We are all probably familiar with this term, but I still have no idea what does it really mean. I’ve read two books by the author Franz Kafka, the guy who was the origin of this very term. I tried looking online, searching for definitions and stuff, but I still have no idea what was that all about, nobody explained it clearly. I wanted to find a simple definiton with an example, but I found pile of text. Maybe they need all that “extra” stuff to explain it because it is not very simple, I guess. Can it be explained in a few words, if so please do it and if not, I will go through the long version, too. Thank you.
Edit: Thank you, I went through your comments, they were really helpful.
In: 2159
Real life example.
I received a notice from the SDRO (State Dent Recovery Organisation) saying that I had traffic fines dating back 13-15 years ago that had never been paid. They said I now had a debt of several thousand dollars that must be paid. If it was not paid within a month they were authorized to come to my home and start removing my belongings (This bizarre threat was *actually* in the notice, and as they are a government department, they can actually do it.)
I was astounded as I had no debts as far as I knew. After some investigation I discovered that a few years ago the DMR (Department of Main Roads) that used to exist had been closed down and now all traffic fines were handled by RTA (Roads and Traffic authority). However, in the course of transferring records from one computer system to another, somehow my old traffic fines (from when I was a teen motorcyclist) had been resurrected.
When I paid them off years ago, I did it by postal money order. I kept the stubs for all the payments in my wallet. A decade later my wallet got old and before throwing it out I went through the contents. I saw the stubs, wondered if I should still keep them, then laughed at myself and threw them out.
And then about 7 years after that I got this notice.
Well I corresponded with them and told them I believed I had paid the fines. They responded by saying that if you can get the issuing authority to provide proof that the fines were paid, we will cancel the debt. I told them “But the issuing authority no longer exists”. They told me “then there is nothing we can do for you.”
So..I cannot prove these debts do not exist, unless I get a letter from a government department that no longer exists. THAT is Kafkaesque.
I was NOT going to stand for this. I told them that under civil law i have no requirement to hold proof of debts paid that are from more than 7 years ago (Can you imagine if we did? What a nightmare our lives would be.)
From now on their legal department responded to me. Their lawyer told me that as non-payment of traffic fines is a criminal matter, the 7 year statute of limitations does not apply, and therefore I am still liable for the debt.
I responded to him that it is ONLY a criminal matter IF the fines are unpaid. However, as the fines WERE paid, it was still a civil matter, and for civil matters, the 7 year stature still applies. By asserting it was a criminal matter, he was putting the cart before the horse. Basically, he was assuming without proof that they were unpaid, in which case it WAS a criminal matter – but he had no proof, or way of proving, that they were unpaid.
They basically responded by saying “No. And we will see you in court”
I then contacted the ombudsman’s department and told them what was happening.
They investigated and all debts / claims were dropped. I won !
This was in Australia.
PS I think all those people who had robodebts from more than 7 years ago could have made the same claim. Nobody NEEDS to provide proof of payment from more than 7 years in the past, due to the stature of limitations. The only exception is if it is a criminal matter.
having read a bunch of his stories, i’m gonna attempt my own definition: “a situation which is governed by laws of logic and causality that are unknowable, and often hostile, to the observer.”
It’s characterized by a vague sense of impending doom. But to really be Kafkaesque the outcome would have to be unavoidable and yet unknown to the victim.
Any options offered by prosecuting authority figures are trivial and for show. They serve to make the system look fair but result in the same conclusion. Think of the test at a witch trial. If she floats she is a witch, if she doesn’t she isn’t. Well if she floats she gets burned at the stake, if she doesn’t she drowns. The outcome in both cases is that the persecuted person dies and the persecutors get to feel like they have a fair system.
The reason this is important from a philosophical standpoint is that it has to do with existentialism. Particularly, the phenomena known as existential dread. If you found yourself the victim of a witch trial you’d know nothing you did or said could save you, but you’d feel an overwhelming self-preservation instinct to try at all costs anyway. You’d know your appeals and pleas are futile, but by god, you’d try and you’d fail at every turn. Knowing that your fate is already sealed wouldn’t make it hurt any less when you try your damnedest and get rejected anyway. You’d fight and pull your hair out and the authority figures would just shrug and tell you not to worry. The system is fair and so long as you are innocent you have nothing to worry about.
Well, **existentialism** is a philosophy centered around human **existence** and the unique problem we face in that we are **aware that we exist** and will die one day. This is our great *Trial.* Nothing you do can change your fate. **You will die one day.** You have all these options for how you can live your life but in the end, you will suffer **the unavoidable fate of death.** This is something most of us would like to ignore but upon occasion, our mind will find itself drawn back to reality and an existential crisis will ensue.
What is a man to do with the problem of metacognition? In the Myth of Sisyphus, Camus claims that a man only has two options. **He can either choose suicide or he can choose to be happy.** The idea of happiness through misery may seem absurd, but what are your options? Sure, your suffering is a reality that you must contend with but do you have to be sad while doing so? You could probably think of people who have it worse than you who are inexplicably happier than you are and you can probably just as easily name someone who has it better than you who is somehow less happy than you are. Should we conclude that even if we can’t control the circumstances of our life we can still choose how we feel about them? Camus would say yes. To summarize with probably his most famous quote, “In the depths of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.”
Latest Answers