Argument: A person’s will to live is highly linked to the opinions of liked ones have of that individual. While some persons permit the will of their lives to become affected to the viewpoints of their loved ones, others do not forget to factor the perfects of human existentialism. In order to properly approach the point brought across, one need to consider the underlying tone of the existentialist values of ‘The Metamorphosis’ as composed by Frank Kafka.
Although lots of existentialist thinkers hold conflicting values throughout the board, there are numerous crucial qualities that follow existentialism.
For that reason, I am inclined to, due to my level of understanding stay objective towards both sides of the argued statement. Human beings, as sentient beings, have free will and are responsible for the results of what they decide to do. Existentialism also turns down the idea of ‘humanity’, a generalization that has ended up being popular in trying to identify unbiased external realities instead of the subjective for the private approach.
Finally, I say this due to the fact that existentialism shows the indifference of the world towards us. First of all, all of us have free choice as independent entities apart from our society. As Gregor is dehumanized by his improvement, his family quickly deserts and declines him of his previous place in the household. The transformation can be seen as dehumanization as Gregor loses his human aspects to his self-sacrificial working ethic due to his family’s wages. One need to make the balance in between himself and society.
When Gregor chooses work over himself, he rapidly loses his humankind, for this reason, the change. Although being alienated from his family through his dehumanization triggers him to ultimately lose his will for life, Gregor is yet a prime example of how free will produces a ’cause and result’ ripple due to the person which is not influenced by another’s viewpoint but one’s subjective tastes. Additionally, a generalization can not be approached for this circumstance.
Existentialism as entire, makes every effort to turn down the idea of a human nature obtained by the external unbiased realities that can not be used to the subjunctive self. Rather, people are radically liberated by their free choice in order to form their own life and defy any generalized ‘nature’. This is not seen in Gregor’s life or in Kafka’s novel. Irregardless, the existentialist value must be factored in an argued due to the hidden tone of the viewpoint throughout the book.
Moreover, this method dictates the world’s indifferent existence towards human beings. As perhaps represented by Kafka where the home represents society’s indifference to its individuals, the Samsa household never ever took care of Gregor as the universe does to society. The absurdist branch of existentialism is then clearly exposed throughout the novel. The absurd nature of the unique highlights Gregor’s quest for purpose, for which he has lost due to the world’s indifference.
It can only be here that existentialism can validate as an appropriate action. Nevertheless, for some, this may not be a beneficial technique due to the subjective nature of the mind. In conclusion, I stay indifferent to both sides due to the failure of existentialism to identify whether this is appropriate. People have free will, and this viewpoint declines the ideal of the unbiased facts of ‘humanity’. The will may be impacted by absurdist, but definitely varying throughout the board.