Jean-Paul Sartre’s No Exit deals with one of the most interesting philosophical issues: the other. The play takes place in hell where the main characters are locked in a room together. As each of the characters back-stories are revealed their relationships with one another become increasingly more strained, eventually culminating in the attempted stabbing of Inez by Estelle. All the events in the play serve to communicate two general concepts. The first being ‘Hell is other people’. And the second is that others are essentially necessary in regards to the formation of a solid identity. Both of these are modern themes that deal with anxiety, and individual identity.
The play characterizes particular identity types within each of the main characters. The first is Garcin who plays the part of the coward, the second is Estelle who is beautiful but shallow, and the last is Inez who embodies cruelty. Each of these personalities requires other people in order to become realized. Bravery and cowardice are measured by others, as is beauty. Also in order for one to be cruel one requires people to be cruel towards. Sartre is trying to get the point across that every identity requires another person, and I agree. Essentially a person is only a person because of other people. We cannot have a clear self-identity in and of ourselves due to the fact that we base our identities on relations with others (ethics) and the way others see us (image).
‘Hell’ being other people is a difficult concept to accept. All of the best memories that I have are cantered around other people. Sure there are a lot of terrible people out there but there are also some pretty decent ones. But, when it comes down to it, all relationships still entail some kind of struggle, or aggravation or compromise. This is just the way people are. No one can be perfectly happy with everyone all the time. That and the moments where one feels the most miserable happen because of other people, or at least because of the existence of other people. So others seem to be the root cause of misery. I don’t think I could, however, make the statement that ‘hell is other people’. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I don’t really think that the anguish that other people entail, out weigh the positive experiences they can convey. I have always thought that sometimes being unhappy is important; it can ground you and make you stronger. Also being unhappiness is necessary for happiness to exist, If we could be happy all the time then it wouldn’t be worth as much. While I do agree that the existence other people necessarily causes anxiety and misery I could never agree that the existence of others is a necessary ‘hell’ for the individual.
Lastly, even if a person did feel that other people were ‘hell’, there is absolutely nothing that they could do about it. I really don’t think a person could live forever without other people. That and even if someone did separate themselves from the rest of society because they hated others, then they would be miserable regardless. This is because, misanthropy, like other forms of intense and irrational hatred or disdain, always leave a person miserable regardless of whether or not the object of this hatred or disdain is around. It is the existence of other people that misanthropes cannot stand, and that’s not something that they could change. So believing that ‘hell is other people’ serves only to make one miserable.
Chris Roy
0 Responses to “Is ‘Hell’ Really Other People?”