Existentialism Takes the Stage

Jessica Polny

PHL 490 Senior Seminar

Prof. Krishna Mallick

May 2018

Abstract
 Polny 1

“Existentialism Takes the Stage” focuses on the dramatic works of two prevalent French

existentialists: Jean-Paul Startre’s No Exit and Albert Camus’ Caligula. Existentialism

predominantly revolves around the idea that there is no innate meaning in the world. The main

points of existentialism are being, bad faith, freedom, the absurd, and anxiety/despair. In this

paper I will write a section focusing on each of these concepts, in which I will explain their

significance to existentialism. Furthermore, I will prove how these concepts are used in each play

- through plot, character development, and dialogue - to effectively demonstrate existentialism.

Both Sartre and Camus had opinions of their own of the use of theater as a medium for sharing

philosophical concepts, and by their standards, both these plays were successful works which

provoked emotion and encouraged action.

Introduction & Thesis

My interest in philosophy began not in the classroom or in a novel, but in theater. My

theater teacher in high school would always push us to think deeper about the characters we

would be embodying. What motivates a person? What are their beliefs? What do they think of

themselves? What constitutes the world around them? Questions that tend to be asked in a

philosophy course, in a slightly different context. In that high school theater class we read and

analyzed Jean-Paul Sartre’s play No Exit, and were given a crash course on Sartre’s philosophy

of existentialism. Essentially, the main idea is that the world has no inherent meaning, and

existence precedes essence. I was intrigued by the possibilities to define myself in a meaningless

world, and my interest in existentialism continued to grow in college. Camus’ intense passion for

living life to the fullest in a meaningless world appealed to me, and I came across his play

Caligula. The main points of existentialism are being, bad faith, freedom, the absurd, and
 Polny 2

anxiety/despair. In this paper I will present a section critically analyzing each of these concepts,

explaining their significance to existentialism and how they are effectively utilized to represent

the philosophy in both No Exit and Caligula.

Part I, Philosophers & Playwrights

Before we delve into the main argument of this paper, some background information is

necessary. For France, 1944 was a turbulent year, right in the midst of World War II. That was

the year the Battle of Normandy began, and Paris revolts against the German occupation. It was

also the year that two plays were published by two different French philosophers: No Exit by

Jean-Paul Sartre, and Caligula by Albert Camus. While the plays differ in plot and style, they

both address aspects of existential thought. Both Sartre and Camus address in their plays the

common existential crisis over the fact that the meaning one gives to life may not be the right

one, and even if an appropriate meaning is found it may never be fulfilled.

No Exit is about three characters, Garcin, Estelle, and Inez, who are all condemned to

Hell. The setting of the play is rather simple, a single room with only a few couches and some

side tables. This room where the three characters will spend all eternity is very different from the

generic fire-and-brimstone imagery of Hell. As the play goes on, we find out why these people

were condemned. Garcin did not only abuse his wife, but was also a pacifist and revolutionist

who fled from confrontation and was killed as a deserter. Estelle cheated on her husband, and

after murdering her illegitimate child caused her lover to commit suicide. Inez manipulated her

cousin’s wife to cheat on her husband and become Inez’s lover. For a time, the three are each

able to see up into the world to observe the people they left behind. As they converse more

in-depth on their desires and regrets, tensions rise and the characters begin to fall apart. Estelle
 Polny 3

seeks emotional validation and even sexual favors from Garcin, who just wants to be left alone.

Inez resents Garcin for this, as she tries to seduce Estelle. Caught in this room filled with desire

and hatred, Garcin exclaims that “Hell is- other people!” (Sartre No Exit 61). Their torment

comes from judging and manipulating one another, causing further guilt and self-resentment for

the lives they lead.

Caligula is about the Roman emperor who becomes insane after the death of his sister,

Drusilla. He succumbs to absolute madness in attempt to secure his freedom and power. First, he

demands to have the moon, an impossible task for his aid Helicon. After some council members

voice concerns over the treasury, Caligula forces a law that demands money be given to the state

in each citizen’s will. He thereafter commands random executions to secure the money. Caligula

says that he has realized his own personal freedom, which leads him to kill his citizens and even

rape the wives of his council members. Scipio, a beloved friend of Caligula and an admirable

poet, has his father killed by the emperor. This does not perturb Scipio so much as to further

lament for Caligula, who denounces all friendships and politicians as he no longer trusts anyone.

As Caligula’s abhorred behavior and irrational politics ensues over three years, the writer and

philosopher Cherea organizes an uprising. He fears the implications of Caligula’s reign the most,

and so insinuates a plot to assassinate the emperor. Caligula discovers this plot, but makes no

effort to prevent his death. Soon after this discovery he confronts his mistress, Caesonia, and

strangles her to death in an act which scorns all love and joy. The council members rush into the

throne room to to attack the emperor. As he is repeatedly stabbed, Caligula declares “I’m still

alive!” (Camus Caligula 74) as a final assertion of his morbid quest for immortality, yet another

impossible feat.
 Polny 4

It is important to understand the works that preceded this plays, the existentialist writings

which influenced them. Sartre wrote the book Being and Nothingness, considered to be his

principle work. The main theme of his book is the being-for-itself, that which has no innate

essence, and as a conscious being must define itself. Sarte elaborates that “The for-itself must be

its own nothingness. The being of consciousness qua consciousness is to exist at a distance from

itself as a presence to itself, and this empty distance which being carries in its being is

Nothingness” (Sartre Being & Nothingness 125). The nothingness is not a lack, but potential of

everything; that as conscious beings we have the unlimited potential and freedom to define

ourselves. This concept is in contrast to the “being-in-itself” which has innate and unchangeable

qualities. Sartre is concerned with existing in “bad faith” which he describes as an “attitude of

‘self-negation’... one determined attitude which is essential to human reality and which is such

that consciousness instead of directing its negation outward turns it toward itself” (Sartre Being

& Nothingness 87). That is, rather than defining the world as meaningless, one denies their own

being and freedom and becomes meaningless.

Furthermore, “To suppress being in order to establish the possible in its purity is an

absurd thing” (Sartre Being & Nothingness 150). To act in bad faith is to succumb to the absurd,

in which the being-for-itself suppresses its freedom in order to become an ideal. Sartre is very

concerned with freedom, “Since freedom is identical with my existence, it is the foundation of

ends which I shall attempt to attain either by the will or by passionate efforts” (Sartre Being &

Nothingness 572). The being-for-itself, as both conscious and with the possibility of the infinite

nothing within, is free. The meaning that a person attempts to make of the world will be found in

their freedom of the choices they make.

 Polny 5

The Myth of Sisyphus was written by Albert Camus as an answer to those who asked for

the meaning of life. He describes the search for meaning as “What is the absurd is the

confrontation of this irrational and the wild longing for clarity whose call echoes in the human

heart” (Camus Sisyphus 16). People naturally look for “clarity” in the world, whether it be

through faith or mathematics or psychology. But doing so is “irrational” since there is no

inherent meaning in the world, or any purpose to existing. That is the absurd, it is the ideas

people impose on the world to find a greater sense of purpose or meaning. This lack of meaning

can drive a person to suicide. However, we are given the capability to live life, as the only

freedoms given to us are those “of thought and action” (Camus Sisyphus 42). People are not

given the free choice of whether or not to exist, nor as to when or in what place. The only free

aspect is how one chooses to live. The freedom of how individuals can think for themselves and

act upon the world will provide meaning. For Camus, one’s meaning in life is presented when

living to their fullest potential by exercising their freedoms.

These concepts that the philosophers spent time studying directly relate to their respective

plays. Sartre addresses being in No Exit as the characters are forced to confront each other, while

Caligula in Camus’ play struggles with his sense of being as inescapable. The main characters in

both productions act on bad faith, as they attempt to denounce their being and regret their

actions. Despite the fantastical element of No Exit, the freedom that the characters are given in

their lives is consistently question, to the point of torture. Whereas in Caligula, freedom becomes

a twisted ideal which the emperor chases after endlessly. In confronting the state of their being

and the extent of their freedoms, both plays incorporate an encounter with the absurd. In No Exit,

the condemned were unable overcome such an encounter in their lives, while Caligula fails to
 Polny 6

transcend the absurdity of the world. Having ultimately failed this confrontation with the absurd,

the characters of both No Exit and Caligula fall into anxiety and despair.

Part II, Being & Bad Faith

Existentialism focuses on a concern of being; it seems intuitive that we exist, but the

philosophical question at hand is in what manner do we exist. Sartre believes that humans, in

“being-for-themselves” create their own meaning. This is opposed to that which is

being-in-itself; having an inherent meaning negates any freedom to choose a manner of being.

The most important aspect of being-for-itself is that is is conscious, which provides us with the

ability to search for meaning for ourselves, and how meaning relates to the world and others.

Jesse Bering, who has a doctorate in developmental psychology, states in his article that

“other people, through their sheer being, can cause us great psychological distress” (Bering 2)

and that “Consciousness is inescapable” (Bering 2). Bering is saying that humans have such a

uniquely attuned sense of the mental self, and the mentality of others. That is, as ‘I’ have

consciousness, so ‘other people’ have consciousness as well. Not only do we agonize over our

own mental states - questioning our desires or quelling our passions - but also we are concerned

with the mental states of other people. Furthermore, an individual cannot escape from this

psychological awareness. The existential problem of existing itself is that the individual did not

decide to exist, they were simply brought into existence. Consciousness exists, and is aware of its

existence, but cannot provide a reason as to why. Then, humans are subject to live among other

beings who, in a search for meaning, can conflict and berate against one’s conscious beliefs and

values. Both the existence of the consciousness itself and the awareness of the consciousness of

others causes “psychological distress”.

 Polny 7

The inescapability of consciousness is illustrated in No Exit when Inez says to Garcin “To

forget about the others? How utterly absurd! … You can nail up your mouth, cut your tongue

out- but you can’t prevent your being there” (Sartre No Exit 29). “Being” is not a choice; to exist

and to be conscious is not something that is asked of anyone, but is created nonetheless. Then, to

escape existence from other conscious beings is impossible. Even if in Sartre’s Hell one would

be alone, they would be haunted by the memories and impacts of past beings.

Caligula speaks of the torment of his consciousness, “if only in this loneliness, this

ghoul-haunted wilderness of mine, I could know, but for a moment, real solitude real silence, the

throbbing stillness of a tree!” (Camus Caligula 37). A tree is an example of a being-in-itself, for

it has intrinsic properties which dictate its existence - a tree cannot will itself to be anything other

than what it is. Us humans, as beings-for-themselves, cannot escape the decisions we have made

or the “ghouls” of other conscious beings which torment us. On the same line of thought, scholar

and historian Michael Wreszin writes that “Caligula's statement, in Camus' play, "Men die and

they are not happy" indicates the same theme that Sartre is creating - there is no escape, no exit,

even in death, for the actions of one's life” (Wreszin 43). The Roman emperor, no matter how

many new laws he decrees or power he asserts, will always be subject to the existence of the

members of his council and the people he rules over. His actions which he endowed to the

empire were met with anger, misery, and discontentment. The being-for-itself is inescapable

from the responsibilities of his actions and the authenticity of his thoughts and desires.

The being-for-themself is necessarily free, as a consciousness with the ability to

deliberate and act upon choices. However, when one denies their own freedom and inhibits

themselves from making choices, then they are acting in what Sartre refers to as “bad faith.”

Sartre states that “freedom is the human condition and only through self-deception or bad faith
 Polny 8

can one escape the responsibility of one's freedom. Resorting to either one or the other, man

remains an empty shell, devoid of meaning, a false image with no possible reason for existence”

(Wreszin 35). The characters in No Exit are condemned to Hell, not for strictly moral reasons,

but because they have acted in “bad faith.” In order to create meaning for one’s self, their

decisions must be true and genuine to the self - not a decision made towards anything else. The

conscious aspect necessary to the being-for-itself, as it allows for freedom, tries to construct a

meaning for the individual, but it must be supported by the choices that person makes.

This is because “Sartre has said that man can never conceive himself as an object, that his

consciousness will always construct an image of the self, but it will be an image created without

action which, in reality, is negation of humanity” (Wreszin 41). To create an ideal is acting in just

as bad faith as looking up to a God, an ideal that gives intrinsic meaning to the world. For

example, Garcin thinks of himself to be a loyal and brave man, but is condemned since he turned

on his self-image in an act of cowardice. This false image that humans tend to create, rather than

being-for-themself honestly, is a point of suffering. Rather than living life honestly, “These

people are in Hell because they have betrayed themselves, they lived under the code of ‘bad

faith’ or ‘self-deception,’ and in doing so have caused others to suffer” (Wreszin 42).

I believe that Caligula would have also been condemned to Sartre’s existential hell. This

is because, as French essayist B. F. Stoltzfus says, Caligula “is committed to the truth, but not to

man; and, in an existential context in which the world is perceived as tragedy, he fails because he

is not engaged” (Stoltzfus 77). He negates himself as a being-for-itself, because he deceives

himself into thinking he is god-like. His people become more infuriated with his pursuits,

starving and maiming citizens while indulging in cross-dressing performances. Charea the

academic gathers the councilors and aristocrats for a plot to assassinate the emperor. However,
 Polny 9

when he discovers this plan, Caligula does nothing to stop it. Caligula, in the pursuit of meaning,

condemns himself to death and therefore squanders his own being. The choices he made, by the

freedom given as a being-for itself, lead to his downfall. Freedom is a part of being-for-itself, and

is a concept explored in both plays.

Part III, Freedom

Although consciousness causes humans much distress, it allows us to make our own

decisions in life. The being-for-itself is therefore necessarily free, but Camus and Sartre elaborate

on how that freedom should be exercised. On the one hand, Sartre’s concept of freedom is more

absolute, insofar as“Man does not exist first in order to be free subsequently; there is no

difference between the being of man and his being-free” (Sartre Being & Nothingness 60). To

exist, as a being-for-itself, is to then be necessarily free. However, Camus recognizes that choices

and freedoms we posses in fact “create for myself barriers between which I confine my life”

(Camus Sisyphus 43). The freedom we possess is not unlimited, but in fact forms a reality around

our being. For either philosopher, the individual is not free by their own choice, yet it is entirely

their responsibility to act upon their freedom. Of course, to have every choice which constitutes

your life define your meaning can be overwhelming.

The anxiety of freedom in making decisions is self-inflicted. Ronald Sanotni, an

international scholar who specializes on Sartre, explain that “human beings encounter obstacles

and resistance only within ‘the field of their freedom… There is no absolute obstacle” (Santoni

789). Events which cause an individual to feel desperate or to lose hope, still rest entirely on the

responsibility of that individual. It is the choices that they made, within the capabilities of their

freedom, which lead to any confrontation of an obstacle. There is no greater force or nature to
 Polny 10

blame on any “resistance” with one’s life. The characters in No Exit feel guilt and anguish in Hell

for succumbing to their own obstacles. Estelle, for instance, murdered her own baby because she

believed there was no other option. But the possibility of having to own up to her affair and

raising an illegitimate child were obstacles created by her own decisions. The same goes for Inez

choosing to pursue her cousin’s wife and causing a scandal, and Garcin looking after his own

interests rather than the revolution or his loving wife.

Caligula reverts in the opposite direction, attempting to transcend such obstacles. The

emperor attempts to embody “the absurd ‘fact’ of freedom… to flee in its futile desire to be

substantial, to be the foundation of its being, to be an in-itself-for-itself or ‘God’ - for Sartre, an

impossible ideal” (Santoni 793). The concept of a God in an existential context is the ultimate

being-in-itself; a God has no freedom to be anything other than a determiner of the universe.

Such a higher being would not be able to choose their fate, or that of the world, as they embody

an indifferent universe existing as it is. The emperor is mistaken on his attempt to transcend the

world by becoming a higher being, as he would then sacrifice his freedom. Caligula is not on a

journey to confront obstacles, but to become a being that will never encounter any. But the

being-for-itself cannot escape the responsibility of making choices, even if that choice is to

denounce the for-itself. There will always be limitations and obstacles that arise from every

decision.

The aforementioned obstacles are the inescapable consequences of freedom. But it is

freedom in and of itself which presents the question of how to live. It is important to note the

difference between Sartre’s early “absolute ontological freedom of consciousness ("freedom of

choice") to which we are by abandonment” and on the other hand Camus more “existential or

practical freedom, the freedom to choose and practice our way of existing” (Santoni 795). That
 Polny 11

is, the “freedom of choice” is given to us from the conception of our existence; but to proceed to

choose how we are to exist, and to put our decisions into actions that define our existence, is a

freedom that can only be fulfilled in practice.

To focus on the freedom of choice as being limitless c.an be misleading, and “as a

consequence, absolute or total freedom for Camus leads to total, violent revolution, and "total

revolution" demands the "unlimited power to inflict death" and the "control of the world”

(Santoni 798). Camus felt as though Sartre’s sense of an absolute freedom was misplaced, and

would only lead to harm. This fear of freedom is illustrated in Caligula’s character, whose

purpose “is to dramatize his freedom, and the best way to do that is to act as though life were a

game for which he alone invents the rules. This power to break the rules, reinvent them and then

subvert them again has its own” (Stoltzfus 79). The rules are not referring to an innate meaning

to the world, but simply how the world functions as a being-in-itself. Lacking an essence, the

being-for-itself cannot manipulate such “rules” but merely acknowledge them, and exercise

freedom within those limits.

Note that the freedom to find a meaning does not imply that an essence can be acquired;

meaning and essence are not equivalent. Caligula absolutely misinterpreted his existence as a

being-for itself, lacking intrinsic meaning but able to exercise freedom. For when Caligula

“discovers that the blueprint [for human nature] does not exist… through his actions, vigorously

proclaims that he is free to choose whatever essence he desires.” (Stoltzfus 80). For a human to

have an essence in the existential sense is impossible. It is the fact that humans are without any

inherently defined meaning that we are able to be free. That is, the freedom to choose how we

live is not hindered by any innate properties we may possess.

 Polny 12

At the end of Caligula, the emperor has forsaken all his allies and even murdered his

lover Caesonia. Having found neither happiness nor achieved the impossible, Caligula laments “I

have chosen a wrong path, a path that leads to nothing. My freedom is not the right one… Oh,

how oppressive is this darkness!” and shatters his grand mirror (Camus Caligula 73). The

nothingness, the meaninglessness, that Caligula encounters overwhelms his sense of freedom.

There is no given path, or truth, which the emperor seeks, and so the freedom that he pursues

will never be satisfactory.

Part IV, The Absurd

While it is asserted we are free, that does not mean that we can simply do anything we

want at all. We are responsible for determining the world around us, for consideration of other

beings, and (some existentialists even argue) the betterment of mankind. The absurd is the

phenomenon of searching for meaning in the universe, even though an inherent meaning does

not exist. According to existentialism, we only have our own being. Absurdity is the nature by

which one can feel inadequate, overwhelmed, and resort to a false meaning in bad faith, or

suicide.

The act of defying absurdity, which both philosophers address, is referred to by Camus as

the “fundamental confrontation” (Harrow 35). Camus believed it was necessary to “revolt”

against the absurd in order to find meaning for one’s self. Kenneth Harrow, Distinguished

Professor in both English and cinema, explains how Camus “does not deny this element of revolt

to Caligula: he revolts and is still in despair and in error” (Harrow 32). The revolution that

Caligula entails is not one of a self-defining being-for-itself, which Camus encourages in his

philosophy. Instead Caligula is in denial of his being-for-himself, and attempts to become a

 Polny 13

being-in-itself. There exists an attempt to confront the absurd, but it is a wrongful one as

meaning is not searched for in the self. It is tempting to assert a universal meaning through

religion or science, but to do so is to give up the self which is free to define itself.

The confrontation of the absurd is clearly illustrated in Caligula, where “Caligula's fatal

flaw is in not recognizing that social rebellion and metaphysical rebellion postulate something in

life worth rebelling for” (Stoltzfus 76). A rebellion against the absurd is a stronger assertion of

living, of defining a sense of self which gives meaning to one’s life. According to Camus’

philosophy, this would entail living life to the fullest and to pursue action for the betterment of

life. But Caligula, in stating that “Men die, and they are not happy” (Camus Caligula 8) shows

the he no longer believes life to be a worthwhile venture. He puts out a list of executions to

control the population, he steals money from the dead for the treasury of the state, and even

inflicts famine upon the entire empire.

Caligula attempts to become the force of death, an essential and unchangeable aspect of

the world, and so embodying a force of the being-in-itself. Pulitzer Prize-winning literary scholar

R. W. B. Lewis analyzes Caligula’s attempt “to transcend, to wander outside the limits of human

possibility, would then be denounced as one of the characteristic modem modes of suicide. To be

sure, Caligula's transcendent urge was also, in a manner of speaking, suicidal” (Lewis 53). What

makes one human is not only aspects such as compassion, empathy, and reason. In the existential

sense, to be human is to live with the humility of existing as free-willed and inherently without

meaning. The attempt to embody a god, a being-in-itself which dictates the modalities of the

world, is a suicide to one’s own humanity. Caligula commits a philosophical suicide long before

he is killed.
 Polny 14

Sartre writes his plays for the protagonist to search for meaning, and “to succeed in

becoming a man and maintaining a personality, man is constantly forced to confront the absurd

human situation and to commit himself to self-definition” (Wreszin 36). Garcin in No Exit had

many chances to assert his central and valued identity as a loyal pacifist, but his failure to do so

was to succumb to the absurd. The meaninglessness of the world became greater than what he

defined himself to be. When asked about his act of cowardice, he says he “died to soon” (Sartre

No Exit 58), but in fact he has died and cannot take away his actions. The choices made in

freedom as a being-for-itself define our being, and it is that definition with which we revolt

against the absurd. Garcin failed in his pivotal moment of the revolt, both literally and

figuratively.

However, in No Exit where the threshold of death has already been crossed, the

characters are portrayed in a manner in which “They heighten to the absurd a fundamentally

impossible situation… there is no possibility of a reconciliation or collective cooperation

whereby continued self-deception can turn Hell into a paradise for the self-deceived” (Wreszin

42). In Hell, the characters have an eternity, where their thoughts and actions amount to nothing.

There is absolute meaninglessness in their being; they are fully conscious, but there are no

choices to be made. Inez states in the play that “You are- your life, and nothing else” (Sartre No

Exit 58). Throughout the play, the characters are able to look up into the world and see the

people living on and talking about them, or moving in to their old residence. But eventually, they

are “blacked out” from the world, and can no longer see anything as they are long forgotten.

What they did in their lives, forever ingrained in their consciousness, is set about an indifferent

world. The ultimate torture is the continuous confrontation of an absurdity which can never be

countered with a revolt, for their lives have come and gone.
 Polny 15

Part V, Anxiety & Despair

Both the freedom and the absurd have proven to cause distress, and that emotional state

in existentialism is referred to as anxiety. This anxiety can be caused by the overwhelming

feeling of nothingness that is part of our being, a confusion from a lack of inherent meaning of

the world, or the fact that we are conscious. All these factors are simply a part of existence, and

so anxiety comes from simply being. The explicative “Hell is other people” from Sartre’s No Exit

is an example of the anxiety induced from existing as conscious beings. Human evolution has

enabled a sense of “mind-theory” where we can causally predict the thoughts, actions, beliefs,

and knowledge of others (Bering 3).

This cognitive ability is utilized in No Exit between the characters to humiliate and

manipulate each other, as “theory of mind did introduce a very potent set of social emotions,

including shame, pride, embarrassment, and humiliation, each dependent on “feeling” what other

people think about us as individuals” (Bering 3). The suffering of the characters in No Exit

derives from the “mind theory” - when others can predict one’s thoughts and intentions, they are

exposed. As Garcin describes, they are all “Naked as we were born” (Sartre No Exit 31). The

Hell designed in the play is such that, as esteemed Professor of philosophy Stuart Brown

explains:

Each character creates himself in being eternally confronted by the other

two. Each creates a self compounded in part by the despicable character he is, in

part by the hostile attitudes with which the others confront him, and in part by the

image he has formed of himself. (Brown 160)

 Polny 16

As established in previous sections, the being-for-itself defines itself and creates its own

meaning. However, the subjection to other consciousnesses which question the authority of our

self-definition causes a great amount of anxiety. This feeling of “social anxiety” brings about “a

distinctively human type of psychological suffering” (Bering 4). Social anxiety is equivalent to

an anxiety about one’s own consciousness, and only humans as beings-for-themselves have the

ability to contemplate how another conscious person could view their idea of self.

The characters in No Exit demonstrate “Sartre’s intuition on the effectiveness of

convincing others that they are psychologically like us” (Bering 6) which is an attempt to counter

the anxiety of “the self [which] can never be understood by others in its totality because it can

never be experienced by anyone else” (Bering 6). Garcin pleads with Inez to understand his

motives for being a coward, to try and find solace in each other because they both understand

“evil” and she replies “Do you really wish to convince me?” (Sartre No Exit 57). There is relief

in being understood, because the sense of misunderstanding and judgement otherwise causes

anxiety. The love triangle of Estelle seducing Garcin, and Inez seducing Estelle, is a futile

attempt at such solace, since each other’s conscious desires will never be met.

The anxiety of the self is experienced at each moment that we confront our own

consciousness. Each moment has two dimensions:

One dimension is defined by the limits of mere consciousness on the one

hand and self-consciousness on the other; the second dimension is defined by the

limits of the self whose moment it is and of the other selves directly confronted in

the moment. The immediate quality of the moment as felt is anguish, forlornness,

and despair (Existentialism, pp. 2I-35). (Brown 160)

 Polny 17

The experience of consciousness cannot be shared, and so not only is the self defined by our

thoughts and actions, but a sense of self is dictated by other conscious beings. The despair that

follows is a feeling of misalignment with the self.

Along with anxiety, if bad faith is what describes the action which sets us against

ourselves, then despair describes the feeling that follows. Both finite in his mortality and human

nature, and declared infinite in his freedom, Caligula resigns his existence and “he wills the

impossible and is led to despair” (Harrow 36). The attempt at the impossible is a denial of the

world being-in-itself, that freedom can exceed the intrinsic essence of things. Not only does

Caligula fail at the impossible, but he fails to accept that the nature of his freedom can only be

exerted onto himself. The feeling of despair follows, since he has resigned from an existence

which gives himself freedom and meaning. Furthermore, the disparity in Caligula is that “Here

we can clearly see the course charted by Caligula throughout the play, for all his actions, no

matter how noxious to others, only lead him, over and over again, back to himself” (Harrow 39).

All the choices that the emperor makes is for his own pursuit of ultimate freedom, and the

impossible. Caligula’s consciousness is represented by scenes in which he returns back to his

mirror, and questions himself. He frustratedly asserts his power as he speaks into the mirror

“Power to the uttermost; willfulness without end. Ah, I’m the only man on earth to know the

secret - that power can never be complete without a total self-surrender to the dark impulses of

one’s destiny” (Camus Caligula 50).

Anxiety is caused by an overwhelming self awareness, and then despair follows in an

attempted escape from the self. Caligula attempts to become a god, but always returns to himself

in the mirror and despairs for his failure to escape the absurdity of his existence. Caligula tries to

rid himself of despair as he

 Polny 18

opts not to accept the futility of his condition, but to reject it through the

exercise of an absurd freedom, to seek the impossible as a means of escaping

despair… he pursues the impossible, conscious of the futility of his endeavor, so

as to cope with the emptiness life holds for him. In other words, he chooses a

form of despair which enables him to elude his despair over the human condition.

(Harrow 43).

Not only does Caligula despair over himself, but he experiences existential despair over the

absurdity of human existence. That is, despair is the feeling you experience the moment you

realize that if there is no meaning in the world, that the world is absurd, then there is no given

reason why anyone should exist at all.

Conclusion

Sartre’s view on theater is that it is necessarily a reflection of being. He once commented

on the role of theater, saying that

All we can do is to reflect in our mirrors their unhappy conscience, that is

to say accelerate the decay of their principles. Our ungrateful task is to reproach

them with their faults, when those faults have become curses. (Wreszin 55)

Essentially, Sartre utilizes the dramatic performances to deter his audience from acting in bad

faith. The idea of a Hell, in the theological and pragmatic sense, is frightening enough as a

general concept of a place. But No Exit, as a minimalistic one-act play, forms this idea of Hell

into something conceivable in actual life. The focus is not on the external world, but on the

intricacies of each personality of the characters - of their consciousness. Sartre’s ideas of being

and consciousness are embedded in the actions of the characters themselves. Some would argue
 Polny 19

that being in Hell strips them of their freedom; but in fact they are still very much free as

conscious beings to dictate their actions in this small room. The three characters question each

other’s actions and desires, shedding light on the fundamental qualities of their being. The

intensity of anxiety as Gargin, Estelle, and Inez interact is very much apparent. Broader concepts

of existentialism, ones that aren’t so much consciously experienced such as absurdity, require a

more scrutinized inference of the past lives the characters allude to in the play.

Camus said that drama is subject to that “immoderate devotion to truth which an artist

cannot renounce without giving up his art itself” (Camus Caligula vii). For Camus, the truth is

that it is necessary to accept the absurdity of the world, and to revolt against it. The intensity of

Caligula mirrors the passion of Camus philosophy. It is the emperor’s extreme existential crisis

which calls out to the truth of meaninglessness, that which we can lose our sense of self to if we

are not willing to assert ourselves. In the play, Caligula directly refers to freedom, and the idea

that life has no meaning. These are established ideas from the first act. The events which ensue

are in fact a result of descending into the absurd, which is apparent in his madness. The play

speaks of the torment of his consciousness, but does not entirely address Caligula as a

being-for-himself. The mirror is an important prop in the play, as a physical representation of a

sense of self which resides in consciousness. At the end of the play, Caligula shatters the mirror;

he views himself as nothing, as completely eradicated.

I would argue that the medium of dramatic performance is the most effective form of art

to portray existential ideas. The French theater community at the time of Sartre and Camus’

contributions as playwrights was obsessed with the avant garde, the unusual and experimental.

Eventually the a niche developed in this scene, known as the “theater of the absurd” - directly

related to the idea of absurdity in existentialism. Actor, director, and international expert on
 Polny 20

dramatic literature Richard Hornby explains the movement in which “Playwrights depicted

characters in horrible situations performing merely repetitive actions that went nowhere and had

no transcendent purpose; the action mixed broad comedy with horrifying images” (Hornby 640).

The ability to present dialogue and engage in a response on stage allows another dimension to

the medium. Rather than just staring at a painting or reading a novel, one experiences the

situations and circumstances of a character and how they unfold in their decisions. That is, it is

the perfect depiction of one exercising their freedom of being in a meaningless world. Theater

allows us to have an objective perspective on the meaninglessness of the world, where “the

oddness is in our reaction to this world, not in the reaction of the characters, who simply accept

their bizarre state of existence because it is all they know” (Hornby 642). When the audience

sees Sartre’s Hell on stage, the mundane interactions amongst one another are so apparent, that

the resulting anxiety and drama is exaggerated. As for Caligula, it is understood that his requests

are impossible and cruel, and yet there is pity for him and his despair in a chaotic universe. The

empathy and shock we experience in the theater is a mirror to the world in which we live. So we

must be the audience to our own meaningless lives as well.

Now, can we ask whether No Exit or Caligula has confronted existentialism better? Both

Sartre and Camus had strong convictions regarding the theater as a medium, and to each their

own end their plays would seem to be successful. Sartre’s as more of a warning, focusing on the

internal torments which lead us to immoral and self-harming decisions. Camus, as with all his

writing, succeeds in a call to action, in revealing his truth of the power of human determination.

Insofar as No Exit and Caligula succeeded in the philosopher’s intentions, they are equally

powerful and acute as existential works.

 Polny 21

Existentialism Takes the Stage: Bibliography

Bering, Jesse M. "Why Hell Is Other People: Distinctively Human Psychological

Suffering." Review of General Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1, Mar. 2008, pp. 1-8.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.1.

Brown, Stuart M. Jr. “The Atheistic Existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre”. The Philosophical

Review, Vol. 57, No. 2 (Mar., 1948), pp. 158-166. JSTOR.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus & Other Essays. Random House, Inc., 1955.

Camus, Albert. Caligula & Three Other Plays. Stuart Gilbert, trans. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1962.

Harrow, Kenneth. “‘Caligula’, a Study in Aesthetic Despair.” Contemporary Literature, vol. 14,

no. 1, 1973, pp. 31–48. JSTOR.

Hornby, Richard. "Theatre of the Absurd." Hudson Review, vol. 67, no. 4, Winter 2015,

pp. 640-646. EBSCOhost.

Lewis, R. W. B. “Caligula: Or the Realm of the Impossible.” Yale French Studies, no. 25, 1960,

pp. 52–58. JSTOR.

Santoni, Ronald E. “Camus on Sartre's ‘Freedom’: Another ‘Misunderstanding.’” The Review of

Metaphysics, vol. 61, no. 4, 2008, pp. 785–813. JSTOR.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. No Exit & The Flies. Stuart Gilbert, trans. Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1970.
 Polny 22

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness. Hazel E. Barnes, trans. Washington Square Press,

1992.

Stoltzfus, B. F. “CALIGULA's MIRRORS: CAMUS'S REFLEXIVE DRAMATIZATION OF

PLAY.” French Forum, vol. 8, no. 1, 1983, pp. 75–86. JSTOR.

Wreszin, Michael. “Jean-Paul Sartre: Philosopher as Dramatist.” The Tulane Drama Review,

vol. 5, no. 3, 1961, pp. 34–57. JSTOR.