Thinking Outside of the Box

"Everything has been figured, except how to live." - Jean-Paul Sartre
"We do not know yet what we want and yet we are responsible for what we are - that is a fact." Jean-Paul Sartre.

 Think about the place you have chosen as your hell. Does it look ordinary and bourgeois, like Sartre’s drawing room, or is it equipped with literal instruments of torture like Dante’s Inferno? Can the mind be in the hell in beautiful place? Is there a way to find peace in a hellish physical environment? Enter Sartre’s space more fully and imagine how it would feel to live there endlessly, night and day.

This is my hell. A place wher I am relegated to continue my existence as one character, one face, while the Others continue to milk me for all I'm worth while I suffer the fallout of said milking. In all seriousness, though, my hell is a place that is indistinguishable from reality. Everything looks the same, everything feels the same, everything smells the same. However, there is a subtle rift about this place. No one cares about you. No one. They will ignore you no matter what you do. Talk to them, and they will simply go about their lives as if you never existed. You can do anything you want, but it has no consequences. No one will react, no one will notice. And the best part: this goes about every day. You don't age. The concept of time has been eradicated. Kinda reminds me of this. Except no happy ending. Meaning, you are stuck forever with your thoughts, but no one to share them with. Have fun staying sane.

Could hell be described as too much of anything without a break? Are variety,moderation and balance instruments we use to keep us from boiling in any inferno of excess,' whether it be cheesecake or ravenous sex?

While hell could be described that way, I lean more towards the notion that hell is a whole lot of nothing. That it presents the illusion of anything while, in reality, it's nothing. Much like BioWare and choices. They present the illusion that choice is present, but in reality that choice is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what you choose, because the story is still going to advance anyways as if that choice were never made. That's hell. You're given the illusion that there's too much of anything and everything when it's nothing. An illusion to act as a catalyst for insanity. An illusion, forcing you to abandon all sense of moderation so that desperation and insanity start hastening into your bloodstream. Moderation, the sign of sanity, gone forever.

How does Sartre create a sense of place through dialogue? Can you imagine what it feels like to stay awake all the time with the lights on with no hope of leaving a specific place?How does GARCIN react to this hell? How could you twist your daily activities around so that everyday habits become hell? Is there a pattern of circumstances that reinforces the experience of hell?

By having Garcin and the Valet engage in dialogue, with Garcin playing a round of 20 Questions. By having Garcin continually ask questions concerning his existence and the perception of hell, we get the idea that this hell is never ending. We also get the idea that Garcin cannot accept the fact that he is in hell. He is still in denial and wants to re-live back in Earth. And who wouldn't blame him? I'd go insane if I was stuck in the same place for the rest of my life. Heck, I might try to deny it even existed, and pulled one of those cliched movie tricks where the character says "It's all a dream. If I go to sleep, I'll wake up in my bed..." but everyone in the world knows that the dream is reality. And that could also affect my activities. Playing the same video game at the same spot the whole time would make anyone want to eliminate their existence. Playing the same song over and over (like this one or this one) would drive anyone to the point of insanity where men like Jeffrey Dahmer, Ottis Toole and Henry Lee Lucas seem reasonable. As evidenced by Groundhog Day, if I had to relive the same day over and over again, I would start losing my wits and my sanity. 

Compare how Plato and Sartre describe the limitations of our thinking and imply solutions to the problem. Be sure to analyze their literary techniques, especially their use of allegory and extended metaphor.

Plato regards thinking as a burden that rests on the individual. Each person is very well capable of thinking for themselves and figuring out that shadows are irrelevant: it's what causes the shadows that is important. All it requires... is a little *push*. Sartre is much more complex. As evidenced by his portrayal of Garcin and Estelle, it's not enough to simply break the chains of ignorance. Rather, you acknowledge your existence and refuse to allow others to create a reflection of you. You are determined by you. Your perception is a direct result of what you've experienced in your life. Everything else is just someone's refection of you. For those who cannot cope with this, life is tough. They cannot create a meaning of their "self" and resort to relying on others to form an opinion of themselves.