AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of Sarjana Sastra In English Letters
By
GURUH DWI RIYANTO Student Number: 05 4214 091
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of Sarjana Sastra In English Letters
By
GURUH DWI RIYANTO Student Number: 05 4214 091
ENGLISH LETTERS STUDY PROGRAMME DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LETTERS
FACULTY OF LETTERS SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
ini”
(Yang Sakit, Mereka yang Dilumpuhkan, Pramoedya Ananta Toer)“
Truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonymies, anthropomorphisms, in short a sum of human relations which have been subjected to poetic and rhetoricalintensification, translation, and decoration, and which, after they have been in use for a long time, strike a people as firmly established, canonical, and binding; truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions” (On Truth and Lies in Non-moral Senses, Nietzsche)
Everything happens for a reason (which is made for an interest)
“He who climbs upon the highest mountains laughs at all tragedies,
real or imaginary”(Zarathustra, Nietzsche)
“Desire is the theme of life” (Lame Light, Charlie Chaplin)
“To choose is to invent” (Sartre)
“Put your passion into action” (Before Sunset, a movie)
“An ideology is made of what it does not mention; it exists because
there are things which must not be spoken of” (Macherey,
Postcolonial Studies Reader,pg.235)
gave her “arisan” reward pay the expensive entrance tuition of Sanata Dharma University. She also paid the expensive tuition fee each semester. I also thank my parents and brothers who have given me my being-in or dwelling and constructed my being-in-the-world.
I give thanks also to individuals, communities and institutions that have supported me. They are Natas and PPMI that have grown me up, Orong-orong (the most anarchistic community I have ever joined) and Kajian Jumat Malam for the discussions, Being community for introducing me with Heidegger, Canista community for teaching me to love education, IIEF for the journey that has permitted me to get the materials I need, Kolese S.T Ignatius Library for providing the sources. Thank to students of 2005, especially the D class and they who were involved in In Love with Madonna. My gratitude also goes to Sartre for opening the horizon of freedom and responsbility, Nietzsche for encouraging me to live passionately, Pramoedya for his struggle, and Marx for his specters.
For the criticism, I am very thank you to Mrs. Elisa, especially for the suggestion on problem formulations, Mr.Tatang and Mrs.Putu. All that I have mentioned have supported me to accomplish this undergraduate thesis.
APPROVAL PAGE...ii
MOTTO PAGE...iii
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ...iv
DEDICATION PAGE...v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS...vii
ABSTRACT... viii
ABSTRAK...xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...1
A. Background of the Study...1
B. Problem Formulation...7
C. Objectives of the Study...7
D. Definition of Terms...8
CHAPTER II: THEORITICAL REVIEW...10
A.Review of Related Studies...10
3. Theory of Nietzsche’s Overman...27
C. Theoritical Frameworkd...47
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
A. Object of the Study...49
B. Approach of the Study...53
C. Method of the Study...54
CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS
A. The Characterization of Orestes Character...57
B. Influences of Heidegger’s Ontology in Orestes...86
C. Influences of Nietzsche’s Overman in Orestes...98
D. Orestes’ departure from Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s overman...120
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION
University, 2010.
This work discusses influences of Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s overman in the main character in Sartre’s The Flies since interpretations of this play are dominated either by relating it to its historical background or to existentialist philosophy. Ontology is the science of being in general, embracing such issues as the nature of existence and the categorical structure of reality, in this case human’s nature while overman is the ideal man according to Nietzsche who succeeds in overcoming humanity. This study attempts to take another point of view, seeing The Flies through influences of Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s overman. Nietzsche and Heidegger are chosen because they are considered to give immense influences on western philosophical tradition, especially existentialism. Nietzsche revolutionized ethics, and Heidegger strived to bring back ontology to its radix.
This study is guided by four problem formulations. First, how the main character, Orestes, is characterized? Second, what are influences of Heidegger’s ontology in Orestes? Third, what are influences of Nietzsche’s overman in Orestes? Fourth, how does the character of Orestes depart from Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s overman?
This study applies library research and moral-philosophical approach. Library research includes data from internet, especially e-book and periodicals, and printed materials, mainly books. Moral philosophical approach is employed in this study to explore the philosophical influences of Heidegger and Nietzsche. Through those two steps the study has been accomplished.
The study shows that Orestes is characterized in two different ways, before and after his awareness of freedom. First, he is characterized as bondless, submissive, and ambivalent. Second, he is characterized as brave, free, responsible, creative, individual, rebellious, bonded, dangerous, outcast, and liberating.
relationship with society. First, Orestes had been slave morality. Second, he had the characters of overman; strong, noble, and intelligent. Third, Orestes’ act of rebellion was highly Nietzscheian in his creativity, individuality, and goodness. Fourth, Orestes’ self mastery freed him from resentment. Fifth, his remedy for Argos was the remedy of overman. Sixth, Orestes in his society was outcasted. Yet, he carried their pollution and heaviness.
2010.
Karya ini membahas pengaruh-pengaruh ontology Heidegger dan konsep adimanusia. Penelitian ini mencoba mengambil sudut pandang lain, yaitu melihat The Flies melalui pengaruh-pengaruh ontologi Heidegger and adimanusia Nietzsche, karena sebagian besar penelitian atas The Flies jika tidak menghubungkanya dengan latar sejarahnya maka menghubungkanya dengan filsafat eksistensialisme. Ontologi adalah ilmu perihal keberedaan secara umum, mencakup isu-isu seperti hakikat ada dan struktur kategori kenyataan, dalam kasus ini hakikat manusia, sedangkan adimanusia adalah manusia ideal bagi Nietzsche yang berhasil melampaui kemanusiaan. Nietzsche dan Heidegger dipilih karena mereka dianggap memberi pengaruh besar pada tradisi filsafat barat, utamanya eksistensialisme. Nietzsche, seperti disebutkan oleh Kaufmann, memberi revolusi pada etika, dan Heidegger berjuang membawa kembali ontologi ke akarnya.
Empat rumusan permasalahan memandu kajian ini. Pertama, bagaimanakah tokoh utama, Orestes, ditokohkan? Kedua, apakah pengaruh-pengaruh ontologi Heidegger pada Orestes? Ketiga, Apakah pengaruh-pengaruh-penaruh adimanusia Nietzsche dalam Orestes? Keempat, bagaimakah tokoh Orestes berangkat dari ontologi Heidegger dan adimanusia Nietzsche?
Kajian ini menerapkan penelitian pustaka dan pendekatan moral-filosofis. Penelitian pustaka meliputi data dari internet, khususnya buku elektronik dan terbitan berkala, dan sumber tercetak, kebanyakan dari buku. Pendekatan moral-filosofis diterapkan dalam kajian ini guna menggali pengaruh-pengaruh moral-filosofis dari Heidegger dan Nietzsche. Melalui dua langkah itulah kajian ini diselesaikan. Kajian ini menunjukan bahwa penokohan Orestes dibagi melalui dua cara, sebelum dan sesudah dia menyadari kebebasanya.Pertama, dia ditokohkan sebagai tak terikat, pasrah, dan mendua. Kedua, dia ditokohkan sebagai pemberani, bebas, bertanggung jawab, pencipta, individualis, pemberontak, memiliki ikatan, berbahaya, terbuang, dan membebaskan.
Pengaruh-pengaruh adimanusia Nietzsche ada dalam membangun tindakan dan karakter Orestes serta hubunganya dengan masyarakat. Pertama, Orestes terlebih dahulu bermental budak. Kedua, dia memiliki sifat-sifat adimanusia; kekuatan, kebanggan, dan kecerdasan. Ketiga, tindakan pemberontakan Orestes sangatlah bernuansa Nietzsche dalam penciptaanya, kedirianya, dan kebaikanya. Keempat, pengendalian diri Orestes membebaskanya dari kebencian. Kelima, penebusanya untuk Argoas adalah penebusan adimansuia. Keenam, Orestes terasingkan dalam masyarakatnya. Namun, dia menanggung beban dan limbah mereka.
A. Background of the Study
Critics usually read The Flies in two dominant ways. The first understands The Flies in its existentialism dimension. The example is Barret’s reading. He argues that the play told about freedom and responsibility. He writes that in the play Sartre’s main argument was that in discharging human freedom, man also wills to accept the responsibility of it, thus becoming heavy with his own guilt. (Barret, 1983:568). The second dominant reading sees The Flies in its socio-historical context. The Flies was written and first performed during German occupation in France and, therefore, it can be read as a protest against German occupation. Even in Sartre for Beginner, a brief introduction of Sartre’s life and philosophy, Palmer introduces The Flies as Sartre’s protest against Nazi. Palmer writes that Sartre writes a play titled The Flies, that obviously contains anti-Nazi messages” (Palmer, 2003:11)
Because there are only a few readings take another perspective, this study strives to place The Flies in the contexts of tradition of western philosophy, specifically in relation to Friedrich Willhem Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger. It explores the influence of those two philosophers to Sartre’s The Flies. By this reading, there will be new meanings and perspectives to the reading of The Flies. Furthermore, it can also correlate Sartre’s philosophy itself in the context of history of western philosophy.
argues that Nietzsche has revolutionized ethics, and Heidegger was well-known as the radical ontologist. Moreover, those two philosophers are rooted from the same tradition with Sartre, which was western philosophy. Thus, they can be compared one to the others.
Heidegger, famous of his radical ontology, determines to bring ontology into its radix by asking the question of Being. Being is written in capital letters to distinct it from being which means entity. Being is what makes being exists, not the existence itself. This question, according to him, had been asked but then forgotten in the history of philosophy during two millennia. In Being and Time, he writes,
“On the basis of the Greeks’ initial contributions toward an interpretation of Being, a dogma has been developed which not only declares the question about the meaning of Being to be superfluous, but sanctions its complete neglect” (Heidegger, 1962:21)
From the quotation above, Heidegger argues that Greeks had strived to interpret Being, but then, the interpretation of Being covered by dogma. His attempt was to unveil the question about Being to probe an interpretation of Being.
Sartre is influenced by such ontology in Sartre’s understanding about human. The Flies places freedom as the heart of human existence. In it, Sartre wrote, “I am my freedom” (Sartre, 1976:117). It says that freedom is not only a characteristic of human, but human is freedom. Sartre placed human in a distinctive way among other beings or entities. In The Flies, Orestes said to Zeus “You are the king of gods, king of stones and stars, king of waves of the sea. But you are not the king of man” (Sartre, 1976:117) For Sartre took Heidegger also for his dictum that human’s existence precedes the essence. However, Sartre, who was famous to misread Heidegger, was also possible to read it correctly but modify to set up his own dictum.
Nietzsche, although never called himself existentialist, has been a foundation of existentialism. S.T. Sunardi wrote that the strongest influence of Nietzsche was felt in France. He became the symbol of rebellion. In youth Nietzsche was very popular as a philosopher who was very cynical toward religion. In philosophy his influence of rebellion appears obviously in Sartre and Camus. (Sunardi, 1996:119).
Nietzsche, Sartre, and Heidegger reacted to the same zeitgeist, or spirit of an age, which was the modern optimistic spirit. Although Nietzsche wrote during the end of nineteenth century, he foresaw what other people during his age did not see, which was the decline of modern optimistic world. Kaufmann explains that at that time, “science and technology were making the most spectacular advances; and optimism was common. Nietzsche, however, stigmatized this age as nihilistic”(Kaufmann,1969:96). He understood that the modern optimism was in its decline toward nihilism. Nietzsche, therefore, offered his philosophy, which included overman in it, as a way to cope with nihilism.
and Sartre’s Orestes. However, there will be a different in emphasis. Sartre believed the existence of free-will and emphasized freedom of choosing.
Sartre was considered to be a voice of his era since he has represented the spirit of France people toward the social condition of the post-war era. His popularity was born by the need of his era. He was so popular that fifty thousands of people followed his coffin. Michele Vian, Sartre’s Friend, in a documentary movie by BBC on Sartre titled Human, All Too Human, describes that ‘it is not his (Sartre’s) fault if people like us, who were not philosophers; who were not thinkers, took him as a prophet.”(Wardle, 1999). His philosophy was considered to be a hope for the post-war era. Jonathan Ree, a France philosopher comments in Human, All too Human, that “everybody realizes that the old France with its values...depended on old generations were collapsing and Sartre’s idea was fantastic moral opportunity.”(Wardle, 1999). Sartre’s philosophy about freedom has opened a new opportunity to break with past and start a new one. Therefore, to research on Sartre’s ontological and ethical dimension also at once provides information about people of his era.
How do those two contribute to Sartre in building his main character in The Flies, Orestes? How does Orestes depict Sartre’s departure from Nietzscheian overman and Heideggerian ontology? This works is an attempt to answer those questions.
B. Problem Formulations
1. How is the character of Orestes characterized?
3. What are influences of Nietzsche’s overman in Orestes?
4. How does the character of Orestes depart from Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s overman?
C. Objectives of the Study
The main objectives of the study are to see influences of Heidegger’s ontology, Nietzsche’s overman, and Sartre’s departure from theirs in The Flies through its main character. The objective is fulfilled by describing the character of Orestes. After that, influences of Heidegger’s ontology are described. Discussion on influences of Heidegger’s ontology precedes influences of Nietzsche’s overman because ontology bases the axiology, including the ethics. After that, influences of Nietzsche’s overman are described. Finally, the last objective, the way Sartre’s philosophy in the character of The Flies departs from their influence can be answered by considering the second and third objectives.
D. Definition of Terms
In philosophy, it seems that each philosopher has their own language games. Thus, these definitions of the terms are written to restrict the meaning of the terms to specify the context. These definitions have over simplified the concepts. Further explanation can be found in chapter II.
1. Essence
2. Freedom
“The very being of for-itself which is “condemned to be free” and must forever choose itself-i.e., make itself. “’to be free’ does not mean ‘to obtain what one has wished’ but rather ‘by oneself to determine oneself to wish’ (in the broader sense of choosing). In other word, success is not important for freedom.”(Sartre,1969:632)
3. The Will to Power
Will to power is “Nietzsche’s formula for what he took to be the basic disposition manifested in all that transpires in human life and in all other phenomena as well.”(Honderich, 2005:958).
4. Resentment
It is “a ‘reactionary’ emotions, a bitter but frustrated response to slights, humiliation or oppression, ‘submerged hatred, the vengefulness of the impotent.’ In Nietzsche’s view, resentment is the mark of ‘slave morality’ (Honderich, 2005:814 )
5. Slave Morality
“Slave morality is a reactive morality originating in resentment of the powerful on the part of the powerless.”
6. Master Morality
accords honor to things, he creates values. Everything he knows to be part of himself, he honors : such morality is self-glorification.”(Nietzsche,1977:76)
7. Overman
“human life enhanced and transformed in a manner sufficient to render it worthy or affirmation, in contrast to ‘all too human’ about it, dispensing with all other-worldly hopes and illusion, and overcoming all disillusionment.”(Honderich, 2005:903)
8. Ontology
“is the science of being in general, embracing such issues as the nature of existence and the categorical structure of reality”(Honderich, 2005:670)
9. Character
“the persons represented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the reader as being endowed with particular moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by inferences from what the persons say and their distinctive ways of saying it—the dialogue—and from what they do—the action”(Abrams,1981:20)
10. Characterization
A. Review of Related Studies
As mentioned earlier, major interpretations on Sartre's The Flies either relate the play to Nazi occupation or Sartre’s existentialism. This part reviews a sample of each major interpretation. The first discusses the allegory of The Flies and the second the existentialism.
McCall, as an example of the first group, in The Theater of Jean Paul Sartre saw Sartre's The Flies as a call for revolt through understanding the play as allegory of Nazi occupation. He said that “When Sartre wrote The Flies, the play had resonances that are lost to a spectator or reader today. In 1943, the French were suffocating under Nazi occupation and the cult that Hitler's collaborators tried systematically to instill in them” (McCall,1969:15).
Sartre uses allegory in order to hide his provocation from Nazi censorship. McCall compared the characters with the situation of the occupied France as follow:
Within the context of the Occupation, The Flies can be read on one level as a kind of allegorical piece in which Aegistheus is the German invader, Clytemnestra the French collaborator, and Orestes the resistant. Zeus stands for their "moral" commandments that the Nazis and their collaborators sought to impose on the French people as absolute law. Electra represents those who rebelled against the Vichy mentality but lacked the will to translate their rebellion into action.
As Aegistheus in the play, Nazi desired a status quo so that they might rule longer. Nazi and Aegistheus both ruled their area illegally. Nazi took the power by invasion and Aegistheus by murdering Agamemnon, the former king of Argos. After taking control, they also became tyrant and sought absolute control. They created suffer through their power.
Like Clytemnestra, the wife of Agamemnon or the former king, who collaborated with Aegistheus to betray the former king, the French collaborator helped Nazi to defend the status quo. Clytemnestra also stayed beside Aegistheus to justify the Aegistheus as king of Argos by marrying him as the French collaborator stayed beside Nazi. Both helped the ruler to build and prolonged the control.
Zeus symbolizes the morality imposed by Nazi in the sense that both seek justification for the ruling regime. Aegistheus built a statue of Zeus in Argos to remind the people of their remorse. Similar to Argos, the ideas that Nazi deserved the occupation and French people were weak and inferior toward Nazi were echoing through the propaganda of that time. Zeus’ morality and the propaganda of Nazi played the same role during occupation.
The murder of Aegistheus and Clytemnestra delivers Sartre's message of rebellion. He, as Orestes did, suggested people of France to fight against Nazi and the French collaborator and defeated them. That Orestes could defeat Zeus, who was a god, by killing his collaborator, symbolized that French could defeat Nazi, which seemed undefeatable. Sartre through The Flies suggested a radical rebel against Nazi.
Timothy William's essay titled Sartre, Marcell, The Flies, as an example of the second group of dominant reading, analyses The Flies from its existentialist philosophy. Gabriel Marcell, French Christian existentialist, as quoted by Timothy William, even writes that “The Flies as 'manifesto' of existentialism”(The Midwest Quarterly, Vol 49: 377). William further writes that “reading The Flies possibly is the best introduction to the philosophy of Sartre.”(The Midwest Quarterly, Vol 49:377). He argues that The Flies represents Sartre's existentialist philosophy about how existential freedom relates to values.
William examines mainly the character development of Orestes which shows Sartre's existentialist position. At first, Orestes grounds all his values and decisions on the direction of Zeus. After that, he realizes his freedom. At last, he clings to his freedom and rebels against Zeus's authority. According to William, Orestes is “emboldened by his new-found freedom, and declares that he will no longer take orders, neither from men nor gods”(The Midwest Quarterly, Vol 49:379).
determined by external objective factors. Hence, Orestes asked Zeus' wisdom to guide his life when he faces confusion whether he gets to leave Argos or not. Then, Zeus shows him a sign and finally Orestes decides to go.
In second phrase, Orestes starts to acquaintance with his existential freedom. However, he still does not realize his existential freedom. All Orestes experiences, according to William, is “an enlightenment, a sudden awareness that he is totally alone in an indifferent universe” (The Midwest Quarterly,Vol 49:389). This, according to William, is how Sartre defines a human being finding one selves as completely free. Because human finds one selves as completely free, one finds nothing or no one can justify but one own. At this point, one still does not know what to do with the freedom. In other words, one needs to adjust one self to the new realization.
Third, Orestes can create his own justification that grounds his values. In other words, Orestes has been able to accept the freedom and faces the absurdity of existence. As a result, he is sure of what he is doing while rebelling against Aegistheus and Zeus. As he finds that no one can justifies him but himself, he creates his own values through doing the opposite thing of what Zeus commands him to do. Sartre suggests this self-creation as alternative of the nihilistic world that one finds when realizing the total freedom.
B. Review of Related Theories
1. Theories on Character and Characterization
Abram’s Glossary of Literary Term defines characters as “the persons represented in a dramatic or narrative work, who are interpreted by the reader as being endowed with particular moral, intellectual, and emotional qualities by inferences from what the persons say and their distinctive ways of saying it—the dialogue—and from what they do—the action”(Abrams,1981:20). Barranger in Understanding Play explains that characters have “complex personalities; they represent a class of individual s, such as kings or servant”(Barranger,1994:338). They also signify human predicament from the writer’s historical and philosophical perspective. A character may remain stable, or undergo a radical change, either through a gradual development or as the result of extreme crisis’
Abram divides character, following Foster, into flat and round character. Flat characters are those “built around a single idea or quality” and without much individualization. Thus, they can even be described in one sentence. Round characters are complex in temperament and motivation. Thus, they can hardy be described and they might surprise the reader.
characterized. First is what the playwright says about them in stage direction. Second is by hearing or reading what characters say about one another in dialogue. Third is by noting general types-physical and psychological. Fourth is by construe the moral or ethical choices (Barranger,1994:339)
2. Theory of Heidegger’s Ontology
a. Being (sein) and beings/entities (Seindes)
Heidegger makes an ontological difference to mark the distinction between Being and beings or entities. The realm of Being is ontological and the realm of beings or entities is ontic. Because in English both are the same, capital letter is used to distinguish those two terms. Being is commonly written in singular to refer to Being of certain being or sometimes Being as concept without referent or without further a do. The German world for Being is sein. If sein is an infinitive, Seind is Partizip I, just like English ing-form. There is activity meaning contained in the Partizip I in German. (Hardiman, 2003:45)
Being is described shortly in Heidegger’s division one of Being and Time. “The Being of entity or beings “is” not itself an entity.” (Heidegger, 1962:25) Being is not a group of beings or certain among of beings. Being props beings and Being makes possible the being to be. It “Being determines beings as entities”(Heidegger, 1962:25)
There is a vivid remark about Being written by Kaelin in his Heidegger’s Being and Time. He writes that
Being of enteritis-be they persons, things, or tools-and being without further ado (tout-court), to which Heidegger refers as the transcendent pure and simple, that is, that which in every case transcends the entity that displays it, but which itself is not an entity and so cannot be treated as an object of ontological analysis in the same way entities are (Kaelin, 1987:299)
Here, Kaelin notes that Heidegger uses Being in two ways. The first is Being of being. It always refers to the Being of certain thing. When this term is used, it will always relate to certain modes of Being; Presence-at-hand, ready-to-hand, or Dasein. The second is Being as its own concept. It only talks the meaning or concepts of Being without certain reference to certain entity or being. Here the meaning of Being is transcendent pure and simple. Being is beyond the beings.
b. Dasein
of Dasein is through investigating Dasein. The investigation reveals the structure of being-in-the-world as the Dasein’s constitutive element.
To start the investigation, Heidegger analyzes three modes of being; present-at-hand, ready-to-hand, and existence. First is ready-to-hand, useful beings for Dasein. In other word, this mode of Being is the way tools are. Ready-to-hand serves Dasein’s purpose or toward-which. For example, hammer is used to hit nail. Second is present-at-hand. This mode of Being is what human do not use or cannot use for purpose. This being, however, does not signify neutral pure being without Dasein’s contamination toward it. Instead, present-at-hand usually reveals when ready-to-hand occurs malfunction. For instance, hammer which is too heavy cannot serve Dasein’s purpose. As a result, the mode of ready-to-hand has been changed into present-at-hand. The toward-which cannot be served. Third is existence. Heidegger says that only Dasein exists. Trees are, but trees do not exist. God is, but God does not exist. This happens because of Heideggerian technical terms of existence. He urges people to use existence with interpretation of the context of existence.
Existence, as a mode of Being solely belongs to Dasein, distinguishes him from the rest of beings. Kaelin summarizes Heidegger’s argument of human’s unique mode of being as follow:
The existential nature of man is the reason why man can represent beings as such, and why he can be conscious of them. Only human is conscious about his future, and, therefore, he is the only being “exists.”
This mode of Being is associated by Heidegger through his diction to label human being as Dasein. While Sein means Being, Da is an ambiguous sense in German language. Kaelin writes “the da of Dasein, the German word for existence or human being in Heidegger’s restricted sense,..., is ambiguous, meaning both “here” and “there”(Kaelin,1988:98). Because of the ambiguity and the nuance it takes, the term is usually not translated. Thus, Dasein literally means Being “here” and “there.”
The “here” and “there” of da should be interpreted in Heideggerian temporality and spatiality. Heidegger argues that “here” means the present condition and “there” means the projected situation. Dasein always exists in his fleeing in the space between “here” and “there”. In “here” Dasein projects into “there.” In short, Dasein is always becoming. Dasein discloses its future self.
i. Being-in-the-world and the Falling of Dasein
For Heidegger, Dasein’s basic state is being-in-the-world. Being–world, although must be seen as a whole, has three constitutive elements; in-the-world, being-in, and entity or being (seind). From this ontical condition, Heidegger defines Dasein.
totality of significance, the system of ready-to-hands constructed in their toward-which. This constitutes a world where Dasein lives and inside the signification. The example is the world of motor sport where a racer spends her life and concerns about. It is impossible to separate a racer from the world of motorsport. Every world has its own ready-to-hand which is different from other world. This determines toward-which of entities. For example, a table, its toward-which of the ready-to-hand is to place plate and glass, can be interpreted as an altar, its toward-which of the ready-to-hand is to have ceremony, for culture toward-which does not recognize table. However, world is not always cultural. It is also personal world, where we know that a world of a person is different from another. Man always finds himself in-the-world. He is thrown into the world.
Second, Being-in is important constitutive elements in being-in-the-world. Heidegger describes the “in” as “derived from ‘innan’-‘to reside’, ‘to dwell.’...’An’ signifies ‘I am accustomed’, ‘I am familiar with’, ‘I look after something’(Heidegger,1962:80). From the etymology, “in” means dwelling in certain place where on is accustomed or familiar. The Being of Being-in, according to Heidegger, is concern. In such activity like interrogating, Dasein has its own concern. Third, entity which in every case has Being-in-the-world as the way in which it is. Heidegger argues that Dasein is the only entity that has Being-in-the-world. This happens because Dasein has care as its Being.
true. Yet, Being-in-the-world is not merely possession of a Dasein. It is Dasein itself. Dasein is, without being united, Being-in-the-world. In projecting his Being-there, Dasein creates and always creates endlessly his Being-in-the-world. Dasein’s being-in-the-world indeed is inescapable. Being-in-the-world is designed by Heidegger to refuse human as metaphysical soul and body or rational being separated from the world that can see the world from outside. Heidegger stands that being-in-the-world is unitary phenomena between Dasein and what it encounters. Here, the essence of Dasein is not separated from the existence. Dasein in any situation cannot find shelter. Dasein cannot hide from its Being-in-the-world as long as he lives. By creating term Being-in-Being-in-the-world Heidegger includes Dasein as being which has no difference with other beings. Although Dasein is a unique, but he should not be separated from other beings.
When Dasein’s basic is Being-in-the world, Dasein can also be being-in-the-midst-of-the-world or falling. In this falling, Dasein becomes inauthentic because it flees from himself and it is absorbed into das man or the One/the They. When it happened, Dasein does not stand face to face with its Being because it flees from it in order to be absorbed in falling.
himself”(Heidegger,1962:165). The subject of they “nobody to whom every Dasein has already surrendered itself in Being-among-one-other”(Heidegger,1962:163). Nobody creates certain values because they share it together.
Heidegger mentions five characteristics of falling. First, Being-among-one-another dissolves Dasein’s into merely Others, and Dasein enjoy as They enjoy the world. He writes “we take pleasure of enjoying ourselves as they take pleasure; we read, see, and judge about literature and art as they see and judge”(Heidegger, 1962:164). They prescribe the kind of Being of everydayness. Due to there is no personal choice, as if there is no responsibility for Dasein. There is also no self-reflection because the falling man thinks that is just how the decision should be taken. Second, falling conditions people as if they have already understood everything. This gets rid of doubt and hide ontological question such as “who I am.” Hence, Dasein tries to escape his personal anxiety, which in fact is inevitable. Third, since there is no doubt, Dasein is alienated from his own true possibility. Fourth, the authentic possibly for human action is closed. Fifth, the fall of the self into essentially foreign world is turbulent (Kaelin, 1987,114-115).
Inauthenticity for Heidegger is Dasein’s everyday condition. Heidegger states that “Dasein is ‘they’, and for the most part it remains so” (Heidegger 1964:167) Most of Dasein’s time is spent in falling. Heidegger even “denies that the authentic-inauthentic distinction has any ethical content”(Honderich, 2005L280). To be inauthentic is not important to avoid. Being authentic for a very short time and inauthentic in most of the time is a natural condition of Dasein. Thus, falling is “its everydayness and its averageness”(Heidegger,1964:168).
ii. Anxiety, Authenticity, and Care
Heidegger argues that a mood always fills our being-in-the-world. One of the moods is anxiety which he uses to deepen his analysis into ontological structure of Dasein. In its abandonment, dasein starts to feel its anxiety. Anxiety, which is inevitable for Dasein, raises Dasein from his falling, and discloses care, as Dasein’s Being.
Heidegger contrasts fear and anxiety to begin his analysis. Fear is ontical mood that has an object. In the other word, it is always directed toward something. For example, one might fear of chicken or darkness. Fear is fear toward being-within-the-world. Although fear is distinctive, it is inauthentic way of Being-in-the-world. Unlike fear that has object, anxiety does not have object. If fear is fear of something, anxiety is anxiety of nothing. Yet, this nothing is in fact the every structure of Dasein. What threat Dasein in anxiety is indefinite. Heidegger writes about the threat that results anxiety as follow:
“That in the face of which one has anxiety is characterized by the fact that what threatens is nowhere. Anxiety ‘does not know’ what in the face of which it is anxious is. ‘nowhere’, however, does not signify nothing: this is where any region lies, and there too lies any disclosedness of the world for essentially spatial Being-in...it is so close that oppressive and stifles one’s breath, and yet it is nowhere” (Heidegger,1964:231)
Anxiety lies not in front of object within-the-world. It is Being-in-the-world that stands in front of anxiety. Heidegger says that “Being-in-the-world itself is that in the face of which anxiety is anxious”(Heidegger,1964:232). As mentioned earlier that Being-in-the-world is Dasein, it can be concluded that Dasein has anxiety in its Being.
However, in falling, Dasein does not always feel the anxiety. Anxiety is covered in routine and certainty imposed by the One. As a result, anxiety either cannot be recognized or it is misinterpreted as fear.
Death, for Heidegger, is an ontological moment that is irreplaceable. Dasein always faces death alone. However, death is “nonrelational, unovertakeable, certain, and indefinite”(Kaelin1987:163). In death, Dasein faces its nothingness, its not Being-in-the-world. Once thrown into Being-in-the-world, Dasein also contains Being-toward-Death. However, possibility of death may come without preparation. Dasein cannot know for sure when death comes. Although one always says that death is unavoidable and natural as living being so that we do not have to worry about it, Dasein cannot succeed in covering its anxiety. As a result, Dasein cannot always feel comfortable everyday. Anxiety reveals uncanniness. Heidegger writes that “this uncanniness pursues Dasein constantly, and is a threat to its everyday lostness in the “they,” though not explicitly” (Heidegger, 1964:234). In anxiety, Dasein disclose its Being and it is called into authenticity by recognizing Dasein’s Being.
Being-in-the-world. To project toward its Being means that Dasein is always ahead of itself. Dasein is always ‘beyond itself’, but this potentiality-for-Being is itself. To make it explicit and simple care can be described as “ahead-of-itself-Being-already-in-(the-world)”(Heidegger,1964:237). Dasein is in freedom toward his Being which is there.
When realizing the Being, Dasein feels anxious because of the awareness of the uncanniness. However, in its very Being, Dasein decides its authentic choice and decision. He pursues his personal life. Authentic Dasein will live his personal Being-in-the-world. Authentic Dasein will also full of inspection of its self-reflection.
Kaelin writes that according to Heidegger “caring is something that we do, not something we must suffer”(Kaelin, 1987:117). In this care lies the existential-ontological condition for possibility of Being-free for authentic existentiell possibilities. Authenticity is characterized by freedom. Yet, Dasein still can comport itself into inauthenticity. In addition, Dasein is inauthentic “for the most part”(Heidegger, 1964:238). Although Heidegger conceptualizes authenticity and inauthenticity, he does not posit it in moral dichotomy.
From that point, dasein does not flee from itself but face it. Dasein becomes authentic when it is out of the One.
Therefore, authentic chooses in personal decision. Authentic dasein is a real subject that is not absorbed into the They or concern. Authentic Dasein may do the same action as inauthentic Dasein, but in the different way. The Dasein’s projection toward is indeed a personal projection. Heidegger encourages everyone to create their own Being-in-the-world, instead of Being-in-the-midst-of-the-world.
The authentic Dasein according to Heidegger is also characterized by its illumination with Being. Olson writes that “he [Heidegger] does not believe man invents meaning and truth. Man can invent only pragmatic truths, and these do not deserve the title”(Olson,1962:138). Heidegger encourages Dasein to be able to be “shepherd of Being.” Being depends on Dasein but beings do not. Heidegger argues that Being is more prior than man the world.
“man is rather ‘thrown’ from Being itself into the truth of Being, so that...he might guard the truth of Being, in order that beings might appear in the light of Being as the beings they are. Man does not decide wither or how beings appear, whiter and how God and the gods or history and nature come forward into the lighting of Being, come to presence and depart. The advent of beings lies in the
Destiny of Being”(Heidegger,1978:210).
essence”(Heidegger,1978:217). Here, the center in Heidegger’s thinking is not Dasein, but Being.
3. Theory of Nietzsche’s Overman
a. The Will to Power
The will to power, which is determiner of force, is not determined. It is self-determination or in Deleuze's language a plastic principle. He explains that “it [the will to power] is an essentially plastic principle that is no wider than what it conditions, that changes itself with the conditioned and determines itself in each case along with what it determines”(Deleuze, 2002:50). The will wills itself.
The will to power, as the determiner of quality of forces, commands the forces in dominating relationship one to the other. As a result, it decides the active force that dominates the reactive force. However, the dominated force does not reflect passivity because a force needs a will to power to surrender to the other force. Surrender itself needs an activity. The dominated force is active in sense that it decides itself to be dominated.
These relationships of forces, which indeed determined by the will to power, constitutes a body. The body can be chemical, political, or social. A body is not a mediate because everything in the world is forces. Inside the body, there is a chance or possibility to change when the relationship between the active and the reactive changes.
being strives to dominate one to the other. Their basic characteristic is self-egoism, and, thus, they try to expand their power over others. To actualize will to power means to expand and maximize the power in the being. This shapes the world into changing. Therefore, Nietzsche defends monism in writing that “the innermost essence of being is will to power”(Nietzsche,1967:369).
However, not all beings are capable to increase the power. In other word, The will to power means the will to increase power in a body because power “is enjoyed only as more power. One enjoys not in possession but its increase”(Kaufmann, 1968:186). Human being can exercise “its power in schemes of self-overcoming”(Welshon, 1996:87). The unique ability belongs to human, self-overcoming, can increase the power. Therefore, human can reach a goal that is only possible for human being. Human being can maximize the power because human wills the power. Through this power, men overcome their obstacles. Finally, men can overcome their all-too-human, their mediocre humanity, and become king of themselves.
Related to the ethics, Nietzsche encourages people to affirm their life. His famous suggestion is to say “yes” to life. Affirming life means people maximize the will to power; the nature of human and all beings.
b. Slave Morality, Master Morality, and Transvaluation of Values
aristocratic society. In Beyond Good and Evil he said that it is possible to find “relative nobility of taste and reverential tact..,among the lower orders and especially among peasants, than among the newspaper-reading demi-monder of the spirit, the cultured “(Nietzsche,1972:184). Nietzsche offends slave morality and defends master morality through suggesting the transvaluation of values, turning “good and evil' into “good and bad.”.
While explaining the idea of those two moralities, the first essay of The Genealogy of Morals examines historically the origin of slave and master morality and what Nietzsche calls as the “slave revolt in morals”(Nietzsche,1956:170). The master morality was the character exclusively belonged to aristocratic class. Nietzsche finds that the word good in German and Latin etymologically was related with noble and aristocrat class. The aristocrat posits the highest place in society and they were the most powerful class and the ruling class of society. However, they were the exclusive and small in number compared to the herd or mass. The superior, ruler, and the aristocrat class created the good to justify themselves. They could be powerful because they affirmed natural drive, exercise and expand their power. Nietzsche argues that “all noble morality grows out of triumphant self-affirmation”(Nietzsche,1956:170).
“base, low-minded, plebeian (Nietzsche, 1956:160), common (Nietzsche, 1956:160).
They were “fully active, energetic people”(Nietzsche, 1956:172). Hence, they educated the next generation firmly. As the result of the exuberant of energy, health and power, they love combat, war game, competition, adventures, the dance, challenge, and dangerous life. In addition, they also exercised their power and expanded it through their goodness.
depends on the translators. Third, while the master morality opposed good with bad, they create the term evil to oppose good. As the result, their opposition is “good and evil” instead of “good and bad.”
Deleuze explains Nietzsche's ideas of slave morality by relating resentment and reactive as the key concepts. Both concepts are connected one to the other to explain the origin and the characteristics of slave morality. The reactive type originates resentment, which characterizes slave morality. Reactive type is not a type composed of a completely reactive forces. Deleuze writes that “a reaction alone cannot constitute resentment “(Deleuze, 2005:111).
Resentment originates in a strong unpleasant experience. The man of resentment receives too great pain without being able to react because he does not have enough power to form a riposte, or a quick sharp reply. Thus, he keeps the pain inside without being able to forget it. The man of resentment only uses his reactive type to relate the stimulus from outside. The man of resentment cannot “react” to the outside world no matter what the excitations are. He always associates whatever he perceives with his resentment. He cannot by active force produce reaction because the man of resentment’s reaction is based on reactive force and the resentment inside him. The revenge haunts the man consciously or not in memory, like the case of bloodhound which can only recognize the smell of trace, and he confuses it with other stimulation.
camel, all values are received instead of created through his power. Camel submits to “all values has already been created”(Nietzsche,1969:54). Camel bents in front of tradition. He, moreover, bents down receiving the command “thou shalt.” In “thou shalt” there is no individuality, only the herd exists and individuality is repressed.
Like all Christian, who for Nietzsche are the men of resentment, they bend for order and heavy job. They act based on their fear of God and their submissive longing. Fear, “the feeling of the absence of power “(Nietzsche,1969:24), also dominates the feeling of slave morality. Fear motivates their attitude. People submit their life because they cannot create value and they, in fact, are dominated by the existing values.
Drive and desire are taboo for slave morality. Those two endanger the surrender and contradict the impotence of power since desire and drive haunt fulfillment. This herd morality oppresses desire and drive, and, hence, discourage creativity and spontaneity. People holding slave morality will be tame instead of energetic.
In contrast with slave morality which denies the world, the people of master morality accept the world and say yes to life. They affirm their fate and love it, amor fati. By affirming their life, they enjoy the blissfulness of life. When tested by eternal recurrence, they would embrace the doctrine willfully. Related to their desire, they express it and act in accord with what they want. They say yes to the world in all its sense. When they want one joy, they will accept all the pains that go with the joy as the consequences.
However, doing their drive to expand and exercise their power does not mean that they just do anything they want wildly. Sunardi describes Nietzscheian sublimation as a meeting between passion and geist, patient and self-overcoming principle. (Sunardi,1996:70). When doing all the desire without geist, people turn into animal. In the contrary, when people repress all the desire through the medium of geist, as in the case of asceticism, they cannot express themselves and stop growing. Nietzsche states that the meeting is never in peace but turbulence and strain. Yet, in that condition the creativity emerges. Here, the instinct drive is managed into creative act used to turn back to organize the drive.
perpetually refresh itself and get rid of from contamination of resentment. Thus, a new beginning always exists. The phrase a new beginning might also means the ability to destroy values when those values signify tendency to be absolute. As discussed earlier that truth supports the believer practically, the absolute truth in fact functions the opposite, and thus the people of master morality avoid it. A sport points the playfulness characteristics of master morality where “thou shalt” is replaced with “I will.” Sport reflects joyfulness and will to play. Nietzsche explains the sport as “the sport of creation”(Nietzsche,1969:55) in which the child create values and “wills its own wills”(Nietzsche, 1969:55). The self-propelling wheel and first motion show how master morality determines oneself. For instance, they control their emotion and do not let the outer forces determine theirs. The masters, since being active instead of reactive, influence and create instead of being influenced and formed so that they can express their desire and expand their power. A sacred Yes means a Yes that knows how to say no. The camel's Yes is not sacred because of their inability to say no.
c. Overman as A Master Morality
Nietzsche offers overman to face the most extreme form of nihilism. Only overman has characteristics that are strong enough to face reality, and affirm life completely in the whole integration. Overman is a man of power who can will and increase the power. Overman for Nietzsche is the solution for the extreme nihilism.
Overman represents the most successful of self-actualization of master morality. For Nietzsche, everyone by the vey nature is unique. He writes, as quoted by Kaufmann, that
“the man who would not belong to the mass needs only to cease being comfortable with himself; he should follow his conscience which shouts at him: “Be yourself! You are not really all that which you do, think, and desire now” (Kaufmann, 1968:158) To actualize one self completely, or in Nietzsche’s term to follow one’s conscience, means to be different among the mob. In other word, overman defends individuality. By being different, overman has left his conformity. Kaufman argues that for Nietzsche overman appears as “symbols of repudiation of any conformity to a single norm: antithesis to mediocrity and stagnation”(Kaufmann, 1968: 309).
“against the intelligent ones”(Kaufmann, 1968:231). Intelligent is an important mean to increase power. Thus, overman will be noble because he never sees himself in contempt since he can affirm the world, including himself.
In Zarathustra's prologue Nietzsche tells ontological position of overman. Zarathustra says that “man is a rope, fastened between animal and superman- a rope over an abyss”(Nietzsche, 1969:43). Man plays transitional between animal and overman. When animal is controlled by instincts, human, although has the animal instinct, has the potency to overcome human's animal instincts. This also means potency to overcome humanity that contains animality. After that, human being can move into higher level, the overman level. Human has possibility to get move to animal and overman. As a transition, Nietzsche encourage people to overcome man. When Zarathustra comes to meet the crowd in market place, he preaches to the people “I teach you the superman. Man is something that should be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?”(Nietzsche). In short, overman is a condition where human can overcome humanity completely.
self-integration, self-creation, and self-mastery” and becomes “truly human or Zarathustra would say,..superman”(kaufmann,1968:316).
Self-integration means that overman can integrate his characters. Overman sees all his characters as a whole instead of separated one by one. Hence, he bears his woe and sees them as inseparable from his strength. All the integrated self is united to be given one meaning, that will bring overman into joyfulness. Zarathustra says “one virtue is more than two, because it is more of a knot” (Nietzsche, 1969:46). All his passions', desire, and drives are integrated into one by the virtue.
By Self-creation, overman creates himself through creating his active self-destruction, values, and truth, without relying on transcendental being. To build a new, overman needs to destroy his old self in which his values lay. This destruction and creation work hand in hand. Overman has ability to create values and give meaning to all by himself. Consequently, Zarathustra preaches that “the superman is the meaning of the earth”(Nietzsche,1969:42). When “God is dead”, human finds that the world is meaningless. Yet, overman becomes the locus of meaning. The dead god erases all transcendental sources of value, and changes human orientation from after-worldly into the earth. Hence, human has been the new sources of value. Human can be the source of value to justify their own selves when they have been able to overcome their own self.
The values and law of tradition comforts people in peace. In addition, the tradition and stable values weaken power. Thus, overman declines the values, law, and tradition. Moreover, in order to create a new set of values, the old must be destroyed. Overman declares war not also to build the new values but also to exercise the power. He is like a child who can destroy and create values, a sport of values.
When Nietzsche says overman as meaning of men existence, he refers the word meaning as the self-meaning, related to the practical truth. He writes “I want to teach men, the meaning of their existence: which is the Superman”(Nietzsche,1969:49). It does not mean that the goal, overman, refers to universal meaning of existence. The meaning of the existence refers to the truth, as means for self-actualization. Thus, overman creates truth of meaning based on the needs and the context. He writes “and if one day my wisdom should desert me-ah,it loves to fly away!-then my pride too fly with my folly!”(Nietzsche,1969:53). The goal is the most supreme actualization of one individual. By that means, overman can “realize his own unique individuality”(Kaufmann, 1968:309).
actualize themselves. Unlike fear which marks the lack of power, bravery signs the abundance of power to face an obstacle.
When Zarathustra looks at people he tells how to be overman. He says that they who live for knowledge and will for knowledge will let overman lives. Then, they who work and invent that may build a build the house for overrman. They, in addition, love their virtue. (Nietzsche, 1969:46).
Self-mastery, as discussed in the part of master morality, is a concept of sublimation of animalistic instinct. Overman can manage his drive, and become master of his own self. He is like the metaphor of self-propelling wheel, and first-motion.
d. Overman and Eternal Recurrence
Eternal recurrence has been uttered since old Greek by Anaximander, Heraclitus, the Stoic school, and Pythagoras (Sunardi,1996:111). However, the idea gets a new emphasize and context in the philosophy of Nietzsche, related to his ethics. Although Nietzsche insists that the hypothesis of eternal recurrence is “the most scientific of all possible hypothesis”(Nietzsche,1967:36), the ethical implication plays more important role than the cosmological one. Eternal recurrence argues that the world reoccurs again and again infinitely with exactly the same occurrence infinitely.
the already happened combination. This always happens again and again eternally. Nietzsche also justifies this as consistent idea with principle that argues energy is eternal.
Nietzsche urges not to draw any teleological meaning of the eternal recurrence of the world. Consequently, it is the most nihilistic world ever thought. He wrote “beware of believing that this world is a machine, it is certainly not constructed for one purpose”(Nietzsche, 1974:167). He believes that the world is an eternity that always becoming. Heidegger writes that “All Being is for Nietzsche a Becoming”(Heidegger,1984:07). Everything is always in changing and it never reaches a “state of equilibrium,..goal” because “this state must have been reached”(Nietzsche,1967:548) due to the extremely long past of history of the universe. In short, the universe is becoming without ending in eternal recurrence.
(Nietzsche,1974:274), . In other word, you are terribly afraid and then get angry to the demon. It means you still cannot affirm life.
Eternal Recurrence and Overman have similarity because both play extreme role in Nietzsche's philosophy. In one hand, eternal recurrence is the most and complete nihilistic, the most destructive idea. In the other hand, overman is one can overcome man that s/he is being able to affirm the worst possibility, the eternal recurrence. Thus, the two ideas can be easily depicted in one section. Only overman can affirm life as a whole through and in the eternal recurrence.
He does not give meaning to even one by one, but giving meaning to all. Through this way overman redeems his woes. Kaufman says that overman “redeeming even the ugly by giving it meaning in a beautiful totality”(Kaufmann, 1968:319). Thus, overman never feels any guilt because he is the salvation of his own selves.
As explained earlier that overman can affirm life completely, he redeems the past by willing the past to happen as it happened. Nietzsche in Zarathustra writes, “to redeem the past and to transform every ‘it was’ into an ‘I wanted thus!’- that alone do I call redemption”(Nietzsche, 1969:161). Thus, overman does not regret his past nor fall into a remorse. He have willed even his tragedy.
In short, only overman can bear eternal recurrence. He does not negate life and can strongly affirm even his deepest woe. By his self-destruction he creates the new. He willed his life in a beautiful totality.
e. Overman the individual, Society, and Inequality
The scenes of Zarathustra mostly take place with other people. Moreover, he leaves his mountain after ten years to descend to people, or society. Society for Nietzsche stands as opposition of overman, or individual. Yet, both are tied in a complex relation. Although overman and society contradict one to the other in characters, they form mutual exploitation for several reasons.
Society, the place where herd live together, tend to comfort the people and dwarf their power. Society originates in the multiplicities of individuals who lack of courage. Then, they impose certain values such as “obedience, duty, patriotism, and loyalty”(Nietzsche,1967:382). Society wants to maintain peace condition because most of the herd is impotence. Moreover, they do not want to develop power. For example, society, in the names of tradition and preservation of culture, is conservative. They defense themselves against something new because it disturbs their comfort. In the eye of society, new means evil and old means good.
Due to those different characteristics, society tends to hate overman. The attitude of society toward overman is delivered through the mouth of buffoon who kills a rope dancer, symbol of movement in dangerous. He says “too many here hate you, the good and the just hate you and call you their enemy and despiser; the faithful of the true faith hate you, and they call you a danger to the people”(Nietzsche,1969:49). The old and tradition protects them in conformity while the new, that for overman exercises his power and increases it, attacks conformity.
The mob insists for equality so that “everyone may sit in judgment on everyone and everything”(Nietzsche, 1967:457). Thus, the judgment of the mob can win and they defeat the master morality. Thus, the mob can decide the “truth” and turn up side down the value of “good” and “bad.” The mob also uses equality to fight against the value of the noble. By this belief, they justify their impotence before the same right. Nietzsche, in addition, argues that equality comes from moral point of view, “all moralities know nothing of an 'order of rank' among men”(Nietzsche,1967:411). Based on the equality, the mob demands freedom and justice. Justice, for Nietzsche, is paraphrase of demand for equal power and freedom from power's demand.
Overman, however, needs rank to compete to place himself in high place. Nietzsche writes “I feel impelled to re-establish order of rank”(Nietzsche,1967:457). Then, he explains further that quanta of power determines the order of rank. Society with rank in it has more sever war, and war is what overman loves to exercise his power. In such society, overman is also possible to stand up in high place.
you shine”, or “the cups wants to overflow”(Ibid). To avoid himself being destructed by his own abundance, overman descends to society “to be man again”(Ibid). What has been overflows in overman is, however, still worthy for society. Overman does what Deleuze says about Nietzsche as active self-destruction. To do this, overman involves society as receiver. In other word, he uses society as mean.
When man was “a polluted river”(Nietzsche,1969:41), overman could be “a sea, to receive polluted river and not be defiled”(ibid).
In summary, because society and overman contradict in character, they are in war one to the other. The overman tends to grow and the society tends to be stagnant. Yet, this relationship, indeed, benefits both the overman and the society. The overman by the war exercises his power and the society by that change into a more dynamic so that it can be more beneficial than what the herd think of.
D. Theoretical framework
In applying the theories, there are some steps to apply the theories. First, theory of character and characterization are applied to analyze Orestes character. This theory will discuss intrinsic elements of this character. How Orestes sees the world and how he reacts against domination will be central points of the discussion without ignoring total analysis of his character. These two theories are used in order to answer the first problem formulation.
of character and characterization of Orestes. Thus, analysis of Heidegger’s ontology in Orestes will answer the second problem formulation.
Third, the influence of Nietzsche’s overman will be seen in Orestes’ decision and action. The slave morality and master morality will be used to see how Orestes before and after his revelation in which Sartreian world view is. After that, the theory of overman will be used to see the influence in Orestes. Then, the characteristics of Orestes’ action will be related with ideas of overman. Orestes’ action to change his world will be seen in the eye of Nietzscheian transvaluation of values to reach overman stage. Therefore, this elaboration answers the third problem formulation on Nietzsche’s overman influences on Orestes. The theories of Nietzsche’s overman will answer the problem formulation number three of how Nietzsche’s overman influence Orestes.
a. Object of the Study
The Flies was first performed in 1943, the same year when the play was published. Until now, the play is still presented widely. The Harvard-Radcliffe Dramatic Club (HRDC) presents The Flies on fall 2009 for instance. This play is still performed because it still echoes the theme of freedom and liberation until now. This theme also what motivated Swedish Nobel committee to grand literature Noble in 1964 to Sartre, although he declined for the reason of ideology.
This study uses Gilbert’s translation in No Exit and Three Other Plays. The book was published by Vintage International in 1989. The English translation of The Flies itself appeared for the first time in 1946, three years after its French publication. In 1989, four of Sartre’s plays are compiled in No Exit and Three Other Plays, including The Flies.
The Flies, which Gabriel Marcell calls as the manifesto of existentialism, was written at the same time with Being and Nothingness. Those two works bring up existentialist reaction toward what Nietzsche names as the coming of nihilism. That existentialism was very popular at that time marked a new direction for Europe after the world war. The Flies can also be read as an attempt to set up the new values, and also a reading of a new direction in European culture after the great destruction of two world wars. Thus, by analyzing The Flies we are analyzing an attempt of re-construction of values in European society. Sartre’s attempt in offering his way has already been prepared by Heidegger and Nietzsche.
The central theme of the flies is how to embrace absolute freedom and all its consequences to live the freedom. Only through this existential freedom social liberation is possible. The central theme, however, is built through certain ideas of what and how freedom is. This idea is mainly uttered and embodied by Orestes, the main character of the play.
the brother of Agamemnon, assassinated Agamemnon by the help of Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s wife, and order from Zeus, the god of remorse. Aegistheus took over Agamemnon’s position as king of Argos and Clytemnestra’s husband. Aegistheus also enslaved Clytemnestra, Agamemnon’s daughter, in the palace. In addition, Aegistheus ordered to kill the three years Orestes in the forest. Yet, the executer felt pity and canceled the murder. He just left Orestes in the forest and reported to Aegistheus that Orestes had been killed. He introduced himself as Philebus. Orestes after conversed with Zeus decided to go away from Argos. The impolite greeting of Argos people toward Orestes justified Zeus’ suggestion for Orestes to leave. However, he accidentally met a girl whose name was Electra. She told him that she was the princess who had been enslaved by the killer of her father. She dreamed to leave but she did not dare to run away alone. Afterward, a woman came to them. She introduced herself as Clytemnestra, Orestes’ and Electra’s mother and the wife of Agamemnon.
rejected by Electra. She still believed that Philebus was not Orestes even though Orestes had opened to her his true identity. She still waited for Orestes to save him. She even insisted Orestes to leave Argos. However, Orestes was aware of his freedom in the midst of his confusion. Then, Electra admitted that he was really Orestes. After that, he decided to free Argos and Electra had decided to support him. Scene two told the murder of Aegistheus and Clytemnestra. Before Orestes came into the room of Aegistheus, Zeus met Aegistheus to persuade him to kill Philebus. However, Aegistheus was tired of his role as the king of repent people. He ended his life in the sword of Orestes. In the end of this act, Electra and Orestes hided themselves in the shrine of Apollo because Furies chasing them.
In Act III, Orestes, unlike Electra, declined Zeus’ persuasion to take Electra and Orestes to bow under his law. Orestes argued with Zeus about the nature of man. Unlike Orestes who refused to take Zeus’ law, Electra fell down to Zeus. Meanwhile, people of Argos had stood outside the shrine to stone Orestes as a result of his murder of their queen and king. Orestes faced them gently and he revealed the truth about the freedom through his murder. After that, he leaved Argos followed by the flies. Therefore, Argos had been free from old order based n remorse.
created Orestes as guilty for the murder in the end of the play, and Orestes was punished. In Aechilus’ version Orestes was motivated by revenge to kill Aegistheus and he, after that, felt a deep remorse. On the contrary, in Sartre’s version Orestes assassinated Aegistheus to free his people and he did not feel guilty. Hence, nobody could punish himself. He wanted to show to people of Argos that human was free, absolutely free.
C. Approach of the Study
This study applies moral-philosophical approach. Its basic assumption is that literature is a mean to pose philosophical ideas and to teach moral. According to Guerin, the basic position of such critics is that “the larger function of literature is to teach morality and to probe philosophical issues”(Gueirin,1979:25). This approach argues that all work of art has philosophical and moral ideas.
suitable because according to this approach, literary works always have certain values or and philosophical belief that wanted to be shared to its reader.
What makes this approach unique and chosen rather than the others is its stress on philosophical issues. Only moral-philosophical approach focuses on philosophy and moral revealed in the work of literature. By focusing of the aspect of moral-philosophical, the writer can approach the work to result what the study needs; philosophical influences and ideas from Nietzsche and Heidegger to Sartre’s The Flies.
D. Method of the Study
The main sources of this study are collected from library and internet research. Library research provides the data needed for the object of the study. Moreover, the theories applied come from library research. Internet research, in addition, supports the library research. This internet provides periodicals used in this study.
