Whilst recently reading up on a few subjects of philosophy, I stumbled upon a popular author, playwright, and philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, whose intellectually captivating works mostly focused on the topics of existentialism and ontology. One of his most famous plays, No Exit, deals with the concept of death, the supposed afterlife, and the being of one's own nature and personality.
The title 'No Exit' aptly describes the state of the three characters in the single-act play, who are sitting in a room with absolutely no way out. Perhaps the most famous line of dialogue uttered among them would be "L'enfer, c'est le autres" which literally translates in English to "Hell is other people". At first glance, this sentence would seem to be nonsensical, ridiculous, and even incorrect as a sentence. But when read in context, by a person with a firm grasp in French, this simple sentence transforms into one of the most important philosophical ideas ever put forth. You see, the actual phrase in French, taking away the literal meaning of the words and replacing it contextually, gives it a whole new meaning - "Hell is the other" or "Hell is the other's". This, although, not much different. gives Sartre's words the proper weight it deserves. In an actual interview in 1965, Jean-Paul Sartre explicitly stated that the exact meaning of his words has been twisted into something completely different from what he originally meant. He goes on to say that it has been commonly misunderstood that his sentence meant hell was the insidious relations an individual has with other people, as if to say the purest relation a person can have would still contain traces of adulteration. However, according to Sartre, what he actually meant was that if a person has a wrongful vision of himself due to the relations he has with certain others, then hell, with respect to the individual can only be the others. What we know about ourselves, what we think about ourselves, essentially what we are, are the products of "the Other". So, if what people think of us, our mindsets composed and published by others, are purgatory for us, then aren't the people who do so hellish? If we weigh ourselves without bias, do we not do so based on others' view of ourselves? If we judge ourselves impartially, do we not judge ourselves on the testament of others? This does not mean we cannot refrain from relating to other people. We meet new people, almost everyday, and in doing so, put ourselves at the risk of being poisoned by their views and their judgements and their opinion. Gradually, but surely, the poison accumulates, past a point of sufferance, until death comes as a welcome respite. Ergo, the usage of the word 'Hell'. (Hell, here, means the feeling of depression and lack of self-identity following the failure to meet up with societal expectations.)
Fundamentally, this simple four-word sentence, followed by its rather elaborate and rambunctious explanation, is a campaign to keep one's own opinions to himself, rather than blurting it, possibly damning another person to 'hell'. Now, given the rather exuberant rant on how we are what other people think of us, this leaves us with a very important question.
Do we have our own identity? Of course we do. We think, therefore we are.
But more on that, later.
Varun.
The title 'No Exit' aptly describes the state of the three characters in the single-act play, who are sitting in a room with absolutely no way out. Perhaps the most famous line of dialogue uttered among them would be "L'enfer, c'est le autres" which literally translates in English to "Hell is other people". At first glance, this sentence would seem to be nonsensical, ridiculous, and even incorrect as a sentence. But when read in context, by a person with a firm grasp in French, this simple sentence transforms into one of the most important philosophical ideas ever put forth. You see, the actual phrase in French, taking away the literal meaning of the words and replacing it contextually, gives it a whole new meaning - "Hell is the other" or "Hell is the other's". This, although, not much different. gives Sartre's words the proper weight it deserves. In an actual interview in 1965, Jean-Paul Sartre explicitly stated that the exact meaning of his words has been twisted into something completely different from what he originally meant. He goes on to say that it has been commonly misunderstood that his sentence meant hell was the insidious relations an individual has with other people, as if to say the purest relation a person can have would still contain traces of adulteration. However, according to Sartre, what he actually meant was that if a person has a wrongful vision of himself due to the relations he has with certain others, then hell, with respect to the individual can only be the others. What we know about ourselves, what we think about ourselves, essentially what we are, are the products of "the Other". So, if what people think of us, our mindsets composed and published by others, are purgatory for us, then aren't the people who do so hellish? If we weigh ourselves without bias, do we not do so based on others' view of ourselves? If we judge ourselves impartially, do we not judge ourselves on the testament of others? This does not mean we cannot refrain from relating to other people. We meet new people, almost everyday, and in doing so, put ourselves at the risk of being poisoned by their views and their judgements and their opinion. Gradually, but surely, the poison accumulates, past a point of sufferance, until death comes as a welcome respite. Ergo, the usage of the word 'Hell'. (Hell, here, means the feeling of depression and lack of self-identity following the failure to meet up with societal expectations.)
Fundamentally, this simple four-word sentence, followed by its rather elaborate and rambunctious explanation, is a campaign to keep one's own opinions to himself, rather than blurting it, possibly damning another person to 'hell'. Now, given the rather exuberant rant on how we are what other people think of us, this leaves us with a very important question.
Do we have our own identity? Of course we do. We think, therefore we are.
But more on that, later.
Varun.
No comments:
Post a Comment