INFLUENCES OF HEIDEGGER’S ONTOLOGY AND

NIETZSCHE’S OVERMAN IN SARTRE AS SEEN IN THE

MAIN CHARACTER OF SARTRE’S THE FLIES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for 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
YOGYAKARTA
2010
 INFLUENCES OF HEIDEGGER’S ONTOLOGY AND
NIETZSCHE’S OVERMAN IN SARTRE AS SEEN IN THE
MAIN CHARACTER OF SARTRE’S THE FLIES

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for 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
YOGYAKARTA
2010

i
ii
 .

iii
iv
“Kalau semua sekolah tinggi hanya menghasilkan

bangsat-bangsat saja, ya, akan runtuhlah manusia

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 rhetorical
intensification, 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)

“Diniati” (A man in a gas station)

For me, my parents, my aunt, my brothers, and Paryanti.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the following people for helping me to accomplish

this study. My greatest gratitude goes to my family. This includes my aunt who

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.

Guruh Dwi Riyanto

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE..........................................................................................................i

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

B. Review of Related Theories................................................................. 14

vii
 1. Theory of Character and Characterization.........................14

2. Theory of Heidegger’s Ontology.....................................15

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

Conclusion...........................................................................................................127

BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................132

viii
 ABSTRACT

GURUH DWI RIYANTO: Influences of Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s

Overman in Sartre as Seen in the Main Character of Sartre’s The Flies.
Yogyakarta: Department of English Letters, Faculty of Letters, Sanata Dharma
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.

This study proves that Heidegger’s ontology influences Orestes’ point of

view. First, Orestes saw his human being, dasein, as distinctive being and that the
awareness of the radical duality brought man to the state of authenticity. Second,
men were in the condition of being abandoned. Third, men were being who

ix
always projected to the future. Fourth, men were constituted in their being-in-the-
world. Fifth, human’s ontological mood was basically unhappiness which should
be faced to be authentic.

Nietzsche’s overman influences in building Orestes’ characters, actions and his

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.

Orestes, however, departed from Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s

overman. Orestes was anthropocentric encouraging men should be permanently
authentic while Heidegger was Being-centric believing authenticity as a temporal
state. If Orestes considered himself as an equal and his goal was in society,
Nietzsche’s overman established order of rank and the belief that the goal of
society should lie in its crystallization, the birth of overman.

x
 ABSTRAK

GURUH DWI RIYANTO: Influences of Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s

Overman in Sartre as Seen in the Main Character of Sartre’s The Flies.
Yogyakarta: Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Fakultas Sastra, Universitas Sanata Dharma,
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-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 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.

Kajian ini membuktikan adanya pengaruh-pengaruh ontologi Heidegger

pada sudut pandang yang dikenakan Orestes. Pertama, Oreses melihat manuisa,
dasein, sebagai makhluk berbeda dan bahwa kesadaran akan perbedaan radikal

xi
tersebut membawa manusia pada keadaan asli. Kedua, keberadaan manusia adalah
terabaikan. Ketiga, manusia selalu membayangkan dirinya ke masa depan.
Keempat, manusia dibangun dalam berada-dalam-dunia-nya. Kelima, suasana hati
manusia pada dasarnya adalah ketidakbahagiaan yang harus dihadapai agar
seseorang menjadi diri yang asli.

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.

Orestes, bagaimanapun juga, berbeda dari ontologi Heidegger dan

adimanusia Nietzsche. Orestes adalah antroposentris (anthropocentric) yang
percaya bahwa keaslian harus selalu dijaga sedangkan Heidegger Ada-pusat
(Being-centric) yang percaya keaslian hanyalah bersifat sejenak. Jika Orestes
menganggap dirinya setara dan tujuan akhirnya ada pada masyarakat, adimanusia
Nietzsche mengkukuhkan tatanan tingkatan dan kepercayaan bahwa tujuan
masyarakat terletak pada pengkristalanya, kelahiran adimanusia.

xii
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Jean Paul Sartre, a pioneer of existentialism which was very famous after

Word War II, conceptualizes and popularizes existentialist themes through his

philosophical treatises and literary works. However, he gains his popularity, along

with existentialism’s popularity, mostly from his celebrated literary works. He

was granted Nobel Prize for literature in 1964 although he declined for ideological

reason. In his literary work, Sartre succeeded in translating abstract philosophical

elaborations into a concrete manifestation that can be understood by many people.

The Flies, as one of Sartre’s literary works, manifests Sartre’s philosophy

about human ontology, mainly written in Being and Nothingness, and the ethical

dimension of such ontology, which he had never published in the form of a

philosophical treatise till his death. William Barret, in On Contemporary

Literature writes “Of his plays too, it may be said that his two earlier and shorter

ones-The Flies and No Exits- are his best. They are at any rate the things to

recommend to the reader who wishes to get the concrete drift of Sartre’s

philosophy but has no stomach for the elaborate dialectic of Being and

Nothingness.” (Barret, 1983 : 567). If No Exit speaks about intersubjectivity or the

subject relation to others, The Flies speaks about freedom and its place in human

ontology.

1 
  2

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.

Why are Nietzsche and Heidegger chosen? Why are the other

existentialists such as Kierkegaard, Camus, Berdyaev, and Jasper excluded? The

main reason lies in the fact that both Nietzsche and Heidegger play radical and

influential role in the school of existentialism. Kaufmann, Nietzsche’s translator,

 
 
  3

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.

To fulfill his attempt, he chooses the Being of Dasein (human in

Heideggerian term). For him, the Being of Dasein is special among other beings

or entities. He wrote “it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very

Being, that Being is an issue for it”(Heidegger, 1962:32) Dasein is the only entity

that possible to quest Being because of the Being of the Dasein. “Dasein is

ontically distinctive in that it is ontological.” (Heidegger, 1962:32)

 
 
  4

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 declared at the first time in The Gay Science that “God is dead.

God will always stay dead. We have killed him” (Nietzsche, 1995:;30) The phrase

also reoccurs in Zarathustra, his masterpiece, for many times. By the death of

God, human is set free and he becomes the master of himself. The dead God

opens the possibility for man to be overman. Nietzsche has already predicted the

modern age where human no longer have certitude. Therefore, he has already

prepared the idea of overman to replace God.

 
 
  5

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.

Heidegger and Sartre lived in the time which Nietzsche predicted as a

godlessness world. The destroyed modern spirit was marked by the World War I

and World War II. Here, European people experienced great loss in material and

spiritual aspect. Heidegger published his major work, Being and Time, in 1927

after the World War I which broke out from 1914 to 1918. In Being and Time

Heidegger seems to be pessimistic when he said that anxiety was the fundamental

mood of human being. However, Heidegger did not stand for certain ethical

position. He even “denied that the authentic-inauthentic distinction has any ethical

content”(Honderich, 2005:280). Sartre, unlike Heidegger, “explicitly presents

existentialism as an ethical doctrine”(Honderich, 2005:280). Sartre in several

senses adopted Nietzscheian solution for his nihilistic age where people no longer

sure where to go. Orestes in The Flies, is the man who conquered the remorse

spread by the god, which in the play represented by Zeus. The purpose of the

remorse is to control man. Here, we got the same pattern of Nietzsche’s overman

 
 
  6

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?

2. What are influences of Heidegger’s ontology in Orestes?

 
 
  7

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

“Sartre calls it man’s past. Since there is no pre-established pattern for

human nature, each man makes his essence while he lives.”(Sartre, 1976:631)

 
 
  8

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

“determiner of values, he does not need to be approved of, he judges ‘what

harms me is harmful in itself’, he knows himself to be that which in general first

 
 
  9

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

“The process by which an author creates a character”(Roherberger,

1971:20-21)

 
 
 CHAPTER II

THEORITICAL REVIEW

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.
(McCall,1969:17).

10 
  11

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.

Although Electra and Orestes both represent the rebellion of French

people, both diverse in the radicalism, which reflect the source of French

rebellion’s' conflict. The radical in France, as Orestes, did not compromise the

ruler. Yet, the compromised French rebels, as Electra, did not have enough heart

to fight against their oppositions. Electra changed her mind when Zeus persuaded

her to repent, and the French compromised instead of confronting.

 
 
  12

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).

The first Orestes who grounds all his values on Zeus shows attitude of

common people. They, as Orestes does, believe that their life and values are

 
 
  13

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.

In short, the study of Orestes by William shows Sartre's existentialist

philosophy. Sartre argues that human is completely free and that he should justify

his own freedom. Thus, human creates his own meaning and nature by choosing

and creating values as expression of his freedom through doing.

 
 
  14

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.

Roherberger and Samuel Wood in Reading and Writing about Literature

defines characterization as “the process by which an author creates a

character”(Roherberger, 1971:20-21). Barranger writes “in drama characters are

traditionally defined by their physical characteristics, speech, and dress; their

socio economic status; their psychological make up; and their moral or ethical

choices”(Bararanger,1994:339). She offers four ways of how a character is

 
 
  15

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)

Beings or entities are not merely things or concrete perceptual and

material stuff. Heidegger describes that “there are many things that we describe as

beings, and we do so in various senses. Everything we talked about, everything

we have in view, everything toward which we comport ourselves in any way, is

being; what we are is being, and so is how we are.”(Heidegger,1962:26) We are

surrounded by beings, and we are being. Beings can be concrete and abstracts.

Number, tree, gods, air, God, this writing, all are beings. Poetically, Heidegger

describes beings as all that we breath.

 
 
  16

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

Although Being is the asked about, the only way to reach the idea of Being

is through beings. He writes that “in so far as Being constitutes what is asked

about, and “Being” means the Being of entities, then entities themselves turn out

to be what is interrogated.” (Heidegger, 1962:26). Thus, to investigate the Being

 
 
  17

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:

“in term of categories fitting the subject; and when this is

done, the analyst is describing a state of Being of those entities, and
only those, that exist as projections upon their possibly. Given this
technical use of the term, it should now be apparent that only
human beings can be said to exist in this sense”(Kaelin,1987:28)

 
 
  18

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–in-the-

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.

First, In-the-world will be obvious after the worldhood has been explicit.

Worldhood in this sense is a world as not a literal world, earth. Worldhood is

 
 
  19

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 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.

The essence of a man lies in his Being-in-the-world. As man cannot be

separated from his world, to understand man means to understand the Being-in-

the-world. This idea seems to provoke a possession of a world by everyman. It is

 
 
  20

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-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.

Das man in German language means mankind or man as a species. It does

not refer to particular man but man in general. Olson mentions that “what

Heidegger had in mind in choosing this term was the German expression Man

Sagt, which means in English ‘one says’ or ‘they say’”(Olson,1962:136). “They”

is not unity of all individual nor particular man taking rule. “They” is impersonal

and anonymous. Heidegger says “Everyone is other, and no one is

 
 
  21

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).

Dasein may also become inauthentic in activity of concern. This condition

happens when Dasein works and its existence melts with the ready-to-hand. For

example, when hammering, people do not feel separation between himself and

hammer. The hammer is he and he is hammer because of the routine activity. This

happens mostly in factory industry. In short, there is no self-awareness of

existence at all.

 
 
  22

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.

When dasein searches for the source of values, dasein finds itself

abandoned. Abandonment is “a term used by Heidegger...to describe the absence

of any sources of ethical authority external to oneself”(Honderich, 2005:01).

Dasein seeks for ethical justification which may come either from religious belief

or certain concept of the nature of world. Yet, dasein meets nothing because in

fact those cannot justify its decision. This condition of having no external

justification brings man to anxiety.

 
 
  23

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.

Anxiety also raises Dasein into authenticity from falling in the world of

everyman. Anxiety individualizes Dasein. Heidegger takes the case of death as

how anxiety brings Dasein into individual realm, face to face with its Being.

 
 
  24

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.

Heidegger writes that “Dasein’s Being reveals itself as

care”(Heidegger,1964:227). However, Heidegger uses the word care, according to

him, in its ontologico-existential manner. Dasein is an entity for which, in its

Being, that Being is an issue. Heidegger urges that “is an issue’ should be denoted

as Being-ahead of itself. Being-ahead of itself means that Dasein is self-projective

Being towards its very potentiality-for-Being. Through its projection dasein can

be aware of the Being. Dasein is always abandoned from its throwness. Dasein

flees its Being-in-the-world. Yet, it does not mean that Dasein tries to escape its

Being-in-the-world. Rather, Dasein, “in” its Being-in-the-world, projects itself

toward its Being which is there. Dasein’s projection always ahead from its Being-

 
 
  25

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.

The uncanniness from anxiety calls Dasein toward authenticity. Olson

writes about Heidegger and authenticity that Dasein gains authenticity when

“consciousness of through anguish of the radical duality between the human and

non-human and by recognizing the difference between being-in-the-world and

being-in-the-midst-of-the-world”(Olson,1962:137). In recognizing itself, Dasein

realizes and lives its anxiety. Dasein does not try to escape anxiety but accept it.

 
 
  26

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).

When being illuminated with Being, Dasein is claimed by Being. Dasein

accepts that “what throws in projection is not man but Being itself, which

sends man into the ek-sistence of Dasein that is his

 
 
  27

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.

The will to power determines the quality of a body. It also seeks expansion

and development of power through the expansion of body. Through the body, a

 
 
  28

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

Nietzsche divides human morality into two, master and slave morality, not

according to their social position but by their moral quality. The master morality

can be found in low class of society while the slave morality also can be found in

 
 
  29

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).

They valued the world based on good and bad which they created. Good

for the aristocrats mean “noble in hierarchal sense, class

sense,(Nietzsche,1956:162), mighty, highly placed,....high minded

(Nietzsche,1956:160)” , “powerful/beautiful/happy/favored-of-the-gods, and

maintain” (Nietzsche,1956:167), and spiritually distinguished while bad meant

 
 
  30

“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.

The priests’ revolt converted the aristocratic values upside down,

standardized altruism as good, and create the term evil to replace bad. First, The

priests valued their impotence, reactive, passivity, which considered bad for

aristocratic values, as good, and, therefore, “only the poor, the powerless, ..., only

the suffering, sick, and ugly"(Nietzsche,1956:167), “who does not outrage, who

harms nobody, who does not attack, who does not requite, who leaves revenge to

God, who keeps himself hidden as we do, who avoids evil and desires little from,

life, like us, the patient, humble, and just" (Nietzsche,1956:179)” were good. The

priest's goodness for the aristocrat was bad because it did not expand and

exercised their power. Such life was weak and not energetic. The aristocrat's

goodness, which expanded and exercised their power, such as war game,

dangerous life, competition, were considered evil by the priests since such

goodness was harmful for them. Second, as a protection, they gather in a

community and value everything useful and practical for the community as good.

They put the goal of humanity in community not in individuality. Thus, Nietzsche

sometimes also called slave morality as the morality of the mob or the herd,

 
 
  31

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.

The man of resentment, or the slave morality, is symbolized by camel in

Zarathustra's Of the Three Metamorphosis. Camel is animal that “longs for the

heavy, for the heaviest..and wants to be laden”(Nietzsche, 1969:54). For the

 
 
  32

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.

Slave morality takes the people to say “no” to the outside world because

they are dominated by the resentment. Nietzsche writes “slave ethics...begins by

saying no to an ‘outside,’ an ‘other,’ a non-self, and that no is its creative

act”(Nietzsche, 1956:171). Because of their denial toward the world, they live in

the “afterworld,” promise of the Judgment day, austere life, and ascetics that

dwarf their power. In short, the no does not maximize the human potential. They,

in fact, deny the drive of power inside them.

 
 
  33

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.

Nietzsche in Zarathustra employs child as metaphor of the master morality

characterized as “innocence and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a sport, a self-

propelling wheel, a first motion, a sacred Yes”(Nietzsche,1969:55). Innocence

refers to the conscious succeeds to free itself from resentment, hatred, and envy.

Here, forgetfulness denotes the ability to forget which shows the active type. In

active type, the reactive forces and active forces work in their own proper part

where the reactive can be acted by the active. This results in self that can

 
 
  34

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.

The transvaluation that Nietzsche offers means a re-reversal of the priests’

revolt on morals. Nietzsche suggests to reveres the good into “bad” and the evil

into “good.” Otherwise, human will not be able to expand the power and potency

in maximum degree. He urges master morality to gain the triumph against slave

morality.

 
 
  35

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).

Nietzsche, as summarized by Fuad Hassan, argues that overman can only

be achieved by the harmony of these aspects: Power, intelligent, and Nobility.

(Hassan, 1976:37). Overman is a man whose power is over so that he can say the

holy “yes.” His intelligent is a mean to overcome the nature. Kaufmann writes

that “the lack of reason, intelligence, or spirit is a lack of power”(Kaufmann,

1968:231). In relation to church, he condemns church because church was

 
 
  36

“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.

Overcoming oneself means being able to control and to be powerful

toward one self. Nietzsche writes that “he who cannot obey himself will be

commanded” (Nietzsche,1969:137). Kaufmann summarizes Nietzsche's concept

of self-overcoming as “he who has overcome his animal nature, organized the

chaos of his passions, sublimated his impulses, sublimated his impulses, and given

style to his characters”(Kaufmann,1968:316). There was nothing controlling one

life but one’s own. As a result, overman “can perform his unique deed of self-

 
 
  37

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.

As the herd holds tradition and old values, overman does active

destruction to create the new order. Overman “smashes their [the herd] tables of

values, the breaker, the law-breaker-but he is the creator”(Nietzsche,1969:52).

 
 
  38

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).

Nietzsche highly suggests man to actualize his unique individuality.

Overman can overcome obstacles that entangle himself. Kaufmann writes that,

“the reason why most men fail to heed the voice of their true self is twofold.

Nietzsche hesitates to decide which is the most universal human characteristics:

fear or laziness”(Kaufmann, 1968:158). Nietzsche encourages men to be brave to

 
 
  39

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.

Nietzsche justifies eternal recurrence by the ideas that the combinations of

universe are finite in number but the time of the universe is infinite. When all

combinations have occurred, the universe will have no other choices but repeating

 
 
  40

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.

Ethically, eternal recurrence is a kind of test whether one can affirm life or

not (Honderich, 2005:269). When one undergoes a moment, in the middle of and

endless becoming universe, within its joy and pain, the one can be classified as

accepting and affirming life in the time the one is still willing the moment to

reoccur eternally. In The Greatest Weight in The Gay Science Nietzsche tells a

parable about a demon that suddenly just comes and tells the idea of eternal

recurrence. When the idea is considered divine, it means you have been able to

say holy Yes to life. However, one is considered cannot affirm life when one

throws one selves down and gnash one's teeth and curse the demon

 
 
  41

(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.

By his self-integrity and self-creation, overman wants, as a form of

complete acceptance, the eternal recurrence. Related to power, overman has great

power in himself to affirm life and preserve the joyfulness. When the slave

morality who is poor in power looks to heaven for salvation, overman, is like

master, faces the earth. Nietzsche writes that “did you ever say Yes to one joy? O

my friends, then you said Yes to all woe as well. All things are chained and

entwined together”(Nietzsche, 1969:32). Because all things are chained and

entwined together, desiring the joy means wanting the woes. If overman is a being

enjoys his state of joy because of his abundance of energy, then he also wants all

the woes that always accompany the joy because things are connected one to the

others. In addition, wanting to re-experience a joy equals to desiring all to return.

Nietzsche writes “if you wanted one moment twice, if ever you said: 'you please

me, happiness, instant, moment!' then you wanted everything to

return!”(Nietzsche,1969:332). Overman integrates what he wants with everything

entwined under one meaning.

 
 
  42

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.

As overman affirms every moment of time, as a whole instead of in little

chunk, eternal recurrence for him is bearable. In eternal recurrence, the world is

not in progress nor regress. There is no goal and purpose of the universe. It is not

also the world where everything is in process of going somewhere. The world of

eternal recurrence is “finished in every single moment and its end

attained”(Kaufmann,1968:309). By giving one meaning as a “knot”, he unifies all

the moments in joy. Then, he feels every moment as a joy. Instead of considering

salvation in the process, his goal is achieved in every moment because every

moment is eternity occurring in unlimited time. Overman uses supra historical

point of view in time. He “gives meaning to his own life by achieving perfection

and exulting in every moment “(Kaufmann, 1968:324). By his integration,

overman bears the eternal recurrence, even in the “loneliest loneliness”

(Nietzsche, 1974:273).

 
 
  43

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.

Overman, on the contrary, loves war and anti-stagnancy so that he creates

environment to develop power. When society longs for preservation, overman

loves to create. Thus, he always creates new things, and society calls them evil.

Overman also needs war to exercise and expand his power while society wants

peace and comfort. Overman moves individually due to his need to grow.

 
 
  44

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.

Society condemns overman for his individuality which they regards as a

crime. To be solitary disdains themselves and their values. Nietzsche writes, “they

[society] would like to crucify those who devise their own virtue-they hate the

solitary” (Nietzsche, 1969:90). The individuality of overman has questioned and

challenged the mob. Moreover, it threat them so that they condemn the individual.

The preservation and conformity, motivated by revenge, also hide behind

the term equality. He strictly says “one must have no choice: either on the top.-or

under neat”(Nietzsche,1967:404). In other word, naturally men are unequal and

they should not be equal. However, the herd still wants to be in higher position

although they are powerless. The herd “want to do harm to those who now posses

power”(Nietzsche:1969:123). This creates revenge which motivates them to create

the belief of equality so that the weak can rule. Nietzsche symbolizes the preacher

of this belief as poisonous tarantula. He writes “you preachers of equality, thus

from you thru tyrant-madness of impotence cries for 'equality': thus your most

secret tyrant-appetite disguises itself in words of virtue”(Nietzsche,1969:123).

 
 
  45

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.

Although society and overman are in opposition, overman descends to

society because of his abundance of power and his need to self-destruction. It is

important to note that overman needs people in society not because of his lack. He

descends because of his abundance like shown in Zarathustra's saying “Behold, I

am weary of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey, I need

hands outstretched to take it”(Nietzsche, 1969:39). In more poetic language, he

says 'Great star, what would your happiness be, if you had not those for whom

 
 
  46

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.

As society hates overman, overman endangers himself by going down to

society to give his abundance. Nietzsche even uses metaphor poisonous flies that

“weary “and make “bloodily torn in hundred places” (Nietzsche,1969:79). They

also punish “for all your virtues. Fundamentally they forgive you only-your

mistake”(Ibid). The herd sees overman as criminal because he wants to break the

old system, values, and tradition. It illustrates how the herd defense and attack the

overman. However, overman does not feel revenge and he does not blame them

because of their weakness. Because he loves to exercise and develop his power

through war and conflict, he uses the society to “empty his cup” or to spend his

abundance in order to develop his power. After he has been empty again, he will

fill again his cup. Although being used, society indeed also gain advantage from

this process. Zarathustra says that “I should like to give it away and distribute it,

until the wise among man have again become happy in their folly and the poor

happy in their wealth”(Nietzsche, 1969:39). In fact, overman can never fulfill

what society wish but he contributes to society his wisdom and abundance. In the

form of monarchy society, the society also take advantage when the noble rules.

 
 
  47

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.

Second, Heidegger’s ontology will be discussed in building the character of

Orestes. Heidegger’s theory is employed to see his influence on The Flies.

Heidegger’s analysis on Being and entity as well as the mode of Being will be

compared with how Orestes sees the nature of the world where he lives. Then,

Being-in-the-world and Dasein’s Being within its raising into authenticity and

falling into inauthenticity will be seen in Orestes’s way of understanding himself

and his being-with others. This analysis will be highly indebted from the analysis

 
 
  48

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.

Fourth, the writer will analyze the departure of Orestes from Heidegger’s

ontology and Nietzsche’s overman from the point of view of their theories. The

theories of both philosophers which do not exist in Orestes will be compared. We

will see in what aspects Orestes has built his own philosophy.

 
 
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

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 and No Exit are considered to be Sartre’s highest achievement as a

playwright. However, The Flies is unique because Sartre has embodied freedom

and its the ethical consequences. Sartre, in the last part of Being and Nothingness

promised to devote his later work on ethics. Yet, till he passed away he never

completed his promise. In The Flies, Sartre in showing the consequences of

freedom also talks about his values. The Flies says what Being and Nothingness

does not say because Being and Nothingness is an ontological book.

49 
  50

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.

In Act I, the background of the stories, settings, and characters are

introduced. Once, Orestes came to Argos after his tutor revealed him his true

identity as the son of Agamemnon. Afraid that Orestes would claim his throne,

Zeus camouflaged to persuade him to leave Argos. He told the condition of Argos

as a half-dead city where all of its people were repenting in remorse of what they

did toward Agamemnon, the former king. All people of Argos wore black clothes

and they were always in mourning. Flies were everywhere as a symbol of their

guilt. Zeus also told the story of Aegistheus and his throne. Aegistheus, who was

 
 
  51

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.

Sartre divides the act II into two, scene one and two. Scene one told

Electra’s rebellion on the Dead Men’s Day and Orestes’ awareness of freedom.

Orestes who should have served the ceremony since she was the princess, on the

contrary protested the condition of Argos. She was wearing a white to oppose the

remorse of Argos, symbolized by the black clothes they always wear. Yet, Zeus

doomed her attempt. As a result, the people of Argos who had believed her for a

moment turn their attitude against her. Fortunately, Aegistheus could not punish

her at that moment because the custom of Argos forbade punishment in Dead

Men’s Day. Orestes, who wanted to help Electra to escape from Argos, was

 
 
  52

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.

The Flies was originated from Sartre’s re-written of a Greek tragedy titled

The Oresteia which was written by Aeschylus. Sartre changes the tragedy into the

tragedy of freedom. Both versions are almost similar in chronology, but different

in some details, like the ending, and the motivation of the characters. In

Aeschylus, there is no character of Zeus, which was added by Sartre. Aeschylus

 
 
  53

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.

As the major theme discussed in the play are freedom within its

consequences, moral-philosophical approach is considered suitable to analyze The

Flies. Freedom has been a wide and never ending polemic in philosophy. For

example, the polemic of freedom versus determinism has been discussed since old

Greek tradition. In addition, this approach is suitable because of the intention of

this research aims to see the influence of philosophical thoughts of Nietzsche and

Heidegger in The Flies. To study philosophical problems including philosophical

influences, it is necessary to apply moral-philosophical approach. This approach is

 
 
  54

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.

The main source of the study is the text of The Flies itself. For Martin

Heidegger, the primary sources are Heidegger’s Being and Time and Letters on

Humanism. Although many parts of Being and Time discusses the being of dasein

to analyze Being in general, the writer takes Heidegger’s idea about the ontology

of Dasein. These primary sources are supported by secondary sources-which are

more explicit and obvious-from Kaelin’s Heidegger’s Being and Time, and Budi

Hardiman’s Heidegger dan Mistik Keseharian (Heidegger and Daily Mysticism).

 
 
  55

In discussing Nietzsche, what the writer uses for most are Thus Spoke

Zarathustra, Genealogy of Moral, The Will to Power, and Beyond Good and Evil.

Because Nietzsche’s style of writing is sporadic and aphoristic, the writer uses

Nietzsche’s books where he talks about overman and his morality. The secondary

sources are from Sunardi’s Nietzsche and Kaufmann’s Nietzsche: Philosopher,

psychologist, anti-Christ as well as Deleuze’s Nietzsche and Philosophy. For

existentialism in general, the writer uses Oslon’s Existentialism: An introduction.

The study would be conducted under the guidance of problem formulations.

First, character of Orestes would be examined in term of characterization. The

writer would analyze Orestes not only to scrutinize what he did but also his

motive, worldview, and values that lied behind the action. Then, from the result of

the first problem formulation, the attempt to answer the second problem

formulation can begin. The rest of the answer of the problem formulations would

be based on the answer of problem formulation one.

The influences of Heidegger would be seen in Orestes’ characterization

from the way Orestes saw the world and ontology implied from his action. By

seeing Orestes in the eye of Heidegger’s theory, it could be gained what the

influences of Heidegger. This step would be done from the very basic ontology,

which was Being in general. From there, the analysis would continue to more

specific ontological study focused on human being.

Next, Nietzsche’s ideas of overman would be examined in Orestes to see the

influence of Nietzsche. From the answer of first problem formulation, we would

get elaboration of how Orestes reacted and expressed effects of his ontology. It

 
 
  56

could be found what the freedom implied. This also might be found in Orestes’

action and the implications. Then, to inspect Sartre’s departure, both we would

see the differences between Orestes and the theories of Heidegger and Nietzsche.

This would answer the question about the departure of Orestes based on the

answer of the first and second problem formulations.

 
 
 CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS

A. The Characterization of Orestes Character

Orestes, the main character employed by Sartre to be his speaker, uttered

most of Sartre’s philosophy. On the contrary, most of the other characters, to

elucidate Sartre’s opinion, stood on his opposition. Therefore, Orestes played

central role in this play and analyzing this character has been considerably

important and prior.

As stated earlier that characters “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”(Abrams,1981:20), the characterization is discussed into several parts; First, his

past life including his historical and philosophical background before he was

aware of freedom, second, his characterization after he had been aware of

freedom. Third, characterization that the writer found exists from before and after

Orestes was aware of his freedom.

Orestes, at first, introduced himself as Philebus from Corinth. To most of

people he had just met, Orestes introduced the name Philebus, even when he met

Electra. Asked his identity by Electra, he answered “Philebus, I’ve come from

Corinth”(sartre,1989:62). When introducing himself to Zeus, he says “Philebus is

my name, and I hail from Corinth”(Sartre,1989:56). In short, Orestes was known

as Philebus in Argos.

57 
  58

Orestes needed to foreground his name as Philebus for his safety because of

the threat from Aegistheus. Orestes in fact was the son of Agamemnon, king of

Argos who was assassinated by his own brother, Aegistheus, in order to take his

throne. In the assassination, Clytemnestra, the queen of Argos and the wife of

Agamemnon, helped Aegistheus. After that, she married Aegistheus to justify his

thrown. To avoid the revenge of Agamemnon’s two children, Aegistheus ordered

his servant to take the three year Orestes to forest to be killed and he also placed

Electra who had been teenagers as position of servant in the castle. However, the

one who should have killed Orestes felt pity, he finally lied to Aegistheus that he

had already killed the baby. Yet, there was a rumor in Argos that a passing

merchant adopted Orestes when they found him in the forest. Zeus told this story

to Orestes “some say he’s alive. The story went that the man ordered to kill the

child had pity on him and left him in the forest. Some rich Athenians found him

there and took him home”(Sarte,1989:56). Aegistheus had determined to kill

Orestes when Orestes was still three years old. Thus, the name Philebus saved

Orestes from Aegistheus’ desire to kill Orestes.

Orestes was characterized differently before and after his awareness of

freedom. If Orestes refused to be bonded in his first phase, later he willed to be

bonded, in this case with Argos. When he had been submissive before, Orestes

later was characterized as a rebellious man. Orestes felt ambivalence before

deciding his own path. Yet, he is characterized as a creative man, who created his

own path and he walked through it certainly. Moreover, he is characterized as a

 
 
  59

responsible, dangerous, liberating, and outcasted man after his awareness of

freedom.

1. Orestes’ Characterization before His Awareness of Freedom

a. Bondless

The philosophical background of the tutor influenced Orestes so much

before Orestes had been aware of his freedom. The tutor was skeptical and nihilist

philosopher. He was not only skeptical toward truth but also refused to bond

himself with certain truth. The tutor said to Orestes, “Have all my lessons, all my

percepts, the smiling skepticism I taught you”(Sartre,1989:57). The refusal

appeared in his attitude toward commitment. Although he encouraged Orestes to

know and understand the infinite diversity of men’s opinion and variety of human

creeds and customs, the tutor did not teach Orestes to bond himself on certain

position. To bond one’s life means to believe that a certain way of life was more

valuable than the others. In other word, the tutor denied that any of them was right

by refusing to be committed.

“So, along with youth, good looks, and wealth, you have the
wisdom of far riper year; your mind is free from prejudice and
superstition; you have no family ties, no religion, and no calling; you
are free to turn your hand on everything. But you know better than to
commit yourself-and there lies your strength”
(Sartre,1989:59)

Orestes’ strength, according to the tutor, was in his condition of not being

bonded to any commitment. In this philosophical position, Orestes was considered

to be free from being involved in any society, calling, commitment, and family,

which the Tutor accused as bonds. By not being bonded, Orestes did not

 
 
  60

encourage himself to cling to certain truth. Furthermore, the condition of not

being bonded even strengthened its beholder.

Although Orestes’ determination to come to Argos, the town of his birth,

worried the tutor so much, Orestes in fact was still under the influence of his

tutor’s philosophy. He said to Orestes “During these last months-to be exact, ever

since I revealed to you the secret of your birth-I could see you changing day by

day, and it gave me many sleepless nights. I was afraid” (Sartre,1989:60). The

impolite greeting of Argos justified Orestes’ attitude not to be bonded. He said

“well, my worthy pedagogue, let’s be off. We’ve no business to be luxuriating in

others’ heat”(Sartre,1989:60). Although the influence of tutor had started to be

eroded, Orestes was still dominated by the philosophy of the tutor. Thus, his

philosophical position, which was identical with his tutor, could be characterized

from his tutor’s position. As a result, he had decided that Argos was not his world

to live. He still felt Argos belonged to others. Moreover, he refused to bond his

life with certain values, or path in Orestes’s language, and position with Argos.

b. Submissive

Orestes was characterized as submissive since he avoided risking his life in

conflict and he submitted his position toward the tutor’s opinion and decision. His

tutor persuaded Orestes to leave Argos and avoided to be involved in the cursed

city. Orestes submitted himself to the tutor’s will. Orestes, therefore, felt that he

wanted to leave Argos because of the tutor’s consideration. He said

 
 
  61

Orestes:….now I am going to say something that will rejoice you.

This is not my palace, nor my door. And there is nothing to detain
us here.
The Tutor: Ah, that’s talking sense. For what would you have
gained by living in Argos? By now your spirit would be
broken, you’d be wallowing in repentance.

When Orestes in this position, he measured and understood his life with his tutor’s

belief. It was important to note that his decision to go through Argos was to

rejoice the tutor. In other word, he did what the tutor considered right.

c. Ambivalent

Orestes indeed had ambiguous position in deciding his path. Orestes’

decision to come to the town showed a doubting attitude toward the tutor’s

teaching about the bound of life, such as family, religion, and historicity. He, as

the tutor said, had gradually changed. Following his tutor path, Orestes disagreed

with such bond. Yet, from what he said to the tutor about Argos, “I was born

here” (Sartre,1989:50) and about the palace, “This is my palace. My father’s

birthplace. And it’s there a whore and her paramour foully butchered him. I too

was born there”(Sartre,1989:58). He had emotional connection that he belonged to

Argos.

Orestes’ attitude toward people of Argos also shows his ambivalence. In one

hand, he did not grow up nor understand Argos, “I do not witness, bear, I don’t

even know any of their name.” His tutor also had imposed himself no to be

bonded on everything by his teaching. Nevertheless, he was the son of the former

king. Argos had been a part of his history. His past life was frozen in Argos. Thus,

it was possible for Orestes to take place in Argos for he had reasons for that

 
 
  62

decision. Argos was his origin where he was born. He was also tied emotionally

because his sister and his mother still lived in Argos.

In his ambivalence, however, Orestes finally decided to leave Argos and

submit to the will of his tutor. It is important to note that he finally stayed in

Argos was because he accidentally met Electra. He had planned to depart from

Argos before the meeting.

In short, Philebus alias Orestes, who had been adopted by reach Athenians

and taught philosophy, was still dominated by his nihilist and cynical tutor. Yet,

there was ambiguity in himself on his attitude toward the tutor’s teaching and

Argos.

2. Orestes’ Characterization after His Awareness of Freedom

a. Brave

For many times in the play, Orestes faced possibilities which gave him a

fatal risk. When faced with dangerous possibilities, Orestes showed that he was a

brave man through taking the dangerous possibility, which in several occasions

risked his life.

First, he took a risk when refusing his tutor’s philosophy. He declared to his

tutor, “A truce to your philosophy! It’s done me too much harm

already.”(Sartre,1989:58). Since that, Orestes did not have any source to direct his

values, truths, and life but himself. He started to build his own philosophy. By

leaving his previous teaching, he bravely went out of his safety and started to

wander his mind.

 
 
  63

Second, Orestes dared to infiltrate to the palace to murder Aegistheus and

Clytemnestra. At that time, the guards were still patrolling around to keep the

palace. He and Electra entered and murdered Aegistheus and Clytemnestra. When

he said that he was going to murder Aegistheus and Clytemnestra, Electra had

already warned him because he, for Electra, was “too young, too

weak”(Sartre,1989:92). However, he proved that he was not weak by the murder.

He risked his life by committing the murder.

Third, he faced Argos people who wanted to kill him after he went out from

his hiding place. Knowing the murder, the people were very angry. The people

determined to kill him. The tutor expressed what he had just watched to Orestes as

follow: “I can’t say which are the fiercer, the thirstier of your blood”, “they are

waiting behind it, and they’re armed,” and “they will stone

you.”(Sartre,1989:190). Soon after the Argieves had seen Orestes, they yelled and

cursed him. An Argive shouted to Orestes “I’ll tear your

gizzard”(Sartre,1989:199) while another man cursed Orestes by yelling “I’ll pluck

out your eyes”(Sartre,1989:199). In spite of all the dangerous, he firmly and

bravely insisted the tutor to open the door o face the mad people.

Fourth, he faced Zeus and refuted Zeus’ Truth in the last scene. Zeus, as the

highest god, was feared by all people and gods. He was the king of universe

although he could not reign over people realizing their free will. As a result of

Orestes’ disobidience, he had to face Zeus’s anger. In anger Zeus proclaimed

“men like you I hold in abhorrence”(Sartre,1989:199). Instead of fearing, Orestes

 
 
  64

challenged Zeus by answering, “those words were confession of your

weakness”(Sartre,1989:119).

In short, his action in facing dangerous characterized himself as a brave

man. He had been brave to build his own philosophy. After that, he acted in

accord with his as shown in his murder. Then, he faced fearlessly the anger of

Argos’ people. Finally, he also faced Zeus, the God of gods. Therefore, he was a

brave man.

b. Free

Orestes is characterized as the only one who can stand to be free. Unlike

Electra who covered her life again in the veil of Zeus, Orestes, since his

awareness of his freedom, consistently believed that he was free. Being free plays

central role in Orestes’ characterization. His awareness of freedom had changed

the rest of his life. Because for Orestes human was free, he was the only one chose

for himself.

Orestes even went further by saying that freedom was his fundamental

characteristic. When Zeus insisted he consider himself as not being free because

freedom had enslaved him, Orestes answered “neither slave nor master. I am my

freedom”(Sartre,1989:117). Orestes stood for total freedom. For Orestes, he

refused to regard freedom as separated from human being. As a result, Orestes’

freedom did not enslave, since it was not his master nor God, nor became his tool

since freedom was no subordinate to human.

 
 
  65

If this basic reality could not be avoided, why were not all people aware of

their freedom but Orestes? The gods and the king had already recognized it but

they had designed a system that mask people’s power, which was their freedom

from them. In a word, the ruler had imposed their illusion on the people so that

they did not believe that they were free. By covering their freedom, the ruler

saved and preserved their power.

Zeus : The bane of gods and kings. The bitterness of knowing

men are free. Yes, Aegistheus, they are free. But your
subjects do not know it, and you do
Aegistheus : Why, yes. If they knew it, they’d send my palace up in
flames. For fifteen years I’ve been playing a part to mask
their power about them.
(Sartre,1989:100)

Had the people of Argos known they were free, they would have overthrown

Aegistheus.

Orestes’ awareness of freedom originated from his abandonment. He later

explained to Zeus how he could feel another path. His freedom was motivated by

Zeus’ forlornness. He said, “you forsook me”(Sartre,1989:118). Although not

everybody was aware of freedom, Zeus had already created men in free condition.

Orestes:.. you blundered; you should not have made me free.

Zeus: I gave you freedom so that you might serve me.
Orestes: Perhaps. But now it has turned against its giver. And
neither you nor I can undo what has been done
(Sartre, 1989:118)

He declared “Freedom has crashed down on me like a

thunderbolt”(Sartre,1969:105). Since human was free, Orestes argued that his

existence had different character from other beings. When other beings were not

free, human being was free. Consequently, men ruled their own selves. Orestes

 
 
  66

stated “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,1989:117). In the story, it was told that

Zeus could control everything but man. His powerlessness came from the

existence of man’s free will. Hence, free will was distinctive character of human

being. Only Men could reign over themselves.

Because man was free, Orestes acted to take no one’s order. When Zeus

persuade him to take the order of Zeus, he replied “from now on I’ll take no one’s

orders, neither man’s nor god’s”(sartre,1989:90). This quotation shows Orestes

had acted in accord to freedom. He accepted his condition to be free.

In Orestes’ own word, he elucidated his condition of freedom to Zeus as,

“Foreign to myself-I know it. Outside nature, against Nature, without excuse,

beyond remedy, except what remedy I find within myself. But I shall not return

under your law, I am doomed to have no other law but mine”(Sartre,1989:119).

When Orestes explained his existence as “without excuse,” he meant that he

solely caused his decision. Therefore, only he could reedem himself when he

considered himself sinful.

c. Responsible

Because Orestes accepted his very condition of freedom, Orestes was

responsible for his decision to himself. In other word, he had no excuse in saying

that others caused himself. For instance, they who accepted Zeus’ law considered

that they were responsible toward Zeus. The word responsible here does not mean

responsible in the sense of “having to look after of sth/sb or do sth as a

 
 
  67

duty”(Oxford: 2004:366) but as “being the cause of sth”(ibid). Being and

Nothingness defines responsibility as, “conscious (of) being the incontestable

author of an event or an object”(Sartre,1969:634). Because he was the only cause

of himself, he should bear all the consequences rising from his decision. He

acknowledged that he had been the cause of the world he chose since in freedom

men always choose without compulsion.

As a result, Orestes denied excuse. Excuse would escape his responsibility

by believing that his action was not cause by his freedom. In other word, one

denied what one had chosen. This characterization occurred in his dialogue with

Electra:

Orestes:...We planned this crime together and we should bear its brunt
together.
Electra: You dare to say I planned it with you?
Orestes: Can you deny it?
Electra: Of course I deny it. ..I dreamt the crime, but you carried it our, you
murdered your own mother.

Unlike Electra, Orestes refused the attitude of getting rid of responsibility. For

Orestes, he must accept consequences of his action because of being the cause of

the action. In remorse, one avoided the fact that one wanted to act in the way one

did. Since nothing and no one could cause what one did, one must carry all the

responsibility of one’s action.

When he had taken Zeus’ law, he had an excuse that he was doing Zeus’

Good instead of Orestes’ own goodness. However, Orestes had got no excuse

since he willed his action freely. He told his past to Zeus that “yesterday, indeed, I

had an excuse. You were my excuse for being alive, for you had put me in the

world to fulfill your purpose, and the world was an old pander prating to me about

 
 
  68

your goodness, day in, day out”(Sartre,1989:118). By excusing himself, man

denied that his nature that he could not have another source of values but himself.

All they acted in facet was based on their own freedom to choose with has no

justification but themselves. Since he caused all about himself, he could not

excuse himself anymore. All he chose were his own will.

Zeus: Ah, at last! So this is your excuse?

Orestes: I am not excusing my self.
(Sartre,1989:117)

Orestes also did not regret his past action. First, he believed what he had

done was his right thing. Because of that, he said to Zeus, “I am no criminal, and

you have no power to make me atone for an act I don’t regard as a

crime”(Sartre,1989:113). Although Zeus insisted him to atone for what Orestes

had done, which meant taking Zeus’ standard to measure Orestes’ action, Orestes

firmly resisted and, therefore, he “regret nothing”(Sartre,1989:113). He kept his

own values and path. He even said to Zeus that “your whole universe is not

enough to prove me wrong”(Sartre,1989:117). He had already stated it to

Aegistheus before he murdered Aegistheus,

Orestes: Remorse? Why should I feel remorse? I am only doing what is

right.
Aegistheus: What is right is the will of God. You were hidden here and
you heard the words of Zeus.
Orestes: What do I care about Zeus? Justice is a matter between men, and I
need no god to teach me. It is right to stamp you out, like the foul brute
you are, and to free the people of Argos from your evil influence. It is
right to restore to them their sense of human dignity
(Sartre,1989:103)

In the eye of Orestes, he did his good although they called his action as evil.

Second, Orestes proposed to accept past. Past was something that could not be

 
 
  69

changed. It was also not an accident because one willed it. In short, Orestes

condition was “free, beyond anguish, beyond remorse. Free. And at one with my

self”(Sartre,1989:111)

d. Creative

Orestes was characterized as a creative person because he could create his

own path. Literally, he could create his own values. Freedom results an inevitable

act of self-creating. In freedom men create their own values and nature by action.

The shift happened soon after he realized that he was free. Orestes, who was

not quite aware of his freedom and he still belonged to Zeus, begged Zeus’ for

direction and values. He searched for the Good or Right Thing according to Zeus’

will. He believed it was the Good, written in capital to signify the objective and

the truly Good. He beseeched Zeus :

“If I only knew which part to take! O Zeus, our Lord and King
of Heaven, not often have I called on you for help,...,yet this you
know: that I have always tried to act aright. But now I am weary
and my mind is dark..I need a guide to point my way. Tell me,
Zeus, is it truly your will that a king’s son, hounded from this city,
should meekly school himself to banishment and slink away his
ancestral home like a whipped cur?....make plain your will by some
sign; for no longer I can see my path”(Sartre,1989:89)

The quotation depicts Orestes’ desire for a sign leading him to the right

thing to do. He had not been able to create his values and begged Zeus for

guidance.

McCall relates this scene with Orestes’ alias, Philebus. McCall argues that

Sartre alludes Philebus from Plato’s dialogue has its own significance. He writes

that in “the Platonic dialogue, Philebus, Socrates leads his questioner to the

 
 
  70

revelation of the highest Good. The dialogue ends with Socrates' libations to the

savior Zeus” (McCall,1969:09). Therefore, what Gilbert translates as Right Thing

is translated into the Good by McCall. He translates, “So that is the Good. Be

submissive, very still” (McCall,1969:09). The Good is written in capital for the

initial represents the objective and only good. Philebus still searched for Zeus’

law which signified that he did not realize his very condition of freedom in which

man should choose and create values. He believed there was the Good or the

Right Thing. Yet, there was no objective ethical goodness which was there.

Suddenly, Zeus lighted his thunderbolt to give sign for Orestes to leave. The

thunderbolt hit and thorn a big stone into pieces. This signed what the Right Thing

or The Good was. Thus, Orestes interpreted “that is the Right Thing. To live at

peace-always at perfect peace. I see. Always to say ‘Excuse me,’ and ‘thank you.’

That’s what’s wanted, eh? [He stares at the stone in silence for a moment.] The

Right Thing. Their Right thing ”(Sartre,1989:90).

Soon after realizing Zeus’ sign, Orestes had declined the will of Zeus, he

had decided that there was another way that he could chose. He knew that the

Right Thing was not absolute. It was only their Right Thing. Unpredictably,

Orestes changed his mind, he was aware of his freedom. He later declared

“Freedom has crashed down on me like a thunderbolt”(Sartre,1969:105). Before

realizing that human was free, he had already desired to free Argos, but he merely

called as idle dream.

Orestes [thoughtful]:...But, mind you, if there were something I could do,

something to give me the freedom of this city; if, even by a crime,
…even if I had to kill my own mother-‘
The tutor: Hush! For heaven’s sake, hush!

 
 
  71

Orestes: Yes, these are idle dreams. Let’s be off..

(Sartre,1989:61)

Soon after Orestes realized that human was free, he saw that there “was nothing

left in heaven, no right or wrong, nor anyone to give me

orders.”(Sartre,1989:118). In freedom, man had to choose his own path.

Therefore, he planned to do what he believed had been forbidden and merely idle

dreams. In other word, he walked his own path. He said “there is another

path”(Sartre, 1989:90)

Since men were free, they created their own way of life and values which

inevitably brought them to be individual. Those were no longer based on objective

Good. In this nihilistic world without right or wrong, Orestes encouraged men to

create their own way. Orestes argued to Zeus, “for I, Zeus, am a man, and

everyman must find out his own way”(Sartre,1989:119). The reason of that

condition is that “nature has abhors man, and you too, god of gods, abhor

mankind”(Sartre,1989:119). Because of the abhorrence, man has been abandoned

from nature and god. As a result, that man for Orestes must find our and choose

his own way signed acceptance of freedom. Here, Orestes emphasized that to be a

man equal to be individual by finding out one’s own way of life.

Yet, this act of creation caused uncertain resulted. Orestes spoke, “Today I

have one path only, and heaven knows where it leads. But it is my path”

(Sartre,1989:105). In choosing, Orestes accepted the uncertain result of his

action. Yet, he was sure because he chose it by his free will.

Thus, they created their own future. By choosing, man invents their future

self. Basically it has been the nature of man to create. Yet, not everyone admits

 
 
  72

the freedom. Because Orestes embraced his freedom, Orestes affirmed his

condition and he consciously created his own future self. Orestes expressed his

plan to Electra:

Electra: Where?
Orestes: I don’t know. Toward ourselves. Beyond the rivers and mountains
are an Orestes and an Electra waiting for us, and we must make our
patient way toward them.
(Sartre,1989:121)

In other word, people created their future by their action. Orestes persuaded

Electra to meet their own self in the future. Here, they should have had an image

of what they were going to be in the future and they tried to bring the image into

reality. They created their image in the future by their action.

e. Rebellious

Orestes rebelled against the mask that gods and king had made human

being to wear. In this mask, people disbelieved that they were free. Therefore,

people hold on Zeus’ law. As a result, people fell into their guilt. People hold that

they must have the remorse and responsibility to Zeus. This idea that was used by

Zeus to control people assumed that men were not free. The values they clang to

were not resulted from their own self. They took what was good and bad

according to the custom and religion. They bent under the law of Zeus. For them,

it was the truth. Thus, they should suffer from remorse of disobeying the law of

Zeus at the moment of Agamemnon’s death.

The belief that men were not free, which Orestes fought agaisnt, indeed

was designed by the plan of Zeus. Although Agamemnon was murdered by

 
 
  73

Aegistheus, Zeus utilized the murder to blame Argieves and made them lived

constantly under their remorse. In fact, the murder itself was directed by Zeus.

According to Zeus, Argieve people disliked Agamemnon’s decision to ban

execution before the public. Hence, they went to other city to watch public

excecution which gave them amusement. They, although only by heart, wanted

Agamemnon’s to die so that they could watch public excecution without going to

another place. When Aegistheus murdered Agamemnon, Agamemnon was

screaming so loud that all people in Argos could hear that. Though Agamemnon

was their king, they experienced happiness for the murder. In explaining this,

Zeus questioned an old woman :

Zeus: ...You’re in mourning for your murdered King.

Old Woman: Whisht! For God’s sake, don’t talk about that.
Zeus: Yes, you are quite old enough to have heard those huge cries
that echoed and re-echoed for a whole morning in the city streets.
What did you do about it?
Old woman:....I bolted my door.
Zeus: Yes, but you left your window not quite closed, so as to hear
the better, and, while you peeped behind the curtains and
held your breath...didn’t you enjoy it?
....
Old Woman: Oh, sir, I do repent, most heartily I repent. If you only
knew how I repent, and my daughter too, and my son-in-law
offers up a heavier every year, and my little grandson has
been brought up in a spirit of repentance. He’s a pretty
lad,..,and he always behaves as good as gold. Though he’s
only a seven, he never plays or laughs, for thinking of his
original sin.
Zeus: Good, ..., that’s as it should be-and be sure you die in a nice
bitchy odor of repentance. It’s your one hope of salvation....

Since then, Zeus sent the flies to Argos. He made Argieve live in repent

and became his good folk to teach other cities and towns to obey his command.

Zeus explained to Orestes that the flies were symbol of remorse. They buzzed to

 
 
  74

remind Argives of their sin and called them to repent. Zeus used this condition to

point a moral lesson. He taught people to obey his rule through his manipulation

in Argos. This also signed the throne of Zeus’ power to people of Argos.

Zeus also spoke a lie that their salvation would be gained only through

obeying the law of Zeus. Every Argos people must repent and think in the same

way; that they were sinner. Otherwise, they would be cursed and evil. All people

based their good on the goodness of Zeus. They repented toward Zeus and bowed

themselves before the order of Zeus.

Under such situation, Argieve people plunged down into a deep remorse.

Even their child had to suffer and felt the remorse. All their memories were

detained in the object of their remorse. None of them could see their future

without the burden of their past, along with their remorse. All were trapped and

they could not escape. This was the condition of dead city.

Aegistheus by the order of Zeus arranged a Dead Men’s Day to weight

more the remorse of Argieve. In this ceremony, the high priest of Argos read the

pray and opened the big stone that close a deep hole, which according to people

ended in Hell. Then, all the dead man would go out for a day and they would live

besides the living. Nonetheless, the living Argieve could not perceive the death.

On the contrary, the dead could experience them. Therefore, the living were

haunted by the death in that day. This intensified their remorse more and more

because they should repair their past actions toward the death. In short, Argieve

people were imposed by Aegistheus to live under the Good of Zeus and did not

recognize that they were free.

 
 
  75

Orestes fought to replace an old system which was built deliberately even

by a crime. He wanted to free Argos from the tyranny of Zeus. He said to the

Tutor, “[thoughtful]:...But, mind you, if there were something I could do,

something to give me the freedom of this city; if, even by a crime, …even if I had

to kill my own mother-‘”(Sartre,1989:61). Orestes murdered Aegistheus and

Clytemnestra because they represented Zeus and his law. Thus, by his murder

Argos might be free.

Moreover, he offered them his philosophy of freedom to liberate the

remorse of the city. This philosophy was his tool to rebel against the old system.

He encouraged people of Argos to create their own way, and, they, therefore, will

be freed from the tyrant of Zeus. Zeus would no longer have power upon them

because they did not surrender their life to Zeus.

f. Bonded

Orestes finally committed to be bonded with Argos. As stated earlier that

Orestes experienced ambivalence, Orestes’ ambivalence sharpened after Electra’s

failure in Dead’s Men Day. On one hand, Electra insisted Orestes to go and

continue his journey. Although Orestes had already opened his true identity, deep

in her heart Electra still did not believe Philebus was Orestes, the savior she had

been hoping for years. She said to Orestes, “no Philebus, I could never lay such a

load upon a heart like yours”(Sartre,1989:87). She also asserted him to go to other

city where “some pretty girls waiting for”(Sartre,1989:88). In high emotion she

again insisted him to go, “please, please Philebus, go away”(Sartre,1989:88). On

 
 
  76

the other hand, Orestes knew himself that he had been weary to leave Argos. His

desire to be bonded to Argos had strengthened. Although Electra requested

Orestes to go, Orestes insisted to stay in Argos to accomplish his mission. He

clarified to Electra that he needed to surrender his life. Otherwise, his life would

be for nothing. He wanted to love Argos since love for Orestes was a form of self-

surrender, as hatred was. (Sartre,1989:88). Orestes explains analogically, “

“I want to be a man who belongs to some place, a man among

comrades. Only consider. Even the slave bent beneath his load,
dropping his fatigue and staring dully at the ground a foot in front of
him-why, even that poor slave can say he’s in his town, as a tree in a
forest, or a leaf upon the three. Argos is all around him, warm,
compact, and comforting. Yes, Electra, I’d gladly be that slave and
enjoy that feeling of drawing the city round me like a blanket and
curling myself upon it. No, I shall not go”(Sartre,1989:89)

When facing such important decision, Orestes asked sign from Zeus. He was

surrounded by anxiety of choosing. He searched whether it was right or not to be

engaged with Argos.

As stated earlier that Orestes’ position toward Argos was ambivalent, his

murder had proved his commitment to be bonded in Argos. He finally had bonded

himself to take part in the history of Argos. He said, “mind you, if there were

something I could do, something to give me the freedom of the city, even by a

crime, I could acquire their memories, their hopes and fears, and fill with these the

void within me, yes, even if I had to kill my own mother-“(Sartre,1989:61).

Orestes bound himself through his act of liberation by murdering the king and the

queen.

He has bonded himself to fill his life. When he had just realized his

freedom, Orestes expressed his condition as emptiness. He said to Electra,

 
 
  77

“something has just died. What emptiness! What endless emptiness, as far eye can

reach”(Sartre,1989:90). He felt as if his life was empty without meaning and

direction. However, soon Orestes realized that he alone could create his own

meaning of life by action which expressed his bond. He stated “I must go down-

do you understand?-I must go down into the depths, among you. For you are

living, all of you, at the bottom of a pit. [He goes up to Electra.] Your are my

sisters, Electra, and that city is my city. My sister [He takes his

arm]”(Sartre,1989:90). Through this decision, Orestes put weight on his own

shoulder. He had determined his life. In his own word, Orestes by engaging

himself to Argos had filled his void. In the other part he re-stated it again by

saying that “we were too light, Electra; now our feet sink into the soil, like carriot-

wheels in turf. So come with me; we will tread heavily on our way, bowed

beneath our precious load. You shall give me your hand and we shall go-

”(Sartre,1989:121). This weight directed Orestes to be what he wanted. By giving

weight Orestes also bund himself to give his life a meaning. In this case, he had

chosen to be an Argieve.

After the murder, Orestes had seen people of Argos as a part of his life.

They were no longer inseparable from him. Thus, the reason to save Argos in fact

was because he wanted to be one with people of Argos. Soon after the murder, he

said to the people, “now I am one of your kind, my subjects; there is a bound of

blood between us”(Sartre,1989:123). When Orestes said to Argos people that he

murdered the king and the queen for their sake, he also meant that it was for also

his shake since they have been bound.

 
 
  78

Although Argos people refused him, he did all his action of murder for

them. Orestes wanted to make something new in Argos, a new order and

condition that freed people. In his last speech before leaving Argos, he uttered his

motivation,” my people I love you, and it was for your sake that I killed. For your

sake” (Sartre,1989:123). The people of Argos was an end instead of a mean for

Orestes. Orestes called the people of Argos in the possessive diction. He called

them, “my true and loyal subjects?”(Sartre,1989:112) Many times he called them,

“my people”(Sartre,1989)

g. Dangerous

Because of the freedom, Orestes appeared as dangerous for Zeus and

Aegistheus. Before Orestes murdered Aegistheus, Zeus reminded Aegistheus to

command soldiers to kill Orestes. He had been dangerous because according to

Aegistheus, “free man in a city acts like a plague-spot. He will infect my whole

kingdom and brings my work to nothing....why not fell him with a

thunderbolt?”(Sartre,1989:109). Yet, Zeus could not do anything since “once

freedom lights in a man’s heart, the gods are powerless against

him”(Sartre,1989:109).

Zeus and Aegistheus were alike; they wanted to keep order. Here, they

shared a common as Zeus explained to Aegistheus, “I made you in my image.

Each keeps order; you in Argos, I in heaven and on earth”(Sartre,1989:100) and

“we have the same passion. You, Aegistheus, have like me, a passion for

order”(Sartre,1989:101). Orestes and Electra threatened their order, and, thus, he

 
 
  79

should be killed. If Orestes and Electra succeed in killing Clytemnestra and

Aegistheus, the ruler of Argos, the old order would dismiss.

As Zeus could not use his power against them who did not take his rule, he

had no other way to take Orestes back to his law but through assuring Orestes. In

freedom, man could only be ruled if he let himself to be so. Zeus needed Orestes’

consent to take his law so that he would fall into remorse about his crime, the

murder. According to the Good, Orestes and Electra had done evil for disobeying

Zeus. Unfortunately, Orestes’ freedom freed him from Zeus’ power. Therefore.

Orestes appeared to be dangerous for them.

h. Outcasted

Orestes was characterized as an outcast because he had believed in

freedom. When most of people bowed under the same law, which was Zeus,

Orestes alone stood on his own feet. Zeus persuaded him:

“Remember Orestes, you were, you once were of my flock, you fed in
my pastures among my sheep. You vaunted freedom isolates you from
the fold; it means exile..think of your loneliness; even your sister is
forsaking you.”(Sartre,1989:118-119).

For Zeus, who stood for his morality, to be alone represented a great misery.
Zeus described the misery in Orestes as follow: “Your eyes are big with
anguish, your face is pale and drawn. The disease you’re suffering from is
inhuman, foreign to my nature, foreign to yourself. Come back. I am
forgetfulness, I am peace”(Sartre,1989:118-119)

Here, Zeus reminded that Orestes had been isolated and abhorred because of

his rebel. Orestes would be different from his folk and thus he would be an exile.

However, Orestes in Zeus’ word “take pride in being an outcast”

(Sartre,1989:116). Orestes bravely walked alone in his path. Although people did

 
 
  80

not join him, he would still cling to his own values. For Orestes, man could not

have another way but to be his own source of value. He believed it as the real

condition of man. He explained to Zeus that, “I am doomed to have no other law

but mine”(Sartre,1989:119).

Although he had denied Zeus as his source of value, he did not hate Zeus.

Orestes said “As for me, I did not hate you”(Sartre,1989:119). For him, men were

alike with gods. They had their own remorse. He proposed their relationship to be

like two boats moving separately.

i. Liberating

Orestes could be characterized as a liberating character from his liberation

to Argos people. Orestes carried the remorse of Argieve people. He murdered the

king and the queen, as representative of Zeus’ morality, to free people of Argos.

Next, he proposed a new way for them. Through his action, Orestes strived to

save Argos from the flies. In act I, the tutor had already reminded Orestes to get

rid of Argos before he was contaminated. However, Orestes decided to

contaminate himself so that the people of Argos might be clean and they could

start a new life.

He wanted to liberate Argos through two ways. First, by relieving the sin of

people of Argos, he carried the burden of their guilt. He told Electra,

“supposing I take over all their crimes. Supposing I set out to win
the name of “guilt stealer,” and heap on myself all their remorse; that
of the woman unfaithful to her husband, of the tradesman who let his
mother die, of the usurer who bled his victims white? Surely once I
am plagued with all those pangs of conscience, innumerable as the

 
 
  81

flies of Argos, surely than I shall earned the freedom of your city.
“(Sartre,1989:91-92)

In his last speech before leaving Argos, Orestes also said that he had

accomplished his mission. Thus, the people of Argos might start a new life. The

symbol of the remorse, the flies, “have left you [Argieve people] and came to me

[Orestes].”(Sartre,1989:123). The movement of the flies marked that Orestes had

succeeded in liberating people of Argos. In short, as Orestes explicitly said to

people of Argos, “your sins and your remorse, your night-fears, and the crime

Aegistheus committed-all are mine, I take them all upon me”(Sartre,1989:123)

Although the remorse and the sin of Argos put burden on Orestes, Orestes

had determined to carry them because he needed them. Orestes said before

committing the murder, “the heavier it is to carry, the better pleased I shall be; for

that burden is my freedom”(Sartre,1989:105). The freedom had brought Orestes to

live the weight differently. Before he was aware of the freedom, Orestes had

complained about the burden “the palaces, statues, pillars-stones, stones, stones!

Why with all those stones in my head? Am I not heavier?(Sartre,1989:58)” Now,

Orestes sought the burden to weight his life which was too light so that he could

touch the ground. While he relieved Argos by carrying their weight, he also used

the weight. He expressed “I am still too-too light. I must take a burden on my

shoulder, ....so heavy as to drag me down, right down into the abyss of

Argos”(Sartre,1989:91).

His way of “stealing guilt” was through murdering the king and the queen.

There is a significant clue to understand Orestes’ action of murdering his mother

 
 
  82

and Aegistheus in the beginning of the play. This clue also relates to his final

attitude toward Argos. He wandered to his tutor, “mind you, if there were

something I could do, something to give me the freedom of the city, even by a

crime, ...even if I had to kill my own mother-“(Sartre,1989:61). In this part,

Orestes had planned his will although his tutor soon reacted “hush! For heaven’s

sake, hush!”(Sartre,1989.61) This wish indeed was Orestes’ personal wish.

Although Orestes wanted to free Argos people, they at first reacted in

resistance. After living for so long under the veil of Zeus that covered freedom,

people of Argos were afraid to face their freedom and its responsibility. However,

at last people accepted Orestes’ idea.

Zeus questioned Orestes’ objective of his liberation of Argos. He asked to

Orestes, “What do you propose to do?”(Sartre, 1989:119) Orestes answered,” the

folk of Argos are my folk. I must open their eyes. (Sartre, 1989:119). As stated

earlier, Zeus put the veil to cover people of Argos from their freedom. Orestes

wanted to open the veil and brought people of Argos to awareness of their

freedom. After that, he would let the people of Argos to choose their own path.

Orestes believed that men should choose their own path.

Zeus : What will they make of it?

Orestes: What they choose. They’re free;
(Sartre,1989:102)

After they eyes were opened from the veil of Zeus, Orestes raised their spirit to

create. The salvation of Orestes lied on “what they choose.” In choosing they

 
 
  83

created their path, and, thus, they were free from the Good. As a result, there

should be no more remorse in them.

Second, Orestes liberated Argos by motivating the people of Argos to

accept their very existence, freedom. He stated that despair lived their life by

saying that, “human life begins on the far side of despair”(Sartre,1989:102). In

other word, despair was the real condition of human existence for Orestes. To

start life one must begin from despair. Orestes wanted to motivate them to live

side by side with their despair. Yet, by that, one begins the real life.

Related to freedom, Orestes also suggested people to accept their action as

what they wanted to liberate them from their despair. In case of murder, he

proposed the murderer to accept the consequences. He said “the most cowardly of

murders is he who feels remorse”(Sartre,1989:116). This quotation refers to

Aegistheus, who felt remorse after he murdered Agamemnon . Aegistheus’

inability to accept the consequences, signed by the remorse, represented the

kingdom he reigned. As uttered by Orestes that there was no remedy but remedy

find within one selves (Sartre,1989:119), Orestes encouraged People of Argos to

create their own remedy. Then, he proposed them to accept all their crimes as

their own.

By the statement above, he countered Argos’ people opinion about

salvation. Argieve people had believed that salvation was only in Zeus. Thus, they

should have been Zeus’ most obedient fellow. In other word, they needed Zeus to

save their life, to carry the responsibility of their action. Yet, Orestes rhetorically

questioned, “A crime that its doer disowns becomes ownerless-no man’s crime;

 
 
  84

that’s how you see it, isn’t it? More like an accident than a

crime?(Sartre,1989:123) For people of Argos, their crime was merely not based

on their own will. However, they should atone and they also should be responsible

toward Zeus. Orestes taught that men should be responsible toward their own

action. He clarified his meaning by saying “you see me, men of Argos, you

understand that my crime is wholly mine; I claim it as my own, for all to know; it

is my glory, my life’s work, and you can neither punish me nor pity me. That is

my I fill you with fear.”(Sartre,1989:123)

Orestes’ gift, however, got Argos people to be scared. Even Electra, his own

sister, defended himself against his idea. For her, to accept freedom and face her

very condition of life scared herself. She said to Orestes angrily

I won’t hear any more from you. All you have to offer me is misery and
squalor...Help! Zeus, king of gods and men, my king, take me in your arms,
carry me from this place, and shelter me. I will obey your law, I will be your
creature and your slaves, I will embrace your knee. Now save me from the
flies, from my brother, from myself! Do not leave me lonely and I will give
up my whole life to atonement. I repent, Zeus. I bitterly repent.
(Sartre,1989:121)

She refused to accept despair since freedom led her to misery and squalor. In

freedom she understood herself as being unprotected and unshelterd. By obeying

Zeus, she felt as if she did not create and, thus, be responsible toward his world.

This reaction also appeared in the people of Argos when Orestes was

going to get out of Apollo’s shrine. They really wanted to murder Orestes. In the

tutor’s word to Orestes, he “cannot say which are the fiercer, the thirstier for your

blood…they’re waiting behind it. And they are armed” (Sartre, 1989:129).

 
 
  85

The defensive reaction of Argos people had been foreknown by Zeus. He

warned Orestes that “poor people! You gift to them will be a sad one; of

loneliness and shame. You will tear from their eyes the veils I had laid on them,

and they will see their lives as they are, foul and futile, a barren

boon”(Sartre,1989:102). People of Argos would be afraid if they saw the very fact

of their lives. The foul, futile, and barren life led people of Argos to resistance of

Orestes’ desire to open their eyes. However, Orestes considered that he had a

reason to that action. He answered to Zeus’ warn in rhetorical question “it is their

lot, should I deny them the despair?”(Sartre,1989:102).

In his last speech, Orestes stated that he was the son of Agamemnon and

that day was his “coronation day”(Sartre,1989:123). He referred to the same

killing 15 years a before the time to rise a king. Then, his murder of Aegistheus

and Clytemnestra was also to raise him to be a king. However, this murder led to

the veil of freedom. On the contrary, his murder, the responsible one, freed them

from the veil. He claimed his kingdom where everyone was aware of their

freedom:

I had come to claim my kingdom, and you would have none of

me because I was not of your kind. Now I am of your kind, my
subjects; there is a bond of blood between us, and I have earned
my kingship over you. (Sartre,1989:123)

Orestes, however, decided to go out from Argos. Zeus ordered him to take

the throne of Argos. Zeus said, “I’ll see that you two occupy the throne of

Argos”(Sartre,1989:115). However, once again Orestes refused the will of Zeus.

He said, “nothing of course-provided that it is black”(Sartre,1989:115). The black

color of the king’s wearing signified the remorse, or the obedient of Zeus law.

 
 
  86

Therefore, he last his last message before going to the Argos of people to start

their new life, a life without the flies. Orestes said “Farewell my people try to

reshape your lives. All here is new, all must begin a new. And for me, too, a new

life is a beginning” (Sartre,1989:123).

B. Influences of Heidegger’s ontology in Orestes

Historically, Sartre had once studied Being and Time, Heidegger’s

Magnum Opus, intensively when he was being imprisoned by Nazi. This period

was exactly before Sartre began to write The Flies. This part focuses on what

Heidegger’ ontological influences in Orestes are. This part does not explain too

much Heidegger’s ontology since it had been discussed in chapter two.

1. Human as a Distinctive Being

Basically, Orestes follows Heidegger’s positioning of the existence of

human being among other beings. Heidegger puts the existence of man in a

unique place among other beings. As discussed earlier, Heidegger declared that

only dasein exists. Trees and God are but they do not exist. Heidegger employs

his own term of existence that suits only human being. Heidegger, as summarized

by Kaelin, argued that existence should be referred only to “those that exist as

projections upon their possibility. Given this technical use of the term, it should

now be apparent that only human beings can be said to exist in this

sense”(Kaelin,1987:28). Moreover, only dasein can be aware of its Being because

dasein’s Being permits Being to be an issue for it. In daily language, only dasein

 
 
  87

can reflect to its own self and see its future self. Even Being depends on man

although beings do not depend on man. The awareness of radical duality brought

human to the state of authenticity.

Like Heidegger, Orestes saw the world in the system where human being

had unique existence. Orestes saw that only human could reign over themselves.

He called this unique quality as freedom. Zeus persuaded Orestes to bow under

his knee. He proved his mighty to Orestes by showing him that he controlled the

whole universe. His law regulated all the planets so that they did not crash one to

the other. Zeus offered the idea to Orestes that human being was only one of his

creations and, human, therefore, was neither unique nor special. As his other

creations, human being should bow himself under Zeus’ law because Zeus was

the almighty of all. Zeus imposed that he could control everything. However,

Orestes understood Zeus’ agitation as merely a lie. Orestes was not only aware

that he was free but also understood the nature of freedom. Thus, he should not

have bowed under Zeus’ law. On the contrary, he reigned over himself and

created his own law. Orestes said to Zeus,

Orestes:”you are the king of gods, king of stones and stars, king of the
waves of the sea. But you are not the king of man.[the walls draw together.
Zeus comes into the view, tired, and dejected, and he now speaks in his
normal voice]” (Sartre,1989:117).

Zeus’ tiredness and dejection showed his inability to assure Orestes’ to wear his

veil. He knew that Orestes had already known the real condition of human

existence.

Heidegger influences Orestes in the belief that the awareness of the radical

 
 
  88

difference between man and other beings led Orestes to an authentic life.

Heidegger argues, as summarized by Oslon, that Dasein gains authenticity when

“conscious through anguish of the radical duality between the human and non-

human and by recognizing the difference between being-in-the-world and being-

in-the-midst-of-the-world”(Olson,1962:137). Orestes was conscious that human,

who was not ruled by Zeus, had completely different character with the inhuman,

or the universe in Orestes’ own word, in which Zeus reigned. After that, this

awareness of the distinction brought Orestes between the personal individual path

of life and the path of the mob. The personal individual path, the “my path,” in

fact was the different style of saying one’s being-in-the-world, and the “their

path” of Being-in-the-midst-of-the-world. The first is more prior, and suggested

by Orestes as a way of life to people of Argos, than the second. When Orestes

chose his path, he had lived the authentic way of life.

In short, Orestes’ attitude toward the existence of human was the same

with Heidegger’s attitude. Both placed human in the unique position. The being of

human for both was distinctive ontically. Furthermore, the awareness of the

radical difference brought man to the authentic life.

2. The Abandoned Dasein

Heidegger argues that dasein is abandoned when it seeks ethical

justification from external authority. The external authority might come from

religious belief or the understanding of certain nature of the world. Dasein was

thrown. Furthermore, dasein finds that there is in fact no external authority that

justifies its ethical decision.

 
 
  89

In The Flies, Orestes, following Heidegger’s concept of dasein, also said

that men were abandoned. The presence condition of man was originated from his

abandonment. In Orestes, the abandonment resulted men’s freedom. Men should

choose and take care of their own self. It was told in the story that Orestes

explained this condition to Zeus. He said, “nature has abhors man, and you too,

god of gods, abhor mankind”(Sartre,1989:119). The abhorance of nature for

Orestes had brought human to be free since there was no pre-destined or given

way of life to be fulfilled. Thus, men for Orestes, as Heidegger argues, was

thrown without any given nature.

When Zeus created men in freedom, he had hoped that this condition

would take men to serve him better than he had created men as a determined

being. Orestes said to Zeus, “you forsook me”(Sartre,1989:118). Orestes

recognized his very condition as being thrown into the world. Human

abandonment, which made human forlorn, for Orestes was caused by the mistake

of Zeus

Orestes:.. you blundered; you should not have made me free.

Zeus: I gave you freedom so that you might serve me.
Orestes: Perhaps. But now it has turned against its giver. And
neither you nor I can undo what has been done
(Sartre, 1989:118)

In free condition, men could only justify their own way of life. In other word,

there is no a must in life. Man is alone to create his own path, without given

meaning.

 
 
  90

3. Dasein

Orestes’ understanding of human being, which tells Sartre’s, also based on

Heidegger’s concept of Dasein. As explained earlier, Heidegger coined the word

dasein to refer to human being. In German, “the da of dasein,…, is ambiguous,

meaning both here and there”(Kaelin,1988:89). The idea of dasein denotes that

human existence moves from here to there. In other word, men project themselves

to their future, and, thus, build themselves. Yet, man will always project without

stopping until their death. Hence, only dasein exists because his being is there.

Orestes, when asked by Electra about where he was going to take her,

answered that he was going to take Electra to meet their future selves

Electra: Where?
Orestes: .... Toward ourselves. Beyond the rivers and mountains are
an Orestes and an Electra waiting for us, and we must make our
patient way toward them.
(Sartre,1989:121)

Orestes explained the idea of dasein to Electra. Human for Orestes was ahead of

itself. He was aware that the action of Orestes, including his murder, was

accomplished in order to construct his own future being. This awareness stresses

that human being or dasein always directed to the future self. He acted in

projecting himself ahead. This dialog states the fundamental concept of dasein,

which is projection.

4. Being-in-the-world as Constitutive Elements

Heidegger’s Being-in-the-world influences Sartre’s in building Orestes’ as

seen in Orestes’ attitude toward Argos. Indeed, the idea of Being-in-the-world

 
 
  91

plays a fundamental role in the self-conflict in Orestes. At the first time of his

appearance, the tutor had argued to Orestes that human could be not bonded. In

the tutor’s point of view, it was possible for human not to have a bond. The tutor

said to Orestes, “you have no family ties, no religion, and no calling; you are free

to turn your hand on everything. But you know better than to commit yourself-and

there lies your strength”(Sartre,1989:59). From the point of view of Being-in-the-

world, the tutor’s desire not to being-in (dwell) in any world represented his

refusal of the human’s very condition of Being-in-the-world. He refused the basic

category of human life that men always dwell, or being-in in Heideggerian term,

in certain worldhood. Men in fact comfort themselves and they are tied and

bonded inside certain world. Thus, he was being-alongside with his world.

Orestes, until his first time in Argos, took the path of his tutor in regard of

attitude toward dwelling. Orestes still believed that he should not be bonded like

other people. In ignorance he even said the heat of Argos as “other’s heat”

(Sartre,1989:60). If we use Heideggerian term, the heat was not ready-to-hand for

Orestes. The heat was only present-at-hand. This shows not only Orestes’ denial

of the world of Argos but also his denial of the human’s existence as being-in-the-

world. He declined to be in any world, as the tutor had suggested him to be.

However, Orestes finally refused his tutor’s idea about being bonded. He

even acted offensively by saying, “Truce to your philosophy! It’s done me too

much harm already!”(Sartre,1989:58). For Orestes, the meaning of men laid

inside their Being-in-the-world. Orestes saw that man was inseparable from his

worldhood. Therefore, he disclosed the world of Argos for him to build his

 
 
  92

meaning of life. Hence, he explained his desire to Zeus soon after he met Electra

and Clytemnestra, “I’ve changed my mind. I am not leaving

Argos”(Sartre,1989:71).

People live their own world and this world determines whether or not

something is applicable, worth to notice, and useful. For a biologist who lives in

scientific world, it was not important if Harry Potter gains a unique phenomenon

in book’s marketing. One only cares what serves their purpose. In Heideggerian

term, there are in order to, toward-which, and finally for the sake of that

determines signification in a world.

The conflict of Orestes was indeed the conflict of his decision toward two

worldhoods. In a more fundamental analysis, his conflict was between his two

projections that would constitute what Heidegger mentioned as “signification”

that built his world. The first possible world was the world without Argos. If he

had taken this path, he might have been in Sparta among the armies. His being-in

did not lay in Argos. He only wanted to fulfill his military mission and he did not

care of Argos. If he had chosen this decision, Argos would not have served him in

fulfilling his desire. Before he set up his mind for dwelling in Argos, Orestes had

said, “but what purpose would it serve? These folks are no concern of

mine”(Sartre,1989:61). In other word, he would not consider Argos as ready-to-

hand. Thus, Argos was omitted from his world. We could understand this

possibility from his reason when he was nearly going to go from Argos, “Well,

well, my worthy pedagogue, let’s be off. We’ve no business to be luxuriating in

others’ heat”(Sartre,1989:60). Literally, anyone could suffer from the heat of

 
 
  93

Argos. However, Orestes did not concern of that heat because it did not belong to

his world. The heat did not serve his in order to, element that builds the

worldhood of one’s life. Thus, he called it “others heat.”

The second possible world was the world where Argos was inside. He

finally decided to disclose the world of Argos. In this world, he chose to live in

with Argos as a part of his world. After making his decision and deciding his

values, Argos served his purpose, or in Heidegger’s language Orestes’ “for the

sake of”. Orestes explicated his desire:

“I want to be a man who belongs to some place, a man among

comrades. Only consider. Even the slave bent beneath his load,
dropping his fatigue and staring dully at the ground a foot in front
of him-why, even that poor slave can say he’s in his town, as a tree
in a forest, or a leaf upon the three. Argos is all around him, warm,
compact, and comforting. Yes, Electra, I’d gladly be that slave and
enjoy that feeling of drawing the city round me like a blanket and
curling myself upon it. No, I shall not go”
(Sartre,1989:89).

Orestes’ wanted to be bonded with Argos. He had a desire to be in some place.

His desire was to comfort or dwell, or Being-in, in a world. Furthermore, he

wanted to give Argieve people a little sense of freedom which would claim his

kingdom in Argos.

Although Orestes had decided to stay in Argos, he still could not resolve

his ambivalence. While he watched the Dead Men’s day festival where Electra

rebel, he was emotionally tied with Electra and Argos. However, soon after

Electra was doomed and she insisted him to go, Orestes doubted of his decision.

This ambivalence appeared

 
 
  94

This ambivalent, between being bonded or not in Argos, led Orestes to his

final self-conflict. The conflict was so intense that he could not resolve it by

himself. He beseeched to Zeus in this confusion. He wanted to know whether the

right was to commit and bond himself with Argos or just leave it.

Orestes: ...if I only knew which part to take! O Zeus, our Lord and
King of Heaven, not often have I called on you for help, and you
have shown me little favor; yet, this you know: that I always have
always tried to act aright. But now I am weary and my mind is
dark...Tell me, Zeus, is it truly your will that a king’s son, hounded
from this city, should meekly school himself to banishment and slink
away from his ancestral home like a whipped cur?..for no longer can
I see my path.
(Sartre,1989:89)

His options led Orestes’ to uncertainty. However, after he had decided his

right thing, which was to be engaged with Argos, he had resolved his self-

conflict.

Since Orestes had decided Argos as a part of himself, or in philosophical

term his Being-in-the-world, the situation of Argos took his concern. When he

proposed to give sense of freedom to Argieve people, the existence of remorse

supported by Aegistheus and Clytemnestra prohibited him to fulfill his projection.

Thus, in order to fulfill his projection Orestes should dismiss the plague of

remorse. Orestes decided to murder Aegistheus and Clytemnestra to serve his

purpose. Through this action, Orestes strived to be salvation of Argos by

dismissing remorse of the people through murdering the representations of the law

of Zeus in Argos, Clytemnestra and Aegistheus. The heat of Argos no longer

belonged to others but him. Orestes stated his world through his possessive word,

“you are my sister, Electra, and that city is my city”(Sartre,1989:90).

 
 
  95

Therefore, the way Orestes determined his meaning was through his

being-in-the-world of Argos. By being in the world of Argos, he had decided to

fill his void. This also reflects the unity of dasein with its being-in-the-world.

Orestes was inseparable with his world. He had been an Argieve, and Argos had

been in his heart. He wanted to be an Argieve by disclosing Argos for himself. He

also defined himself as people of Argos. Here, Sartre took the idea of Heidegger

that the essence of man lays in his existence.

5. The Fundamental Mood of Human Being, Falling, and authenticity

Heidegger also inspires Sartre to build Orestes’ philosophy on ontology

that basically states that men have an unhappy mood. Orestes, like Heidegger,

considered that this mood brought up human into authenticity, the real condition

of men. Thus, Orestes, taking the same position as Heidegger, encouraged men to

accept the mood and be authentic.

Heidegger argues that there is always mood in Being-in-the-world. The

most basic and fundamental mood that men cannot avoid is anxiety. If fear is

directed toward something, anxiety is anxious of nothing. In other word, fear has

an object and anxiety has not. When he speaks about anxiety of nothing,

Heidegger puts that nothing refers to Being-in-the-world or the whole of dasein’s

existence, which means everything and everywhere. Anxiety existed as long as

man lives because its object is Being-in-the-world. Therefore, anxiety is a

fundamental mood.

Orestes opened the human condition which was misery. He told Argieve

 
 
  96

people that in fact they were free. This fact of freedom brought much unpleasant

consequences. Zeus told the human nature that would be disclosed by Orestes to

the Argieve people as, “foul and futile, a barren boon”(Sartre,1989:102).

Freedom, which was offered by Orestes as salvation, presupposed the existence of

desire which could never be fulfilled. If men had been fulfilled and not lack

anymore, he would no have desire and he would be not free anymore. Thus,

human was futile because his desire could never be fulfilled. In choosing, men

could not feel certain of the result from their action. Orestes depicted this

uncertainty when he said “I have one path only, and heaven knows where it

leads”(Sartre,1989:105). Because there was no hope, final fulfillment and

certainty of choosing, Orestes mentioned that human was in despair.

Both Heidegger and Orestes classify human into two, they who face and

flee from this fundamental mood. The authentic dasein does not flee from itself.

Rather, s/he faces the very condition of the self. The inauthentic, who drowned

themselves in the One or in their concern, is in falling. They do not create values

but share it together. Heidegger argues the inauthentic lives the life as others live

it. The authentic, on the contrary, detaches from everyday falling to face oneself

through the anxiety.

Although the real condition of man was misery, Heidegger encourages his

readers to accept it. The authentic dasein accepts the summon of anxiety to face its

own self. As a result, the authentic dasein experiences life in a more personal life.

The authentic, through facing its life condition, brings itself out from the imposed

values. Although the authentic might choose the decision had already been chosen

 
 
  97

before by another, and, thus, its life was not completely unique, the authentic

choose the decision through its awareness. It could choose personally only if the

authentic faces its own life, including its anxiety.

Orestes also encouraged the people of Argos to accept their life. He even

stated that “human life begins on the far side of despair”(Sartre,1989:102). It did

not mean that they who did not feel despair did not live. To start living with

“human dignity”, which was lost in Argos and was going to be given back by

Orestes, was to accept despair as the fundamental mood of human being. In

accepting despair, men accepted freedom as their condition. Thus, men become

authentic because they had live according to their basic condition, which was

freedom. After man had accepted his very condition of freedom and had been

authentic, man would start to live by the ability of creating values. Moreover, they

would free themselves from Zeus when they could accept the freedom, along with

its despair.

This despair finally would bring a person to his or her individuality. In

other word, the bad emotion, which Orestes labeled as despair, would bring

everyone to the awareness of freedom. Next, this freedom led one to be authentic

and individual. The authentic would choose its own way. In Heideggerian word,

the despair individualizes man.

The pattern of Sartre which was depicted in the character of Orestes about

human fundamental mood was influenced from Heidegger. Even the pattern of

coming into the authenticity of dasein reoccurred in the salvation of Orestes.

Orestes encouraged Argieves peopleof Argos to accept their very condition which

 
 
  98

was freedom to gain authenticity.

C. Influences of Nietzsche’s Overman in Orestes

Although Sartre rarely admits Nietzsche’s influence in his philosophical

work, the analysis on Orestes would show that Nietzsche influences Sartre’s

axiology through the idea of overman was immense. Orestes has been constructed

consciously or not mostly from the idea of overman.

Orestes, as a character undergoing a radical change, can be understood

from two perspectives, which each represents Nietzscheian moral dichotomy.

First, the understanding concerns Orestes before his change that represents

Nietzscheian slave morality. The first gains its necessity to analyze because slave

morality is what overman overcomes. In Nietzscheian term, there can be overman

if one overcomes one’s slave morality. Second, Orestes transformed his self

qualities into master morality by his overcoming, seen from his actions. The

second would permit us to see how far Sartre adopted Nietzsche’s overman in

building the character of Orestes.

If overman can be described as he who “can perform his unique deed of

self-integration, self-creation, and self-mastery” (Nietzsche, 1968:316), Sartre

applied those three items to construct Orestes. Orestes self-creation played

important rule in his rebellion. In addition, Sartre transformed overman’s self-

mastery into Orestes’ idea about freedom. Furthermore, he applied the self-

integration in Orestes’ attitude toward the past.

1. Slave Morality as Orestes’ Starting Point

 
 
  99

Overman is originated from overcoming slave morality. As explained in

Chapter II, the slave morality are they “who does not outrage, who harms nobody,

who does not attack, who does not requite, who leaves revenge to God, who keeps

himself hidden as we do, who avoids evil and desires little from life,…, the

patient, humble, and just" (Nietzsche,1956:179).” The slave is submissive because

there is no need for him to be a leader. Like the spirit of camel, they experience

life as a heavy that should be carried out. Therefore, they long for the burden, in

literal language, the obligation and duty. The slave is also marked by resentment

in it. In short, slave morality signifies impotence because of the lack of power.

Orestes as slave morality also can be seen from his obedient toward his

tutor’s teaching. Following other’s path and applying their values also marked the

impotence of slave morality. In Nietzschian worldview, creating takes more

power than just receiving and the slave morality does not have enough to do so.

The tutor was a man full of knowledge and experience. Thus, he had his own

values. On the contrary, Orestes was still young and inexperienced. He had not

been able to create his own values. Moreover, there was no courage in Orestes to

do so. Thus, he was obliged ane he felt heavy because he took other’s path.

Orestes’ impotence weakened Orestes’ more because he did not have

enough courage to exercise his power by creating. During his learning time,

Orestes agreed his tutor’s teaching. His tutor’s value also led him when he was

going to live Argos. He was obliged to take his tutor’s will. Thus, his decision

considered the tutor’s will heavily. In other word, he was submissive.

 
 
  100

Orestes:….now I am going to say something that will rejoice you. This is

not my palace, nor my door. And there is nothing to detain us here.
The Tutor: Ah, that’s talking sense. For what would you have gained by
living in Argos? By now your spirit would be broken, you’d be
wallowing in repentance.
Orestes:…let’s be off. We have no business in luxuriating in other’s heat
The Tutor: Ah, my young lord, how you’ve eased my mind!
(Sartre,1989:60)

As a result, Orestes lived a heavy life. At his first appearance in Act I,

Orestes still understood his life as a heavy life which he did not desire for. When

Orestes and the tutor talked about the memory of his past and what he had better

react on it, he complained to his tutor, “the palaces, statues, pillars-stones, stones,

stones! Why with all those stones in my head? Am I not heavier?”

(Sartre,1989:58) The metaphor of stone emerged how Orestes thought himself as

a man having a heavy life. He must carry his life as a burden heavily and

unwillingly. In short, Orestes was like the camel spirit who felt weary.

Ironically, the burden originated from his attitude toward freedom, or in a

more precise phrase, his being not bond. He explained about his freedom as

follow,

“I suppose you it strikes as vulgar-the joy of going somewhere

definite……I could never make them my memory. For memory are
luxurious reserved for people who own houses, cattle, fields, and servants.
Whereas I-! I’m free as air, thank God. My mind is my own, gloriously
aloof”(Sartre,1989:59).

This quotation is important in telling the self-conflict of Orestes before he had

decided his own choice in living his freedom. Although Orestes wanted to go

somewhere definite, Orestes was still burdened by his tutor’s philosophical

teaching about freedom, of being gloriously aloof. He desired for a meaning in his

 
 
  101

freedom. Thus, by experiencing boundlessness in his freedom, Orestes felt the

freedom as a burden because he in fact did not want such attitude toward freedom

completely.

His inability to create results in Orestes’ thought about obligation. Like a

camel in the Of Three Metamorphosis, Orestes searched for his “thou shalt” or his

obligation. Orestes’ strength “longed for the heavy, the

heaviest”(Nietzsche,1961:54) by obeying the “all values have already created and

all created values”(Nietzsche,1961:154). This slave morality attitude is obvious in

Orestes when he said,

“ Zeus, our Lord and King of Heaven, not often have I called
on you for help,…,yet this you know: that I have always tried to
act aright But now I am weary and my mind is dark...I need a
guide to point my way. Tell me, Zeus, is it truly your will that a
king’s son,...,should meekly school himself to banishment and
slink away his ancestral home...?....make plain your will by some
sign; for no longer I can see my path”
(Sartre,1989:89)

After that, Orestes found that Zeus gave him the sign he asked. He interpreted,

“that is the Right Thing. To live at peace-always at perfect peace. I see.”

(Sartre,1989:90). The “thou shalt” was presented by the Right Thing. That the

Right Thing was written in capital letters for the initial of each word points the

essential and only righteousness. In one word, the Right Thing represents the

traditional value of absolute and objective morality instead of relativity. Since it

was imposed instead of being created by oneself, taking these values mean

obligation not a willed decision. The values of Zeus, which represents traditional

 
 
  102

value, are also the goof of slave morality explained by Nietzsche, to live at peace-

always at perfect peace.

Furthermore, Orestes had been submissive, a character of slave morality,

through his act of avoiding conflict. By saying “let’s be off,” Orestes wanted to

leave Argos and wander peacefully. He did not want to harm any body. Avoiding

conflict and living in peace for Nietzsche shows impotency and refusal of one’s

will to power. As discussed before, conflict in Nietzscheian worldview was the

good for the master morality and the evil for the slave morality. This motivation,

although finally being cancelled, had been strengthened by Zeus by giving his

sign when Orestes questioned the Right Thing. Orestes interpreted the sign as “so,

that is the Right Thing. To love at peace-always at perfect peace”(Sartre,1989:89).

Thus, Orestes’ motivation to leave power marked his refusal to exercise his

power, a character of slave morality.

2. Influences of Overman’s Characteristics in Orestes’

Sartre had employed the characteristics of overman to construct Orestes’

characteristics. There are mainly two characteristics built in creating Orestes.

Nietzsche argues, as summarized by Fuad Hassan, that overman can only be

achieved through the harmony of strength, intelligence, and nobility

(Hassan,1973:37).

 
 
  103

a. Intelligent

The term intelligence may refer to many descriptions. Oxford Guide to

Philosophy’s defines intelligent people as “one in whom the memory and the

capacity to grasp relations and to solve problems with speed and originality are

especially pronounced”(Honderich,2005:438). Intelligent people can relate and

see the pattern based on the strong memory. Besides, intelligent people solve the

problem in a brilliant way.

Orestes had such a strong memory that he could remember what he

experienced quite well. He said to the tutor “why not remind me of the three

hundred and eighty-seven steps of the temple at Ephesus? I climbed them, one by

one, and I remember each”(Sartre,1989:58). He also could recognize style of

architecture soon after he saw the object, “[he steps back]. Let’s see. That’s the

Dorian style, isn’t it?”(Sartre,1989:60). Hence, he had the base to be intelligent.

When facing problems and choices, he could decide originally. His choice

was different from others. When puzzled with what he was going to do after

seeing Electra was going to be condemned, he faced various possibilities. Electra

encouraged him to leave Argos and he was confused. He solved it by arguing that

“there is another way”(Sartre,1989:90). He solved his problems and deciding what

to do appropriately.

His intelligence was expressed in his eloquence. He could argue to defend

his thought in his last debate against Zeus. In the end of the debate, Zeus admitted

Orestes’ intelligence in refuting his hegemony. He, in his amaze, said “A man was

to come, to announce my decline. And you’re that man, it seems. But seeing you

 
 
  104

yesterday-you with your girlish face-who’d have believed it?”(Sartre, 1989:120)

In addition, his eloquence redeemed the anger of Argieve. In his last speech

before he went from Argos, he influence Argieve so that they cancelled their

desire to stone and kill Orestes. Instead, they open their way to let Orestes went

out.

However, this intelligence had not been in harmony with his strength and

nobility until his awareness of freedom. After realizing his freedom, his

intelligence worked hand in hand with his strength. Through his strength, he had

been sure to murder the king and the queen to free Argieve people. His

intelligence worked in supporting his strength. His argument strengthened his

position and his assurance of his decision. It also built his nobility through

assurance that he had taken his right path. Thus, he did not consider himself

criminal since he did what good for him. he said to Zeus, “I am no criminal, and

you have no power to make me atone for an act I don’t regard as a

crime”(Sartre,1989:113).

b. Strong

In Nietzscheian worldview, people are classified according to their power.

There are only the weak and the strong. This scale of power is implemented in the

manner, character, and attitude of people. As a character, bravery can be seen in

the point of view of power. For Nietzsche, bravery only belongs to the strong who

wills to increase power. Nietzsche argues, as summarized by Kaufmann,

“fear is nothing but our attitude toward power-...the negative

aspect of our will to power: Fear is the negative motive which

 
 
  105

would make us avoid something; the will to power is the positive

which would make us strive for something”(Kaufmann, 1969:190).

Bravery marks the abundance of power. In contrast, fear tells that one has no

power to face the obstacles.

Only the strong has bravery to face troubles and difficulties. When one is

strong, s/he believes s/he can solve those difficulties and troubles. Unlike the

strong one, the weak fears those challenges. Ironically, only difficulties can give

the weak possibility to be strong. Therefore, fear marks the absent of power and

bravery marks the present of power, the strong.

Before murdering, Orestes foresaw that he would face heavy obstacles.

However, he bravely accepted the challenge of Electra and risked his life. Indeed,

Electra had ever warned him of the dangerous. She said ‘In taking this decision,

Orestes had already possessed enough power so that he was brave enough to take

his decision.

He bravely faced his difficulties in his attempt to free Argos. In killing

Aegistheus and Clytemnestra, he should pass the guards who were patrolling in

the palace. He also had already known before that what he would do against the

law of Zeus. Thus, he must encounter his heavy obstacles which he had chosen.

However, he bravely encountered with his obstacles because he had the power

against them. With his bravery, Orestes, in Nietzscheian way of thinking, could

exercise and increase his power. In short, Orestes’ bravery marked his strength.

 
 
  106

c. Noble

Nietzsche refuses to see man as a contempt being, as most Argieve people

who bowed themselves under Zeus and felt the remorse. For that reason, he

encourages people to see himself as a noble one. This nobility is highly related

with his formulation of amor fati. When overman has the capacity for self-

evaluation, he will not let society affect his judgment.

This idea influences Orestes’ characterization in the way he regarded himself.

There are two kind of judgment about Orestes’ act of murder. Zeus, as the symbol

of morality of the herd’s morality, regarded Orestes as a criminal since he did not

stand on their own values and he had broken their values. Nevertheless, Orestes

kept considering himself as a noble because he was sure of what he had done. In

Zeus’s valuation, Orestes should have felt remorse, and, he, therefore, was no

longer a noble man. Hence, he declined the will of Zeus that brought him to

remorse. Orestes said, “the most cowardly of murders is he who feels remorse

“(sartre,1989:116). He, furthermore, refused to value himself as a criminal. He

said to Zeus, “I am no criminal, and you have no power to make me atone for an

act I don’t regard as a crime”(Sartre,1989:113).

He insisted on his nobility by glorifying his work of murder. When

Orestes was going to be tortured and stoned by the Argives, he defended himself

by saying “it is my glory, my life’s work, and you can neither punish me nor pity

me. That is my I fill you with fear.”(Sartre,1989:123). Even when Zeus teased

him to repent and fill his heart with remorse by promising the throne of Argos by

saying, ”if you repudiate the crime, I’ll see that you to occupy the throne of

 
 
  107

Argos”(sartre,1989:115), Orestes for sure declined the will of Zeus. Thus, he kept

his nobility.

3. The Influence of Overman’s Rebellion in Orestes’ Rebellion against Zeus

S.T. Sunardi wrote that the strongest influence of Nietzsche was felt in

France. He became the symbol of rebellion. In philosophy his influence of

rebellion appears obviously in Sartre and Camus. (Sunardi, 1996:119). This

rebellious influence also apparently contains in the character of Orestes.

a. Overman’s Goodness

Orestes declared a rebellion, which was considered good by Orestes but

evil by Zeus, against the order of Zeus and Aegistheus. In Nietzsche’s theory,

there are two kinds of goodness, the master’s goodness and the slave’s one. Both

stand in opposition one to the other. The war and conflict were considered good

by the master. This goodness, however risky, exercised their power. On the

opposite, the good for the slave was peace and submissive because the slave was

incapable of conflict due to their impotence power. The goodness of slave justifies

their impotence. By choosing conflict, in one hand, he had overcome his slave

morality, which considered submissive as the Right Thing. In the other had, he

also had become master morality because the good was the conflict and denial to

be submissive. In short, what Orestes considered good, which motivated his

rebellion, was highly Nietzscheian.

 
 
  108

By choosing to rebel, he had also refused his comfort. If he had left Argos,

he might have been a command in a good army, as Zeus said. Since in choosing

man decides what is good and bad for him, Orestes had decided for him that the

good was to refuse his comfort. As overman who rejects comfort for his good,

Orestes refused the comfort. Kaufmann summarizes Nietzsche’s overman as

“symbols of repudiation of any conformity to a single norm: antithesis to

mediocrity and stagnation”(Kaufmann, 1968: 309). Single norm means one norm

hold by everyone. This forms the same characteristics in society. Thus, the single

norm may also refer to the morality of the herd, the collective.

Zeus and Aegistheus determined to keep order by creating a single norm for

their people to believe. When people fall in believing into one norm, they could

easily be controlled because they did not think of another way. Aegistheus said

that if his people had known they were free to choose another way, they would

have sent his palace up in flames (Sartre,1989:100). In other word, the people

believing in one norm had been weakened. The people had been impotent since

they were unable to think and act differently. Moreover, they were not shaped to

rebel the system. They could not create and grow. This system prolonged the

order and made stagnancy.

Orestes rebelled against the system by showing that the single norm was not

absolute. First, if the single norm was absolute, he would have felt remorse by his

murder. According to the law of Zeus, murdering a king was an evil action. Thus,

the murderer was sinful and he should feel remorse. However, Orestes proved that

there was not only one Right Thing, or a system of norm. For him, the murder was

 
 
  109

a good action instead of a crime because he freed Argieve people by killing the

representation of the old system. In fact, he got no remorse which signed the truth

of Zeus. He said, “why should I feel remorse? I am only doing what is

right.”(Sartre,1989:102). Orestes’ statement that he only did what was right

showed that there was a no Right Thing. Second, Zeus also commanded Orestes

to take the position of his victim. Zeus said to Electra and Orestes,”if you

repudiate the crime, I’ll see that you to occupy the throne of

Argos”(sartre,1989:115). Yet, he refused Zeus’ offering since he declined to

prolong the morality of Zeus. Third, he also agitated Argieve people through his

long speech in the last part. He assured them that there was another way and they

had been free to start their new life. Through his actions, Orestes broke up the

stable norm. Orestes had not only overcome his mediocre life-his slave character

before he was aware of his freedom, but also had been symbol “of repudiation of

any conformity to a single norm”(Kaufmann, 1968: 309).

b. Creativity and Individuality

Oxford Guide to Philosophy simply defines creation as “the bringing of

something into existence”(Honderich, 2005:183). In Oxford Advanced Dictionary

creation is also written as, “production of human intelligence”(Hornby,1974:201).

Compared with invention which means “create or design (sth) not existing

before”(Hornby,1974:449), creation does not refer to newness. It stresses in

making an existence which has not existed yet. Therefore, the word “create” in

 
 
  110

this section has nothing to do whether it is new (original) or not. It seems that the

common idea of creating as something original comes from Christian creatio ex

nihilo.

Like overman, Orestes’ destruction, or rebel, mediated his creativity.

Nietzsche might have said that Orestes, as overman, had smashed “their [the

herd’s] tables of values, the breaker, the law-breaker-but he [was] the

creator”(Nietzsche,1969:52). Overman can perform “his unique deed of ...self-

creation,....” kaufmann,1968:316). He freed himself through his rebel against Zeus

while in his rebel against Aegistheus he freed Argieve people. For himself, he had

created his own values and evaluation based on freedom rather than the law of

Zeus. For the people of Argos, he created a new way which they may take as a

point of departure. In his new system based on freedom, all people can choose

their path. For these reasons Zeus had already anticipated Orestes because Zeus

considered Orestes as dangerous. In his last speech, he said that the day was his

coronation day. Orestes did not use the term kingdom in common sense. His

kingdom was a new system which he opened through the murder. As a

consequence, he encouraged them to create their own way of life, to cling to their

own individual truth. By clinging to their own individual truth, they would free

themselves from the remorse. Thus, the old system would be broken.

Since he proposed everyone to have their own values, Orestes had

suggested individuality in his final project. Moreover, man for Orestes equaled to

freedom. There was nothing enforced man to choose but himself. Thus, choosing

 
 
  111

their own way fitted their very condition. Since men were free, there was no

determiner that determines but their own selves. They set up their own values and

self-justification. On the contrary, to fall into the one single set of values imposed

by society means ignoring the freedom of individual. When Zeus questioned

where Argieve people would direct their life after Orestes salvation, Orestes

replied “what they choose. They’re free” (Sartre,1989:102). To give Argieve

people the sense of freedom equal to restore them their human dignity. This

humanity took part in following an individual anthropocentric values as said by

Orestes “for I, Zeus, am a man, and everyman must find out his own

way”(Sartre,1989:119). Orestes did not impose his values but he motivated the

people of Argos to make their own values.

That individual was highly valued was also what Nietzsche’s overman

suggested. Zarathustra, the representation of overman in Thus Spoke Zarathustra,

supports his pupils to stand on their own path and to choose their own values. He

even commanded them to disdain Zarathustra. For Nietzsche, to be overman

means to be individual. Therefore, being individual is inevitable if one wants to be

overman. Nietzsche echoes this relativity through Zarathustra’s mouth, “not good

taste, no bad taste, but my taste, which I no longer conceal and of which I am no

longer ashamed ‘This-is now my way: where is yours?’ Thus I answered those

who asked me ‘the way’. For the way-does not exist (Nietzsche,1989:213). The

way refers to definite, absolute, and objective way which traditional way of

thinking encourages this to be discovered. However, the truth is there is no such

way. In other part, Nietzsche, through the mouth of Zarathustra (the preacher of

 
 
  112

overman) preached, “this is my good, this I love, just thus do I like it, only thus do

I wish the good”(Nietzsche,1989:63).

Orestes, like overman, clung to the belief that there was only subjective

values. Orestes admitted that basically there was no objective values. He said to

Zeus, “there was nothing left in heaven, no right of wrong”(Sartre,1989:118).

Orestes affirmed overman’s echoes that there was no the way. Orestes also had

remained faithful to the earth instead of escaping to transcendental source of

values. He accepted the truth that there was no objective value but what

subjectivity. Therefore, he created his own path, to be individual. He said that

Thousands of roads I tramped that brought me nowhere, for

they were other men’s roads. Yes, I tried them all; the haulers’
tracks along the riverside, the mule-paths in the mountains...But
none of these was mine. Today I have one path only...it is my
path...”(Sartre,1989:105).

Having one’s own path consequences to creating one’s own values.

Inasmuch Orestes had his own values, Zeus and his whole universe are not

enough to prove that Orestes was wrong.

When Argieve people, as suggested by Orestes, found their own way,

there would be no “thou shalt” but “I will.” Orestes, based on the idea of freedom,

offered the sense that life was constructed in a willed way. If Argieve people took

this idea, they would will everything that happened to them since they alone had

chosen, including their past. Therefore, they would be released from their

remorse.

Similar to Nietzsche who writes that, as quoted by Fuad Hassan, that

creation-that is the great redemption from suffering (Hassan,1989:45), Orestes

 
 
  113

suggested this self-creativity to people of Argos to free them. When they could

create and, therefore, to be individual, they would be free from the tyrant of Zeus.

4. Overman’s Self-mastery in Orestes

Orestes’ principle of freedom also brings Orestes to his self-mastery, a

main character of overman. In Of Three metamorphosis, overman was symbolized

by a child, who has the characters of “a new beginning, a sport, a self-propelling

wheel, a first motion”(Nietzsche,1969:55). When Zeus persuaded Orestes by

saying that he had been enslaved by his freedom, Orestes answered, “neither slave

nor master. I am my freedom”(Sartre,1989:117). Orestes refused distinction

between freedom and slave to repudiate Zeus. Unlike Schopenhauer, who make

distinction between self and passion and argues that self was the slave of passion,

Orestes by saying that freedom was man had released himself from such the

dichotomy. If men equals to freedom, they rule their own self.

Orestes’ self-mastery also appeared in his description of human situation.

He declared, “...without excuse, beyond remedy, except what remedy I find within

myself. But I shall not return under your law, I am doomed to have no other law

but mine”(Sartre,1989:119). Men solely cause themselves. Therefore, he insisted

that “From now on I’ll take no one’s orders, neither man’s nor

god’s”(Sartre,1989:90). Orestes had been aware of the fact that men could only

have self-mastery and he bravely accepted this fact. The condition of man who

bowed under the law of Zeus meant a lie to one own condition.

 
 
  114

This self-mastery appears in Orestes’ ability to control himself. Although

he murdered the representatives of Zeus’ law, Clytemnestra and Aegistheus, he

did not hate Zeus. He freed himself from resentment, which in Nietzscheian

cosmology marks slave morality. Slave morality, dominated by resentment,

cannot control himself but obeying his resentment. When Orestes said, “as for me,

I do not hate you. What have I to do with you, or you with me? We shall glide

past each other, like ships in a river, without touching. You are God and I am free;

each of us is alone”(Sartre,1989:119). The resentment would have dominated only

if Orestes could not control himself. However, the fact that he did not hate Zeus

showed his quality to control himself without controlled by resentment.

5. Orestes’ Attitude toward Past: Overman’s Redemption for Argieve People

After Orestes had struck Aegistheus with Orestes’ sword, Aegistheus

questioned Orestes, “Is it true you feel no remorse?”(Sartre,1989:102) Orestes

answered, “Remorse? Why should I feel remorse? I am only doing what is

right”(Sartre,1989:102) . This scene depicts Orestes’ condition that he had no

remorse.

As discussed in Orestes’ attitude about freedom, remorse signified his

acceptance of freedom. Because human was free, men choose freely their

goodness. Men always choose the good. In other word, in any condition, men do

what they think is good because of their own will based on his freedom. Knowing

this fact of freedom, Orestes did not remorse because he always had done what

was good for him.

 
 
  115

In remorse, people had hoped other that what had happened. They felt

“deep, bitter regret for wrongdoing”(Hornby,1987:715). In this perspective, they

assumed that they had not chosen the good for them. They covered themselves on

the idea that their decision was not based on their free will, but on other external

cause that determined their life and decision but themselves.

The people of Argos felt deep remorse because of their attitude toward

their past. They had denied that they had been the cause of their decision. Their

remorse made them smell reek. Thus, the gods sent the flies to them to remind

them of their sin, which was their remorse. They felt they were sinful because

they followed the order of gods other than their own. From the standard of the

gods, they blamed themselves for what they had chosen as good.

Although his salvation lied in the philosophy of freedom, his point was

highly related with attitude toward past and what one had willed from the past.

For Orestes, everything happened because they willed it by considering that they

were the only cause of their action and decision. Then, they through choosing

their decision inevitably had decided the good for them. Orestes explained the

idea that personal choose was impossible for choosing the bad, “I have done my

deed Electra, and that deed was good”(Sartre,1989:105). Moreover, Orestes

explained that there was no accident in life by refusing the way Argos people

understood the murder of Agamemnon. He said “that’s it how you see it, isn’t it?

More like an accident than a crime?”(Sartre,1989:123). We had willed everything,

even the worst possibility. Thus, Orestes’ invitation to accept their life as their

own construction, or their will, was paraphrasing the holy Yes of the overman.

 
 
  116

There would be holy Yes only if one willed everything exactly as it had

happened, without any negation. Overman would say the holy Yes, even if the

world happened again and again eternally. Thus, eternal recurrence marked the

highest acceptance, the holy Yes of the overman.

Orestes had already taken this path because he felt no remorse for his past

decision in any occasion. When Zeus threatened him to atone and take the law of

Zeus, Orestes challenged Zeus by saying, “I shall not repent of what I have

done”(Sartre,1989:104). In other part, he said, “torture me to your heart’s content.

I regret nothing”(Sartre,1989:113). There was no remorse at all in the self of

Orestes even if he would suffer for his decision.

What Orestes offered as salvation, in fact, had resembled the doctrine of

eternal recurrence that constited overman. In eternal recurrence, once we choose,

we choose it for ever because our decision will return again and again infinitely.

Thus, to redeem the remorse resulting the feeling of sin for the people of Argos

was through acceptance. They should accept their past, because they had created

willingly. People cannot undo their past as Orestes said to Zeus, “neither you nor I

can undo what has been done”(Sartre,1989:117). Therefore, they should not only

accept the past but also regarded the past as what they had willed. Orestes said to

Electra,

Orestes: Who except yourself can know what you really wanted?
Will you let another decide that for you? Why distort a past that can
no longer stand up for itself? And why disown the firebrand that you
were, the glorious young goddess, vivid with hatred, that I loved so
much?
(Sartre,1969:115)

 
 
  117

In the play, Electra’s goddess faces, which reflected the beauty of

freedom, had perished since remorse contaminated her. In short, Orestes’

salvation implemented Nietzscheian amor fati. Orestes encouraged the people of

Argos to accept their past and willed their past.

Kaufman says that overman “redeeming even the ugly by giving it

meaning in a beautiful totality”(Kaufmann, 1968:319). Accepting freedom for

Orestes played the position of beautiful totality. Thus, Orestes had been able to

affirm his life and say a holy Yes as overman. Through freedom as his “beautiful

totality,” Orestes integrated and accepted his past because he had chosen it.

Under the umbrella of freedom, he was no longer divided in between.

There was no longer ambivalence in himself as he had been before he took his

own path. He had been sure of his path even when being threatened by Zeus. He

also did not regret his past action. His ability to say the holy Yes proves his self-

integration. He spread his formulation of salvation to Argos so that they could be

free from Zeus and their remorse.

6. Orestes’ relationship to Argos: Embodiment of Overman as the

Unpolluted Sea and the outcast

Orestes’ relation with the people of Argos also contained the trace of

overman’s relation with society. Although Sartre does not apply in a completely

exact way-as discussed in fourth part of this chapter, he employed the function of

overman in society, which was to redeem the sin of society. However, society,

which was represented as the people of Argos, hated and considered overman as a

crime because of his individuality..

 
 
  118

Society for Nietzsche is metaphorically polluted and overman has function

to redeem their pollution. In Zarathustra Nietzsche writes that man is “a polluted

river”(Nietzsche,1969:41). Society, where the mob lives together, contains of

man. Man for Nietzsche represents mediocre quality that should be overcome.

Due to their lack of power, most people in society are full of resentment,

reactivity, and hatred, which contaminate themselves. These mediocre

characteristics construct the society where overman lives. Nietzsche

metaphorically writes that overman could be “a sea, to receive polluted river and

not be defiled”(ibid). Thus, overman redeems the “pollution” of their abundance.

Overman carried the sin of the man.

Orestes materialized the relationship of the polluted society with the overman

as a redeemer. Sartre manifested the polluted river in the sin and the flies of Argos

people. The people of Argos were heightened by their remorse. Their sin had

polluted themselves and invited the flies to come through the reek. The people of

Argos represented the man in common, or the average quality of the mob who

cannot redeem their own self. Thus, Orestes, as the liberator of the people of

Argos, worked in redeeming their guilt. He carried the burden of Argieve people.

He said,” I’d house your penitence”(Sartre,1989:92). In other occasion, he said

that his way of liberating Argieve people was to let them plagued him. He

explained,”

Supposing I set out to win the name of “guilt stealer,” and heap on
myself all their remorse; that of the woman unfaithful to her husband,
of the tradesman who let his mother die, of the usurer who bled his
victims white? Surely one I am plagued with all those pangs of
conscience, innumerable as the flies of Argos-surely then I shall have
earned the freedom of your city”(Sartre,1989:91-92)

 
 
  119

In short, Orestes’ action to liberate Argos’ people shows the function of overman

in society.

Orestes had not only been overman in his redemption but also in the way

society regarded his individuality as a crime. The mob regarded the solitary as a

crime, they hated it. To be solitary disdains themselves and their values. Nietzsche

writes, “they [society] would like to crucify those who devise their own virtue-

they hate the solitary” (Nietzsche, 1969:90). He says “too many here hate you,

the good and the just hate you and call you their enemy and despisers; the faithful

of the true faith hate you, and they call you a danger to the

people”(Nietzsche,1969:49). Like the way society regards overman’s

individuality as a crime, the people of Argos had regarded Orestes as a crime,

sinful, and outcast because of Orestes, alone, cling to his own values. The reaction

of Argieve people was uttered by Zeus when they were going to enter the Apollo

shrine, a place where Orestes was sheltering. They were going to express their

hatred to Orestes by stoning him to dead.

Zeus:...All the good folk of Argos are waiting there. Waiting to greet you
with stone and pikes and pitchforks. Oh, they are very grateful to their
savior!..You are lonely as a leper
Orestes: Yes
Zeus: so, you take pride in being an outcast, do you? But, the solitude
you’re doomed to, most cowardly of murderers, is the solitude of scorn
and loathing.
Orestes: the most cowardly of murders is he who feels remorse.
(sartre,1989:116)

Zeus, as the representation of the slave morality, compared Orestes like a leper, a

contempt man for society. Zeus, as the representation of the morality of the mob,

 
 
  120

swore to Orestes, “your vaunted freedom isolates you from the fold; it means

exile.”(Sartre,1989:118).

However, Orestes had been ready to accept the consequences of his

decision. He affirmed Zeus, “yes, exile”(sartre,1989:118). He also reminded

Orestes that Orestes had been an outcast. Orestes was pride although people of

Argos regarded him as a crime because he had done what was right. He was ready

and strong in accepting the outcast.

D. Orestes’ departure from Heidegger’s Ontology and Nietzsche’s overman

Sartre did not only take the ideas of both Nietzsche and Heidegger to

create Orestes but also developed and refused some of their philosophies.

Although he owed much to Heidegger, as generally known, he, as reflected by

Orestes, refused Heidegger’s Being as the central point of the ontology.

Furthermore, this refusal brought Orestes to consider the very condition of man

not as Heidegger do. For Nietzsche, although Orestes was nearly to be overman,

he had different perspective as overman did. The discrepancy lies on the way they

viewed the existence of society.

1. Being and Freedom

Orestes views man as freedom. The existence of man equals to the

existence of freedom. Thus, he does not only say that man is free but he goes

further by saying that man is freedom. He says, “I am my freedom”

(Sartre,1989:117). By declaring that he is his freedom, Orestes defines himself as

 
 
  121

freedom. There is no longer distinction between the being of man and his

freedom.

The locus “am”, as to be, was written in italic to stress that the Being of

man is freedom, if we want to use Heideggerian term. Heidegger’s question of

Being can be apparent in his question about what to be is. In a more rhetorical

style, what is is? The “to be” of man is, answered by Orestes as freedom.

While Orestes shows that the Being of man is freedom, Heidegger

describes care as the Being of man, instead of freedom. Heidegger writes that,

“dasein’s Being reveals itself as care”(Heidegger,1964:227). Orestes goes further

in saying that freedom is more fundamental than care. What one cares, which

determines the categories of being-present-at-hand and being-ready-to-hand that

determines signification and the world, depends on the freedom. Orestes shows

that his decision creates what he does and does not care. If Orestes had decided to

leave Argos, he would not have taken care about the heat and the people of Argos.

Since he has chosen to be engaged with Argos, he cares about the people and the

heat of Argos. In short, although Heidegger and Orestes agree that human being is

distinctive, they disagree about the fundamental character of human being.

The disagreement about the fundamental condition of human being also

distinguishes Orestes and Heidegger about the authentic man. Even though they

agree if the authentic means they who face the very condition of the self and the

inauthentic are they who flee from facing it, Orestes argues that the authentic

people are they who accept freedom as the fundamental condition of self whereas

Heidegger that the authentic are they who accept Being as their guidance.

 
 
  122

If Orestes’ authenticity means anthropocentric, Heidegger is not so

because he is Being-centric. For Orestes, the authentic man reigns over himself.

They created their own truth. This anthropocentric view can be found in many

part of the play. When Orestes says “I am not excusing my self”(Sartre,1989:117),

he refers to his condition that there is no outside cause that determines himself so

that he can blame and make excuse. This human-centrist appears stronger in his

statement that the authentic men admit their condition as “...without excuse,

beyond remedy, except what remedy I find within myself. But I shall not return

under your law, I am doomed to have no other law but mine”(Sartre,1989:119).

Therefore, he insisted that “From now on I’ll take no one’s orders, neither man’s

nor god’s”(sartre,1989:90). For Orestes, the authentic men arises when they admit

that they are free, choose their own right or wrong and reigns over himself.

Orestes never outlined what they should choose in authenticity.

Heidegger, in contrast with Orestes, believes that the authentic men are

they who are illuminated to Being. Unlike Orestes, Heidegger takes that man does

not invent the truth. It is the task of Being. Oslon writes that 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). The determiner of truth and

meaning is Being. Heidegger writes,

“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).

 
 
  123

The quotation above should not be interpreted literally since Heidegger, although

writing philosophical treatise employs poetical language that is highly

metaphorical. Heidegger states that Being determines beings, including the

history, nature, gods appear. The existence of truth and how beings are not the

decision of man. Man does not determine their world. Thus, the authentic men are

they who illuminate and melt themselves with Being. Moreover, to be the

shepherd of Being is the duty of dasein. For Heidegger, unlike Orestes, the

authentic dasein has clear way of where the authentic should go.

The different ways to be authentic indeed have been based on their

different conception on the nature of human. Since for Orestes human equals to

freedom, human has no nature to command and guide his life. In other word,

human was left alone without nature. Yet, the nature of man according to

Heidegger means the Being of man. In this sense, Heidegger seeks for a direction

and belives in Being to direct human life. Therefore, they move to two different

direction.

Heidegger and Orestes are also in opposition with the duration of

authenticity. They disagree about how long man can be the state authentic.

Heidegger explains that most of the time human is inauthentic. 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 in falling. Thus, falling is “its everydayness and its

averageness”(Heidegger,1964:168). Moreover, Heidegger, although encourages

dasein to be authentic, does not impose this dichotomy as a moral position.

 
 
  124

Orestes, on the contrary, encourages people to be authentic and remains

so. Although Orestes was foreign to himself, without excuse, beyond remedy,

except what remedy he finds within himself, he shall not return under Zeus’ law

(Sartre,1989:119). The condition of Orestes cannot be changed easily. Zeus

explains the authentic condition of Orestes as, “once freedom lights in a man’s

heart, the gods are powerless against him”(Sartre,1989:109). Once a man has been

authentic, he can still be on that condition for a long period of time. Orestes also

strongly recommends the people of Argos to be authentic because the authentic is

the salvation. When Zeus persuades Electra to have a little penitence to him,

Orestes warns her, “take care, Electra. That trifle will weigh like a millstone on

your soul”(Sartre,1989:114). It is dangerous to be inauthentic because it will

weight the soul.

2. Equality and Rank

Although Nietzsche and Sartre both create their hero and ideal men which-

as shown early- is very similar, the purpose, context, and the reason behinds are

different. The significant difference lies in their attitude and their view about

society.

Nietzsche views hierarchy as a natural inevitable phenomenon of moral

which was needed by overman. Naturally there was rank that the slave morality

wanted to destroy. Nietzsche in The Will to Power explains “I feel impelled to re-

establish order of rank”(Nietzsche,1967:457). He argues that most morality denies

the existence of rank because most are slave morality. The slave insists equality

 
 
  125

because they want peace and they are weak so that they do not want to get

involved in competition for the rank. Therefore, one of his project in

transvaluation of values is to re-establish the order of rank. He uses re-establish

because naturally there have been rank. Overman needs rank where there are war

and competition, to exercise his power. Overman in society having order of rank

will have war and competition. He will have chance to exercise his power and

grow stronger. He, by the existence of rank, can stand on above of the herd

because he has high quality. Thus, Nietzsche defends hierarchy instead of

equality.

Orestes, on the contrary, believes that all men are equal and should be

liberated. When he said, “what they choose. They’re free”(Sartre,1989:102). The

pronoun “they” refers to anyone in Argos. Orestes suggests everyman to take his

or her own path. He does not exclude nor discriminate which one should be able

to invent and impotent. He does not classify man and puts them in order of rank

which Nietzsche considers as a natural phenomenon. When Orestes sees that

despair as a way out into authentic life, Orestes said to Zeus, “it is their lot, should

I deny them the despair?”(Sartre,1989:102). Furthermore, he declines to be a king

in common sense term. Orestes wants everyone to be free in his kingdom. For

Orestes, everyone has right to be authentic without Nietzscheian order of rank.

Orestes and overman also disagree about the relationship with society.

Overman views society as tool to gain his goal. For instance, he needs the mob so

that he can be above them. Although he benefits society, his goal was directed to

himself. The benefits are only side effect. Moreover, the goal of society, for

 
 
  126

Nietzsche, lies in the crystallization of their great man, the overman. It is a doom

to hope that everyman will be overman. Only a few men can be overman and most

people will still be the mediocre. Orestes, on the contrary, takes that it is possible

to put society as the goal. The question of Zeus to Orestes at that time is what

Orestes is going to propose to Argos. Argos refers to the people of the city in

general. He even considers society as his part of life.

The motives behind the action for them are also different. The idea of

overman relies heavily on the conception of the will to power. Overman is the

man who can maximize the power, what he wills is power. Thus, he is the

embodiment of the will to power. The will to power also motivates the action of

overman. Overman always wants to increase his power. Thus, he creates and

destroys himself. The key concept of overman is the abundance of power. Here,

life is not bonded. It seems that the character of the tutor and his philosophy, to

contrast the decisions of Orestes, is an allusion to Nietzscheian conception of life.

For Orestes, his motive is to give meaning to life instead of increasing

power. Orestes wants to free Argos because for him it is the good. Man, according

to Orestes, should bond his life by his decision to give his life a meaning.

Moreover, the meaning of life of someone comes from one’s rationalistic decision

which manifests in one’s actions. Orestes decides to “give little sense of freedom”

to the people of Argos not because he wants to be more powerful in Nietzscheian

term but in order to get himself to be one of Argieve people.

 
 
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

From the research, it is concluded that the influences of Heidegger’s

ontology and Nietzsche’s overman on the main character of Sartre’s The Flies are

immense. The research concludes that Orestes is highly constructed on the idea of

Heidegger’s ontology in the way Orestes’ see the nature of the world and Sartre

owes heavily on Nietzsche’s conception of overman to build Orestes’ axiological

dimension.

Orestes was a character undergoing a change. He could be included into

round character. His philosophical background was, in Nietzscheian term, passive

nihilist. He refused to be bonded. However, he finally decided to bond himself

with Argos. Thus, he built his own philosophy. This includes his notion about

being bonded.

Orestes was an intelligent, strong, noble, and brave man. He was well-

educated since there was always a tutor accompanying and educating himself. He

was also brave because he had risked his life. He departed from his tutor’s

teaching and he stood against the mainstream morality. He took risk in his attempt

to save Argos. His bravery revealed his strength. Finally, his philosophical

proposition led him to nobility.

Although he had been weary because he follows his tutor, he develops

himself to build his own philosophy and act in accord with that. He denied to be

127 
  128

bonded and he felt his freedom wearily. Because he was intelligent and brave,

Orestes succeeded in building his own philosophy and accomplished his mission.

In his philosophy, Orestes believed that men were free. Thus, men could only

follow their own values which only they could choose. According to Orestes,

when men took other’s path-in this case the path was created by Zeus, he would

fall into weariness, as metonymically labeled in remorse and symbolized by the

flies, as he had experienced. Thus, he offered his own philosophy, of taking one’s

own personal path in acting to be in accord with human’s freedom. When

choosing, one must know and accept the consequences of the decision. Because

Orestes believed everyone was free, he wanted to open the veil of Zeus from the

people of Argos. Henceforth, he freed people of Argos by murdering Aegistheus

and Clytemnestra, the representation of Zeus’ law.

Orestes’ ontology after he had been aware of his freedom was influenced

immensely by Heideggerian ontology. First, he distinguished radically between

human being and other beings. Human being was ontically distinctive, as

Heidegger said. Second, Orestes followed Heidegger in understanding the

condition of human being as an abandoned being. Human being was forlorn in the

universe. Thus, man had to find out his own way. Third, Orestes viewed his life as

always directed ahead. In action he constructed his being which was there and,

furthermore his life was always ahead. This is the influence of Heidegger’s

concept of Dasein. Fourth, Heidegger influenced Orestes in the way he

understood his life as being-in-the-world. He was, like how everyone existed,

inevitably engaged in a world. He disclosed a world and he defined his nature

 
 
  129

according to the worldhood where he lived. Fifth, Orestes took Heidegger’s idea

about the existence of unhappy mood in life. The acceptance of the existence of

this emotion would lead men to be authentic and the denial to be inauthentic,

which Heidegger named as falling. In short, Sartre took the ontology of human

being from Heidegger to construct Orestes.

In addition, Nietzsche’s philosophy of overman influenced in creating

Orestes. First, his characteristics which are intelligent and brave were elaborated

as the basis of Orestes’ morality and action. Second, Orestes’ rebel, supported by

his bravery and intelligent, turn the values of the mob upside down showed his

creativity through activity of destroying. He had smashed their values and strived

to create the new ones. To fulfill his mission, Orestes declared war against the old

and he began the new. He created and destroyed at once. This creativity was what

Orestes considered as his good. Nietzsche calls Orestes’ style as overman’s active

destruction, an important characteristics of overman. Third, Overman’s

Individuality and Self-mastery appeared in Orestes’ struggle and his salvation for

Argos. In his philosophy, Orestes offered individual good to replace the Good.

What Orestes offered was based on self-mastery resulted from freedom. Finally,

this self-mastery and individuality resulted in the remedy of the past. The attitude

of willing the past was also highly Nietzscheian. Nietzsche argues that only

overman can overcome himself completely, including in the relationship with the

past, and become super human. Orestes proposed this remedy as salvation to the

remorse of Argos people. Thus, life had been willed without any negation

anymore for the people of Argos.

 
 
  130

Although the character of Orestes owes heavily to Heidegger’s ontology

and Nietzsche’s overman, there are also elements that mark Orestes’ departure

from both of them. Orestes, by focusing on freedom as human’s very condition,

departed from Heidegger’s ontology. While Heidegger considered the authentic

are they who are melted with Being, Orestes said it was they who did not propose

any good but the personal authentic decision. If Heidegger believes that

authenticity will not and should not stay for a long period of time in life, Orestes

stands on the contrary. Orestes also departed from Nietzsche’s overman seen from

his relationship with society. Although the curse of the people reflects the

influence, Orestes’ motive distinguished him from overman. Unlike overman,

Orestes understood himself as equal inside the society. He was a part of them.

This departure also marks that The Flies was written not mainly to explain

Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s overman. If there are immense influences

of both thinker’s, it is because Sartre has constructed his thought, including in The

Flies, based on the tradition of western philosophy. This study has described what

the influences are. The title of the play itself The Flies signifies that the main idea

is about freedom, as represented by the remorse. This freedom has been

considered as Sartre’s unique in the tradition of western philosophy. When

Heidegger puts Being and Nietzsche the will to power as the central theme, Sartre,

as represented by Orestes, puts freedom as the central theme.

In short, Orestes was influenced by Heidegger’s ontology in the way he

saw the world and Nietzsche’s overman in his action. Yet, he departed from them

in the theme of authenticity, which distinguished him from Heidegger, and

 
 
  131

Orestes’ motive and equality with society, which distinguished him from

Nietzsche’s overman. In summary, both Heidegger’s ontology and Nietzsche’s

overman contributed heavily in Orestes and they completed each others, one in

ontology and the other in action and morality.

In researching The Flies, study about gender in The Flies would have a

great significance. In both versions of the story, Oresteia and The Flies, Electra

was weak psychologically and principally. To learn how she was represented in

such a way would open the horizon of gender representation in the tradition of

western history. Such comparative study, granted that this play has been re-

written, will give two perspectives at once about the changing concept of gender

in tragic play from two different ages.

 
 
  132

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrams, M. H. Glossary of Literary Terms. New York: Holt Rinehart and Wiston.
1981

Barret, William. Sartre in On Contemporary Literature, ed. Kostelanetz and

Richard. New York: Avon Books Division, 1964.

Barranger, Milly.S. Understanding Play. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994.

Deleuze, Gilles. Nietzsche and Philosophy, trans. Hugh Tomlinson.

London: Continuum, 1986.

Guerin, l., et. al. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. New

York:1979, Harper and Row Publisher

Hardiman, Budi. Heidegger dan Mistik Keseharian: Suatu pengantar menuju Sein
and Zuit. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia, 2003.

Hassan, Fuad. Berkenalan dengan Eksistensialisme. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya, 1973.

Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time, trans. John Macquarrie and Edward
Robinson. New York : Harper and Row Publisher, 1962.

----------------------. Letters on Humanism in Basic Writings :From Being and Time

to The Task of Thinking. Londong : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1978.

Honderich, Ted, ed. The Oxford Guide to Philosophy. New York: Oxford
University Press, 2005.

Kaelin, E. F. Heidegger’s Being and Time: A reading for readers. Florida:

University Presses of Florida, 1987.

Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, psychologist, Anthichrist. New

York:Vintage Books, 1968.

McCall, Dorothy. Theater of Jean Paul Sartre. Colombia: Columbia University

Press, 1967.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy and The Genealogy of Moras, trans.
Francis Golffing. New York : Doubledya and Company, 1956.

-------------------------. The Will to Power, trans. W. Kaufmann and R. J.

Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1967.

 
 
  133

-------------------------. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale. London:

Penguin Books,1969.

-------------------------. Beyond Good and Evil, trans. R.J. Hollingdale.

London:Penguin Books,1972.

-------------------------. The Gay Science, trans. W. Kaufmann. New York: Vintage

Books, 1974.

-------------------------. Selected Writings, ed. Stephen Metcalf. New Delhi: Srishti

Publisher, 1995.

Oslon, Robert. G. An Introduction to Existentialism. New York : Dover

Publication, 1962.

Palmer, Donald. Sartre for Beginners. Yogyakarta: Kanisius, 2003.

Roherberger, Marry and Samuel H Wood Jr. Reading and Writing about
Literature. New York: Random House, 1971.

Sartre, Jean-Paul. Being and Nothingness, trans. H.E. Barnes. New York : The
citadel press., 1957.

----------------------. The Flies, trans by Stuart Gilbert in No Exit and Three Other
Plays. New York: Vintage International, 1989.

Sunardi, S.T. Nietzsche. Yogyakarta: LKIS, 1996.

Wardle, Louise. Human, All too Human: The Road to Freedom. BBC: 1999.

William, Timothy. “Sartre, Marcel, and The Flies: Restless Orestes in search of a
Caffee. The Midwest Quarterly. Vol. 49 No. 3 (June 2006), pp. 376-389