FADE IN:
ROLL CREDITS
TITLE
“BRAND Á PART”
CUT TO:
EX. DAY - PARISIAN CAFÉ
BEATRICE is talking to PIERRE about the subtle differences between the existential philosophies of Sartre and Kierkegaard.
BEATRICE
No Pierre ––you don’t get it ––yes, sure ––Sartre made a lot of the existential problem of someone identifying merely as a waiter ––but he was wrong to assume that this problem is an ontological one ––it is not: it is rather a teleological one, a problem of purpose, not essence ––it is here that Kierkegaard has the upper hand ––it is he, and he alone, who shows that the problems of existence has to do with “role” ––why, if being a waiter were ontological, then waiter would be a category of essence, rather than, as it is, a category of contingence ––one is not being waiter in the manner a chair is being a chair ––a waiter is a role, not a being ––an mode of existence and not something existent independent of all existential contingents ––it is to a human being what colour is to a chair.
PIERRE
No, no listen ––you don’t understand –
BEATRICE
No Pierre ––it is you who does not understand ––listen, no one can be a waiter in the manner in which a chair is being a chair ––a human being is actively engaged in the role of being: the mode of existing as a waiter ––it is not essential to that person to be a waiter in order to be human or not to be human ––if they are a waiter they are still human ––if they cease to be a waiter they do not cease to be human ––here is Sartre’s error ––it’s clear as day Pierre, clear as day ––why a kindergarten child could understand that ––the real question is an ethical one: Does one deserve to be a waiter? ––That is the Kierkegaardian question here Pierre ––surely you must understand ––right?
PIERRE
As I have tried to explain ––Madame, I wasn’t making an existential case for Sartrean ontology ––I merely wanted to know your order ––as I am your waiter.
BEATRICE
Oh? ––In that case, I’ll have a latte ––Thanks Pierre, that’ll do for now.
