Waiting for Godot

[Markgrundr]

Waiting for Godot is a play that essentially asks the question "What should the characters do?", and repeats the question, never finding a satisfying answer. The "should" indicates an orientation of humanity towards absolute order and principles behind the universe, our yearning for which is met with silence. If the universe has deeper order, we are hopelessly disconnected from it. You could argue that the occurence and flourishing of human life on earth is a force for good in an absolutely objective sense. It happened, and the universe was made better because of it. But even a statement that general has no meaning that can be objectively verified in any sense. Life isn't even an aesthetic phenomenon, as Nietzsche argued; life is just planet earth farting.

To understand Absurdism and Existentialism, one useful tool is to imagine life as a play. Both accept that the play is meaningless; that it's about meaning-making not meaning. The Existentialist is an enthusiastic actor; the Absurdist questions but doesn't outright deny the value of acting in the play, since there can be no meaning in meaning making. He avoids the responsibility and possibility of his pointless freedom; the Existentialist embraces it.

Estragon is a consummate Absurdist. Lucky is an Absurdist to a lesser degree; Pozzo goes from Existentialist to Absurdist.

We all know Pozzo all too well. He is hollow and insecure and needs to latch onto and dominate others with his claims of moral authority, to distract him from the terrifying void of meaninglessness. He is your boss, your preacher, and perhaps even your parents. Lucky is just as bad, only his solace comes from being dominated. He's even more terrified, since he's willing to endure any discomfort or humiliation to avoid confronting the void.

Vladmir is neither, because he believes in the possibility of some deeper connection, something worth waiting or searching for. If there is no fourth option, the option to actually live one's life in accordance with universal objective values, is Vladmir more noble than the others? Pozzo in the first act is living a much fuller life than Vladmir. But the price he pays for this is that he's a full-blown nutjob. Vladmir tries to keep up spirits, but underneath he is generally miserable. So it raises the question of whether it's better to be an unhappy wise man or a contented fool (suffice it to say most people these days would choose the latter).

If you haven't seen this play, there's a great version on youtube.

[Steve3007]

I once had two goldfish that I named Vladimir and Estragon. I wrote a short comedy play which imagined their speculations as to the possible existence of a world outside their tank and the meaning of the food which periodically rained down from the sky. A bit like the creatures in the claw game in Toy Story. I've lost the script now though.

[Sculptor1]

Waiting for Godot is a play that essentially asks the question "What should the characters do?", and repeats the question, never finding a satisfying answer. The "should" indicates an orientation of humanity towards absolute order and principles behind the universe, our yearning for which is met with silence. If the universe has deeper order, we are hopelessly disconnected from it. You could argue that the occurence and flourishing of human life on earth is a force for good in an absolutely objective sense. It happened, and the universe was made better because of it. But even a statement that general has no meaning that can be objectively verified in any sense. Life isn't even an aesthetic phenomenon, as Nietzsche argued; life is just planet earth farting.

To understand Absurdism and Existentialism, one useful tool is to imagine life as a play. Both accept that the play is meaningless; that it's about meaning-making not meaning. The Existentialist is an enthusiastic actor; the Absurdist questions but doesn't outright deny the value of acting in the play, since there can be no meaning in meaning making. He avoids the responsibility and possibility of his pointless freedom; the Existentialist embraces it.

Estragon is a consummate Absurdist. Lucky is an Absurdist to a lesser degree; Pozzo goes from Existentialist to Absurdist.

We all know Pozzo all too well. He is hollow and insecure and needs to latch onto and dominate others with his claims of moral authority, to distract him from the terrifying void of meaninglessness. He is your boss, your preacher, and perhaps even your parents. Lucky is just as bad, only his solace comes from being dominated. He's even more terrified, since he's willing to endure any discomfort or humiliation to avoid confronting the void.

Vladmir is neither, because he believes in the possibility of some deeper connection, something worth waiting or searching for. If there is no fourth option, the option to actually live one's life in accordance with universal objective values, is Vladmir more noble than the others? Pozzo in the first act is living a much fuller life than Vladmir. But the price he pays for this is that he's a full-blown nutjob. Vladmir tries to keep up spirits, but underneath he is generally miserable. So it raises the question of whether it's better to be an unhappy wise man or a contented fool (suffice it to say most people these days would choose the latter).

If you haven't seen this play, there's a great version on youtube.

I had a front row seat with IIan McKellen (Gandalf) and Patrick Stewart (Jean Luc Pickard), playing the two main roles, with Podzo played by the brilliant and larger than life Simon Callow. All in a small theatre in Brighton.
It was without doubt the best thing I have ever seen on stage.

McKellan slaughtered Stewart, though Stewat's acting was first class.

[Sculptor1]

If you want SOme Beckett that will freak you out, you should see Billy Whitelaw's rendering of his; "NOT I" - a disembodied mouth ranting, ranting, screaming.