Waiting For Godot By Beckett Essays (567 words) -

Waiting For Godot By Beckett The purpose of human life is an unanswerable question. It seems impossible to find an answer because we don't know where to start looking. To us, existence seems to be something imposed on us by an unknown force. There seems to be no reason for it, therefore making the world seem choatic. For this reason, society tries to make meaning of it by materialistic purposes to distract us from the fact that it is actually a hopless and mysterious predicament. Samuel Beckett's two act play, "Waiting For Godot", captures this feeling and view of the world. This viewpoint is shown by the difference between Pozzo and Lucky in both Act I and II. Since this world is soley based on chance, human lives are treated in an almost cruel manner. In act one, Pozzo is traveling to the market to sell Lucky. Pozzo is totally healthy. Lucky is a perfectly normal slave who has started to annoy Pozzo, so he is going to be sold. This is the first way Valdimir and Estrogen see this odd couple. However, the next day Pozzo and Lucky's predicament have changed. Pozzo is blind and Lucky has become a mute. When Valdimir and Estrogen confront them on these drastic hcanges, Pozzo's answers are confused. He has absolutely no recollection of the day before when he ordered Lucky to "think" and claims Lucky has always been a mute. When Valdimir asks him when he became blind, Pozzo responds, "I woke up one find day as blind as fortune". When Valdimir asks him for details, Pozzo answers violently, "Don't question me! The blind have no notion of time. The things of time are hidden from them too!" In this hopeless situation, humans try to stay oblivious to thier true predicament. Throughout the play, Valdimir and Estrogen remain stupidly cheeful, and look for distraction in pointless activities. It is for this rason the play seems a bit comical at times. Valdimir and Estrogen try to distract themselves from thier wait for Godot by arguing over mundane topics, sleeping, talking with Pozzo and Lucky (also about mundane topics) and even contemplating suicide. All this is an attempt to remain oblivious to the reality they are oinly waiting for a vague image, who may never come. In essence they don't want to realize that thier lives are meaningless. This vehavior is a perfect example of this world's petty distractions. In act two Valdimir declares, "What are we doing here, that is the question. And we are blessed in this, that we happen to know the answer. Yes, in this immense confusion one thing alone is clear. We are waiting for Godot to come-" This shows how Valdimir simply wants an illusion of a safegaurd to cope with his meaningless life and Godot is that illusion for now. In act two, Valdimir starts to look at life and in doing so gets a glimpse of understanding this viewpoint. At this time Valdimir reaslizes that is waiting is hopeless and Godot is only a distraction from his useless reality. Valdimir begins to become depressed at this point. He realizes that he is trapped, understands he has no choice and must persist in his illusion. There seems to be no point, but only this option. "Waiting For Godot" is about how the world is based on chance and meaingless behavior. In essence this means that human life has no real meaning. When humans realize this, they create distractions and diversions to make purpose and meaning for life. "Waiting for Godot" is simply a play about the meaning of life.

Utopia by Thomas More essays

Utopia by Thomas More essays ****Writer's note: This paper dissects Thomas More's Utopia and Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince in an effort to discover their views on Human nature-This paper can easily be transformed from this topic****** Niccolo Machiavelli vs. Thomas More : Defining Human Nature It is difficult to determine Niccolo Machiavellis and Thomas Mores view on humans nature. Each took a different approach to the topic. Through Utopia, Thomas More attempted to change mans thinking by creating an ideological society. Niccolo Machiavelli, through The Prince, attempted to teach man how to deal with human nature. With this in mind, Machiavellis concept is much more realistic than Mores; therefore Machiavelli better represents human nature. Machiavellis view of human nature in The Prince, presents, on the surface, a view of governing a state drastically different for his time. Machaivelli believed that the ruling Prince should be the sole authority determining every aspect of the state and put into effect a policy which would serve his best interests. With this, Machiavelli uses the prince as man, and the state as the mans life. These interests were gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Though in some cases Machiavelli may seem harsh and immoral, one must remember that his views were derived from concern of Italys unstable political condition in the 1500s. Machiavelli seems to be teaching the common man how to live his life so that their life is good and prosperous. Machiavelli generally distrusted citizens, stating that since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep yours to them (Machiavelli 651). Furthermore, a prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promises when, such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage; and when the reasons which made h...