Literature that examines the nature of existence

According to Kundera, his novels devote more attention to the study of existence than to the study of reality. Note that Kundera’s novels are not necessarily summed up by existentialism. Nonetheless, the existentialist ideas depicted in his novels can be incorporated into the grand tradition of existentialism. According to Kundera, existence does not pertain to what has already occurred; it refers to what is possible for man, and all he is capable of becoming, as well as everything he can be. By closely examining his characters, it becomes clear that they represent experimental selves representing existence experiences. Hence, Kundera’s fictional characters and their lives have an existentialist point of reference which reveals how characters and beliefs in existence are interconnected and highly dependent on each other. In his novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Life, these ideas are expressed as follows:
A character emerges from a basic situation or a few words. In fiction, the author is given the opportunity to express themselves… As such, the novel’s imagination is able to extend the possibility of reality to the extent of the existence of reality. In reality, everything we are is given at birth (p.65).

Responding to existentialism

It will be discussed in this section how Kundera responds to the pioneers of existentialism in his writings. The Unbearable Lightness of Being mentions Nietzsche’s “eternal return” theory. There is a theory that suggests that everything that happens in this world is the repetition of something that happened previously.

Additionally, it is a repetition of that repetition (p. 76). In Nietzsche, the idea of eternal return is a positive thing. However, Kundera believes it to be utterly absurd because people can only have one life, and one-offs can not be rehearsed, making it impossible for an individual to substantially correct himself. Kundera makes reference in the same book to a German saying which means that “doing something once is the same as never doing it” (p. 142). The existentialist novelist wonders if human life has any meaning since it is arbitrary and transient. Beethoven’s indeterministic phrase is repeatedly quoted in the novel: must that be so? (p. 189). People’s circumstances are not dictated by their unrepentant coincidences: they can choose the fate they want.
Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” also gained a metaphysical significance by emphasizing his rebellion against the given one-off nature of existence through his “possibility.”

As Kundera implies in his writings, human life is only once, but the decisions we make at different points in time have multiple choices. If there is no possibility, life becomes mechanical, and its autonomy diminishes. There have always been possibilities, revealing the complexity of the state of being.
Despite this, this dimension of possibility will always remain a “non-presence” force; it cannot be realized. Similarly, Kundera expresses the conflict between possibility and reality through the character Thomas, who randomly recalls Plato’s famous argument regarding the gender of humans. In Plato’s Dialogues, Plato claims that humans were originally hermaphrodites and that, since God split mankind in two, all of the halves have wandered the world in search of the other (p. 623). Love, therefore, is the impulse to search for your long-lost half. Since we can’t determine which one we find is the “half”, true love will always exist as an ideal possibility, never becoming a reality. As a consequence, idealists face the problem of being unable to judge whether a potential life partner is someone they should commit to.

From another perspective, in the context of a profane narrative, no one can return after suffering a calamity, and death is no different. In this sense, Heidegger’s “das Sein zum Tode” is indispensable for understanding human existence, since one can only imagine death as the final ultimate possibility; only then can one appreciate what life is. It makes death the basis of all certainty and meaning in life: man’s “future lies in possibilities that can be grasped, but is constantly replaced by death, the greatest of all probabilities” (p. 65).

In this sense, once people overcome death and have enough time to explore all possibilities, survival will become insurmountable. An existentialist writer, Simone Beauvoir, presents this concept of death in her novel People Always Die (1946), in which the protagonist experiences all things in the world as a result of gaining immortality, but all he wants is to die in an instant because due to the absence of possibility he no longer has the capacity to maintain a life.

Free choice is a heavy burden

This part of the argument will address Paul Sartre and some of his famous statements regarding existence.

Sartre’s statements concerning existence form the basis of this argument: “existence is nothing.” He believed that objects such as coffee cups are “in-itself” existences, while people are “for-itself” existences. Or, to put it differently, human existence has its origins in a non-existent essence. In addition, he elaborated that “existence precedes essence,” which indicates that with one’s existence, one can exert his or her subjective initiative in order to develop an essence. The human being is fundamentally free, according to Sartre. A person’s freedom, as there is no immutable essence tying them together, means that he or she has the freedom to make choices and must choose in order to face his or her state of freedom.

Using the case of Eichmann, a Nazi officer, Sartre illustrates the issue of choice. In defense of his actions, Eichmann asserted that: “I am a soldier; I follow orders, and I have no choice.” To refute this statement, Sartre asserted that:
Just because you lack the means or the courage to face the consequences of that choice does not mean that you don’t have those choices at all (p. 78).
Escapism, self-deception, and rejection of one’s state must be stopped at all costs.

Sartre argues that freedom of choice is a difficult undertaking. It is therefore critical to determine the decision-making standards and to establish them independently. Despite everyone’s desire for a solid and reliable foundation to base their decisions on, Sartre asserted that we make all decisions based on a self-defined standard. Choices must have consequences, however, he said “no one else can assume this duty”: after choosing, one is solely responsible for the consequences.

Here, Nietzsche’s influence is evident. Nietzsche wasn’t a moral realist, which means that he did not believe that morality and values can be measured against objective standards. Men are their own legislators. Sartre believed in value subjectivism as well.

The purpose of this discussion is to clarify what Kundera means by “lightness of being” in his novel. Considering the manner in which he discusses the existence of humans, it follows that the “lightness” he refers to is inherent to human existence.

Human existence has infinite possibilities and has no inherent limitations. It is a light, free experience. The problem with this kind of “light freedom” is that it is isolated and heavy, since it is unfettered by any other norms. It is referred to as “a life without evidence and dimensions.”. Kundera appears to be arguing that your choices in this life and the actions you take have no legitimacy. You are the sole judge of your actions. It is impossible to determine your choice exactly by factors such as nationality, gender, ethnicity and ideological background.

Therefore, the “lightness of life” is accompanied by a state of heaviness. For example, you can obtain a way of life that may not be allowed in any traditional world, but on the other hand all the pain, torment, and catastrophic trauma associated with it is your own. Therefore, it is a life that is unbearably light.

A communitarian solution

Charles Taylor, a communitarian philosopher from Canada, proposed one possible remedy for Kundera’s “unbearable lightness of life.” According to him, communitarians reject extreme egoism and some liberal notions and instead emphasize the importance of cultural background in shaping the individual. Human beings tend to have a standardized common denominator, a common ground. Hence, each individual’s distinctiveness is based on that common ground and not entirely at odds with it. To clarify, when you are developing your own identity and developing yourself, you are not saying that you should regard everything outside of yourself as an obstacle and hostility. Instead, you should view it as a resource and enabler.

Despite this, Kundera does not support communitarian thinking in his writings, and he strongly opposes it through a term he coined: Kitsch.

“Kitsch”

On closer examination, it is apparent that any heroism advocates “beyond” reality instead of being grounded in it, and it evokes passion rather than prudent and realistic behavior. Here, Max Weber’s theory of down-to-earth heroism is most relevant. Milan Kundera has described this heroic image as kitsch. As mentioned before, it is a type of expression in which stereotyped thoughts and feelings are presented sensationally in order to attract public attention.
A thorough analysis reveals that, far from being just an artistic style, kitsch is an aesthetic underpinned by a certain worldview that could be termed philosophical. This is an extremely deterministic philosophy rooted in a single overarching logic.

Philosophy of this type “filters out” the contingency, ambiguity, paradox, and a variety of other non-deterministic factors in the practice of life so that it can reach the unquestionable sublime in morals and inspire touching passions in aesthetics. Thus, kitsch can be understood as all the emotional inspirations which can be represented by ideology; all the ideas of compulsive movement; and all the ideas that sociologists like to employ by categorizing a person’s identity and ideology. Ultimately, it is a form of self-coaxing, self-moving, and touching for the sake of touching.

Kundera strictly enforced anti-kitsch in his writings. He believes that history is itself a kind of comedy, or a revelation of the secrets of human beings, which is a recognition of the existence of human beings in the state of “ultimate paradox” (p.93). In the tragic state of kitsch, there is always a form of emotional indulgences, such as grief, sadness, excitement, or resentment… but there is no irony or humor. Using allegorical narratives will interfere with the “aesthetically pleasing” and the “sublime”, bringing it into the impure realm of everyday life. But Kundera’s writings treasure humor and condemn rhetoric, adopting a zero-degree writing approach.

coexisting with “kitsch”

Kundera is also acutely aware that kitsch is ingrained in the human condition, since it is an intrinsic attribute of human nature, and humans must accept it and live with it.

Towards the end of Sabina’s life, who is the “lightest” character in The Unbearable Lightness of Being, the author notes, “She said kitsch was her nemesis, but isn’t she kitsch at heart?” (p.84).

Another example is Meursault in Camus’ The Stranger. It is a big mistake to think he doesn’t care about anything because he rejected almost every kitsch that can ever be thought of. In fact, what he opposes is a kind of group noise. It is obvious that he realizes the importance of healing himself and what he really wants. Meursault slips into the abyss of “giving up resistance” (p.56) step by step in the most exciting final paragraph of the book, the monologue in prison. It is certainly possible to argue that this absolute nothingness is a tragic means of self-comfort and self-rationalization. It is also true that the realization of the emptiness of life leads to Sisyphean self-salvation, in the same way that the fact that humans live in a ravaged and destroyed world can be a useful power.

Beware of either-or binary thinking

Kierkegaard narrated a story about a man waking up one morning and finding themselves dead, not having touched the very roots of their existence. It indicates that there are people who do not dare to philosophize about life. While humans remain deeply uneasy about the atomic age, they remain as absentminded as the character in Kierkegaard’s story about the existential question.

In today’s highly polarized society, many people find it difficult to break free from either-or thinking. This is why they need to use clichés repeatedly in order to deceive themselves. However, existentialist philosophy repeatedly reminds us: to define and guide human existence in such a simplistic manner is an insult to human beings due to their complexity. As a result, we must remember the teachings of Socrates from two thousand years ago: use your minds to prove your existence!

References
Aji, Aron, ed. (1992). Milan Kundera and the Art of Fiction: Critical Essays. New
York:Garland.
Kundera, Milan. (1995) Testaments Betrayed: An Essay in Nine Parts. New York:
HarperCollins.
Kundera, M. (1984). The Unbearable Lightness of Being. London: Faber & Faber Limited.
Ricard, François. (2003). Agnes’s Final Afternoon: An Essay on the Work of Milan Kundera. Translated by Aaron Asher. New York: HarperCollins.
Weeks, Mark. (2005). “Milan Kundera: A Modern History of Humor Amid the Comedy of History.” Journal of Modern Literature 28: 130-148.
Woods, Michelle. (2006). Translating Milan Kundera. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters, 2006.
Sartre, J-P. (1943/2003) Being and Nothingness. Oxon: Routledge.(1938/2000) Nausea. London: Penguin Books.
Kussi, P. (1983) ‘Milan Kundera: Dialogues with Fiction,’ in Bloom, H. (ed.) (2003)
Milan Kundera. Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, pp. 13-17
Manser, A. (1967) Sartre: A Philosophic Study. London: The Athlone Press.