Waiting For Godot And A Doll's House Analysis

There have been several instances when the topic of the meaning of life comes up, and people often pose these two questions: “What is the meaning of existence?” and “What’s my purpose in life?”. This comparative analysis of Samuel Beckett’s “WAITING FOR GODOT” and Henrik Ibsen’s “A DOLL’S HOUSE” can be divided in terms of which question it seeks to answer. This study endeavor to discuss starting off with what modifies the condition of Nora, Vladimir (Didi) and Estragon (Gogo), regarding their beliefs, and to engage in questioning their own life’s value. Values, which the motive power behind purposeful action that we seek to achieve or maintain according to our life as the standard of evaluation (Landauer, Rowlands, Values. importanceofphilosophy.com).

The proposition we concluded is the exploration of human existence of the characters in "Waiting for Godot" and "A Doll's House" reveals how the meaning of one’s life is capricious: absurdity of life depends on influence by one’s life standard of value.

We often see ourselves as someone who controls our own life—every important event, every exam in a class, choice of friends, etc. But what if one day, we realize, it’s not just us who drive those decisions and choices we make and those we made, but often times, we depend and adjust to other people’s situations? Although the reason of ‘depending’ to other people does not solely depend on considering their situation, we choose to choose the side/decision which we deem doable to fit our comforts and pleasure. As stated by Friedrich Nietzsche, humans could give life a kind of meaning by embracing illusion. We know it’s all an illusion but

Because of this “puppeteering” of the characters mentioned above, Nora, Didi and Gogo, in turn, are used to the habit of leaving matters in the hands of other people and the time, hence, living a purposeless life in purposeless time. Nora, being a wife treated as perfect doll, lived not for improving herself as a human being but as a person responding to the impositions of her husband. Because of this, she has grown to blindly embody other people’s opinions (esp. His father) and doesn’t construct her own ones. She did not learn how to live by the principle of “Knowing Thyself” (Socrates) and stand by her own perspectives. In short, she was fed not only by the rules that should abide but was also fed almost of what she is as a being. On the contrary, in the case of Didi and Gogo, tolerance was certainly exhibited throughout the three acts and whether this characteristic of theirs only occurs at the time of their waiting or simply because they needed a distraction to make the passing of the time faster than usual, it implies how they depended only to the uncertain fate given to them by Godot which makes everything that they did purposeless but not exactly meaningless. The repetition, the constant words: “Nothing to