No Exit, By Jean Paul Sartre

In Larry Lankton’s text, “Beyond the Boundaries” we gradually enter an unknown world that is frightening yet filled with immense beauty for miles. Due to the copper mining industry, a gradual increase of working class men and their families start to migrate to the unknown world with unsteady emotion, yet hope for a prosperous new life. In “Beyond the Boundaries”, Lankton takes us on a journey on how the “world below” transformed the upper peninsula into a functional and accepted new part of the world.

“In “No Exit”, a great play by Sartre, there existed a mixture of both authentic and inauthentic characters. The play begins by Garcin entering an exceptionally secretive room joined by the room-valet. Minutes after the fact, the room-valet goes with Inez and after that Estelle into the same room. They have all been conveyed to the hereafter room for their damnation. They begin examining what” happened to “bring every one here or at the end of the day how did each of them kick the bucket. Every takes swing to talk their contemplations; however the returns are not completely clear at first. Estelle declines to feel that she is broken and believes that she could have been conveyed here by slip-up and tries to persuade everybody in the room

Imagine being told that you have to get rid of all your belongings, go and work with very little food without knowing when your last day would come, while your faith is being tested the entire time. In the memoir “Night”, by Elie Wiesel, Elie faces many of these obstacles and more. For example, Elie loses his faith in his fellow man, God, and even in himself which then causes people to react in many differing ways. There are many reasons as to why people react differently to tough situations; one is perspective, you can either see the outcome as destructive or inspiring. If you had to overcome these obstacles, how would you react?

Embedded in the human spirit is the notion that people possess an innate sense of being an individual, free to think, act, and understand the world surrounding them. In George Orwell’s 1984, individuality is removed to support the Party’s abilities in controlling and exploiting the masses. Yet, despite their success in suppressing the citizens of Oceania there is something rooted in humanity that although can be repressed, still remains implanted within the deepest parts of a person’s mind. In the novel, while the Party attempts to annihilate all human instincts in order to acquire pure and absolute power, it is unknown to them that despite their best efforts there lies something much more dominant in the human mind which although can be inhibited may never be entirely eliminated. As Winston ponders revolutionary ideas, his physical body unknowing to his conscious mind, is complacent with his innermost thoughts to rebel in any way possible. Winston’s thoughts of unorthodoxy become enhanced through Julia because he discovers someone who desires and understands him, conjuring up something instinctual in him which has been waiting to be released. To care and protect someone else becomes instinctive when he/she experiences suffering or pain and this kind of understanding is acknowledged through the only people Winston believes express any sanity in a corrupt world: the proletarians. A person’s impulse to resist an oppressive nature is instinctual and this is validated through

Existentialism, a philosophical ideology conceptualized by Jean-Paul Sarte, encapsulates most thought processes where “the individual is obliged to make a choice as though he were choosing for all mankind” (Arnold, “Jean-Paul Sarte: Overview). Put simply, Sarte’s concept of existentialism is the thought process by which humans find themselves existing, and the analysis of their existence itself (Tulloch, Sartrian Existentialism). This analysis of existence found itself in many writings during the twentieth century, and acts a driving force in both Bishop’s “In the Waiting Room” and Lispector’s “The Daydreams of a Drunk Woman”.

Throughout “No Exit”, Inez says she “knows” everything about hell and what her experience there will be like. However, she continues to prove herself wrong, like when she tells Garcin and Estelle that they’re “going to burn”, but later discovers that the torture in this hell is mental, not physical. In this passage, she further shows her misunderstanding of hell, when she says she wishes to choose her hell. This line is ironic, as a hell that each person got to choose would contradict the definition of hell! Hell is the most painful and intense experience imaginable. If someone chose what happened to them, the experience would no longer be the most painful suffering possible. When Inez says that she would prefer to choose her hell, she prompts readers and audiences to think about the existential issue of existence versus essence. Existentialists like Sartre (and Inez) believe people are born without any predetermined destiny and that someone’s life is his or hers to

Paradise Lost by John Milton thrives off the implicit and explicit aspects of Hell offered by the narrator and the physical and psychological descriptions offered by various characters. Their separate perspectives coincide to expose the intentions of Milton and the purpose Hell serves in this epic poem. Each character adds a new element to the physical and psychological development of this alternative world. The narrator and Satan provide the greatest insight into the dynamics of this underworld by attempting to redress the issues of accommodation.

In No Exit, a play written by philosopher and existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, three characters are placed in a small room assumed to be hell with minimal furniture, space, and points of interest. The two women and one man are forced to face their own as well as the others’ sins and true natures, exposing each other in a raw truth. In many of his works, Sartre attempts to get important messages across that coincide with his philosophies. A piece that is easy to use to compare with the play is the essay The Humanism in Existentialism, as everything written in it are his own thoughts and commentary on life, how it should be lived, humanity, and how humans relate to each other and the world around them. That being said, he purposely writes No Exit in a way that blatantly disregards some of his main points. More specifically, through his writing of the characters in the play, Sartre very clearly demonstrates his contempt for and low standards of humanity by portraying each individual as having unique aspects of his negativity.

  “No Exit,” by Jean-Paul Sartre, is a play that illustrates three people’s transitions from wanting to be alone in Hell to needing the omnipresent “other” constantly by their sides. As the story progresses, the characters’ identities become more and more permanent and unchangeable. Soon Inez, Garcin, and Estelle live in the hope that they will obtain the other’s acceptance. These three characters cannot accept their existentialist condition: they are alone in their emotions, thoughts and fears. Consequently, they look to other people to give their past lives and present deaths meaning. Forever trapped in Hell, they are condemned to seek the other for meaning in their lives; even when given the

The play No Exit, by Jean-Paul Sartre, is about three people that die and go to hell. Joseph Garcin, a journalist executed by a firing squad for trying to desert during a war; Inez Serrano, a post-office clerk murdered by her lover which left a gas stove on while she slept; and Estelle Rigault, a woman who married an older rich man and died due to pneumonia. They all expected physical torture in hell. However, all they found was a plain room with some furniture that always had the light on, no windows, no beds, and nothing that would reflect or work as a mirror. The three of them were trapped inside the room. After discussing among themselves, they confessed their crimes and deduced that the torture was psychological. They also realized that they had been placed together so that each of them was to become the torturer of the other two. Each character began to ask things from the others to fulfill a need they all had, which only led them to more despair. Due to this, Garcin concluded that “hell is other people” (pag26). A. Petrusso argues in his article “No Exit” that the three main characters of the play have in common a display of cowardice. Certainly, all of them seem to be cowards at some moment and one character exhibits it more than the others. He also argues that certain actions and behaviors are merely the cowardice of the character when in fact, it rather seems more like fear. The examples and arguments used by Petrusso seem to simply catalog the main characters as

When Sartre says, “Hell is other people” (No Exit 45), Camus will remind him that there is no hell and none of it matters. Objectively, if hell means death, then to both protagonists in the philosophers’ works, hell is indeed other people. Meursault, the stranger in Camus’ book and to morality, passively observed his life until his inability to fit into a moral rubric sends him to a guillotine. His life and eventually his death describes absurdity and subjectivity, but never a moment does he appear to live them. On the other hand, Garcin, a sinner in hell confronts these existential values in Sartre’s No Exit. Unlike Meursault, he actively interacts with his emotions and the society. Yet no matter how different they are from each other, in an unbreakable system, it is other people who determine their fate. Actively and passively, Garcin and Meursault live their life only to find no escape. Through No Exit and The Stranger, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus voice their similarities and differences in their philosophies of absurdity and subjectivity through their protagonists in forms of dialogues, decisions, and actions.

Far in the distance, the faint chewing sound of people taking their first bites into their carne asada tacos, the loud, sharp clinks of tequila glasses, and the hoarse bangs of a piñata being beaten all come hand in hand, representing a Mexican celebration in La-La Land or also known as the city of Los Angeles. The city has been nicknamed “La-La Land” due to its recognition of being a place full of fun and out of touch with reality. For the past several decades, the city of Los Angeles has increasingly become a Latino city as they hosted countless festivals to celebrate the Mexican cultural holidays such as Cinco de Mayo, El Dia de Los Muertos and etc. In the book, The Labyrinth of Solitude, Octavio Paz discusses the generalization of Mexicans and emphasizes the idea of them preferring to be placed in solitude due to their fear of intimacy. The book even discusses the roles of a Mexican fiesta and cultural aspects of the Latino culture. By having Mexican holidays celebrated in Los Angeles, the city has become more invested into the Latino culture with the adoption of its cultural belief of death and celebrations techniques, which include excessively drinking, usage of guitars, letting off fireworks and celebratory gunshots.

No Exit, a play written by Jean-Paul Sartre that debuted in 1944, has many similar themes to the movie The Breakfast Club, written and directed by John Hughes. The play No Exit is perceived as taking place in literal Hell and describes the interactions between those who have died and have been placed in a room together. In The Breakfast Club, students have been put in a metaphorical “hell,” detention, and spend a full day together in the school’s library. For characters in No Exit, trying to deal with other creates a living hell and ends with each of the characters hating one another because they do not help each other; while in The Breakfast Club the characters end up accepting each other after going through the same “hell” because they learn and accept each other.

Common in all religions, sin exists almost as a written law. For Christians it exists in the Ten Commandments, the seven deadly sins. For Buddhists, it is the crimes against karma. Sartre, however, does not address what prerequisites his hell contains. By conventional standards, its seems that his characters rightfully deserve to be placed in hell.

In his 1946 essay Existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre undertakes the task of defending existentialism against what he defines as “charges” (341) brought against it. Sartre begins to outline the “charges” brought against existentialism and further, existentialists. Following the medieval quaestio-form, Sartre begins with the statement of the objection, a short discussion, and then his reply to each.