Also, in preparation for the film, you might want to take a look at this New York Times review, since it will give you some context and additional background information about the film.
Finally, some aphorisms by Franz Kafka that I think go well with Beauvoir's novel:
You can hold back from the suffering of the world, you have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature, but perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering that you could have avoided.1. Think of at least two ways in which we might be able to positively apply existentialist ideas to our personal lives. (You might consider broader, general views that these thinkers all agree on, or more specific ideas from a specific author.) How might their ideas change the way we live, choose our values, or make decisions about how to act?
The strength to deny, that most natural expression of the perpetually changing, renewing, dying, reviving human fighting organism, we possess always, but not the courage, although life is denial, and therefore denial affirmation.
What is laid upon us is to accomplish the negative; the positive is already given.
Faith in progress does not mean faith that progress has been made. That would be no faith.
He who renounces the world must love all men, for he renounces their world too. He begins from that point to divine the true nature of mankind, which cannot but be loved, provided that one is capable of it.
The indestructible is one: it is every human being individually and at the same time all human beings collectively; hence the marvelous indissoluble alliance of mankind.
2. Think of at least one real-world contemporary issue--a social, moral, or political debate or problem--that existentialist thought might help us better address or confront. How do existentialist ideas (either as a group or an individual thinker's) apply? Do they help us decide how to respond?
3. One way to define "murder" is as any act of killing that is not necessary for the defense of one's own life or the life of another. On this view, it's okay to kill only if it's to save lives. On the basis of a view similar to this one, Jean's mother accuses the Resistance fighters (and, unknowingly, her own son) of murder. After all, they knew their attack would likely lead to the retaliatory killing of innocent hostages, yet they also knew these deaths would probably not save anyone else's life ("Did that bomb save the life of a single Pole?"). Is she right that this is murder? Why or why not?
4. At the end of the novel, Helene convinces Jean that her death is not his fault, but the result of her own free choice. However, Jean realizes that the hostages who will be shot as a result of his actions, unlike Helene, do not have any choice. What message is Beauvoir trying to convey? Is he guilty for their deaths or not?
Things to consider: First, remember Beauvoir's paradox in which every action for humanity is also an action against humanity. Also remember she insists that we should not take either our goal or the means to achieve the goal as unconditionally, absolutely good. Jean sometimes fails to do this. For example, when arguing for armed resistance, he says, "We must only be concerned with the end we have to achieve and do everything necessary to attain it" and that even when it's the "blood of others. The price would never be too high." So Beauvoir may mean to critically portray Jean's character and choices, even if she is sympathetic to the idea of armed resistance.
No comments:
Post a Comment