Argument: A person’s will to live is strongly linked to the viewpoints of loved ones have of that individual. While some individuals enable the will of their lives to become affected to the viewpoints of their loved ones, others do not forget to factor the suitables of human existentialism. In order to appropriately approach the point brought across, one should factor in the underlying tone of the existentialist worths of ‘The Transformation’ as composed by Frank Kafka.
Although lots of existentialist theorists hold contrasting values across the board, there are many essential qualities that follow existentialism.
For that reason, I am inclined to, due to my level of understanding remain objective towards both sides of the argued statement. Humans, as sentient beings, have free choice and are responsible for the impacts of what they decide to do. Existentialism likewise rejects the concept of ‘human nature’, a generalization that has become popular in attempting to determine unbiased external facts instead of the subjective for the private approach.
Thirdly, I say this since existentialism shows the indifference of the world towards us. To start with, we all have free choice as independent entities apart from our society. As Gregor is dehumanized by his transformation, his household rapidly deserts and rejects him of his previous place in the household. The change can be viewed as dehumanization as Gregor loses his human elements to his self-sacrificial working ethic due to his family’s salaries. One must make the balance between himself and society.
When Gregor selects work over himself, he quickly loses his humankind, hence, the improvement. Although being alienated from his household through his dehumanization causes him to eventually lose his will for life, Gregor is yet a prime example of how free will produces a ’cause and effect’ ripple due to the individual which is not influenced by another’s opinion but one’s subjective tastes. Additionally, a generalization can not be approached for this situation.
Existentialism as entire, strives to reject the concept of a human nature gotten by the external unbiased facts that can not be used to the subjunctive self. Rather, humans are drastically liberated by their free will in order to shape their own life and defy any generalized ‘nature’. This is not seen in Gregor’s life or in Kafka’s novel. Irregardless, the existentialist worth should be factored in an argued due to the hidden tone of the viewpoint throughout the novel.
Furthermore, this technique dictates the world’s indifferent existence towards humans. As possibly symbolized by Kafka where the home represents society’s indifference to its people, the Samsa family never ever looked after Gregor as deep space does to society. The absurdist branch of existentialism is then clearly revealed throughout the novel. The unreasonable nature of the novel highlights Gregor’s quest for function, for which he has actually lost due to the world’s indifference.
It can only be here that existentialism can justify as a proper response. Nevertheless, for some, this might not be a rewarding 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 or not this is suitable. Human beings have free choice, and this approach declines the suitable of the objective realities of ‘human nature’. The will might be impacted by absurdist, but considerably differing throughout the board.