ion. If something can not be proved, then it can not be believed, meaning it can not exsist. How is a man to reconcile himself to that absurd world in which he finds himself trapped? The only fitting response- What makes it an absurd world? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, or rather Stoppard would first build the foundation or infact dissolve the foundation of absurdity or an absurd world. To do this they would determine what is absurdity. How can something be absurd; who initially thought it absurd? Or is it infact not absurd but merely common? Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would surely define absurd; to do this one must first realize that something is normal. To continue in their method of exposing the flaw in the theory of absurdity, they would question normality. Normality is beyond definition because in order to determine normality a standard must be set. The standard is set in the beginning of time and who is to say the standard in the beginning was that of normality and not absurdity. One can see that to understand absurdity there must first be an understanding of normality and that can not be done because as existentialism proves, their main philosophy, existence precedes essence. Through questioning the validity of an “absurd world” Rosencrantz and Guildenstern would clearly have proven that absurd can not exist to human understanding. Through existentialist philosophy and the views of the two characters, as shown in the play, one can determine that absurdity does not exist and if absurdity does not exist then one cannot feel trapped. A feeling of being trapped can only occur when one feels that he cannot overcome his limitations, both physical and emotional. It is improbable to believe in the conquering of limitations if they do not exist because they are not acknowledged due to their inability to be determined. Ros and Guil’s doubt and question would have proven the impossibility of absurdity thus...
