We started our discussion of Kafka’s Before the Law by talking about the ambiguity in his use of the word before. I was one of the few who thought Kafka meant before in the temporal sense.
Because I interpreted ‘before’ temporally, I took ‘before the law’ to mean the man’s conscience. This fits in with the idea Zach brought up in class. He raised the very interesting idea that the traveler and the doorkeeper are one and the same. If we take the doorman to be the man’s conscience, we can perhaps understand why he is so unwilling to pass through the door without the doorkeeper’s permission. To arrive at Law, one would have to pass by one’s own conscience. It is a difficult thing, as a human, to completely turn your back on your own conscience. This interpretation could explain why the gate would only be made specifically for the man. Each man must interpret Law in terms of his own conscience; that is inescapable. However, if the doorkeeper truly is the man’s conscience, why would his conscience stand in the way of the Law?
Well, Law in the story is always written with a capital l, implying that it is the product of a higher force and, because of that, it is immutable. To find the Law would mean to have a very definite code of how one should live, a code defined by someone of than oneself. Perhaps defined by a deity or maybe as a compilation of each individual’s own personal law. As Kafka says, “the Law, [the man] thinks, should be accessible at all times and to everyone…” Maybe to find the Law would mean to give up one’s freedom as individual and that, as individuals, we cannot help but to frame universal law within our own moral standards. In fact, as the man waits at the door, he never comes any closer to the Law, but has many conversations with the doorkeeper. The man is getting to know his conscience better and better, making it harder to remove himself from his conscience. In his moment of death the door to the Law is shut by the doorkeeper. This could be an expression of how each individual must die as just that, an individual – entirely alone with only one’s conscience, not a universal set of morals.
I really hope this made sense and didn’t seem too far-fetched. Let me know what you think.
I find this to be very intriguing. I like the idea that the traveler and the doorkeeper might be the same person/thing. I agree that because of how the word "law" is communicated, It seems that the Law must originate from a higher being, which may be God. When we were talking about the origin of Law, this story sounded almost like a man was trying to gain access to heaven. I feel as though the same ideas about wanting access to law could be applied to that of trying to get to heaven.
ReplyDeleteI was slightly confused when you said that the traveler might have to give up his freedom to find the Law. I don't really understand how giving up freedom would bring you to find universal law.
I was worried that my explanation of that part would be confusing. Basically, if the doorkeeper is the man's conscience, and in order to find the Law he must bypass the doorkeeper, then he must bypass his conscience. The man's conscience is his own interpretation of right and wrong. If he bypasses this then he must be giving up his personal moral convictions in favor of Law, a moral code set by someone or something apart from himself. Does that clarify at all?
ReplyDeleteThat makes more sense and I agree with it to an extent. My only problem is that wouldn't the traveler have a set of morals based on a universal moral code? I think we are all influenced by a "social set of morals" to help us develop our own set of morals, which most likely coincides with the social set anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf we are discussing 'before' temporally, then no, the Law wouldn't exist yet and the man's morals would have to be inherent.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting idea, and it certainly adds to our conception of the man and the doorkeeper as representative of one person; however, I believe there exists certain inconsistencies, which raise certain questions. Why does the universal Law have to be necessarily opposed to individual conceptions of right and wrong? I agree that the capitalization of "law" would imply that the author is suggesting a sort of transcending quality to the term, but I think it is too much of a metaphysical leap to assume the Law is established by God. Remaining consistent with Existential morality, which is meant to heighten our personal responsibility by the removal of God, we should assume that the Law is derived from the collection of specifically selected individual convictions; this is what I meant by saying that the man and the doorkeeper are the same person: because the the law is derived and given its authority by man, it becomes subjective, acting upon man himself. So then, if they are the same person, the law would have to be individual as well. This is consistent with the destruction of the cave at the end: the individual dies and so his personal truth or "Law" will be lost with him. Although I do believe your emphasis on the ultimate finality of individualism is an astute analysis, I believe the important thing to recognize here is that the law is in fact representative of our individuality; therefore, because to the subject/object reversal that occurs when we establish a law, the only obstacle that stands in the way is not a universal, objectively determined set of values, but ourself, our individual convictions...
ReplyDelete