for an absurd philosophy with the question of “the only truly serious philosophical problem… suicide.” Judging whether or not life is worth living. Is life worth living? Vladimir and Estragon mention suicide several times during the play. In the first act, this is described as a means of entertainment, and Beckett even adds a touch of humor: Vladimir: What do we do now? Estragon: Wait. Vladimir: Yes, but in the meantime. Estragon: What if we hang ourselves? Vladimir: Hmm. It would give us an erection. Estragon: [very excited] An erection! Vladimir: With everything that follows. Where it falls, mandrakes grow. That's why they scream when we pick them up. You didn't know that? Estragon: Let's hang ourselves immediately![16] The two decide not to accept the idea. They decide to wait and hear what Godot has to say before deciding, clinging to their hope once again. Suicide is mentioned again at the end of the first act, then in the second act in a more melancholic manner, but due to a lack of rope, the characters cannot overcome it. At the end of the second act, after Vladimir's "moment of lucidity" and the announcement that Godot still won't come, he says, "We'll hang ourselves tomorrow," but then follows up with "unless Godot comes." ”.[17] Camus concludes that an absurd life is an absurd life. it must be experienced. He even says: "Life will be all the better lived if it has no meaning", referring to the great freedom that comes from living only the present moment, without obligation or motivation other than that of living it. . [18] He concludes that to escape the absurd life through suicide is in fact to cancel its very absurdity. Absurdity only exists in the combination of man, in all his desires for order, and the world in all its irrationality. To get rid of the rational man is to get rid of the absurd. No, the answer to the question of existence in absurdity cannot be suicide. Camus deduces that the way to live this life is to live it in revolt – the revolt of despair and suffering. It is to live fully knowing the state of one's existence and to live momentarily anyway, with no pursuit other than that of the present moment, and he says that joy can be found there. Vladimir's moment of lucidity leads him to make a choice. He must accept this absurd reality of which he has become aware or he must deny it. Vladimir's decision not to commit suicide, however, does not indicate that he accepted the knowledge he gained. Richard Duran argues that the existence chosen by the characters in Waiting for Godot, even if they do not commit suicide,remains a form of suicide that Camus describes as “philosophical suicide”.[19] Camus uses the examples of existentialist philosophers Kierkegaard and Shestov to demonstrate how those who find themselves aware of the absurd, discovered in this moment of lucidity, in an effort to "jump" from the struggle which involves: "the total absence "hope, continued rejection and conscious dissatisfaction", deny the absurd by attributing rationality to the world, despite evidence to the contrary.[20] Camus defines philosophical suicide as “the movement by which a thought negates itself and tends to transcend itself in its very negation” and adds: “For the negation of existentials is their God. To be precise, this god is only maintained by the negation of human reason. »[21] Kierkegaard, Shestov and other philosophers and thinkers who experienced this moment of lucidity, then denied it by promising a form of transcendence, sacrificed knowledge in the pursuit of hope. Vladimir's promise to return to wait for Godot at the end of the play, even after being confronted with the absurdity of it all, is an example of this assassination of knowledge and reason in exchange for meaning in life. It is interesting to note that although this moment of clarity for Vladimir occurs at the end of the play, an awareness of the absurdity of their existence is suggested from the beginning in the language of both characters. The very first lines of the play suggest the idea of ​​capitulation: Estragon: Nothing to be done. Vladimir: I'm starting to agree with this opinion. All my life, I tried to hide it from myself by saying: Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't tried everything. And I took up the fight again.[22] Here we see not only a recognition of the futility of life on the part of both characters, but we also see the first example of Vladimir's relentless hope. It is important here to note the different ways in which the two main characters approach the absurd and hope. Vladimir, even if he seems to have the feeling of the absurdity of his life even before his moment of lucidity, retains the hope of meeting Godot with more persistence than Estragon. In the first pages of the play, Vladimir makes a rambling comment referring to the notion of suicide: “It’s too much for one man. On the other hand, what’s the point of getting discouraged now, that’s what I’m saying. We should have thought of this a million years ago, in the '90s."[23] It seems that as the overwhelming vanity of life begins to enter his mind, he seeks escape into committing suicide. But he does not have the courage and therefore continues to engage in hope, even if he begins to realize its uselessness. His attachment to a rational world is manifested in his recognition of a system of morality. He reacts to Pozzo's abuse towards Lucky: Vladimir: [explodes] It's a scandal! Pozzo: Are you referring to anything in particular? Vladimir: [stutter resolved] To treat a man... [gestures towards Lucky]... like that... I think... no... a human being... no... it's a scandal![24] Vladimir is largely ignored by Estragon and Pozzo. Estragon shouts: “A shame! in support of Vladimir before he starts gnawing bones again, and Estragon is more concerned about Vladimir's age than the accusation against him. In an irrational world, without God, without purpose, then morality itself is obsolete. The value of being human could also be considered obsolete. Vladimir struggles with this throughout the play as he continues to ascribe meaning and purpose to his meaningless and aimless life. Estragon, on the other hand, seems less aware of the general events occurring in the play. His memory is notoriously short and Vladimir has to constantly inform him of what is happening. The following exchange occurs repeatedly throughout theroom: Estragon: Let's go. Vladimir: We can't. Estragon: Why not? Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot. Estragon: [desperate] Ah![25] Estragon has only the slightest awareness of his and Vladimir's life purpose and must constantly remind himself what they are dedicated to as well. He is therefore less committed than Vladimir, and seems largely committed to this expectation simply because Vladimir is. While Vladimir contemplates suicide, it is Estragon who suggests it several times. It could be argued that Estragon has already become acutely aware of the absurdity of life and has already lost hope in a rational existence. His inability to remember what they are waiting for or what happened the day before or sometimes only a few minutes before suggests that he exists only in the present moment, an absurd and hopeless existence. However, he is also incapable of embracing and entering this existence. in Camus' rebellion because of his connection to Vladimir and Vladimir's hope. Estragon often suggests that the two separate. Estragon: I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't have been better off alone, each for himself. We were not made for the same path. Vladimir: It's not sure. Estragon: No, nothing is certain. Vladimir: We can still part ways, if you think that would be better. Estragon: It's not worth it now. [26] Estragon, although he has given up hope that Godot will ever come, is still forced to wait for him and unable to accept his fate due to his connection to Vladimir, committing him to a tragic doomed existence to a monotony that we cannot even overcome. “I can’t go on like this,” he tells Vladimir at the end of the second act.[27] Both men, in their inability to truly embrace the absurdity of their lives, can only strive to distract themselves and avoid facing it. They are desperately trying to stay busy and avoid silence, especially Vladimir. Estragon: In the meantime, let's try to converse calmly, because we are incapable of remaining silent. Vladimir: You are right, we are inexhaustible. Estragon: It's so we don't think. Vladimir: We have this excuse. Estragon: It's so that we don't hear anything. Vladimir: We have our reasons. Estragon: All the dead voices. Vladimir: They make a sound like wings. Tarragon: Like leaves. Vladimir: Like sand. Tarragon: Like leaves. … [long silence] Vladimir: Say something! Estragon: I try. [long silence] Vladimir: [anguished] Say anything![28] Vladimir is aware of the knowledge that is accumulating within him, of the unbearable reality of the absurdity of life, and because he does not want not face it, it is essential that he does not allow himself the time to think, the time to be conscious, to be lucid. Esslin proposes this not only as an avoidance of life, but also as an avoidance of oneself: "The hope of salvation may simply be an escape from the suffering and anguish that arise when one faces the reality of the human condition. »[29] If we propose that Estragon has already recognized the futility of life, then he fears silence for a different reason. He is simply and terribly bored with this life which he knows has no meaning and which he is incapable of acting against. Perhaps the greatest devastation to Vladimir and Estragon's position is the fact that, as Camus says: "Once man has admitted his truths, he can no longer free himself." himself from them. A man aware of the absurd is forever linked to it. . But their destiny is also even more tragic than that of the absurd man who, accepting the absurdity, “lives his adventure in the space of his life, conscious of his limited freedom, his revolt without future and his mortal conscience ". »[31] No, the fate of those who possess., 123.