Sartre left behind some interesting thoughts, ideas, and definitely some good stories!  As an existentialist thinker, Sartre believed we are absolutely responsible for everything in our life.  You and I, we are the artists of our own lives. 

Sartre held strong to his belief that Existence precedes Essence.  In a nutshell, man has no pre-determined nature.  (Quite a bold statement considering that was in direct conflict with the traditional Christian view that God created man in his own image.)

Man is FREE; therefore, man must take responsibility for his own life…

No victims in this world since we are the ones creating it; right? Sure.  However, because of ultimate freedom, we are therefore “condemned to be free,” which in turn creates “angst.”

OMG…there’s no one to guide me, no “right” way to be!  AHHHH!! 

Sartre believed Human consciousness was Being-For-Itself, as opposed to inanimate objects, Being-In-Itself.  We have the freedom to choose our essence, which may lead to angst, which may cause bad faith.

In his play, No Exit, Sartre examines the issue of being objectified by others, which is where we get the famous quote, “Hell is other people.”

But perhaps the most interesting thing about Sartre was his lobster escapade.  After experimenting with mescaline in 1935, Sartre started seeing crabs (lobsters) all around him from the time he woke up until the time he went to bed.  He was quite literally mad for almost a year.

He even went on to remark 45 years later that he missed those lobsters.

Nihilism, for Nietzsche, is the loss of the sense of meaning in the world. Nietzsche writes: “What does nihilism mean? That the highest values devaluate themselves. The aim is lacking; ‘why?’ finds no answer.” Nietzsche further describes: “For why has the advent of nihilism become necessary? Because the values we have had hitherto thus draw their final consequence; because nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals.”

Nietzsche argues, “What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism. This history can be related even now; for necessity itself is at work here.”

According to Nietzsche, not only that nihilism is coming, it actually already “stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?” Nietzsche finds out that the truth of modern science rests on a moral obligation to become truthful. Nietzsche writes, “We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist.” He adds further that “to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms: the obligation to lie according to a fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all.”

Indeed, the truth of modern science rests on a morality, which is in itself also rest on a metaphysical faith. Thus, Nietzsche blames the Christian-moral interpretations of the world as the root of this approaching nihilism. Nietzsche writes: “The end of Christianity – at the hands of its own morality…is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history.”

Friedrich Nietzsche – found in the Cool Kids Never Die blog (Photo credit: Cea.)

In the book “The Old Man and the Sea”, written by Ernest Hemingway, we find the strength and endurance that a man shows to overcome the difficulties that he finds in the ocean.  However, this aspect of the human being’s endurance is only the package of the true meaning behind the words of this novel.  We have to relate this work to the Existentialism philosophy as Sartre describes in his book “Existentialism and Human Emotions”.  We have to refer to the aspect of trusting in ourselves, that is really what helped Santiago, the old man, to finish gloriously his long venture.  At the first instance, Santiago had to face pain, limitations, and their struggles to catch the Marlin, and when he finally caught the big fish, he had to deal with the suffering to combat the sharks.  First of all, the text shows us that we have to prove what we are, and that we are on a constant trial everyday.  In addition, we see that no matter what the struggles are, if we have a strong attitude and self-confidence we can triumph over our problems.   We understand under this basis that every day we begin a new episode in our life where we have to prove again and again who we are.  In order to analyze better this novel in the aspect related to the self confidence, we need support from other sources.  The first source is the “Twayne’s Masterworks Studies” of Gerry Brenner who does a hard analogy of the “The Old Man and the Sea”, debating its validity as a masterwork.  However, he still supports, in some way, the main message of this book and depicts Santiago as “an elderly citizen struggling to maintain self esteem”.  According Mr. Brenner, Santiago, has the role “as model to an increasing population of fatherless youths who seek meaningful lives, despite he thinks that “Santiago shows quite a normal range of common human ambitions and confusions”.  Mr. Brenner also says that Hemingway, with this novel, created “a work of ideal tendencies”.  In addition, the article “Crucified in the Ring” by W. Wittkowski will be a great collaboration for this subject, which is a work where the author discredits the relationship between “The Old Man and the Sea”, and the biblical similarities, assuring that Santiago’s behavior resembles better a ring fighter than Christ.  Another important article is; “Of the Rocks and Marlin” by E. Dwight where he makes a direct relationship between “The Old Man and the Sea” and “Existentialism”, who agrees with the reasoning of  “everything that makes man work and get excited utilizes hope”, something that relates to the “human condition”.

There is the conception that we are born to be something and somebody in this world; this ideology does not fit in the existentialist philosophy.  However, even in that case we have to show what we are in order to exist in the humanity; if one is a fisherman he has to catch fishes like Santiago who needs to reestablish himself as a fisherman.  Mr. Brenner points out that “the old man needs to be recognized by his fellow fishermen as a professional, thereby ensuring his occupational identity as a productive member of his economy” and “his social identity as a service minded benefactor to his community”.  Santiago is an old fisherman, and he had had bad luck (salao) for eighty days, and despite of that, he still wants to be a fisherman.  But once the opportunity came he took it in order to fulfill his professional expectations.  In the analysis made in the “Twayne’s Masterworks Studies”, it describes Santiago as “a person who experiences trials and tests, that invites us to find meaning in his experience, and that challenges us to assign our significance to that meaning or to different meanings” in searching a motive that is the self-validation.  All of these struggles facings different circumstances aim to test our “character” according Mr. Brenner; he relates this point to the passage where Santiago says “But I will show him what a man can do and what a man endures”

Another important point is having self-confidence.  Many people have disagreed about this matter since there is an important character hidden, or actually masked, behind the text of this story; that is religion.  In addition, Santiago evokes the image of sport stars (Joe DiMaggio) and his glorious memories of the past to increase his endurance to the maximum point.  However, in the same book this issue of religion is disregarded when Santiago claims not to be a religious man.  Mr. Wittkowski says that this “hero” does not deny God, but his attitude does not reflect the behavior of a devoted Catholic.  In addition, Mr. Dwight says that the way how Santiago promises to pray, proves that he is not “so immersed in the task at hand”.  Santiago’s conversation with God is more a reaction of desperation than a religious act, which according him, places the “Christian mode in a subordinate status”.   Furthermore, Mr. Dwight keeps arguing about this aspect saying that “Christianity is not more than trove of sentimental relics, in which he occasionally returns in a moment of conditioned reflex”.  In any case, the old fisherman depended only on himself, in the boat, in the middle of the sea, and it was Santiago by his own convictions, who kept encouraging himself, not to give up, which is taught existentialism supports.  We need self confidence to reach this level of courage in our life to face every single one of our problems.  Mr. Brenner describes this situation as “theme of man’s struggle against the forces of nature”.  In addition, Mr. Wittkowski says that “it calls to mind on the one hand Christ on the Cross, yet at the same time the fighter, too, who sits down, leans against the ropes and relaxes between the rounds”.   Furthermore, the author of the article “Crucified in the Ring” says that Santiago can not be considered gentle, “but rather like a fighter”.  Mr. Wittkowski refers also to “the fighter’s code” which according to him keeps Santiago’s sense of self-fulfillment alive, he “uses it in everything that he does”.   “Santiago regards his profession, fisherman, as the arena in which he wants to establish and maintain mastery in the struggle for victory or defeat”, explains Mr. Wittkowski.  We realize that Santiago’s convictions enable him to endure his suffering and pain, to control his body and mind.  Indeed, during the struggle with the Marlin, the old man has to “reassess” his strengths again and again, “attempting to improve them”, according Mr. Wittkowski.  Actually, this fighter’s code is what makes Santiago respect his opponent, the Marlin, and even to sustain a kind of union between them.  Mr. Dwight relates Santiago’s fight to be a “physical and mentally battle” between his physical limitation and his desire to fulfill his role as a fisherman.

In this book fishing plays an important role as Mr. Brenner says this event remarks “on Hemingway’s mystique of fishing to a universal condition of life”. He assumes, maybe ironically, “The Old Man and the Sea” as a novel of “miracle play against fate”.  In addition there is a quote from the New York Times that; “objected that Santiago was more a symbolic attitude toward life than a man”.  There is an important remark of this critic that says that Santiago’s valiant behavior in front of the forces of nature gives “a victory for the humanity from the jaws of defeat”.  Mr. Brenner in his book refers to another person’s opinion that says that Santiago is a “hero whose triumph consists of stretching his own powers to their absolute limits regardless of the physical results”.   Mr. Wittkowski, in the attempt of braking the supposed liked between Santiago and Christ, defines Santiago as an athlete, actually a fighter where the ring is the sea.  Mr. Wittkowski says, fishing for Santiago is a “source of inspiration” for his “sense of obligation” as a fisherman.  The old man has a passion and respect for the sea environment, and its elements, Mr. Dwight refers the sea as the “antagonist”. In addition, the author of “Of the Rocks and Marlin” says that the ocean “provides both the setting and the challenges that give his victories however provisional and short live their existential significance”.   Actually, Santiago is so identified with the sea that, according Mr. Dwight, he accepts the “rightness of shark behavior” as we can appreciate when Santiago talks about the beauty of the sharks.  When he finally gets the Marlin he exclaims “I killed him… In all his greatness and his glory”.  This entire struggle, suggests that every one has a role to fulfill; Santiago as a fisherman, and the Marlin as a fish.  In addition, we have also the big suffering in the fight with the sharks, where Santiago did not have an option; it was either him or the sharks.

It is almost impossible to avoid the religious connotations that “The Old Man and the Sea” book contains in its narration, beginning with Santiago, whose name, in Spanish means Saint.   Santiago’s name is linked to his altruistic attitude, and who according Mr. Brenner, is “a persevering champion” who is willing to die “for his convictions”.  Many people relate the odyssey of Santiago fishing the Marlin to complete his role as food provider for the community with Christ sacrificing himself for our salvation.  This reasoning relates Santiago’s triumphs as a consequence of spiritual inspiration.  Throughout many passages we find, besides other things, a lot of similarities between Santiago’s three days odyssey, and the Jesus’ walking to the Calvary.  Mr. Wittkowski disregards a religious link in Santiago’s behavior.  He says that Santiago is able to reach his goal by “conjuring as if out of nowhere the necessary strength, both physical and spiritual”.  This point gives credit to the “existential autonomy” in Santiago’s character that come from his “faith, hope and confidence”.

We have to refer to another important character in the text.  Joe DiMaggio was not present in the plot, but he is evoked constantly by Santiago, along his struggle fishing the Marlin, the big fish.  Santiago felt related to DiMaggio since the baseball player’s father was a fisherman also.  Furthermore, there is a deeper link between these two characters, and that is this passion to keep going no matter what the difficulties are.  DiMaggio was one of the greatest, for some people the best, baseball player despite a bone spur that used to make his performance more complicated.  Despite his handicap this baseball player got 56 consecutive game hitting streaks in 1941, something that is more than awesome considering his condition.  And in the same way, Santiago despite a lot of factors that placed him in a disadvantage, he did not let adversity to take him into despair.   Hence, we could say that there is a symbolic relationship between baseball and Self confidence, since during the game the pitcher and the catcher are face to face.  They do not depend of anybody other than themselves, and that is what existentialism promotes, the self-dependence and the self esteem.  There are moments where Santiago hesitates due to the intense situation he was going through.  At some point he says “Perhaps I should not have been a fisherman”, but he keeps encouraging himself saying “but that was what I was born for”, and who, according Mr. Wittkowski, maintains his fighter’s and athlete’s pride at the end. 

Other important episodes are the “arm wrestling” between Santiago and “the Great Negro from Cienfuegos”.  This passage is important for this analysis since there is a moment where Santiago explains that in the second contest, he won the match more by confidence than by strength; something that Mr. Brenner defines as “the confidence of his spirit”.   In addition Mr. Wittkowski point out the “rematch he won easily by breaking his opponent’s confidence”.  This points out, that no matter the skills and the physical strength, self-confidence is what really leads us to achieve our goals; indeed according Santiago “he could beat anyone if he wanted to badly enough”.  In addition we have to refer to the dreams that Santiago has about lions, which could suggest the attitude that Santiago shows as the lion-king of his world; a very appropriate image for Santiago according Mr. Brenner.

There is the necessity to dedicate an additional place for what the old man said during his fishing of the Marlin “a man can be destroyed but not defeated”.  This point highlights the differences between the physical and moral matters, meaning, that one can be physically destroyed but not morally, and spiritually defeated.  In addition we have to talk about “the pain does not matter to a man”, something that suggests that we can control our pain if we have the right attitude for reaching our goals. All of these phrases are what Mr.  Brenner calls “moralizing sentences”, which during Santiago’s ordeal become his philosophy.  It keeps him fighting to succeed to the end; something that leads to valorize Santiago’s behavior.  All of this helps to build up Santiago as the image or symbol of perseverance.  Another example should be when almost of the end of the Marlin fishing, he was going to give up saying that he “is not able for many more turns” but this admission awakes his combative spirit saying “yes you are… You are good forever”.  In addition, during the fight with the sharks he says that he “will fight them until he dies”.  Santiago recognizes his physical limitation, but he relies on his intelligence as advantage and in addition on his “resolution” as his best weapon.  According to Mr. Wittkowski “by having taken such a great risk, he does not believe he has lost the moral right to success at all”, but rather, “he has won it”.   This implies the loss, or the bad conditions of element that prevailed during the Old Man’s ordeal.  Elements like his harpoon, his broken knife, and also his mutilated left hand that Santiago even refers as a “traitor” because, like in other moments, she was not responding as his “friend”.  Mr. Dwight also refers to the scars in Santiago’s hands (like “erosions in the fishless desert”) that are the representation of his “provisional triumphs as a fisherman” over the sea’s adversarial forces.  It suggests that Santiago is not a one day (or three days) hero, but he has been constantly proving himself by his daily labor as a fisherman.  There is another important fragment where Santiago has to hit the shark with his harpoon “without hope, but with resolution and complete malignancy”.  After that he has to keep fighting but, this time without the harpoon, and Santiago has to improvise a weapon with his oar and knife.  At that point exclaims “I will try it as long as have the oars and the short club and the tiller” giving evidence that Santiago is willing to take advantage of his few resources.   Mr. Dwight points out that Santiago does not allow “despair” to beat him up, which would be his perdition under these “odd” circumstances on the sea.  For all of these reasons we can say that Santiago is the example of perseverance and a model of self confidence.

Manolin, former Santiago’s disciple and his best friend, is a key actor in this novel.  When Santiago was not able to catch any fish for various days, Manolin’s parents prohibited him to keep learning from the old man since Santiago was unlucky according them.  However, at the end of the story, Manolin becomes a messenger when he says “the hell with luck” and the he assimilates the massage of the old man’s odyssey saying that “I will bring the luck with me”.  Under this statement we get an important message where Manolin suggests that luck does not control us, but we create it.  This point can be carry out in our everyday activities, since if we are not ready for the opportunities that could show up, luck will be absolutely useless.   

An important contribution for this existentialist philosophy is the author of “The Old Man and the Sea”.  Hemingway did not write this novel during a time when existentialism was already created; Mr. Dwight says Hemingway “discovered existentialism in practice before it was theorized” by people like of Heidegger, Sartre, and Camus.  Hemingway’s own live was surrounded with constant trials, something that invites us to persevere to overcome our problems.  In the book “Twayne’s Masterworks Studies”, the author includes an important fragment from the Hemingway’s book “Death in the Afternoon”, where we have to quote “Courage comes with confidence”; a phrase that we can find it in the chapter 14 of that book.  This point suggests that from confidence, we build up other strengths like, courage, determination, ambition, endurance, etc.  Furthermore, Mr. Wittkowski affirms that “the tendency to reduce and stylize existence to his fighter in the ring mode is easy to recognize in Hemingway’s own life”.  If we read the life of this writer we will find inspiring aspects of his personality as model of self-esteem. 

Mr. Dwight points out that during the fight with the fish “the thousand times he had proved it meant nothing”.  Furthermore, his article refers to the myth of the King Sysiphus, who was condemned to roll a huge rock up hill, only to leave roll down to start all over again.  This passage suggests that the glories of our past are only memories as the episode of the arm wrestling.  Then, every day, we have to start a new test in our life, and prove again and again what we are to fulfill our role in our existence.  In addition, there is a passage where Santiago says “every day is a new day” which supports the basis of existentialism.   Then, whatever that I do today will not signify anything tomorrow, and no matter what glories we got in the past, we still have to prove today what we are, and for that we need confidence.

In summary, we realize that Santiago’s odyssey is more than a story of an old man who caught a big fish and fought with sharks thank to promising preys and evoking a baseball player.  Santiago ordeal gives us message of fulfillment and self-confidence; since the odd circumstances under which he caught the Marlin put him in an absolute disadvantage.  In addition, Santiago’s attitude shows us that no matter what, we have to prove what we are in basis of trusting in ourselves.  Then, we need to have confidence in our own resources and qualities because we are on a constant trial.  Finally, Santiago is model of endurance, since he went through moments were we assumed that he would be defeated by the sea and its elements, but kept fighting to finish with glory this memorable adventure.

Producer- Takeshi Yasuda

*** The following may contain spoilers and should be read by those who have watched at least the first season of “The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya” and are well acquainted with the basic roles/characteristics of each character as this essay is more of an in-depth look at the show and how Haruhi and Kyon express the human condition.

*********************************************************

                When people thing about The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya they will immediately remember the glowing and brilliant smile of Haruhi who is the center of a light amusing world.  So, why would anyone entitle this series, “The Melancholy” of Haruhi Suzumiya?  Why is it that the audience is led to assume that Haruhi is somehow depressed?  Even in the initial episodes, Haruhi is more angry, bossy and sporadic to be called “depressed.”  Yet, it is underneath these smiles and understanding, what Haruhi will never get, that leads the audience to mourn a bit for Haruhi in the end.  While Haruhi has theoretically created a world with supernatural beings by mere desiring them to be there, she will never (presumably) get to meet these beings and will be led to lead a normal life of ordinary routines.  Yuki fears Haruhi’s capability to bring unknown disaster to the galaxy and is there to observe along with Mikuru who is trying to make sure Haruhi will not disort time any further.  Koizumi even considers Haruhi to be on the same level as god and yet is determined to let her remain ignorant of this truth.  Every force aside from Kyon is at work to convince her that the world is plain and boring and she should be content to behave like normal people.  Is there anything more tragic than that?

To start a serious discussion, the first question must be answered is that of “who is Haruhi?”  The question “Who is Haruhi?” is to focus on the aspects of Haruhi that are not publically displayed to the audience but are instead subtly hinted at by Haruhi’s actions and expressions during the course of the series.  Thus, when we view Haruhi, we are not looking at the fact that Haruhi is bossy, eccentric or easily bored.  Naturally, these aspects would be easy enough to identify and classify Haruhi’s personality; Haruhi likes to pretend to be uncaring but has a soft spot for others despite her seemingly abrasive nature (especially for Kyon) and is extremely manipulative aside from this.  At first glance, we might say that Haruhi is more or less an eccentric spoiled brat as this would still give us our above listed qualities.  Moreover, we may justify Haruhi’s nicer personality traits by saying that she simply pretends to be hard boiled so as to hide her weakness.  However simply we may define Haruhi’s personality in purely human contexts, disregarding their truth value, they cannot explain the depths is found in Haruhi.  Watching Haruhi often gives the implication that there is more to her than meets the eye.

There is always something enigmatic about the Haruhi runs through life, and the question is asked of “why?”  The answer is that Haruhi is in the midst of an existential crisis.  So, what is her crisis?  Simply put, it’s that the world is incredibly boring, predictable, mundane and too easy.  While this is given as basic information in the beginning of the story, it must be considered as to how hard life is to live when one has completely internalized the belief that the world is boring.  In fact, for various philosophers, such a belief has been the foundation for “apathetic suicide. (1)”  Is life that boring?  Can life really be seen as a complete waste of time even at high school?  For those of us who have been in high school, or are still in it, that small bit of life alone may be considered torture. But would Haruhi say that it’s too easy?  Certainly.  And why not?  Hard as it may be to get good grades in high school, anyone can choose to stay out of everyone else’s way, or find some way of fitting in and having a quiet life if he or she wishes.  More critically though, it’s relatively common to have a set routine and set expectations to match that pass the time of four years.  Haruhi is in some aspects an idealist of sorts in the sense that she looks for “the grand(2)” in life instead of “normalcy.”  Normalcy is the state where one goes through life without doing anything remotely significant such as going through high school with doing one’s homework, having a boyfriend/girlfriend here and there, fill out college applications, get through college and get a job.  Most people can do this and overall, it’s a pretty simple and secure way of living.  Haruhi however rejects this notion of life and is subsequently bothered by it. 

In the opening credits, Haruhi is shown looking up at the stars several times with one instance where her eye reflects the universe.  These images present Haruhi’s search for “the grand” which cannot be defined well in words but can be best expressed in the concept of looking for meaning beyond the status quo.  “If the universe is grand and majestic, why must life be so simple and dull?” would be Haruhi’s life maxim.  Haruhi acts as a rejection to a steady human society.  Thus, in retrospect with this being Haruhi’s state of mind, her actions become a bit more understandable; she treats most people with distain and as objects because she views them as too simple and a hindrance to her quest.  Further, while Haruhi can be nice, it can be well speculated that the reason she resists openly being kind is that she fears being caught up in “the mundane” and so restricted into more “common” activities.

To act as a foil in this series in the rational, skeptic and sometimes irritating character and protagonist, which is Kyon.  Kyon’s role in the series has been to be the voice of the audience and what they should feel about Haruhi’s reaction.  It’s fair to say that most people will at times get annoyed at the over eccentric personality of Haruhi and sometimes wish she’d act normal just to give the audience a break from insanity.  However, we’re also enticed to almost (in the most metaphorical sense of the word) love Haruhi.  In this, it’s implied that we envy Kyon and his ability to interact with Haruhi on a personal level and once again feel a bit depressed that reality is not like theirs and that we have nothing grand like super alien overlords or espers that fight monsters or anything of the sort.  In fact, most of us would be happy enough just to dream that one day humans will be able to travel as that is strange enough.  Kyon thinks of this too in the opening of the series thus providing evidence to his role.  Yet, there is more to Kyon than being our opportunity to view Haruhi but also expresses most people’s response to Haruhi’s challenge.

  Haruhi challenges the viewer that reality should be grand and not “normal” but this tends to be too much to accept and so most viewers will react similarly to Kyon which is trying to find a fine line between acting normal and fitting in life and still having the benefits of “the grand” lifestyle.  There is nothing wrong about trying to find this balance in life because most people do need to go through college and get a job, however there is always something enticing about fantastic adventures and random events.

Now, this essay has been entitled “the Existential Crisis of Haruhi Suzumiya” for a reason (more than the fact that it’s poking fun at the title).  The grander reason is the fact that Haruhi is just as human as anybody else.  But, to say that Haruhi is in a state of crisis seems over the top, but in relation to normal people of reality, she could well be defined to be suffering from a philosophical crisis of humanity.  While it has already been discussed that Haruhi finds the world dull, can it truly be said that the viewers and other people in the world don’t find similar faults in the world?  It would not be hard to define people into categories of either being “normal” or “offbeat.”  Everyone can tell who is in what category even if they are well aware that they are in the category of “normal.”

 Normal people are those, nice as they may be” conform to a version of society placed before them.  Normal can mean being a stereotypical popular individual to rejecting everything that society has to offer.  Normal is such a large category that it can catch most people without them being aware of it.  in short, “Normal” is a state of being, or people in a position that can be grouped, categorized, marketed to and whose people are ultimately stagnant in their human development.  It’s critical to note the words “human” development and not “personal” development.  A “normal” individual can have remarkable personal growth without having “human” growth(3).

But can’t we categorize Haruhi as “eccentric” and accuse her of being normal too?  Probably not.  Haruhi does sincerely reject society but she is not outspoken enough to be labeled as such.  Further, eccentric tends to be the personality trait of “other.”  Now, if Haruhi was either a ditz or working her eccentricity in a pattern than it could be argued that Haruhi is on the far end of “normal.”  Instead, Haruhi acts in a manner that tends to be unfamiliar to the majority of people in our reality.  Haruhi is not a character that a person can simply say “yeah, I’m totally like Haruhi” as it would be to say that one is similar to Kyon.  Most people specialize in one area or another and long to fit in somewhere or completely reject it all by reserving themselves from the rest of society.  Haruhi does neither of these.  She has expanded horizons to try everything around her but still rejects belonging to any particular group of people.  Even in her own SOS Brigade, It’s interesting to note that Haruhi still treats the other members mostly as objects rather than as people with the exception of Kyon.  Why Kyon?  Aside that he is the main love interest in Haruhi’s eyes I believe she respects him because he does talk back to her but in other instances also treats her as an equal and not as just a weird individual.  Of course this means that for Kyon’s crime of making Haruhi care for him naturally makes her torment him a bit, but this seems to be a bit more comedic than anything else.

Some concluding thoughts-

                There is a certain longing in watching Haruhi that almost makes the viewer want to cry at times.  For myself, I can find nothing more tragic that for life to exist as it does in the mind of the skeptic.  Naturally, there will be some who say that it is childish to wish for magic and adventure and people should accept life and keep moving.  If there is nothing grander to look for in life, no god, no aliens to visit us or sliders to tell us how to go to different dimensions, life can seem all too nihilistic and boring.  I believe such to be a truth, but what should we make of it?  Personally, I believe the best course of action is to be an imitation of Haruhi is instances.  Why should people be stagnant?  This does include the general otaku and people who only watch animie, only read “real” books and people who specialize in any one area.  Haruhi is a jack of all trades, extremely well rounded and will do almost anything.  Thus, for the rest of us, we might do worse than to consider expanding our horizons to whatever is around.   

**aside-

I must first apologize to any Haruhi fan and much more to any student of philosophy and English for an inability to produce a paper good enough to best explain my own ideas.  However sloppy this may be, please view it with best intent and focus on the ideas.  Further, it is not my intention to over-dramatize the series but to bring to light some of the ideas that give this show greater depth.  I hope some of you reading this will comment and place questions so I can better reedit this paper to provide better ideas or further explanation to clarify points.  Lastly, it’s partially shorter than I would have liked but since it is already at long lengths, I figured to not explore more unless particularly requested.

1-apathetic suicide-this is more or less a term I am developing at the time but it’s based in existentialist thought.  The question is asked “the only real philosophical question is whether or not one should commit suicide.”  The idea stems from the fact that if life has no meaning, and is filled with hardship, struggle, whats the point in dealing with any of it.  Further, even if the arguments comes that people should want relationships and find their own meaning, the reply can come up that all attempts at finding truth or something of true value is vanity and can never be achieved.  Ergo, with nothing to stimulate the necessity of life, what is the point in bothering.

2-“the grand”-unfortunately, I did not get a chance to develop this idea as much as I would have liked to and I may reedit this paper later to further explain it in context.  “The grand” is the search for greatness, “otherliness” and something mystical.  Since the information age has begun, I believe that people are becoming more and more skeptical and have no intention to believe anything fantastic that is “out of this world.”  Instead, people are content to simplify ideas and stay inside their own respective bubbles.  “The grand” comes into play as the counter and acts as a mindset that refuses to see life as simple and problem filled.  If there are problems, then they can be fixed regardless to how much society says there is not hope.

3-human growth-human growth is a humanistic and Marxist belief which believes that pushes humans to develop their own “humanity” as it were and not settling for specialization of any sort.  As such, human growth rejects somebody becoming a brilliant lawyer and nothing else.  Even if they are honest, dutiful and in all areas a great lawyer, because they did not develop more to what is “human” and reaching into every potential possible to him or her, they would not be considered to have exhibited human growth.

****-the following arguments are fairly bit more complicated and slightly deviate from the rest of the essay

Haruhi is best classified in terms from 19th century philosopher Nietzsche, namely, being an “ubermensch” or “superman.”  Nietzsche believed similarly that in the current way society was organized, the potentials of individuals is kept limited and that with proper affirmation of reality and the self, one could rise to the level of the “superman.”  Specifically, Nietzsche referred to a personality that could be described as artistic exhibiting contradiction but yet in essence stands to hold truth.  Of course, being a character of an artistic piece, it is easier for Haruhi to be able to achieve this level of being but there are still natural applications to those of us in our reality.  For instance, Haruhi neither solicits herself as a pure sensual person, though she willingly uses image as a means but at the same time she never compromises her character as being pure of spirit.  One can’t honestly call Haruhi any dirogatory remark, it’s acknowledged that this is Haruhi.  The most important aspect though in Haruhi’s character is her resolute affirmation to life and all things in it.  There is nothing in the world that Haruhi rejects as being bad of itself though she does believe that most humans are completely boring.   

You are probably wondering if you missed something there, and yes you have. See Lucinda Embry is actually a prophet that knows future events, everyone else thinks that she is mad, including her daughter, who John Koestler, the character played by Nicholas Cage, meets later in 2009 while trying to put together the pieces of the puzzle to these seemingly random numbers, that only serves to bring him closer to God. Okay you are probably wondering if you missed something again, and yes you have. See in this movie aliens whisper into the thoughts of John Koestler’s son and Lucinda Embry’s granddaughter, but in all actuality, they are angels sent from above to whisk the children into heaven before the end of the world. John Koestler tries to stop future events before they unfold, which he never can, but ends up finding Lucinda Embry’s daughter in his quest for truth.

All types of mayhem is predicted; the longitude and latitude of future events is followed by the date of the event and the number of people that will die in the event, and so far all events have come true. John drives to New York City to stop an event after having found himself in the wrong place at the right time in a plane crash in Lexington on the way to school to pick up his kid. Eventually he makes good with his father, who is a preacher that stands firm in his faith and is not interested in hiding underground to withstand the end of the world, which is a solar flare from the sun that removes the ozone later, or so that is what they think.

John does not want to believe in God because his wife has died in a hotel fire. Of course everyone that John meets tends to question and challenge has lack of faith, not that they believe themselves, but they are being used by God to remind him of it. He is a social outcast and has alienated himself to a life out in the country and everyone asks him why he won’t “get out of the house” more often, relegated to his own alcoholism and eccentric tendencies to over think everything. He wants to socialize more and tries unsuccessfully to contact his friend while being stuck in a traffic jam on the highway in which he narrowly avoids being hit by a fallen plane in Lexington, but is later forced to in order to save his life while on his quest to find Lucinda’s granddaughter after realizing that she may be the missing link to the meaning of this numeric puzzle. The irony of this film is that despite the obvious religious symbolism in the film it was never marketed as a Christian thriller or even that much for its existentialist themes. In fact in the beginning you think that Lucinda is just crazy, not that she has a gift.

In what some may perceive as being the tribulation after the rapture, John is left on earth with his family as earlier before that event Lucinda Mabry’s granddaughter has died in a horrific accident trying to save the children and herself from their fate. There is social chaos, and not even the military can save mankind from its fate as everyone is scrambling trying to save themselves from extinction upon hearing from the government that a solar flare will wipe mankind form the earth. John drives to his father’s house, who tells him that “this is not the end”, and they hug each other as all civilization is destroyed through fire, meanwhile John’s son and Lucinda Mabry’s granddaughter arrive in what seems to be New Jerusalem with the tree of life and two rabbits. Very bizarre, but very intriguing, and if you do not mind horrific and graphic scenes of mayhem with spiritual themes it is a very interesting movie indeed …

Matt West

Spring 2007

A Sartrean Ethics?

In his renowned essay, Existentialism and Humanism, Jean-Paul Sartre outlines his account of the fundamental state of man in this world. His philosophy and resulting effort towards a criterion for action largely rely on the consequences and implications of a human being’s existence in this world, as interpreted by Sartre himself. For Sartre, the unavoidable consequences of man’s condition boil down to an immense responsibility for his own actions and in the end, for those of all humankind. From his formulation of man’s situation, it is reasonably evident from his employment of moral language, although by no means especially clear, that Sartre’s existential doctrines endeavor to establish some type of ethical theory by which man may live. Although Sartre presents us with some fantastic philosophical insights, in the end we shall see how Sartre’s notion of man’s fundamentally free state is incompatible with the development of an ethical theory.

From his denial of the existence of God and his ensuing rejection of any fundamental human nature or pre-determined moral doctrine, Sartre ultimately concludes that man is radically free. Because of this freedom, man is “condemned to be free”, or to choose the projects, or undertakings, of his life and justify them via this choice.1 No objective entity exists to offer man guidance in making these choices. Therefore, in order for man to give meaning to his life on earth, he must authentically choose for himself, exclusive of any sort of rejection of his fundamentally free condition. In short, man defines himself by his actions. Due to the absence of any external guide to action, man “is responsible for everything he does” and as we will later see, for all humanity.2 He can present no legitimate excuse for his actions, nor can he refer to any pre-determined moral doctrine with which to validate them. It is in this sense that Sartre intends for us to understand abandonment and despair, namely that the only person who can choose is oneself and this is disconcerting because it forces us to repeatedly make one choice among endless choices and accept responsibility for those choices and their consequences.

However, none of this is to say that man is an isolated creature acting in a vacuum. His situation in this world and transcendence, or manifestations of his freedom, is unavoidably affected by the fact that all other humans experience the same abandonment and condemnation that he does; he and his fellow inhabitants are all forced to be free and have no luxury of looking to any objective moral dogma to justify their actions. But the most wearisome and anguish-producing aspect of man’s condition is that when he chooses, he chooses for all men in a sense and is thus responsible not only for himself, but for humanity as well.3 When humans choose, they are fashioning an image of themselves as the sum of the best choices, best in the sense that those choices were the final decision made by one forced to decide among myriad possibilities of action. This image is one of a human as the chooser thinks humans should be, and an action within the image is the action one person thinks all humans should perform when confronted with the same situation in which the original action was performed. When one chooses an action, there exists an implied ought in the action stating that this action is valuable and accordingly should have been chosen, otherwise it would not have been chosen. One’s picture of a human as he or she should be is ultimately the person that he or she is, or has thus far chosen to be. Therefore, when we choose we choose the good and we could not have chosen anything other than the good, for the good itself is realized in the act of choosing.

At first glance, it might seem reasonable to conclude that Sartre may envision something like one person observing the actions of another, realizing that person would not have chosen what he or she chose unless it was what that person considered good. So then, the observer curtails his or her actions to that of the observed person. This however is not without problems, as it would constitute a rejection of one’s freedom to act apart from a guide by trying to resign the freedom to another, or in short, bad faith. Also implied here is the existence of something good that is good in itself, previous any choice, and this also does not bode well with Sartrean philosophy. Emulating another’s actions may be acceptable for Sartre if one legitimately chose the same action as another, meaning that one need not be completely unique to be free. Nevertheless, it may in fact be the case that what Sartre means by this responsibility towards humanity is something we must take into account each time we choose. If we effort to view our greatest responsibility(according to Sartre) as the groundwork for an ethical system, then the great responsibility we have towards humanity must be considered before one takes action, and the actor must perform the act only if that act is consistent with the image of man that the actor wishes to show the world. It is important to remember that the entailed oughts, or value prescriptions, in a human’s action spring only from the action, and is therefore not representative of any objective, pre-supposed guide of how man is to live. In other words, there is no pre-existing good apart from action.

A man’s action and its subsequent value are inexorably recognized by others in the world and in this sense humans are universal legislators as choosers of certain actions and ultimately of essences for themselves. Sartre develops this fact into an idea dubbed reciprocal freedom. This is an idea we must consider prior to acting, and it proposes that because other free people exist in this world, we all are obligated to treat each other as free. Before one chooses, a man must realize that others are as free as he is and that other’s perceptions of him undoubtedly influence his choices and his own perception of how he is viewed in the eyes of others. For instance, if I fail to acknowledge the innate freedom of another, I am simply refusing to admit the reality (facticity) of another’s free condition and his or her resultant free perception of myself. Second, if it is apparent that I do not treat another as free and thus in a sense try to manage the other person, this person is apt to develop a negative perception of me. This perception would surely be contrary to my own perception of myself and would freely interpret or label me in a negative light, which thereby restricts my own freedom to perceive myself in the way I prefer. Now I obviously would wish for others to view me as free, so that I may remain authentic. Because man is unable to refer to any universal human nature, he is an entirely creative being, restricted only by other’s freedom to label him. Although we cannot avoid a small measure of this labeling, permitting oneself to be completely branded by others is a denial of one’s freedom to interpret one’s self and ultimately, bad faith.

A human is the sum of his or her choices, and through these choices, humans attempt to construct a legacy not only of themselves, but also of how man should be. Because man is surrounded and affected by others, each man must act with the whole of humanity in consideration, recognizing before he acts that when he doe

Throughout the early 20th century, existentialism is dominant in literary works. Existentialism is the belief that existence precedes essence in a means for describing the misery of the human existence.

To the true existentialist, life is absurd. Along with alienation, the absurd is prevalent concept of existentialism. And nowhere is the absurd explored more than Franz Kafka’s The Trial, which tells the story of bank employee Joseph K. K awakens one morning and is arrested for an unknown crime.

The novel’s opening line “Someone must have been spreading lies about Joseph K,” sets the tone for one of the most unnerving works of modern literature. Like most main characters in existential literature, K. is a virtual nobody with a less than extraordinary existence. K., while never menacing to anyone, is a typical existential character. His existence is indeed absurd. So absurd, that he is known simply as K. and has no last name. He is arrested and endures a long trial in a society where no one has ever been acquitted.

French novelist Albert Camus once said. “Here, the absurd is explored in its highest degree. The Trialis not dissimilar to Camus’ The Stranger. Only it is much more disturbing. The main characters in both works are charged with crimes they did not commit. At least, Meursault (from The Stranger is aware that he is being tried for murder) K. has no idea of the nature of the charges against him and the reader slugs through The Trial with no idea what the charges are. Unlike Meursault, K. yearns desperately to mount a defense But a defense against what?b Meursault could beat the rap by claiming self-defense, but exercises indifference and is convicted and sentenced to “die a dog’s death for a dog.”

K., who is arrested on his 30th birthday, also dies a dog’s death, 364 days later. The entire work is absurd because everyone whom K. encounters, even his supposed allies, are in some way affiliated with the court that causes his demise. K. can trust no one in his futile quest to obtain justice.

K., therefore, becomes alienated but the reader must wonder if the source of his alienation comes prior to the early stages of a novel because he is a bean counter who is not even worthy enough to deserve a sir name.

            Sartre does a great job in relating Existentialism to humanism.  He does this by relating Existentialism to many human emotions.  Sartre explains each emotion in great detail as to why it pertains to an Existentialist.  He also does a good job in defending the Existentialist mentality.  His approach to defend the mentality is to try to bring more understanding to it.  After bringing you to his line of thought, he can explain how the mentality actually isn’t as grim as it is perceived.   However, his argument that everyone’s best decision for themselves is the best decision for everyone else is weak.  This is mainly due to the fact that we have already seen instances in history when this is false (Holocaust?).  Sartre’s argument in that humans define their existence, while good, is biased.  The logic he uses is based off of Existentialist thinking, therefore, anyone who disagrees with an Existentialist won’t agree with the line of thinking or the conclusion.

            I really like Sartre’s main thesis.  This is because it accurately describes the main principles of Existentialism in a plain form.  I am also an Existentialist and find it comforting that someone can actually describe our line of thinking.  However, I strongly dislike his belief in that what’s best for one person is best for everyone.  I believe there has been enough in history to show that this is false by Sartre’s time.  I believe it would have been more mature to have just stated the contradiction – if everyone had their own morals, what happens when they clash? – and accepted it as a problem that Existentialism has.  It is better to accept imperfection than to try and cover it up.  Finally, I really like his point that we define our own essence as I have lived by that moral almost my entire life.

Man has a conscience. The conscience is a vital part of his human nature because it decides which action is good or evil and then aids him to make an appropriate decision. So by human nature, man leans towards the good and keeps away from the evil to avoid the prick of his conscience. How can one verify the existence of a human conscience? It is evident when man is compared to animals and the similarities and differences are seen. Animals are guided by their instinct for their basic necessities such as food, reproduction and protection. While man shares the need of some of these necessities, he has a conscience that enables him to decide the abstract qualities of life. An example that differentiates between an instinct and a conscience can be seen in the necessity for food. A bear needs to food to survive and so does a human, but unlike a bear that devours alone, a human being can consider a fellow human being who does not have food and share it. The instinct stops at the want, but the conscience contains the ability to display kindness to share.

Thus, the evidence of a general human nature is shown by the fact that individuals in all societies have consciences to form strong and binding morals and ethics that are extremely similar. Thus, because men in all societies rely on their consciences for many decisions every day, it can be said that there is human nature. For example, the commandment “Thou shall not kill” is obeyed in all societies as an integral part of the moral code. The uniformity among the societies of the world in keeping this commandment despite their cultural difference indicates that the conscience requires a man to stay away from murder. Thus, it is human nature not to murder (even though many do, and in doing so they breach their consciences). Now Sartre says “there is no human nature” (15). But Sartre is wrong when he concludes that there is no human nature because the uniformity of the human conscience and the existence of various ethical codes to keep it blameless throughout the world is the hallmark of human nature. Now the consciences cannot be developed depending on the environment of a man.  The uniformity of human consciences worldwide, support the fact that the conscience is a whole entity created in man by God. If it were something to be developed, then all would have relative consciences and no similarity would be seen in ethical codes set up worldwide by people from diverse cultures.  Therefore, Sartre’s conclusion about man being nothing at first (15) is false. Man is already in possession of a whole conscience that makes up a vital part if his human nature. Thus I believe that Sartre’s conceptions about human existence and its development in to something is false. The fundamental aspect of a man is his human nature and a significant part of that is his conscience. Since Sartre tries to deny the existence of a human nature, his existentialist philosophy does not lead to any ethical considerations.

Man is mortal. He is not eternal or omniscient to support his beliefs as definite standards that must be followed. Man can only think from his own box, in which he has been placed. The evidence that shows that man is in a box of his own situation is differing views and opinions about an issue at random. The differing perspectives show that each man thinks for himself based upon background, culture, education and physical qualities such as race, sex etc. These are the factors that limit man’s omniscience to make decisions for another man. Man’s finiteness leads to options suited for his own good whether knowingly or unknowingly. One man’s situation and perspective cannot be transposed onto another man’s life. Just like each human being is different in physical appearance from another, so is it with human situations. According to Sartre, “they envisage a number of possibilities and when they choose one, they realize that it has value only because it is chosen” (21). Since Sartre says that an option is a value only because it is chosen, he is implying that the pathway chosen by a man is good or bad only in his eyesight because he is the one making the choice. Now because each man can only take his own interest at heart, a moral good for all mankind cannot be established. Since man cannot decide for each other, Sartre’s idea of anguish is false because man cannot decide circumstances for the whole world.  This is so because each man chooses to suit to his purposes and tries to justify himself in his own eyes. But what is good for one man might not be the same. When everyone has their own good and bad, depending on their situation, there is no common moral code established for mankind. Thus Sartre’s existentialist philosophy does not lead to any common and solid ethical considerations because everyone is free to do what he sees is right in his own eyes without a common moral plane. Since everything is in the eye of the beholder, there is no firm ethical foundation for all mankind to stand upon. 

I believe forlornness does not lead to establishment of any moral obligation. As previously established, since man has a conscience, it determines what he can do and what he should not do. But the conscience is not alone in guiding a man in his daily walk. The conscience is aided by the moral values set up God as the sovereign creator.  It was already established above that conscience cannot be developed but is created as a whole entity and joined into man by God. This relationship between the established moral code and the created conscience is that, the conscience recognizes the moral value God has ordained, and uses it. An analogy can be drawn for this relationship for it to be better understood. The conscience is a guide and the moral code is a set of directions that it must follow. Without the moral code the conscience cannot guide and without the conscience the moral law is not helpful to man.  Based on the permissibility and prick of the conscience, the universal moral code is followed and man stands firm on it. When Sartre takes God out of the picture, the moral plane God constructed for man to stand firm on disappears and the lack of a conscience produces a vacuum. Thus man is forlorn because he cannot fill his own vacuum because he did not create himself.  Thus forlornness is the result of taking away an established moral code and opening an unrecognized vacuum. It is unrecognized because man does not know what to do in the space, in other words, he is forlorn. Thus, Sartre’s existentialism does not lead to any ethical considerations, rather, it takes away the established moral code that the conscience recognizes and produces a vacuum, thereby making man forlorn.

Just like forlornness, I believe despair is the result of doing away with the belief in God and his establishment of the moral code and human nature. The absence of the human nature and the moral code brings about confusion in a man’s being about the ethics of a situation. But God did not give man the conscience and the moral code alone to make choices; he also gave man a mind to reason. The conscience is a guide along with the mind to help man select a morally appropriate yet profitable possibility. The blending of the conscience aided with the moral law and the human reason helps man arrive at many sound decisions regarding an issue. But the use of a single plane such as the reasoning without the conscience can lead to the dilemma Sartre mentions;  the student who had trouble whether to go to war or stay with his mother. The student was despairing because he only used his reasoning plane, which is evident because he does not give much attention to his mother’s love. He would not have despaired to pick an option if his conscience had an upper hand above his reason.

As mentioned before, conscience is part of the human nature endowed by God. His moral code gives direction to the conscience so that when used with reason, there will be no need to despair about which option to pick. If that student believed in God and opened the Bible, he would have found out that vengeance is prohibited and love encouraged. He would have known that the right decision in this case was to stay with his mother.  His conscience would have directed him to stay with his mother because the moral law says “Honor your father and your mother” (166) and “lf someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” (1963). In his case, conscience would have directed him to show love towards his mother and refrain from retaliation on the enemy army. On the other hand, vengeance for his brother’s life lead to killing men for the wrong cause, for his satisfaction, not national defense. By going off to war two purposes would have been served, his vengeance and national defense. But based on the moral law, his conscience would have accused him of a wrong motive since what first prompted him to go off to war was not national concern, but revenge. It would have also accused him of not loving his mother as he ought to. Sartre himself says that the student’s mother needed him badly, since he was her only hope and comfort. His conscience would have pointed out to his loving relationship with his mother based on upon the commandment given in God’s moral law. Here his conscience would have the upper hand because it would have guided him to make the right decision. But in this case his reason could have only guided him to see who needed him more – France or his mother-blinding him to what the conscience and the moral law regards and disregards highly, love and vengeance respectively. Since the student used only his reason and kept aside his conscience and the moral law, he was despairing because his reason put his mother and France at equal value, while they were not. His reason could not determine the value of love and vengeance and the direction to be taken; only his conscience could. The suppression of the conscience led him to despair about which option he should pick.  Therefore, I believe despair in Sartre’s existentialist philosophy is the result of discarding God and his moral law and bereaving the conscience of any direction, and trusting the reasoning faculty alone.

So thus, one can see that neither Sartre’s conception of human existence, or anguish, forlornness and despair do not lead to the establishment of a solid ethical plane. Sartre does not agree with the existence of human nature because of his lack of belief in God. Sartre’s existentialist philosophy does not regard the conscience and the already established moral law as elements of the human nature. By rejecting human nature, Sartre reduces man to another biological existence, which is clearly not the case.  The conscience, moral law and reason are unique to man, and they compose his human nature. Once man’s human nature is denied, there are no ethical considerations that can come out from any other source. Thus his existentialist philosophy cannot lead to any moral good.

Works cited

Sartre,  Jean-Paul.   Existentialism and Human Emotions.  Trans.  Bernard Frechtman.  New York, NY:  Kensington Publishing Corp,  1985. 

The New International Version.  Bruce B. Barton, gen.  ed.  Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan ,  2008.

  An individual begins the existential process because of an inward desire to discover who they truly are. The realization that there must be something more to life, generally precedes this desire. Also, there can be a sense of accompanying hopelessness and discontent that prompts the individual to begin searching. In The Awakening by Kate Chopin, the main character Edna Pontellier embarks on her existential journey as a result of depressing and hopeless thoughts brought on by events in her life. The nigh that her husband Leonce asks her to come inside, and she refuses, shows her initial step into her existential pursuit. She lays on the porch, swamped with emotion and plagued with conflicting thoughts. She begins to start looking through the world with new eyes and to make her individual path rather than being held down by her husband and society’s expectations. Edna finds inspiration from music and physically displays her freedom by the swim in the sea. Edna realizes that she can no longer live like she had been used to, and as a result all of her actions throughout the book show her constant search for her identity.

  The second element that one must achieve in order to complete the existential journey is to come to an awareness of society’s constraints, and live in a way that is contradictory of society’s direction. One who is existential is becoming more of an individual by discovering themselves. This leaves no room for society, and the existential traveler must consciously work against society’s expectations. Edna pontellier realizes that society cannot fulfill the void in her life, and consequently does not seek to conform to that way of thinking. Society wants her to be an honest, faithful, and loyal mother and wife. Her role, in the eyes of the community, is being obedient to her husband and conduct herself in a manner that is worthy of being called an exemplary wife and mother. In contrast, Edna wants nothing to do with society’s constricting parameters and acts accordingly. She has affairs with two other un married men, Arobin and Robert, Neglects caring for her children, makes many decisions that the husband should make and refuses to host weekly get-togethers to maintain her public image. Edna seems to be only focused with her own existential journey and isn’t affected by the lack of approval she receives from those around her. As a result of Edna’s realization that she cannot live according to society, she ultimately discovers freedom.

  Therefore, the one who wants to pursue the existential journey must have a desire to change who they are, and also live and act in a way that is opposition to society’s ways. The existential process requires dedication to finding ones-self but can be completed if one has determination and a passion for individualism and freedom. The option to start the journey is an experience within itself and leads the questioner to find meaning in life.