Existentialism in Waiting for Godot

Existentialism is a philosophy that puts emphasis on the existence of a person’s freedom or life. In a human point of view, it means to believe in oneself, not a group or religion. (33)

Existentialists find value in a personal point of view (thou rather than it). Like atheistic existentialists they hold a distinction between the subjective and objective worlds.

In this article the meaning of Existentialism is explained as the author, Randall Niles, describes how existentialism is a 20th century philosophy that centers itself on the analysis of human existence. He explains the popular slogan “existence precedes essence” by the very first founders of Existentialism, Jean Paul Sartre. The notion of the slogan is described by explaining how humans come into existence when they are first born, and spend their lifetime changing their essence and nature so it satisfies them. The philosophy of Existentialism is further analysed by explaining how humans find themselves and the ultimate meaning of their life by acknowledging their responsibility and making decisions accordingly. Moreover, it also explains

Existentialism is a Humanism by Jean-Paul Sartre, was published in 1945 at the height of Existentialism's cultural resurgence. As Sartre states in his opening line, his purpose is to “offer a defence of existentialism against some charges that have been brought against it.” (Sartre, 1945) At a time where Existentialism was heavily associated with wearing black and smoking (Fahlenbrach, 2012) Sartre felt the need to draw attention to its philosophical and more meaningful aspects, beyond it simply being a passing trend. Sartre outlines, “Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself. That is the first principle of existentialism” (Sartre, 1945) This is rooted in what Sartre believes to be the basis of all Existential

Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett's existential masterpiece, for some odd reason has captured the minds of millions of readers, artists, and critics worldwide, joining them all in an attempt to interpret the play. Beckett has told them not to read anything into his work, yet he does not stop them. Perhaps he recognizes the human quality of bringing personal experiences and such to the piece of art, and interpreting it through such colored lenses. Hundreds of theories are expounded, all of them right and none of them wrong. A play is only what you bring to it, in a subconscious connection between you and the playwright.

At first, existentialism appears as free will. However, when used in mythology, it is revealed as a man’s purpose for life. Even though existentialism is not shown in a positive light while used in mythology, it still plays an important aspect because it shows the essence of fate and how it affects and restricts the free will of people.

Perhaps the most telling symptom of existentialist philosophers is their ever-divergent theories on the fundamental characteristics of human life and their steadfast refusal to assign an explicit meaning or reason to our existence at all. Contrary to criticism which therefore labels the movement cynically nihilistic, existentialism justifies life with reasoning similar to that of Zen Buddhism. Specifically, the notions of hopelessness and absurdity can be gleaned from Buddhism in a manner helpful to the understanding of existentialist viewpoints on the same.

The Merriam – Webster Dictionary defines existentialism as a chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad (Merriam, 2011). In other words, an existentialist believes that our natures are the natures we make for ourselves, the meaning of our existence is that we just exist and there may or may not be a meaning for the existence, and we have to individually decide what is right or wrong and good or bad for ourselves. No one can answer any of those things for us. A good

The whole play, including all the actions and the theme itself, is affected by the mention of Godot. Vladimir and Estragon spend the entire play waiting for this unknown being. Vladimir and Estragon are not even sure if they are at the right place or time for their meeting. They do not even know why they are waiting for Godot. The two homeless men never express any understanding about the reason for the meeting with the unknown man. Both the characters and the audience see Godot as a savior of some sort. He is the one who will bring salvation. He could be a Christ figure or another religious figure. Godot may also be a representation of salvation; this may or may not be a religious rescue. Godot may also be symbolic of the meaning of life that Vladimir and Estragon are searching for. . He is a reason they are still alive. Every day, Estragon wants to kill himself, but not only is there not enough rope, but there is also a hope that maybe, just maybe, Godot will appear the next day and everything will be different. Interestingly enough, Godot is also the one who keeps two friends coming back to the same spot, instead of wandering off and looking for a better place to live. Because of the endless promise that this one person will actually come, they do not leave the place. The character of Godot may be an interpretation of death since that would bring an answer to the questions that the two men are searching and

Existentialism developed in the more extensive feeling to twentieth century rationality that is focused upon the investigation about presence and of the best approach people discover themselves existing or their existence as a whole. Existentialism takes its name from those philosophical topic of 'existence ', this doesn 't involve that there will be homogeneity in the way presence will be on be comprehended. On simpler terms, existentialism will be an logic worried for finding self and the intending from claiming an aggregation through spare will, choice and also personage obligation. Existentialism turned into prominent following those Second World War. In spite of seeing its philosophical viewpoint is little spot complex,

The world we live in is an odd one; some cope with its absurdities through intensive faith, others through utter disregard of all its meaning. Existentialism, however, leads us down a peculiar path that blurs these concepts into one unique belief system. While we might be faced with situations beyond our complete control, we do have the power to control how we handle said situations and whether or not we choose to cultivate significance from them. The search for significance is very primitive and so are the answers that have accompanied it throughout human history. Obviously, life doesn’t have a clearly stated purpose to it; it is up to each individual to create their own relative purpose and find their own happiness in a life of suffering. This is exactly what Existentialism proposes, that it is not possible to know the truth, so it is up to the individual to create his or her own, and then create their own purpose. Merriam-Webster defines the philosophy theory of Existentialism as a “…philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.” But Existentialism is not a concept that can simply be defined in one fell swoop. Throughout our studies of philosophy, I found there to be two main concepts that act as the foundation for the basic

One of the main themes of War and Peace is the irrational nature of human behaviour. A clear example of this is the scandalous affair between Natasha Rostov and Anatole Kuragin. Natasha Rostov was happily engaged to Prince Andrey Bolkonsky, but suddenly ended the engagement because she fell in love with Anatole within a 3-day span and wished to elope and run away with him. Her cousin Sonya, upon learning of the affair directly from Natasha, commented “Natasha, I can’t believe you, you’re joking. In three days to forget everything, and like this…” (659). To this, Natasha responds “It seems to me as though I have loved him for a hundred years… You can’t understand that” (659). This relates to how irrational impulses are logical to an individual, but seldom to anyone else. To Natasha, following her heart means finding happiness, but her desires also blind her from reality and concrete truth.

Waiting for Godot, written by Samuel Beckett, is a tragicomedy about two men waiting for a person or thing named Godot. The play entitles two contrasting pairs of characters, Vladimir and Estragon, Pozzo and Lucky. These sets of characters differ greatly and they create effect of humanity. The main difference between the pair’s relationships would be their dependency on each other, their level of compatibility, and their development throughout the play. Furthermore, both

If hope does not exist, Vladimir and Estragon will never fulfill their desires. Throughout the boy’s appearance, Vladimir continues to interrogate him, asking him several questions about the mysterious figure that is Godot. Asking the boy about Godot, Vladimir asks, “What does he do, Mr. Godot? Do you hear me?” (106), to which the boy merely replies as “He does nothing, Sir” (106). Thus, the futile nature of hope is depicted through Beckett’s use of symbolism. As Godot symbolizes hope, and the boy stated that “He (Godot) does nothing...” (106), this hints the redundant existence of hope. Rather, it is merely something individuals rely on to keep living, as for the case of Vladimir and Estragon, who continuously wait for Godot. While they contemplate suicide many times throughout the book, it is their motivation and continuous strive to wait for Godot that keeps them living to the next day. While “Godot” has failed Vladimir and Estragon many times, failing to show up to the exact spot that they believed they would meet him, they keep on waiting. Their strive and motivation is depicted as Vladimir says, “Tell him... Tell him you saw me and that... That you saw me. You’re sure you saw me, you won’t come and tell me to-morrow that you never saw me!”

In Waiting for Godot, Beckett often focused on the idea of "the suffering of being." Most of the play deals with the fact that Estragon and Vladimir are waiting for something to relieve them from their boredom. Godot can be understood as one of the many things in life that people wait for. Waiting for Godot is part of the ‘Theater of the Absurd’. This implies that it is meant to be irrational and meaningless. Absurd theater does not have the concepts of drama, chronological plot, logical language, themes, and recognizable settings. There is also a split between the intellect and the body within the work. Vladimir represents the intellect and Estragon the body, both cannot exist without the other.