“Can we always find something, eh Didi, that gives us the impression that we exist?”[1] Samuel Beckett's character, Estragon, asks his friend Vladimir in the tragicomedy by Beckett, Waiting for Godot. This postmodernist play has attracted an enormous amount of analysis, commentary and criticism since its first performance in 1953. Intellectuals have not stopped trying to interpret Beckett's intentions in creating such a dark and disconcerting "story", if one could go so far as to call him that. The comparison regarding the entities of the self and existence that arise from such work raises a request for further understanding that derives from the search for the truth of each individual. However Beckett is famously silent to all questions about the subject matter behind his work. He said: “My work is about fundamental sounds made as completely as possible and I don't accept responsibility for anything else. If people want to have headaches in harmonics, let them. And get aspirin”.[2] Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayMartin Esslin delves into Beckett and his concept of art and this same refusal to apply a specific meaning to his work. He says: “[Beckett's literary creations] – through their uncompromising concentration on existential experience, they also claim attention as human documents of great importance; for they constitute an exploration, on a hitherto almost unprecedented scale, of the nature of a human being's way of existing, and therefore of the nature of human existence itself. [3] Esslin argues that because Beckett denies the observer a pre-existing set of concepts or ideas in his works, these "constitute the culmination of existential thought itself". existentialist philosophers such as Jean Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, Friedrich Nietzsche and many others. However, this essay focuses on Beckett's Waiting for Godot and the ways in which it parallels Albert Camus' specific philosophy of absurdism as described in his essay "The Myth of Sisyphus" and argues that Beckett's depiction of existence illustrates the consequences of failure to achieve fulfillment. through acceptance and revolt in an existence like the one described by Camus. To best illustrate the parallels between these texts, we must begin with a discussion of Waiting for Godot's immediate association with the absurd. The play and Samuel Beckett himself both come to the forefront of most discussions involving what is now known as the "Theater of the Absurd". The term came into use as a result of Martin Esslin's 1962 book of the same name, in which Esslin defines its purpose: “The theater of the absurd strives to express the sense of meaninglessness of the human condition and the inadequacy of the rational approach by the theatre. open abandonment of rational expedients and discursive thought.”[5] The term is used less to describe a movement or genre than a collective of post-World War II writers who create highly unconventional drama to describe the existential dilemmas of the time, in particularly the absurd vision of existence proposed by Albert Camus. In “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus picks up where existential philosophy leaves off. In recognizing a universe without God, the reality that existence precedes essence and that life has no objective meaning, he asserts that existence is intrinsically absurd and that this is the only reconcilable truth to which man can cling. The absurdity, he deduces, arises from “the confrontation between this irrational and the wild desire for clarity, the call of which echoes in thehuman heart”.[6] This desire for clarity, understanding, and unity is what Camus argues is inherent in being human. of existence, and he calls it “nostalgia”. The truth is that man must exist in an absurd world without reason, without understanding and without hope. Beckett's depiction of the world itself through the voices and actions of the characters Estragon and Vladimir is indicative of the world's irrationality and inability to satisfy man's desires and needs. Camus says: "The mind's deepest desire, even in its most elaborate operations, parallels man's unconscious feeling before his universe: it is an insistence on familiarity, an appetite for clarity."[7] The absurd reality is that the world cannot be this for us. The world is intrinsically dissociated from man, inhuman, and will forever be beyond the reach of human understanding. As mentioned above, it is the confluence of this unintelligibility and man's desire to understand it that is the very essence of absurdity. The universe Beckett created, made up of aimless acts, constantly self-denying repetitive dialogue, disjointed time, and brief memories, is devoid of all the elements of comprehensible reality. There is a lack of objective conclusion or truth to much of anything, contributing to the sense of anxiety and dissonance that arises from the work's overall theme of eternal waiting and suspension. The tension and dissatisfaction of the characters existing in this environment is evident. After Estragon "desperately" awakens from his dreams, Vladimir protests loudly not to share what he has dreamed. Estragon, "pointing to the universe" as Beckett includes in the stage directions, responds, "Is this enough for you?" This!" and "This is terrible!" in response to their conditions.[9] The world in which they exist is absolutely irrational and absolutely unbearable. In addition to an irrational universe, the absurd arises from man's desire to grasp it. According to Camus this desire can never be satisfied. The absurd vision, together with existentialism, is committed to supporting the absolute truth that there is no tomorrow and certainly no eternity: only the present moment exists in which one can exist, making life absolutely meaningless. However, the history of man is one that constantly creates and places faith in the fact that life has meaning and purpose is evident above all in religions and in every endeavor for the eternal. But it is also evident in the average man, who spends his daily life working towards the future, towards tomorrow. The need for man to attribute a purpose and order to his life is fundamental and also, from an absurd, impossible point of view. It is a falsehood to live for anything, to aspire to anything. The whole culmination of the goals of the days of Vladimir and Estragon is waiting for Godot. This is why they find themselves in an unknown and empty place where "nothing happens, no one comes, no one goes".[10] Waiting for Godot gives Vladimir and Estragon a purpose in life, albeit a terribly boring and monotonous one. Most devastatingly, Godot never arrives, which can and has been interpreted as an indication of the futility of existence and the tragedy of dedicating one's life to higher orders than the present moment. “Habit is the ballast that chains the dog to his vomit.”[11] Samuel Beckett and Albert Camus had similar conceptions of the place of habit in modern life. Camus explains that the absurdity of a life uselessly devoted to the future is cultivated largely out of habit. But it is from this monotony, from this habit, that what he calls "moments of lucidity" often emerge, moments in which absurdity is realized.[12] One of the ways in which the absurd world takes shape in consciousness is by arisingof the “why” from repetition and daily rhythm. Camus declares that this awakening to the absurdity of life is followed by either a gradual return to the old rhythms or a “definitive awakening” that results in definitive despair and suicide or recovery.[13] This moment can be spotted in Waiting for Godot after Pozzo's release in Vladimir's monologue in which he reflects on his confusion with reality, his inability to make sense of what is happening around him. “Was I sleeping while others suffered? Am I sleeping now? Tomorrow, when I wake up, or think I wake up, what will I say about today? That with Estragon, my friend, in this place, until nightfall, I waited for Godot? Did that Pozzo pass by, with his carriage, who spoke to us? Probably. But what will be the truth in all this?”[14] We must then ask ourselves: where does this moment of realization and clarity of his condition leave Vladimir? Will he return to his monotonous life? Do you accept this reality? And if so, should he embrace it or despair? Camus begins his argument for absurd philosophy with the question of “a truly serious philosophical problem… suicide. Judging whether life is worth living or not."[15] Camus' initial question concerns whether this absurd life, devoid of purpose, oriented towards nothing and without any prospect other than that of embracing the desperation that all this involves, is this life worth living? Vladimir and Estragon repeatedly mention suicide throughout the play. In the first act it is described as a means of entertainment, and Beckett also adds a touch of humor: Vladimir: What do we do now? Vladimir: Yes, but while we wait, Estragon: How about we hang ourselves? Vladimir: Hmm, it would give us an erection .That's why they scream when you pull them up. Did you know? Estragon: Let's hang ourselves now![16] The two decide to wait and listen to what Godot has to say before deciding, once again holding onto theirs hope. Suicide is mentioned again at the end of the first act and again in the second act in a more melancholic way, but since the characters have no rope, they cannot go through with it. At the end of the second act, after Vladimir's "moment of clarity" and the announcement that Godot will not come once again, he says, "Tomorrow we will hang ourselves," but then follows up with "unless Godot comes."[ 17] Camus concludes that an absurd life is one that must in fact be lived. He even says, “[Life] will be lived so much better if it has no meaning,” referring to the enormous amount of freedom that comes from living only for the present moment, with no obligation or motivation other than to live it. [18] He concludes that escaping the absurd life through suicide actually means undoing its own absurdity. The absurd exists only in the combination of man, in all his desires for order, and of the world in all its irrationality. Getting rid of the rational man means getting rid of the absurd. No, the answer to the question of existence in absurdity cannot be suicide. Camus deduces that the way to live this life is to live it in revolt, revolt of desperation and suffering. It means living fully knowing the state of your existence and still living in an epochal way, without any search other than that of the present moment, and it says that joy can be found there. Vladimir's moment of clarity leads him to a choice. He must accept this absurd reality that he has become aware of or he must deny it. Vladimir's decision not to kill himself, however, does not indicate that he has accepted the knowledge he gains. Richard Duran argues that the characters in Waiting for Godot choose existence, even if they don'tthey kill, it is still a form of suicide that Camus defines as "philosophical suicide".[19] Camus uses the examples of the existentialist philosophers Kierkegaard and Chestov to demonstrate the way in which those who find themselves aware of the absurd, discovered in that moment of lucidity, in an attempt to “leap” from the struggle entails: “total absence of hope, a continuous rejection and conscious dissatisfaction", deny the absurd by attributing rationality to the world, despite evidence to the contrary.[20] Camus defines philosophical suicide as "the movement by which a thought denies itself and tends to transcend itself in its own negation", and adds: "For existentials, negation is their God. To be precise, that god is maintained only through the denial of human reason.”[21] Kierkegaard, Chestov, and other philosophers and thinkers who experienced this moment of clarity, and then denied it while still promising some form of transcendence, have sacrificed knowledge to pursue hope. Vladimir's promise to return to wait for Godot at the end of the play, even after he comes face to face with the absurdity of it all, is an example of this murder of knowledge and reason in exchange for meaning in life. Interestingly, although this moment of clarity for Vladimir occurs at the end of the play, the awareness of the absurdity of their existence emerges from the beginning in the language of the two characters. The very first lines of the play suggest the idea of ​​surrender: Estragon: Nothing to be done. Vladimir: I'm starting to be convinced of this opinion. All my life I tried to push him away by saying: Vladimir, be reasonable, you haven't tried everything. And I resumed the fight.[22] Here we not only see both characters' recognition of the futility of life, but we also see the first example of Vladimir's relentless hope. Here it is important to note the different ways in which the two main characters approach the absurd and hope. Vladimir, although he seems to possess a sense of the absurdity of his life even before his moment of lucidity, retains the hope of meeting Godot with more tenacity than Estragon does. In the first pages of the work, Vladimir makes a rambling comment referring to the concept of suicide: “It's too much for one man. Besides, what's the point of losing heart now, I say that. We should have thought of this a million years ago, in the nineties.”[23] It seems that, when the overwhelming vanity of life begins to enter his mind, he seeks an escape by killing himself. However, he doesn't have the courage, and so he continues to commit himself to hope, even if he begins to become aware of its futility. His attachment to a rational world is evident in his recognition of a moral system. He reacts to Pozzo's insults towards Lucky: Vladimir: [exploding] It's a scandal! Pozzo: Are you referring to something in particular? Vladimir: [stuttering resolutely] Treating a man... [gesture towards Lucky]... like this... I think... no... a human being... no... is a scandal![24] Vladimir is largely ignored by both Estragon and Pozzo. Estragon shouts: "A shame!" in support of Vladimir before he returns to gnawing bones, and Estragon is more concerned with Vladimir's age than with the accusation made against him. In an irrational world, without God, without purpose, then morality itself is obsolete. One could even argue that the value of a human being is obsolete. Vladimir struggles with this problem throughout the play as he continues to ascribe meaning and purpose to his meaningless and purposeless life. Estragon, on the other hand, seems less aware of the general events that occur in the play. His memory is notoriously short and Vladimir has to constantly inform him of what is happening. The following exchange occursrepeatedly throughout the show: Estragon: Let's go. Vladimir: We can't. Estragon: Why not? Vladimir: We are waiting for Godot. Estragon: [desperately] Ah![25] Estragon is only minimally aware of the overall purpose of his and Vladimir's life and must be constantly reminded of what they are dedicating themselves to. He is therefore less busy than Vladimir and appears to be largely busy with this waiting simply because Vladimir is. As Vladimir ponders suicide, it is Estragon who repeatedly suggests it. It could be argued that Estragon has already become fully aware of the absurdity of life and has already given up hope in life.a rational existence. His inability to remember what they are waiting for or what happened the day before or sometimes just a few minutes before, suggests that he exists only in the present moment, an absurd and hopeless existence. However, he is also unable to embrace this existence and enter Camus' rebellion due to his connection to Vladimir and Vladimir's hope. Estragon often suggests that the two go their separate ways. Estragon: Sometimes I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off alone, every man for himself. We are not made for the same path. Vladimir: It's not safe. Estragon: No, nothing is certain. Vladimir: We can still part ways, if you think it would be better. Estragon: It's not worth it now. [26] Estragon, although he has given up hope that Godot will ever arrive, is still forced to wait for him and unable to accept his fate due to his bond with Vladimir, committing him to a tragic existence condemned to monotony that one is unable to do. even surpass. “I can't go on like this,” he tells Vladimir at the end of the second act.[27] The two, despite their inability to truly embrace the absurdity of their lives, can only force themselves to distract themselves and avoid facing it. They desperately try to stay busy and avoid silence, especially Vladimir. Estragon: In the meantime, let us try to converse calmly, since we are incapable of remaining silent. Vladimir: You're right, we are inexhaustible. Estragon: It is so, we will not think. Vladimir: We have this excuse. Estragon: That's how we won't listen. Vladimir: We have our reasons. Estragon: All dead voices. Vladimir: they make a noise like wings. Estragon: Like leaves. Vladimir: Like sand. Estragon: Like leaves. … [long silence] Vladimir: Say something! Estragon: I'm trying. [long silence] Vladimir: [distressed] Say anything![28] Vladimir is aware of the awareness creeping up on him, of the unbearable reality of the absurdity of life, and since he does not want to face it, it is essential that he does not allow himself time to to think, time to be conscious, to be lucid. Esslin proposes this not just as a way to avoid life, but as a way to avoid oneself: "The hope of salvation may simply be an escape from the suffering and anguish that comes from facing the reality of the human condition" . in our opinion Estragon has already recognized the futility of life, then he fears silence for a different reason. He is simply and terribly bored with this life that he knows is meaningless and is unable to act against it. Perhaps the greatest devastation of Vladimir and Estragon's position is the fact that, as Camus says, "Once man has admitted his truths, he cannot free himself." himself from them. A man conscious of the absurd is forever bound to it.”[30] They no longer possess the joys of ignorance and naivety towards the absurd and also in their efforts to escape their reality with fruitless hope or distraction , knowledge will never abandon them. . But theirs is also an even more tragic fate than that of the absurd man who, by accepting the absurd, «lives his adventure in the arc., 123.