Existentialism

What is the right thing to do? -It means doing what is best for the more noteworthy or basic great. It means settling on choices that are not founded without anyone else individual needs, that don’t grow your notoriety, or uphold your own convictions. It’s tied in with knowing the contrast among good and bad, right and wrong and acting as per those precepts.

In this project I am going to define this according to 3 of the most known philosophers have stated about it: Thomas Hobbes, Jean Paul Sartre and Bertrand Russell.

Thomas Hobbes is an English philosopher, famous for his political thoughts! He looksthe world in a very special and different perspective, and even now he is relevant to the modern governmental cases. His main worry is the case of social & political command: how can all people live peacefully without any worries about the civil war? Hobbe’s ethical idea is awkward to separate it from his political thoughts! According to him the right thing to do depends on the situation that we are. For example, when the governmental competence is missing then we have to do whatever we think it’s right to protect ourselves. But, when the government speaks then we have to respect them and do what they say!

Jean Paul Sartre is one of the most noteworthy masterminds ever. His hypotheses on existentialism and opportunity solid his place among the most convincing Western philosophers of the 20th century and beyond. According to him human beings do not have control over their lives when they are born and raised so they have to admit it as it is. But later as they grow older and become more aware they have to take responsibility for their own lives because there is no God who can tell you what to do, or tell you the purpose of your life. Consequently, you must decide for your own life and your destiny! Taking over our lives we set a definite purpose for living it. As a result, every decision that we make defines who we are and how we think we should live our lives. All these actions give the man what Sartre calls constant stress and anxiety. Eventually, Sartre wanted all people to be freed from the shackles and judgments of people and live their lives as freely as they want. He wanted only our own ideals to be considered!

Russel was a British, philosopher, mathematician, history specialist, author, writer, social commentator, political extremist, and Nobel laureate. At different focuses in his life, Russell viewed himself as a liberal, a communist and a conservative, even though he likewise admitted that his incredulous nature had driven him to feel that he had “never been any of these things, in any significant sense.

In his book “Philosophical Essays” is found an essay called “The Elements of Ethics” where are found Russell’s ethical views based on his influence of G. E. Moore. He accepted that “great” is the most central indefinable moral idea. He further kept up that we know “a priori” certain recommendations about the sort of things that are great all alone account. In like manner, that when we make an impression, for example, “this is good”, we make an impression like “this desk has a square form”, which is either true or false, and whose reality or untruth is free of our views & feelings.

Russell, in any case, additionally takes into consideration what he calls a “subjective” sense of “right”. What Russell states, if an individual asks himself, “what should I to do?” and afterward follows up with his answer, in other words, what the person judges to be directly after a fitting measure of real to life thought—the suitable measure of idea being reliant on the trouble and significance of the choice—at that point he might be viewed as acting properly in the abstract sense, regardless of whether his activity isn’t dispassionately right. An activity is designated “objectively right” by Russell when “of all that are conceivable it is the one which will most likely have the best outcomes.” Moore, then again, makes no such differentiation between right in the abstract sense and right in the objective sense.

Conclusion

Along these lines, as should be obvious our three philosophers of the 20th century have expressed that making the best choice allude to how to live morally and we are absolutely in charge of what occurs in the world. Generally making the best choice as indicated by philosophers intends to make a decision among potential outcomes for something the aggregate astuteness of mankind knows to be the best approach to act. To finish up each and every word, in my own opinion, goodness is making the best decision about the correct reason, by the perfect period, established in adoration, regard & harmony.

References

1. Hobbes, Thomas (1994 [1651/1668]) Leviathan, ed Edwin Curley (Hackett, Indianapolis)

2. Jean-Paul Sartre Existentialism and Humanism (London: Methuen 1973).

3. Potter, Michael K., Bertrand Russell’s Ethics (London and New York: Continuum, 2006)

“The Stranger,” written by Albert Camus, utilizes the main character Meursault and his personality traits to portray the author’s philosophical ideas regarding existentialism and the absurdity of life itself. Meursault, being the narrator of the novel, describes the events he comes into contact with, his personal feelings, and his evident rejection of decision-making, excitement, and life as a whole highlight such existentialist ideologies. By creating a main character who views life as not being worth living and who does not grow much throughout the story, Camus portrays the ideas and philosophy of existentialism and the absurdity of life. However, Camus goes farther than merely create a character to show his ideologies, as he also uses simplistic, descriptive language without emotions.

Existentialism believes that life is worthless and equates to nothing in the grand scheme of things, which is why the fact that Meursault iscontinually acting as if life does not matter highlights such ideology within the novel. Most who do not believe in such ideas would betroubled by the idea of spending the rest of their lives in jail, which is why Camus’ portrayal of Meursault and his sentencing is a key point to demonstrate the ideologies above. Meursault understands that he will spend his life in jail, and will eventually die there, yet he reveals to the readers that such a fate is unavoidable and does not bother him. His views on

this matter are evident as he consistently refuses to be visited by the jail’s chaplain, just because he had nothing to say to him. Such actions reflect that he does not believe in an afterlife, in eternity, or in God himself, which brings the readers back to existentialism and its ideas that the idea of life lies within the human actions and experiences, not within God. When Meursault says, while thinking about his sentence appeal, “life isn’t worth living” (Camus 114), he makes it clear that he does not believe that life is valuable or worth anything, which is also an idea of existentialism.

Camus goes a step further in showing existentialism as he also uses a simplistic, descriptive language and narration-style to symbolize the simplistic ideas of existentialismregarding life and death. Throughout the novel, only the physical aspects and words spoken during any conversations are showed to the reader, yet Meursault, the narrator, never describes his own emotions or reactions to what is happening, showing a robust existential trait and highlighting the absurdity of life as a whole. Such language can be seen at his mother’s funeral, whom he calls Maman, which is the French word for mom, which makes sense since the novel was initially written in French. Throughout the funeral, Meursault fails to mention his emotions regarding the fact that his mother is dead, yet he has no issue talking about small details, such as guests’ clothing, in a descriptive, simplistic language, such as saying that the casket is made of “walnut-stained planks” (Camus 6). Since he focuses on the trivial aspects and descriptions of the funeral instead of his feelings, he demonstrates his existentialist characteristics, which was undoubtedly done by Camus as a stylistic choice. Another event with similar language and descriptive choices is Meursault’s questioning and trial, where he focuses upon the magistrate’s eyes and the lawyer’s tie rather than upon the severity of the occasion and his predicament.

The language throughout the novel, however, is not only descriptive and straightforward, but it is also nonchalant, showing Meursault’s existential, and therefore nonchalant, way of handling life. The language, whether it be the lack of emotions in the descriptions or the conversations, makes it evident that he believes that things happen the way they are to happen and that he simply cannot do anything to stop fate. Demonstrations of this language can be seen with his mother’s death, when he tells his boss “it’s not my fault” (Camus 1) when requesting a few days off to attend the funeral. Such a lack of an emotional response shows detachment from his own mother’s death. After the funeral, once he goes back to work, he tells his boss that his mother was “about sixty” (Camus 25), which means that he did not remember exactly his mother’s age, showing a lack of feelings and a tendency for existentialism. But his act of nonchalance towards his mother’s death and age also carries over to the fact that he merely, nonchalantly accepts her death and does not question it, just like he accepts Marie’s proposal to please her, not because he loves her.

The novel’s main character, Meursault, makes it obvious to the readers that he does not believe in life being worth living and that his faith lies within the idea that when one dies, life continues and the dead will soon be forgotten by those still living. Camus, the author, uses this character as the narrator and uses a simplistic, descriptive language to represent Meursault as a man with existentialist beliefs and character traits.

However, director Roman Planks quickly ushers his leading man Into a theater of absurdity, perversion and tragedy thin the family, not as a concept, or cultural Ideal, but one composed of complex characters bonded by intricate relationships and harrowing pasts. With sass’s Chinatown, Planks manipulates noir motifs and archetypes masterfully to create a personal statement of anguish and pessimism, with Sites as his detective to whom human limitations apply, a real man measured against the faculties of noir heroes.

The script, written by Robert Town, recalls that of The Big Sleep, wherein a seemingly regular case unravels Into a cluster of mysteries, the answer to which eludes the detective, and at times even the audience, throughout the film. It departs from the classic noir models in its character development and by consistently returning the horrors and repercussions of the case to the character’s personal lives.

Sites’ coaxed investigation and, according to the real Evelyn Mylar, poor detective work plays an Integral role and Implicates him in the murder of Hollies – who not only had no mistress but was attempting to prevent Noah from gallon control of the city water supply. When Slates becomes Involved with Hollow’s widow, their relationship regresses accordingly to the Noir template of romance, wherein it does not take long to fall for and get in deep with a broad, but, surprisingly, neither of their motives fit the archetypes we expect.

Throughout the film, Sites is hanging by the threads of Evelyn multifaceted deception, but she has nothing to benefit from her lies. While she may have the cold expressions and overwhelming sexuality of a femme fetal, her only desire Is to separate her daughter from the wicked Noah Cross, who fathered both women. “We expect her to be a vessel of sex; In fact, she turns out to e the victim” Anymore writes (207). Similarly, the detectives pursuit to discover the truth behind Evelyn seems to stem from a genuine investment in her life, along with a desire to make up for past failures.

Even when encounters between the two fulfill noir qualifiers, they resonate with a sense of authenticity, both physical and emotional. Such is the scene where Sites strikes Evelyn, of which Anymore writes that “no scene In detective melodrama… L’s more emotionally charged” (210). The incestuous truth behind the relationships of Noah Cross, Evelyn, and their daughter introduces an element of personal tragedy, and a villain who revels in proving himself capable of truly anything.

Instead of presenting the family as an ideal our culture was losing to modernity, Planks and Town created a portrait of evil destroying the lives of innocent people without any motive. Parallels are often drawn between this facet of the film and the murder of the director’s pregnant wife by the of those of the Greek tradition and the deeply personal expressions of existentialism and absurdist by Campus and Sartre. Each of these situations finds Sites morally and emotionally challenged in ways ROR leading roles of the genre were not and, ultimately, a victim.

I disagree with Anymore entirely when he calls the character as a “hothead and Bulgarian” (206) and think that he misinterpreted the detective’s sincerity when describing his business as an “honest living. ” Unlike many of many of noirs leading men in the past, Sites does not revel in the city underbelly and is not entertained by the nastiness inherent to its citizens. Having seen it all has made him passive, and in his own way, empathetic. When the fake Mrs.. Mylar alleges of Hollow’s affair, he responds by attempting to turn her away instead of Jumping to capitalize on her feign, hysterical state. Mrs.. Mylar, do you love your husband? ” he asks. “Then go home and forget everything. ” The cynicism is present, in his tone, his one liners, but as a result of the agony he has not been able to shake since Chinatown. He is a man that has been on the losing end of corruption for too long. His time in Chinatown caused him to lose more than his conscience, “putting’ Chainmen away for spitting’ in the laundry’ and “doing’ as little as possible,” but a woman that was close to him and a piece of his sanity.

He is wary of being taken from, and of seeing Justice undone and the truth obscured, the rich getting richer at the publics expense. By solving the drought and land grabbing conspiracy he has a chance to compensate for the corruption he was forced to watch go unpunished in the past. By saving Evelyn, he can save the woman he lost. The district attorneys assertion to him that “you may think you know what’s going on, but you don’t” looms over his thoughts, desperate to right something in the deteriorating world of 1937, L. A. The connection between the character and director are undeniable.

Existentialism and Phenomenology versus Hegelian Idealism

Continental Philosophy is a set of beliefs that came from english speaking philosophers during the 19th and 20th centuries, primarily, as European reaction to analytic philosophy and  Hegel’s form of Idealism (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  The grounds of continental philosophy’s core contrasts the influences of Hegelian Idealism to various fields such as literature, theology and art. Continental Philosophy is comprised of numerous schools such as Existentialism, Phenomenology, Hermoneutics, Deconstruction and Critical Theory of Frankfurt (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Two notable schools, in terms of influence, are Existentialism and Phenomenology.  Existentialism and Phenomenology trace the origins of their themes from Socrates’ beliefs and the pre-Socratic era (Moore and Bruder, 2005). 

Phenomenology is a belief which is part of the vast wave of continental philosophy based on the works of Edmund Husserl (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  It is generally centered on the essential structures found within the stream of conscious experience or phenomena, these structures exhibit liberal manifestations from the  assunptions and pre-suppositions of science.  Phenomenology traces its roots from the principles of Kant and Hegel, ironically, phenomenologists deny concepts of Hegelian Idealism  (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Husserl deems phenomenology as a study of the essence in an individualistic manner.  Edmund Husserl believes that the possibility of cerainty is still plausible, thus, he presented a science that studies structures identical to every consciousness, the universal phenomenology of consciousness (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Husserl acquired numerous vital principles that aid to the foundation of Phenomenology.  Mainly, Franz Brentano’s intentionality, which posits that mental acts are intentional and the fundamentals of such acts give description to the basic structure of consciousness (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  That every mental has an objective which is the key factor that defines mental phenomena from its physical counterpart.  Husserl’s application of intentionality aims to conquer the cubject/object division dominant in philosophy.  Martin Heiddeger, a famed phenomenologist is greatly influenced by Husserl’s work, though he sees Husserl’s approach on the subject/object matter as a flaw.  Heiddeger also pays attention on the expansion of phenomenological queries to envelope understanding of the Being, hence making phenomenology a the study of being (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Like Husserl, Heiddeger is also inclined to the idea that it is a necessity to contemplate on things clearly, with the absence of presuppositions of the past and present, to have a perspective of things with a deeper basis.  Basically, Heiddeger’s philosophy contradicted the orthodox examinations of the world and the things found in it because Heiddeger believes that the course of this quest for knowledge puts the self aside (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Heiddegers thought on poetry suggests a silent, nonimpositional appraoch in order to see the Being as it makes its presence known (Moore and Bruder, 2005).

Heiddeger claims that thought is dependent on Being, and Being , makes thought possible.  Thus, Heiddeger states that humans, for the purpose of enlightenment, need to consider the Being, rather than looking into themselves alone (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  This poetic thinking, for Heiddeger, tends to discover uncharted territories and that traditional philosophies and metaphysics must be set aside for this more original method of thinking (Moore and Bruder, 2005).

Existentialism is a philosophical belief suggesting that humans create the meaning of their very existence.  Particularly, Existentialism postulates themes regarding existence that tend to drift away from the conventional concerns of philosophy and is more focused on the matters surrounding human existence (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Existentialists believe that life in itself is meaningless and absurd if an individual will not face or contemplate on the the existential concerns (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Early Existentialists such as Soren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche believe that traditional philosophy such as Metaphysical systems and rationality are useless attempts to overcome pessimism and despair and that such beliefs are disregard for the human predicament (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Nietzsche and Kierkegaard primarily believed that 19th century philosphy and culture shrouded major issues like emptiness and decadence (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Kierkegaard and Nietzsche contended against the destructive effects of traditional philosophies to various practices such as religion.  Nietzsche disapproved of the church’s augmenting of Christianity, which he thought of as a mislead to the values of Christ.  Kierkegaard and Nietzsche repelled the dominant beliefs of the 19th century and started a  new trend that mainly concern human existence, the themes of their philosophy also extended its arms to artforms such as literature and painting throughout the 20th century (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  The existentialists express resentment for senseless thought systems and focus more on the conditions surrounding human existence influenced art movements like Surrealism, Dadaism and Expressionism (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  However, the two differ in their perspectives of religion, particularly on the argument of its significance to a person’s life.  Kierkegaard claims that Christian belief and faith for that matter is a personal experience, while for Nietzsche, Christian faith is merely a means to atone for the people’s weaknesses (Moore and Bruder, 2005).

Albert Camus, a contemporary existentialist crusader follows the tradition of Husserl and Heiddeger (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Albert Camus believes that people live and die without seeing the the true nature of things (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  That humans block the true human needs with forced optimism.  Thereby, dominantly placing self-deception in their sense of being, making humans lost and misguided from the self and from the disablity to fill the essential needs.  Camus gave two needs that a person must fill, first is the need for clarity and understanding, second is the need for social warmth contact (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Camus furthers that we live in an absurd world wherein such human needs go unsatisfied.  Camus blames the opaqueness and density of the world for the insufficient reason  as to why things happen (Moore and Bruder, 2005).  Camus also states that humans, in this violent age tend to remain strangers to themselves and to one another which causes the second need’s unaccomplishment (Moore and Bruder, 2005).

Works Cited

Moore, Brooke Noel, and Kenneth Burder. Philosophy: The power of Ideas, Sixth Edition.          New York: Mcgraw-Hill Companies, 2005.

Bucket’s “Endgame” explores an existence in an era when the importance of being Is Incessantly challenged by man’s newfound recognition of the universes absurdity and lack of observable meaning, Written In 1957, the context of the world at the time of this works creation sheds much insight on its themes. In a time of continuous social and technological change scientific observations began yielding a more accurate picture of causality for the world and its phenomena; and the concept of god became ever less relevant. The recent world wars had left ruins in not only cities, but in the concepts driving the nature of man.

With the Implicit destruction of deities and sets of traditional rules to govern man’s behavior, humanity found Itself at a need to define a different purpose to Its existence. Enter existentialism: A belief in existence despite any discernible meaning, existence for its own sake; heralding with it an implied freedom of choice in both perception and action. As with the then contemporary world view, the characters in Bucket’s “Endgame” are left to survive in the wake of a crumbled world. Free to devise their own world view, the characters respond by developing life affirming routines – mistreating that creation persists even In destruction.

Destruction, It would seem does not eliminate an object or Idea, but only redefines its form, beginning its existence anew. Rather ironically, the play begins with Cool repeating the world “finished”. Consequently, this theme of beginnings and endings as interrelated, cyclical, mutually necessary, and conclusively futile comes to prevail over the course of the play. As with the classic case of the chicken and the egg, the cyclical pattern of creation and destruction is eternal In Its supposed nature.

However, to the AOL of Inciting drama or motivation, a story must begin with destruction; a motif with which “Endgame” is rife. The very setting of the play Immediately evokes a sense of catastrophe and destruction. The lifeless “bare interior (Endgame, 50) is coupled with the “nothing” or “zero” (Endgame, 51) reported outside by Cool to Imply at the decay of a once lively outside world; while the imagery of the stage as a skull (with the two windows acting as eyes and the characters as the thoughts) denote the destruction within.

During this unmentioned catastrophe, the characters saw the end f their entire world and way of life; thus being forced to redefine their views and behaviors. The destruction of their past worlds leads the characters to abandon their old ideals and ways of life. The bastardly He doesn’t exist. ” exclaimed Ham when his prayer went unanswered; showing that even god had died in the wake of Ham’s personal disaster. However, these new circumstances work to effectively create a new world for the characters to inhabit – a world as senseless as the last.

Whether It Is the story about the tailor, which coupled the end of a period of walling he beginning of the world, Ham and Clove’s killing the flea from which they believe humanity may have been reborn (Endgame, 591 or the numerous references to Christ, whose death (and subsequent rebirth) – destructive and creative motifs in Bucket’s “Endgame” are presented in tandem. Interestingly, the cyclical nature of life and death renders itself generally nonsensical and pointless.

Surely, if all is to end to be reborn anew then a personally crafted purpose will ultimately remain as to exemplify this notion of a circular existence, with many motifs of rebirth such as Cool always returning. In their awareness of death (their own destruction), Bucket’s characters foster eternally static routines that they hope will distract them from their imminent demise. They go through the “… This farce, day after day” (Endgame, 54), as Nell puts it, because there is nothing else to do but delay the inevitable while they wait.

To that end, Becket makes use of repetitive language to denote the futility and repetitiveness of the cyclical nature of life. The play systematically notes upon and enunciates the characters minutest movements, and repeats their most casual interests: from Ham’s insistence on remaining at the center of the room (Endgame, 57); to how many pauses Ham takes in his speech; to how Nell repeats herself to Nag, as in the case of “April afternoon” (Endgame, 56) . “Let’s my dream. A world where all would be silent and still, and each thing in its last place, under the last dust. ” (Endgame, 66) says Cool, expressing a desire for order.

Yet Cloves constant tidying seems to have no end in sight; especially if he were to direct his efforts to the destruction outside. This tidy end of which Cool dreams would only yield disappointment as he would have no cleaning duty to occupy him and upon achieving it, his life would again become meaningless. In such a way, Cloves vision provides meaning to his trudge, which would otherwise dissipate upon achieving his goal. This focus on repetitive actions that delay the inevitable prohibits the discernment of meaning from these same actions, since there is never a final culmination to assess.

Still, even the one example of a final product, is by no means fulfilling. “Look at the world and look – at my TROUSERS. ” (Endgame, 56) Says the tailor in Knell’s story, as if to belittle the bounty of the world (tongue in cheek, of ours) in the face the quality of his pants. In this case, as in the case of the characters death delaying routine, no amount of postponement will have made the end result worthy. As such, the play essentially stresses a “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t” scenario by showing how any action will eventually be absolved in futility.

The theme of futility ties into the very initial metaphor for ends in beginnings: As Cool mutters “Finished, it’s finished, nearly finished, it must be nearly finished. Grain upon grain, one by one, and one day, suddenly, there’s a heap, a little heap, the impossible heap. (Endgame, 50), he effectively questions when individual grains live up to the concept of a “heap. ” From this perspective, the heap is an “impossible” notion, as any single grain is not in itself a heap, and a “heap” is Just an accumulation of single grains.

This view resurfaces yet again, when Ham considers how individual moments make up a life (Endgame, 70). In this instance the analogy maintains that it is an “impossible” life, consisting not of a life that can be scrutinized as a goal achieved (or not), but of discrete moments that define it (before death terminates it indefinitely). Thus, any creation of meaning incurred during one’s life, is presented as ultimately pointless – and only leading to its own destruction with the passing of its believers.

While Ham and Cool are in the “endgame” of their ancient lives, with death lurking around the corner, they are also stuck in a perpetual loop that never allows the to achieve closure. Ham claims he wants to be “finished,” but admits that he “hesitate[s]” to do so (Endgame, 51). “We’re not beginning to… To… Mean something? “, Ham wonders, only to be ridiculed by Cool in response him deeply aware of its lack of purpose. Since any ending is also a beginning, there is never any finality, and conclusive meaning is impossible.

Besides, any meaning derived would be as shallow as the meaning left behind; while only persisting as long as its belabored. The very expression of Ham’s question exemplifies this very struggle; where he delays and repeats words as he attempts to finish the sentence – only to have it become a meaningless gesture in the eyes of Cool. Cool, though aware of the world’s absurdity must still subscribe to routine. He adheres to the daily procedures of tending to Ham and thus makes it the purpose of his life.

Just as death wont arrive to conclude their lives, neither Ham nor Cool can escape existence in catheters presence. Such is the case with Clove’s frequent failed attempts to leave the room and Ham’s insistence on squashing the flea that might herald with it the human race; the characters appear to fear the destruction of their current realm of existence in favor of another for fear of the new world being worse still. It is consequently implied that the characters loathe the thought of reincarnation into this world; particularly being personally resurrected after death only to face life again.

Thus they make an effort to kill all potential propagators of meaningless life such as the “procreators” that they seek to kill (Endgame, 73), or the incident with the flea the flea: “But humanity might start from there all over again! Catch him, for the love of God! ” (Endgame, 59) screams Ham, in chase of the flea. In exploring the cyclical nature of destruction and creation, “Endgame” notes on the futility inherent to the process. The cyclical nature of destruction and creation is rendered meaningless by the very definition of its continuity.

Seeing the meaning seep from their previous existence, the characters come to realism that any new purpose will be as unfailing and mortal as the last. In the process of finding purpose in an existence doomed to meaningless, the characters come to occupy their time with senseless repetition that they both despise, and require. In true existentialist fashion, they deem all actions pointless, but are unwilling to stop making them while they still can. This play goes to show that meaning is what you make of it, and that there are no winners at the end of this absurd game called life.

Immediate Responses: -Easy read -Incredibly funny -Characters are so unlike one another -The relationships all linked together somehow -Very disappointed by the way they found Sister Rose -Loved the simple flow of the dialogue -Had to re-read several things in order to keep the sequence straight due to the jumping around of the scenes and time. Basic Conflict: The basic conflict of the play is the unsettling fact that somebody has stolen the corpse of their beloved nun Sister Rose. Major Events: -Somebody stole Sister Rose’s corpse Balthazar tells Vic a story about a man who didn’t care that his son had died -Rooftop goes to confession with Father Lux for the first time in 30 years. -Inez is Rooftop’s ex wife -Gail’s and Flip’s relationship is established. Gail is an actor. -Flip denies his relationship with Gail in front of Inez -The interrogation of Norca by Balthazar -Edwin’s and Pinky’s relationship is established -Edwin sends Pinky out for Yodels at 10:30 in the morning -Marcia’s asthma attack. Edwin takes care of her. Marcia tries hooking up with Edwin. -Norca and Inez speak in the bar for the first time since Norca slept with Rooftop, Inez’s ex husband. Balthazar takes Rooftop out of his confession. * Pinky kisses Father Lux * Pinky returns from getting yodels over 12 hours later. * He admits to Edwin that he spent time with Norca * Marcia expresses her concerns that Edwin will turn into her alcoholic grandfather * Marcia wants to marry Edwin who doesn’t want to leave Pinky alone. * Flip kisses Gail in public * Balthazar confesses that he was the guy who decided to watch a game on television over going to his son’s death sight. Major Theme: The major theme/lesson of the play is to always put somebody else before you.

If you do than you will learn more about yourself in long run. Environment: The environment of our scene is a bar and grill on 121st street at 2 a. m. in the morning. Sitting in the bar I can see the smoke from the kitchen as it passes the lights on the ceiling. I can smell the fantastic aroma of fried food being cooked out back. I can taste the cold, salty, and seasoned French fries as I bite into them off of Marcia’s plate. I can hear the faint jazz music from the jukebox in the corner behind me. I can feel the cool air conditioning coming from the vents as I stand under them when I get warm. Character

My character is Edwin Velasquez. Edwin is a super for a building on 121st street and has a great relationship with some of his tenants. Edwin dresses incredibly mainstream and boring. He hasn’t shaved in 3 months, so his scruff is quite visible and doesn’t waste time doing his hair. Edwin loves to eat Yodels with whole milk, and smoke. Edwin’s not the smartest 32 year old and he had to re-do 2nd grade 3 times. He is a very happy person who has taken on a huge burden that causes him to be on edge almost all of the time. Some people may see this as a bad attitude, but it’s simply a result of always worrying.

Edwin has to take care of his little Brother, Pinky, by himself due to the fact that their parents are dead. Pinky is mentally challenged, and it just so happens that it’s Edwin’s fault which really weighs down on his shoulder’s 24/7. He threw a brick through a window after being yelled at by his parents for calling Pinky a retard, and the brick hit Pinky on the head causing permanent damage. Edwin’s most important relationship is the one with his brother Pinky. Their parents passed away several years ago. Social Services insisted on taking Pinky into custody, but Edwin would not let that happen, so he took full responsibility for Pinky.

He feels that he owes it to his parents to be the best possible parental figure he can be for Pinky. Edwin’s overall need or desire throughout his life is to be certain Pinky is happy and safe at all times. Edwin does extremely well trying to protect Pinky and know exactly where he is at all times, but Pinky makes it incredibly difficult to do so. In our scene he does not achieve it because Pinky was out for over 12 hours and did not tell Edwin where he was going to be which worried Edwin to death, but it was truly out of his hands.

Existentialists and intellectuals relatively have similar views about certain things. Existentialists are intellectuals while some intellectuals can be existentialists. However, there are instances when their philosophies can reveal differences which make them stand out and identify themselves. This paper aims to discuss how one is likely to cope with the issue of death in an existential and intellectual point of view. Coping with Death Death has been the most absolute event that is bound to happen to human beings even before they were born.

It is one constant thing that will be waiting at the end no matter how well or bad we live our lives. Throughout life, there are inevitable instances when we are forced to cope with the death of someone, whether a stranger’s, relative’s, or plainly, the thought of ours. Since existential views root from the idea of existentialism and intellectual views from intellectualism, let us first identify the distinction between these two philosophies. One of the most famous existentialists in history is the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre.

He defined existentialism as a philosophy which focuses on the existence of man alone and not on his essence or for any other purpose. He argued that man exists without meaning or definition. However, he stated that essence and meaning only manifest later in our lives. It is through our decisions that we come to begin the definition of our existence (Earnshaw, 2006, p. 74). Clearly, it is evident in his argument that religion is out of the picture. In the book Existentialism, Steven Earnshaw quoted Sartre’s (2006) claim:

If man as the existentialist sees him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself (p. 74). Based on the definition by Sartre, it is now reasonable to say that existentialists view death as something that just happens without any meaning at all. If we are to cope with it existentially, it can be claimed that death is a fearful event because it does not provide a sensible reason.

It does not label our meaning; rather, death ends it. On the other hand, there are also existential arguments with regard to death which claims that death is necessary to remind us of “possibilities. ” Without death, one would not be obliged to be cautious in his/her decisions because that individual has all the time in the world to do them in “trial and error. ” Now, we move on to intellectualism. This philosophy is actually quite self-explanatory in nature. An intellectual acts in accordance to reason.

Similar to existentialism, intellectualism also disregards the involvement of religion, for religion is based on faith which is unfounded with solid evidences. Nonetheless, intellectuals can have different ways of coping with death. Since reason is more complex than the idea of “existence comes first” by Sartre, intellectuals can vary in their opinion of death. As for me, if I am to cope with death intellectually, I can start off by going back to the theory of evolution.

As rational and mortal animals, we are capable of deteriorating because of several conditions such as diseases, old age, natural disaster, etc. Hence, death is a cycle which is scientifically normal and inevitable. Most likely, if one is to view the concept of death either existentially or intellectually, he or she is still subject to fear its arrival. However, there is a loophole in both of the arguments because the root of our existence is still questionable. They can bring up the Big Bang or the Theory of Evolution, but as far as I am concerned, there is no solid evidence of the first inhabitants on earth.

As long as theories have not been proved with concrete evidence, there is no way that we can reach the answers about life and death. In any case, existentialism and intellectualism do not provide the perfect way to cope with issues like death. What they can only provide is the flailing argument that we are considered materials which have the capability to break down and crash at any point in time. Would it not be better to accept death knowing that something unimaginable is waiting for us?