Freedom and Commitment
In the intricate tapestry of existential literature, the pursuit of freedom and the weight of commitment form the central theme. Jean-Paul Sartre's trilogy, "The Roads to Freedom," delves into these profound concepts, exploring the myriad paths characters traverse in their quest for liberation. Despite their efforts, most characters remain entangled in their struggles, never fully achieving the freedom they seek.
Mathieu's Quest for Freedom
Mathieu, a central figure in Sartre’s narrative, is consumed by the idea of freedom. Early in "The Age of Reason," he articulates his belief in self-reliance to Marcelle, stating, “I recognize no allegiance except to myself.” This declaration underscores his reluctance to embrace any form of commitment, whether it be marriage, political involvement, or personal relationships. Sartre intended Mathieu to personify the hero of the trilogy, yet Mathieu's notion of freedom is one Sartre himself critiques: a "terroristic freedom" that lacks substance.
The Paradox of Commitment
Mathieu's aversion to commitment is evident in his interactions and lifestyle. During a visit to a Gauguin exhibit with Ivich, Mathieu's own lack of commitment is starkly contrasted against Gauguin’s life choices—abandoning conventional norms to pursue art. Similarly, in "Troubled Sleep," Mathieu's detachment is highlighted as he remains sober while others succumb to intoxication, symbolizing his unwillingness to fully engage with life.
Action Versus Reaction
Despite eventually engaging in combat against the Germans, Mathieu's actions are not the embodiment of freedom but rather a reactive endeavor to assuage past failures, a notion Sartre considers to be the antithesis of true freedom. His shooting is not driven by a constructive goal but by a need to overcome “some ancient scruple,” revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be truly free.
Lucidity Amidst Conflict
While Mathieu may not achieve the freedom he yearns for, his awareness of his own limitations sets him apart. Sartre attributes a "lucidity" to Mathieu, an ability to acknowledge his shortcomings and the consequences of his choices. As the story progresses, Mathieu's self-reflection becomes evident. He admits, “I have led a toothless life....I have never bitten into anything," recognizing his tendency to reserve himself for some undefined future that never arrives. Even in the act of firing upon the Germans, Mathieu's lucidity is apparent; he knows he is not saving his country or comrades, but attempting to reconcile with his past inadequacies.
The Elusive Nature of Freedom
In Sartre’s exploration of freedom and commitment, Mathieu emerges as both a figure of tragedy and insight. His journey underscores a critical existential theme: genuine freedom is not simply the absence of constraints but involves meaningful engagement with the world. Through Mathieu, Sartre illustrates the complexity of human freedom, marked by the tension between desire and action, awareness and avoidance, ultimately inviting reflection on the profound and often contradictory nature of human agency.
Lucidity and Self-awareness
In the complex landscape of existential philosophy, the character Mathieu from Sartre's work emerges as a poignant figure, largely due to his acute sense of “lucidity.” Unlike his peers, Mathieu possesses a profound awareness of his limitations and the authenticity of his choices. He is not truly free in the existential sense, yet he understands the nuances of his situation, a rare trait that sets him apart from others.
Mathieu's journey is marked by self-reflection and a candid acknowledgment of his life's trajectory. Toward the conclusion of The Age of Reason , he articulates a deep-seated realization: "I have led a toothless life....I have never bitten into anything. I was waiting. I was reserving myself for later on—and I have just noticed that my teeth have gone." This moment of clarity...
(This entire section contains 270 words.)
Unlock this Study Guide Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
reveals his awareness of a life spent in passive anticipation, a life that ultimately leaves him unfulfilled.
Moreover, Mathieu's actions during wartime further illustrate his quest for self-awareness. When he takes up arms against the Germans, it is not fueled by patriotic fervor or a desire to protect his comrades. Rather, it is an attempt to reconcile with his past—a bid to find meaning and assert his agency in a world where he feels increasingly powerless. Through these actions, Mathieu endeavors to construct a sense of purpose, highlighting his struggle between inertia and the desire for genuine engagement with life.
Thus, Mathieu's story serves as a testament to the existential struggle for lucidity and self-awareness. Despite his constraints, his willingness to confront his reality offers a nuanced perspective on the nature of freedom and the human condition.
Commitment and Ideology
In the quest for true freedom, enlightenment serves as an essential precursor, a realization that seems to evade Brunet within the narratives crafted by Sartre. While Sartre aligns himself with the Communist critique of capitalism, he views Brunet as lacking critical thought. Sartre posits, "Man is free to commit himself, but he is not free unless he commits himself to being free." This distinction underscores Sartre's belief in autonomous commitment as opposed to mere adherence to ideologies.
Brunet's journey, however, is marked by his dedication to the Communist Party's directives, a commitment that Sartre himself abstained from. Sartre chose not to join the Communist Party, valuing independent thought over prescribed allegiance. In the novels, Schneider emerges as a voice of reason, attempting to illuminate Brunet's path. When Brunet initiates the formation of a Communist cell within a prison camp, Schneider questions the propriety of this move, hinting at the underlying issue of blind obedience: “What’s the party up to? What orders has it issued, what directives?...If I were in your place, I should want to know.”
This inquiry by Schneider reveals an implicit critique of Brunet's past actions, suggesting that his decisions were previously guided by external commands rather than personal conviction. The interaction between Brunet and Schneider encapsulates the tension between ideological loyalty and individual freedom, illustrating Sartre's broader philosophical exploration of what it means to truly live as a free individual.
Existentialism and Objectification
The exploration of existentialism and objectification reflects a profound philosophical inquiry into human freedom and self-definition. Characters like Brunet, Daniel, and Philippe illustrate varying degrees of existential independence, with Daniel and Philippe embodying the antithesis of the autonomous existential hero. Their stories illuminate the different paths one might take in grappling with existence, freedom, and meaning.
The Quest for Objectification
Daniel and Philippe represent the struggle against existential freedom, where instead of striving towards self-definition, they seek objectification. Daniel dreams of becoming an unfeeling, unmoving statue, emblematic of a desire for stasis rather than the dynamic existence advocated by existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre. His ideal is a world frozen in time, as he sees in the German Occupation of Paris—a city transformed into a historical monument rather than a living entity. By embracing religious belief, Daniel relinquishes his freedom, opting for a state of "being," where he exists only by being observed, encapsulated in his creed, "I am seen; therefore I am." This contrasts sharply with Sartre's existential philosophy, where one continuously defines oneself through action and projects.
Philippe's Dependence on Observation
Similarly, Philippe is unable to define his existence independently and relies on being observed to validate his sense of self. His departure from home is an attempt to ensure his mother's thoughts are perpetually centered on him, thereby deriving meaning from her perception. Philippe fantasizes about becoming a martyr, expecting his hotel room to attract followers like a shrine. His anti-war statements are less about genuine pacifism and more about seeking attention and validation. The absence of an audience, as demonstrated by his mother's departure from Paris, propels him toward suicidal thoughts. It is only when he finds an observer in Daniel that he retracts his suicide attempt, yet his inability to take responsibility for his own life keeps him existentially inert.
The Existential Dilemma
Both characters illustrate the existential dilemma of defining existence through external validation rather than internal purpose. Sartre's existentialism emphasizes self-transcendence as a means to objectify oneself through action, thereby taking ownership of one's existence. In contrast, Daniel's and Philippe's reliance on others to guarantee their being leads to what Sartre might describe as a form of metaphysical suicide. Their stories serve as cautionary tales about the dangers of surrendering one's freedom and the necessity of assuming responsibility for one's own existence to truly live."
Existential Heroism
In the quest for existential heroism, only Gomez seems to truly attain freedom. Much like Gaugin, who abandoned his family and career for personal liberation, Gomez also steps away from his conventional life. He dedicates himself wholly to a cause he believes in—fighting in Spain. This commitment and self-reliance underpin his transformation into an existential hero. When Mathieu inquires about his future, Gomez's response is simple yet profound: “What difference does it make? I have lived.” This declaration reflects a life lived in accordance with personal values, marking an authentic existence defined by free choice and purposeful action.
