Since Sartre develops his philosophical ideas in literary form, rather then the usual form of a discourse, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss Simone de Beauvoir’s essay on philosophical literary works and to demonstrate Sartre’s use of many of her ideas in No Exit. The first of Beauvoir’s ideas, which also appears in the play, is her belief that philosophical literature must lead the author as well as the reader on an authentic search with no ready-made answers. An example of this may be found in the tendency to relate to Garcin’s attempts to avoid the other women and sit alone with his thoughts. His inability to escape the others seems to represent the readers own inevitable existence with others. For both Beauvoir and Sartre the Other is an essential part of one’s facticity, that is their place, body, influences, etc. Since we are bound to our particular facticity, the other will always affect us and often limit out freedom, whether we like it or not. It is in this way that Garcin leads us on a search into our own existence.
In addition to identifying our existence as a being-with-others, No Exit also demonstrates Beauvoir’s belief that philosophical literature must encourage the recognition of one’s embodied freedom. Although the three characters are looking back on their previous lives from hell, it is a well known fact that Sartre was an atheist. Thus, this reflection may actually represent the characters’ insights into their true essence, which he believes can only be defined after death. It becomes clear from these reflections that we define ourselves through our free actions, and that our essence is exactly what we made of it as we lived. Of all the characters, Garcin seems to have the most difficult time with this, as he continually regrets his reputation as a coward. However, as it was established before, we are strongly affected by our facticity, and therefore our freedom is limited to the various aspects of existence as an embodied being. We are free only in so far as our situation allows us to be.
In order for a work to successfully encourage the reader to recognize these aspects of their existence, Beauvoir indicates that it must be ambiguous, and provide an opportunity for self discovery. She condemns the thesis novel, a label given to her own work The Blood of Others, for the fact that it does not allow for the discovery of an “ambiguous truth”, but rather asserts, as definite, a moral conversion to political responsibility and action. Referring to her work The Mandarins, which she believed had more effectively achieve the objective of philosophical literary works, Beauvoir states, “I describe certain manners of living the postwar period without proposing any solution to the problems that worry my protagonists…[The novels conclusion] does not have the value of a lesson.” (Beauvoir Philosophical writing, p.264) This ambiguity is another aspect of Beauviour’s essay, which also appears in No Exit. Although Sartre encourages us to recognize the various aspects of our existence, the play ends without providing any indication as to what should be done to most adequately deal with this existence. An obvious reason why this may be the case, is that both Sartre and Beauvoir assert that there are no set answers. To prescribe a particular answer would allow an individual to avoid their responsibility as a free being and thus contradict the central ideas that both thinkers develop in their texts. The key to these texts, as Beauvoir had indicated, is not to give answers, but to provide the reader with the opportunity to better understand him or her self. Once the reader is given this insight into their nature as a being-in-the-world, both bound to their facticity and at the same time free, it is their responsibility to deal act in a way that they believe to be most adequate.
Brent Steinburg
Proust as an adult.
