Existentialism as a concept took place after World War II as people were killed and faith in religion was being lost. The people started to question humanity and the whole purpose of their existence. In philosophy, existentialism stemmed out as a movement in somewhere 19th and 20th century just to question our understanding of life and our very existence. Soren Kierkegaard had been considered the father of existentialism and later, Jean Paul Sartre explained existentialism focusing more on the meaning of an individual than the world around him. According to Sartre, understanding existence is problematic and to really understand existence one needs to know that ‘being’ precedes the essence of living itself. This is what Sartre described as ‘Existentialism is a humanism’.
He described humans to be held in a constant anguish as humans are ‘condemned to be free’ throughout their lives. So it is a fact that one individual doesn’t have any say in their own birth and their upbringing or family life, as they are ‘conceived’ by their parents but once humans become aware of their individuality, everyone has the right to make certain choices and these choices are the basic essence of our existence. As stated by him that ‘existence tends to precede essence’, he highlights that one needs to live life in a certain manner that has some sort of meaning. These meanings could differ and so, there is no pattern to follow on how to be a human being.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
As one is given such a huge freedom to choose how or what they want to be, the idea of God giving us a basic purpose is completely neglected. There is no pre-defined purpose and we have to find one for our self and since there are many possibilities, one falls into the anguish of freedom as they don’t know how to handle it. In other words, Sartre is trying to make us responsible and feel the burden of our own actions and that is how one is more likely to feel this freedom as a burden. So a man starts existing and as he grows, he explores himself and the world around him and then form a certain meaning for himself and decide who and what he wants to be. He gives an example of a person who is a coward and he explains that it is not because of some physiological affect such as weak heart or lung but rather the way one acts is what makes him a coward, so here we can see that Sartre wants one to have full control and responsibility in deriving who they are and what they want to become.
So let us take into account that humans have free will, the right to choice and their own beliefs. Soren’s ideas also stated that one individual itself is solely responsible for deriving a meaning for their existence and he should be authentic and sincere about it. Coming towards existentialist theme within Samuel Beckett’s play ‘Waiting for Godot’ that took Beckett more than five years to put together. It is not a simple play, rather it’s complicated and filled with repetition, absurdity and a constant need for the characters to find Godot who will provide them a purpose in their lives. As one of Sartre’s work is based on ‘Being and Nothingness’, we see Samuel Beckett putting together a play where the characters are also involved within the nothingness of their own existence. Before existentialism came into being, people were of the view that there is a god that gives a purpose to everyone’s life and there is a pre-defined order according to which everything takes place.
Most of classical plays had the element of fatalism and predestination, where magical oracles or prophecies foretold the future of humans and no matter what actions the characters too place, their fate was unchangeable. We see Oedipus Rex facing a similar situation and meeting his fate in the end exactly as it was told by the oracles. The faith in god and religious teachings gave a meaning to the lives of most people, however, after existentialism, Sartre urged people to fully accept and acknowledge the freedom that they have in life and people should be more conscious in taking control of their lives. For one to feel bounded by the religious and social norm is only a pointless idea and Sartre relates it with the concept of ‘absurdity’. Actions taken within routines only seem normal because of the meanings that are attached to them and we, humans, have internalized them. Otherwise, nothing has an inherent purpose and we tend to give everything a meaning in terms of our understanding. This very essence of absurdity and meaninglessness is captured by Samuel Beckett in his play ‘Waiting for Godot’. Through his play, he convinces the readers and viewers that there is no sense in life whatsoever and it is very absurd.
‘Waiting for Godot’ is based on a conflict that was faced by the people of that era and the modern world, that is whether to live their life according to the religious beliefs where eternal salvation is the whole point of existence or following the existential state where an individual finds meaning on his own and exercises their freedom. ‘Being Without Time: On Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot’ (1965) by Gunther Andre stated that the play is a negative parable. Gunther explains that the play has captured formlessness in such a way that a level of abstraction is achieved. The theme of the play, along with its characters depict ‘abstraction’. According to Gunther, Estragon and Vladimir are the two characters that represent the whole humanity in general. He states, “They are abstract in the most cruel, literal sense of the word: they are abs-tracti, which means: pulled away, set apart. And as they, having been pulled out of the world, no· longer have anything to do with it, the world has, for them, become empty; hence the world of the play too is an 'abstraction': an empty stage, empty but for one prop indispensable to the meaning of the fable: the tree in its center, which defines the world as a permanent instrument j r suicide, or life as the non-committing of suicide. .” (Being without Time, 1965)
Gunther explains his view that the heroes are merely alive not really ‘living’ in a world as we see them stuck on the stage, doing nothing but talking nonsense. He points out that these creatures have no existence any longer as they have nothing to do with the world. We see a striking difference between Gunter’s perception and the discussion between the protagonists. Again and again, they engage in serious conversations to figure out their basic goal and one of the reason, they are even there is to find that very meaning. Estrogen is a symbol that presents the more existential human being, who doesn’t want to waste time looking for a meaning and rather use their experience to build a meaning of life and find a purpose, whereas, Vladimir represents most of us, who dearly holds into religious and spirituality and his purpose in life is defined by faith. Vladimir suggests that they should wait for Godot, who symbolized a godly figure within the play that would provide them with a purpose of their life. It is Vladimir who expects Godot to give their life a meaning.
“Vladimir: Let’s wait and see what he says.
Estragon: Who?
Vladimir: Godot.
Estragon: Good idea.
Vladimir: Let’s wait till we know exactly how we stand.
Estragon: On the other hand it might be better to strike the iron before it freezes.”
Given in the above situation, we see Estragon suggesting that they should take advantage of the situation while they can before it’s too late and do something with their life. ‘Strike the iron before it freezes’ is used as a metaphor to portray human life as mortal which will end and one doesn’t have enough time to waste it upon any of kind of waiting where you seek for a purpose like a lost puppy.
It is evident that Vladimir has full faith in Godot to direct him, on the other hand, Estragon wants to take action on his own instead of waiting. As stated earlier, Estragon is indeed inclining towards existential philosophy. There are various instances where Estragon suggests Vladimir to leave and for them to head back but Vladimir stays put and keeps reminding him that they are going to stay there until they meet Godot.
Estragon: Charming spot. (He turns, advances to front, halts, facing auditorium.) Inspiring prospects. (He turns to Vladimir.) Let’s go:
Vladimir: We can’t.
Estragon: Why not?
Vladimir: We’re waiting for Godot.
Estragon: (despairingly). Ah!
Estragon is again held back by Vladimir from heading out as he proposes that they should just go instead of waiting but Vladimir doesn’t move. He wants to be enlightened and only Godot can help them.
A very clear distinction is drawn between Estragon and Vladimir in terms of their belief system, as the readers/viewers witness that it is always Vladimir, who uses religious terms and talks in religious context. He wants to repent and he wants to know if Estragon knows about Bible or Gospel. His way of bringing up such topics within the conversations reflect his religious side and it is Estragon who tend to reply back in a more humanistic manner.
ESTRAGON: What?
VLADIMIR: Suppose we repented.
ESTRAGON: Repented what?
VLADIMIR: Oh . . . (He reflects.) We wouldn't have to go into the details.
ESTRAGON: Our being born? (Vladimir breaks into a hearty laugh which he immediately stifles, his hand pressed to his pubis, his face contorted. )
VLADIMIR: One daren't even laugh any more.
ESTRAGON: Dreadful privation.
VLADIMIR: Merely smile. (He smiles suddenly from ear to ear, keeps smiling, ceases as suddenly.) It's not the same thing. Nothing to be done. (Pause.) Gogo.
ESTRAGON: (irritably). What is it?
VLADIMIR: Did you ever read the Bible?
ESTRAGON: The Bible . . . (He reflects.) I must have taken a look at it.
VLADIMIR: Do you remember the Gospels?
ESTRAGON: I remember the maps of the Holy Land. Coloured they were. Very pretty. The Dead Sea was pale blue. The very look of it made me thirsty. That's where we'll go, I used to say, that's where we'll go for our honeymoon. We'll swim. We'll be happy
Later Vladimir tells the story about the two thieves that were crucified at the same time as Savior and that there were damned. He mentioned ‘death’ and ‘damnation’, both concepts found in religion. Furthermore, Vladimir reflects his strong faith in Godot as he mentions that if Godot doesn’t show up today, they will come back tomorrow and keep coming every day if they have it. This kind of determination is a part of utmost faith.
“VLADIMIR: A—. What are you insinuating? That we've come to the wrong place?
ESTRAGON: He should be here.
VLADIMIR: He didn't say for sure he'd come.
ESTRAGON: And if he doesn't come?
VLADIMIR: We'll come back tomorrow.
ESTRAGON: And then the day after tomorrow.
VLADIMIR: Possibly.
ESTRAGON: And so on.
VLADIMIR: The point is—
ESTRAGON: Until he comes.
VLADIMIR: You're merciless.”
Both the protagonists repeat that ‘Nothing can be done’ and it is a realization that we humans can also tend to time and again whenever life takes a toll on us. There is absolute uncertainty as to whether Godot even exist or not. The protagonists don’t even know whether he will come to meet them or not. The minute they realize this, they become aware of the freedom that they have in life. Which is exactly why we see Estragon suggesting that they should leave and do something with their life, however, they don’t leave. It’s as if they are stuck in time, repeatedly having the same discussion over and again. Estragon, out of misery, considers suicide and suggests hanging himself on the tree but rather waits for Godot. This again depicts humans as it is in their most miserable state. We, humans, consider death as an escape or an end to life whenever we feel there is no purpose in life. For Estragon to consider killing himself is very humane of him. On the other hand, Vladimir, also concludes that there nothing left to do with life. However, it is very humane to think of dying or attempting suicide when one is most miserable and then, not committing the act as one realizes that there’s still hope and they cannot just give up like that. The struggle is very real and Samuel Beckett beautifully captures it in the most absurd way within the play.
ESTRAGON: If it hangs you it'll hang anything.
VLADIMIR: But am I heavier than you?
ESTRAGON: So you tell me. I don't know. There's an even chance. Or nearly.
VLADIMIR: Well? What do we do?
ESTRAGON: Don't let's do anything. It's safer.
VLADIMIR: Let's wait and see what he says.
ESTRAGON: Who?
VLADIMIR: Godot.
ESTRAGON: Good idea.
VLADIMIR: Let's wait till we know exactly how we stand.
The characters showcase their hopelessness and being purposeless as it is and they keep on debating on not waiting for Godot or getting rid of their lives but they choose to wait for Godot over and again and this repetition is the actual absurdity of our life. We don’t even realize how absurd it is for us to live our life in a certain cycle where we are repeating a routine throughout our lives but since it’s become a norm and it is socially acceptable, we choose to believe it and make some sense out of it. So, humans can truly make use of their freedom of right when they have a certain meaning attached to it. A very similar question arises within the play, as Estragon asks Vladimir if they have lost their rights?
VLADIMIR: Your Worship wishes to assert his prerogatives?
ESTRAGON: We've no rights any more?
Laugh of Vladimir, stifled as before, less the smile.
VLADIMIR: You'd make me laugh if it wasn't prohibited.
ESTRAGON: We've lost our rights?
VLADIMIR: (distinctly). We got rid of them. Silence.
Existential philosophy focuses on our lifestyle as well as freedom of choice and as the characters are trying to figure out whether they have any ‘rights’, Lucky and Pozzo are introduced. Pozzo is in charge of Lucky, who controls him and has him enslaved. He mistreats him and yet Lucky obeys him. Here, Pozzo’s control over Lucky gives him a certain meaningful position in life and Lucky has a purpose too, which is to serve Pozzo. For Vladimir and Estragon, this is a very fascinating sight as they witness a completely different approach to life. Pozzo wanted to meet Godot as well but he wasn’t there just waiting, rather he was acting as a godlike figure over Lucky by controlling him. Lucky was helpless and he seemed to not care at all. He served his master despite being physically and verbally abused and this shows that he has no freedom of choice and yet he chooses to serve Pozzo, hence the absurdity and meaningless of the play makes it a lot more significant as it depicts the uncertainty of life itself.
POZZO: Up! Pig! (Noise of Lucky getting up.) On! (Exit Pozzo.) Faster! On! Adieu! Pig! Yip! Adieu! Long silence.
VLADIMIR: That passed the time.
ESTRAGON: It would have passed in any case.
VLADIMIR: Yes, but not so rapidly.
In terms of how words are used within the text, readers and viewers see that there is absolutely no real connection being formed. In fact, nobody really answers any questions for what it is being asked, rather everyone is randomly blabbering on the stage. Hence, there is right amount of confusion created to show that life in general doesn’t always have logical ways to make sense out of and ‘yet time passes no matter what’, as Estragon states. We are unsure what day or time it is within the play and the protagonists repeatedly mention that there is nothing that they can do yet time within the play passes on and that is so true about life in general, too. Humans find ways to create meanings and time passes, whether we like it or not. The real question is whether we can make the most of time by making the right choices. For the protagonist, the struggle is pointless as it won’t change anything and ‘nothing can be done’. On so many levels, we have all been at this state where we feel that nothing can be done and yet, time manages to pass, without or without giving our life the meaning that we are all seeking.
VLADIMIR: Question of temperament.
ESTRAGON: Of character.
VLADIMIR: Nothing you can do about it.
ESTRAGON: No use struggling.
VLADIMIR: One is what one is.
ESTRAGON: No use wriggling.
VLADIMIR: The essential doesn't change.
ESTRAGON: Nothing to be done.
The little messenger boy shows up to inform the protagonists that Godot will not be coming and they can meet him the next day. This clearly has Estragon disappointed and he doesn’t believe him. He doesn’t even let the messenger boy say what he has to say and rather accuses him of lying, which is a flaw that every human has that out of disappointment, they use denial as a shield. He clearly states that he is “unhappy”. We learn very little about Godot but the most interesting point is, that when the messenger boy is asked whether he is happy with Godot as his master, the little boy expresses his uncertainty. He says that he ‘doesn’t know’ if he is happy or not and this shows how complex human nature is. Uncertainty remains whether we are guided by Godot or not.
VLADIMIR: He must be fond of you.
BOY: I don't know, Sir. Silence.
VLADIMIR: Does he give you enough to eat? (The Boy hesitates.) Does he feed you well?
BOY: Fairly well, Sir.
VLADIMIR: You're not unhappy? (The Boy hesitates.) Do you hear me?
BOY: Yes Sir. VLADIMIR: Well? BOY: I don't know, Sir.
VLADIMIR: You don't know if you're unhappy or not?
BOY: No Sir.
VLADIMIR: You're as bad as myself. (Silence.) Where do you sleep?
Vladimir is equally affected by the revelation as he was the one who has had the most faith in Godot compared to Estragon. He feels bad because he chose to wait patiently and Godot was his last hope and now that Godot wasn’t coming, he felt there wasn’t any purpose to life. Estragon remained in his misery due to the fact that he didn’t wanted to wait and yet waited instead of using his freedom. The protagonists accept that there is nothing left for them to do there now that Godot isn’t coming and they don’t have anything to do with their life either way. Out of their freedom to choice, they still choose to wait without any certainty to life, in search of a purpose and this is exactly what Sarte says that with freedom comes uncertainty. Finally the protagonist agree to leave as there is no more waiting for Godot but they don’t move. For me, this form of physical action depicts our state of minds. Where our actions don’t tune in with our thoughts. We tend to think and say big things that we may or may not mean but to physically carry them out becomes the real challenge where one questions their own freedom of choice.
VLADIMIR: We've nothing more to do here.
ESTRAGON: Nor anywhere else.
VLADIMIR: Ah Gogo, don't go on like that. Tomorrow everything will be better.
ESTRAGON: How do you make that out?
VLADIMIR: Did you not hear what the child said?
ESTRAGON: No.
VLADIMIR: He said that Godot was sure to come tomorrow. (Pause.) What do you say to that?
ESTRAGON: Then all we have to do is to wait on here.
Yet again, faith has Vladimir tricked into believing that there’s hope and he settles wait for Godot the next day. In ACT 2, the protagonists are slightly happier and yet they decide to wait for Godot, hence waiting for Godot has become the only stable thing in their lives, whether in misery or happiness. They may be like two peas in a pot and together within their quest to meet Godot but their unity becomes questionable due to the differences between them and they consider splitting but don’t split. This is another human nature, which we don’t give up on people that we have developed an attachment towards.
“VLADIMIR: You're a hard man to get on with, Gogo.
ESTRAGON: It'd be better if we parted.
VLADIMIR: You always say that and you always come crawling back.
ESTRAGON: The best thing would be to kill me, like the other.
VLADIMIR: What other? (Pause.) What other?
ESTRAGON: Like billions of others.
VLADIMIR: (sententious). To every man his little cross. (He sighs.) Till he dies. (Afterthought.) And is forgotten.”
This is the third time Estragon has considered death as the perfect end to his misery. Perhaps, he is in this depressed state because he wants to take advantage of his freedom but he chooses to stay back and wait for Godot instead and it is making him miserable. The two become so desperate that they start ‘playing Lucky and Pozzo’ by acting like them. Vladimir acts like Lucky and asks Estragon to behave dominating and rude like Pozzo who calls out names and insults Vladimir within the Act 2. They engage in such an odd conversation to pass time. This absurd element highlights the fact that humans can always find ways to occupy themselves and time passes.
“VLADIMIR: Will you not play?
ESTRAGON: Play at what?
VLADIMIR: We could play at Pozzo and Lucky.
ESTRAGON: Never heard of it.
VLADIMIR: I'll do Lucky, you do Pozzo. (He imitates Lucky sagging under the weight of his baggage. Estragon looks at him with stupefaction.) Go on.
ESTRAGON: What am I to do?
VLADIMIR: Curse me!
ESTRAGON: (after reflection). Naughty!
VLADIMIR: Stronger!
ESTRAGON: Gonococcus! Spirochete! Vladimir sways back and forth, doubled in two.
VLADIMIR: Tell me to think.
ESTRAGON: What?
VLADIMIR: Say, Think, pig!
ESTRAGON: Think, pig!
Plays are not just written to be read, rather performed live on stage and Beckett’s work has great comic timings. Quick and short sentences makes the play all the more absurd and enjoyable and it keeps the audience entertained. In my opinion, Beckett showed through his humorous scene that drama is a very important element of life and just for the sake of passing time, humans engage in all kinds of attitude, from good to bad and time never stops. We see the protagonists arguing at one point and then embrace each other few minutes later.
Beckett is trying to show us that humans are capable of utilizing their freedom and making the most of it to pass time and that is how most of us manage to live through our lives. We look for distractions when we are out of hope or when we are miserable. It becomes that easy, the art of moving on.
ESTRAGON: That's the idea, let's abuse each other.
They turn, move apart, turn again and face each other.
VLADIMIR: Moron!
ESTRAGON: Vermin!
VLADIMIR: Abortion!
ESTRAGON: Morpion!
VLADIMIR: Sewer-rat!
ESTRAGON: Curate!
VLADIMIR: Cretin!
ESTRAGON: (with finality). Crritic!
VLADIMIR: Oh! He wilts, vanquished, and turns away.
ESTRAGON: Now let's make it up.
VLADIMIR: Gogo! ESTRAGON:
Didi! VLADIMIR: Your hand!
ESTRAGON: Take it!
VLADIMIR: Come to my arms!
ESTRAGON: Yours arms?
VLADIMIR: My breast!
ESTRAGON: Off we go! They embrace.
They separate. Silence.
VLADIMIR: How time flies when one has fun! Silence.
ESTRAGON: What do we do now?
VLADIMIR: While waiting.
The random and meaningless play of words is absolutely amusing. Even though the play is based on a serious existentialist conundrum, they seem to be trying to make sense of it in their own ways and we, as readers or viewers will find a meaning within this absurdity in our own way. There is nothing presented with certainty. Last but not the least, Vladimir’s character transcends from a flat character to someone who grows into someone who doesn’t want to just blindly sit back and wait anymore but rather make the most of his life and do something on his own to make a difference rather than being guided by Godot. When both Estragon and Vladimir hear Pozzo’s cries for help, it is Vladimir who decides that he wants to help, as its not ‘every day that they are needed’ and they shouldn’t waste their time anymore sitting ‘idle’ and waiting. For me, it was an entire monologue on his behalf, an eye-opener that one needs to stop waiting for things to make sense and use our freedom and make sense out of life on our own. He states, “Let us not waste our time in idle discourse! (Pause. Vehemently.) Let us do something, while we have the chance! It is not every day that we are needed. Not indeed that we personally are needed. Others would meet the case equally well, if not better. To all mankind they were addressed, those cries for help still ringing in our ears! But at this place, at this moment of time, all mankind is us, whether we like it or not. Let us make the most of it, before it is too late! Let us represent worthily for once the foul brood to which a cruel fate consigned us! What do you say? (Estragon says nothing.) It is true that when with folded arms we weigh the pros and cons we are no less a credit to our species. The tiger bounds to the help of his congeners without the least reflection, or else he slinks away into the depths of the thickets. But that is not the question. What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come— Or for night to fall. (Pause.) We have kept our appointment and that's an end to that. We are not saints, but we have kept our appointment. How many people can boast as much?”
Estragon is clueless at this point but both of them manage to help Pozzo. Both the characters act on their own to help Pozzo, instead of being guided by Godot. They find a purpose and they realize that they are ‘mankind’, responsible to help and they should make most of the situation. Here, they take control and choose to help hence they exercise their freedom, even if it was for a monetary gain or spiritual repentance. However, Beckett cleverly ends the play at the very same point from where it started, which is, the two protagonists decide that they need to end their lives if Godot doesn’t show up the next day and only he can save them. Act 2 ends at the very same note that they decide to go and agree on leaving but they don’t move and the curtains fall down. I have lost the count of times this situation has happened over and over again but in all honesty, it is very relatable. For me, it’s not just an existential approach that questions humans of their freedom to choose but also a dilemma and the biggest form of absurdity is that we are capable of making different choices over times that are very different among one another. Uncertainty cannot be overcome but one must always try to make the most of their freedom of choices while they can.
Estragon: Well, shall we go?
Vladimir: Yes, let’s go.
(They do not move.)
References
- Metman, Eva. “Reflections on Samuel Beckett’s Plays.” In Samuel Beckett: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Martin Esslin. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
- 6 Simon Critchley. Very Little-- Almost Nothing:Death, Philosophy, Literature. Routledge. London. 1997. P.: 158
- Sartre, Jean-Paul. Existentialism is a Humanism. New Haven: Yale, 2007. Print.
- Athanasopoulou-Kypriou, Spyridoula. “SAMUEL BECKETT BEYOND THE PROBLEM OF GOD.” Literature and Theology, vol. 14, no. 1, 2000, pp. 34–51. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23926233.
- Anders, Günther. “Being without Time: On Beckett’s Play Waiting for Godot.” Samuel Beckett. A Collection of Critical Essays. Ed. Martin Esslin. New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1965. Print. Beckett, Samuel. Waiting for Godot. London: Faber and Faber, 1965. Print.
Stuck on your essay?
