Every choice leads to a different reality and the conglomeration of all one’s choices is what determines his person. Both “Existentialism 101” and “The Guest” promote the philosophy of existentialism whereby it is believed that humans are both cursed and blessed with the ability to make choices and think into the future. Consequently, there are three general principles of existentialism: the first suggests that man should act upon no other than his morality, the second realizes that man is rarely rewarded for his good deeds, and the third acknowledges that man’s choices are what have the biggest effect on the way he is viewed by society (Sartre, J. (1957) p. 1); Daru in “The Guest” represents, accepts and acknowledges these principles perfectly.
…show more content…
Much like Sartre who argues that “we define ourselves through our actions and our choices,”(Sartre, J. (1957) p. 1) Daru does not feel the need to follow the demands placed upon him by the law. Instead, when confronted with the demands of Balducci, he firmly states that he “won’t hand [the prisoner] over. Fight, yes, if [he} ha[d] to. But not that”(Camus, A.(1957) p. 77). In the meantime he treated the prisoner as a guest and conversed with him as if he was an actual person. Daru didn’t judge the man. His existential philosophy prevented him from making judgement prematurely, without the time to see how the prisoner acted.
Contradicting the wishes of another person is generally not the most efficient means of maintaining a healthy fraternity and Daru accepted this. Daru understands in remaining optimistically tough he avoids an eventuality of acting in bad faith (Sartre, J. (1957) p. 1). As a consequence however, Daru angered and insulted Balducci. Upon understanding this, Daru therefore accepts the second principle of existentialism: that one’s actions will always have an effect on the people surrounding
Much like Sartre who argues that “we define ourselves through our actions and our choices,”(Sartre, J. (1957) p. 1) Daru does not feel the need to follow the demands placed upon him by the law. Instead, when confronted with the demands of Balducci, he firmly states that he “won’t hand [the prisoner] over. Fight, yes, if [he} ha[d] to. But not that”(Camus, A.(1957) p. 77). In the meantime he treated the prisoner as a guest and conversed with him as if he was an actual person. Daru didn’t judge the man. His existential philosophy prevented him from making judgement prematurely, without the time to see how the prisoner acted.
Contradicting the wishes of another person is generally not the most efficient means of maintaining a healthy fraternity and Daru accepted this. Daru understands in remaining optimistically tough he avoids an eventuality of acting in bad faith (Sartre, J. (1957) p. 1). As a consequence however, Daru angered and insulted Balducci. Upon understanding this, Daru therefore accepts the second principle of existentialism: that one’s actions will always have an effect on the people surrounding