Jean-Paul Sartre No Exit and Existentialism Jean Paul Sartre's notions of freedom and the responsibility that come with it were very important to his conceptions of and contributions to the philosophy known as existentialism. Essentially, existentialism is the idea that man lives and has to define himself by his actions and the use of his freedom (and the responsibility that accompanies it). These ideas are demonstrated in Sartre's famous play No Exit. An analysis of some of the key parts of this play such as its characters, it setting, and the dialogue that takes place between the characters, as well as of the cultural circumstances that influenced Sartre's writing of this work shows that his ideas of freedom and responsibility are demonstrated in opposition in No Exit.

Sartre believed that a true existentialist was someone who took responsibility for his or her freedom by defining himself. However, virtually none of the characters in this play are able to accomplish this feat. Instead, they regularly look to one another and to other things to define themselves. Sartre believes that such an approach to existentialism is ultimately hell, which is why the setting for this work of drama is in hell in which three characters, Garcin, Inez and Estelle, continually aggravate one another by trying to define themselves by each other. The setting for this play is very important. The characters are in a simple room with antique furniture, which none of them like. They have nothing to do but to talk to each other, and in doing so they attempt to build their own self-esteem through their interactions with one another. Doing so, of course, is the opposite of what a true existentialist would do. However, since they are in hell and can do little else with their time, their existence serves as a figurative hell in which they make each other upset and uncomfortable.

In this regard, the fact that the characters have limited freedom in this play is very significant. Freedom is one of the most vital aspects of existentialism. Without freedom, it is virtually impossible live as an existentialist. Therefore, all of the characters display qualities that are the exact opposite of how true existentialists would act. A closer look at them confirms this fact. Sartre's use of Garcin, for instance, is a good example of an existential problem. Not only does Garcin have limited freedom in that he is in hell with other people who he does not get along with, but he has denied the responsibility of forming his own image of himself and passed that responsibility on to someone else. Specifically,...

His own personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant to him; he needs someone else to take responsibility for judging his actions. The fact that Inez fails to do so, and actually refuses to do so in order to torment him, represents a major existential dilemma. Garcin is in a situation in which he is not responsible for his own perception of himself and has no freedom, and the one person he wants to take responsibility for his actions will not do so. The torment of this reality represents an existential hell, both literally and figuratively in this play.
Estelle provides another good example of the limits of freedom and responsibility that Sartre believes is hell for an existentialist. Like the other characters, she no longer has any freedom to act and move from the room in which they are situated. She is also extremely needy, and needs other people (both Inez and Garcin) to validate her feelings about herself. As such, she is ultimately passing along the responsibility for defining herself to them. She feels inadequate without a mirror so that she can see other people's perceptions of the way she looks (which she also seems to think is the way she actually is). She even goes so far as to ask Inez to be her mirror, just so that she can know what other people's opinions about her are. Ultimately, Estelle feels as though she needs Garcin to validate her existence. She longs to have an intimate relationship with a man so that she can know that she is desirable, attractive, and worth something. If she does not have the approval of men (and the approval of Garcin while she is in hell, since he is the only man there) she has no other way of defining herself and viewing how she exists. Garcin, however, will not become intimate with her because he still thinks of himself as a coward, and will continue to do so until someone else defines him otherwise. Thus, these two are in perfect torment since they need other people to take the responsibility of validating their existence -- which is the opposite of how a true existentialist would act.

It is also important to understand that No Exit represents certain cultural influences that impacted Sartre's thinking and his views bout existentialism. There are parallels between Sartre's life and Garcin, in particular. Whereas Garcin chose to flee his country once it became involved in war, Sartre did the opposite. The author fought for France during World War II and when the French surrendered, was captured and returned to Paris which Germany occupied for the greater part of World War II. Therefore, the limitations on personal freedom which the characters experience in No Exit were also experienced by Sartre. When he was captured and imprisoned by the Germans his freedom was limited, and even when he was back in Paris his freedom was still somewhat limited, since the Germans had control of the city. In both of these situations it is difficult for a true existence to take responsibility for defining himself, since he cannot act as he pleases in order to do so.

Additionally, the animosity that the three…