It is 1942 when Camus publishes The Stranger, a book about the absurdity of the universe, meaning that there is not a god giving out values to humanity and giving a meaning to life and death. Meursault has commited a murder that is definitely not premeditated. He was burning up from the Algerian sun and when he saw the glint of light reflected on the knife of the Arab, who was the enemy of his friend, he shot him. Meursault is unable to explain to his lawyer or to the court why he did it because there is no reason they will accept. Meursault’s only explanation is that the sun made him do it. This is actually the truth. The law represented by the prosecutor, the jury and even the people in the courtroom judged him not on the murder, but on the impression that he did not seem sad enough about his mother’s death. The fact that the caretaker had offered him coffee and he had accepted while in the room with his dead mother seemed to be reason enough to make the courtroom find him guilty. And on top of the coffee crime, he offered the caretaker a cigarette. Another one of his crimes that was worse than the murder was telling the examining magistrate that he did not believe in god. The magistrate shouted at Meursault, “Do you want my life to be meaningless?” The murder was absurd and the trial was absurd. This book reflects the time of World War II when Hitler and the Nazis were not only trying to take over Europe, they were also committing genocide against the Jewish people. They had occupied France and Camus was a member of the underground resistance against them. There were some French people who collaborated with the Nazis out of fear. It must have seemed to Camus that there was no meaning in the universe and no god who would let so much death and torture happen.
Now that it is 2009, how can I relate this book to my time? There is still plenty of absurdity around. Right-wing politicians still say that President Barack Obama is not American, although he was born in Hawaii, one of the 50 states in case anyone has forgotten. Also, during the campaign, Republicans said he had no experience in international affairs even though Bush was causing America to be hated by most of the countries in the world. The Republicans also accused the Democrats of not having family values for reasons like supporting abortion, when the Republicans were not interested in helping poor families and especially giving them health care. Family values also do not go along with torture, which the Bush administration used a lot.
When the magistrate takes out a crucifix in order to get Meursault to repent his lack of belief in God, Meursault still has to say that he does not believe. The magistrate cannot prove that God exists and should not force his beliefs on others. It is fine for people to have religion to give their lives meaning, but they need to accept the fact that other people find meaning in their lives without religion or with a different religion. What is absurd and dangerous is when people act as though their beliefs are facts and do not accept other people’s beliefs. Meursault is a stranger in his society because he is a non-conformist. When Bush was president, a lot of Democrats and others felt like strangers in their own country because they could not go along with Republicans’ policies. Going into Iraq seemed absurd, and it was later proven that it was absurd. Unfortunately for Merusault, no one finds the justice system that sentenced him to death absurd. Luckily, he found peace knowing that the universe was not judging him.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Who is this guy(Mersault)? Blog Post
All right. I've read the first few chapters of The Stranger, and I understand that I the reader am expected to think that Meursault is a little lacking in human feeling because he is not that upset about his mother's death. Not for the first time in this class I have the feeling that I must be somewhat exisitential myself. When I read the opening of this book, I saw no reason to judge Mersault badly. How am I to know how close he was to his mother? So what if he didn't want to see his mother's dead body as his last memory of her. Meursault seems to me to be the type of person who can't pretend to have the feelings that society expects him to have juust to put on a show. He is respectful and spends the night at his mother's vigil. I think it is better to have your last memory of people be when they were alive. He takes an interest in the caretaker and his story about how quickly dead people have to be buried in Algeria compared to France because of the Algerian heat. He admits to himself after the long vigil that he would really like to take a walk because it was a nice day and he was in the country, "if it hadn't been for Maman." Also, after the long trip back from his mother's funeral, it was not surpirising to me that he was happy to see the lights of Algiers and know that he could go home and "sllep for twelve hours. I think most of us would feel the same way. Meursault knows that he acts differently than others. When the old people come in to see him at the vigil, he has a sense that they are judging him. This feeling doesn't make him act any differently.
Meursault always gives his honest opinion about something when asked despite what the reeaction of the questioner might be. For example, when his neighbor Raymond is talking about the sharp dressing womanizer named Salamano saying, "If that isn't pitiful," Mersault responds, "He asked me didn't I think it was disgusting and I said no." Or when Marie a former co-worker he had the hots for asked if he loved her and he responded, "it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so." He must have known that there was no way he could generate a positive reaction from her after that statement, but he still said it which tells me he is incapable of not telling the truth about how he feels. Sometimes it's better to be honest than to feed people what they want to hear, because then you won't have to deal with the effects of your lying later. If you are consistently youself, people will understand you the way you are.
Meursault seems very grounded in this world and is obvioussly not thinking alot about the future or especially an afterlife. He states the way he truly feels to others and to himself. "It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed."
Meursault always gives his honest opinion about something when asked despite what the reeaction of the questioner might be. For example, when his neighbor Raymond is talking about the sharp dressing womanizer named Salamano saying, "If that isn't pitiful," Mersault responds, "He asked me didn't I think it was disgusting and I said no." Or when Marie a former co-worker he had the hots for asked if he loved her and he responded, "it didn't mean anything but that I didn't think so." He must have known that there was no way he could generate a positive reaction from her after that statement, but he still said it which tells me he is incapable of not telling the truth about how he feels. Sometimes it's better to be honest than to feed people what they want to hear, because then you won't have to deal with the effects of your lying later. If you are consistently youself, people will understand you the way you are.
Meursault seems very grounded in this world and is obvioussly not thinking alot about the future or especially an afterlife. He states the way he truly feels to others and to himself. "It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed."
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Huckabees Blog Post Assignment
Do we live in a world that is meaningful and makes sense?
One day your life is going along the way it always does so you have no reason to question it, and the next day something happens to turn it upside down, and suddenly it feels like you have lost your place in the universe. This is the start of your existential crisis, and the first stage is disbelief followed closely by fear. For example Albert Markovski, a good guy environmental activist whose company “Open Spaces” tries to preserve natural habitats suddenly finds himself out of a job when his enemy Brad, boss of the Huckabees megastore (“the everything store”) takes over. There is even a literature angle to the takeover. Brad’s stories, not to mention his good looks, impress the older females at Open Spaces who have grown tired of Albert’s boring “save the environment” poems. Albert then goes to existential detectives Bernard and Vivian Jaffe and asks them to uncover the meaning of his life, which has just fallen apart. Unfortunately, their advice, “Everything is the same, even if it’s different,” does not give him any enlightenment, and so he goes to Caterine, a “dark existentialist.” She tells him to stop thinking and get into a state of “pure being” by smacking a ball in his face, and he ends up setting Brad’s house on fire.
This is not exactly the act of freedom that Sartre or Camus had in mind, something that would reflect well on humanity. When Sisyphus, a clever king, fooled the gods one too many times when he captured Hades so no one could die, his own death ended in an eternal punishment of having to push a boulder up a hill that would just fall down again just as it reached the top. In this absurd situation, Sisyphus found satisfaction in the struggle to keep trying with the boulder, and this was Camus’ point. Sisyphus had to look within himself to find some meaning in his life since there was no outside power that was going to help him. Albert was no Sisyphus.
Albert was also not like a Dorothy, who was one day in her comfy farmhouse and the next traveling by tornado to the Land of Oz, where a wicked witch was out to kill her.
When she discovered there was no outside power to help her because the Wizard of Oz was a fraud, she found the strength inside herself to help her friends and herself.
In spite of the fact that Albert’s act of burning down Brad’s house was not a redeeming one, Albert discovers a sort of existential sympathy for Brad, who loses his beautiful house to the fire and his wife to the fireman. There is a happy ending with Albert back in his own job. Getting even by arson does not give meaning to life, but then “I Love Huckabees” is a comedy, and we do not have to try to make sense of it the way we do with our own lives. In my life if my world suddenly goes upside down, which it did two years ago when a new coach started benching his strongest players. I had to decide between saying, “Everything sucks” and riding it out continuing to do my best.
What was happening had nothing to do with me and so my world made no sense. The only way to give the experience meaning was to find it in me, and I think that is what the existentialists, Sartre and Camus, as opposed to Bernard and Vivian, are trying to tell us. The meaning in the universe has to come from inside ourselves.
One day your life is going along the way it always does so you have no reason to question it, and the next day something happens to turn it upside down, and suddenly it feels like you have lost your place in the universe. This is the start of your existential crisis, and the first stage is disbelief followed closely by fear. For example Albert Markovski, a good guy environmental activist whose company “Open Spaces” tries to preserve natural habitats suddenly finds himself out of a job when his enemy Brad, boss of the Huckabees megastore (“the everything store”) takes over. There is even a literature angle to the takeover. Brad’s stories, not to mention his good looks, impress the older females at Open Spaces who have grown tired of Albert’s boring “save the environment” poems. Albert then goes to existential detectives Bernard and Vivian Jaffe and asks them to uncover the meaning of his life, which has just fallen apart. Unfortunately, their advice, “Everything is the same, even if it’s different,” does not give him any enlightenment, and so he goes to Caterine, a “dark existentialist.” She tells him to stop thinking and get into a state of “pure being” by smacking a ball in his face, and he ends up setting Brad’s house on fire.
This is not exactly the act of freedom that Sartre or Camus had in mind, something that would reflect well on humanity. When Sisyphus, a clever king, fooled the gods one too many times when he captured Hades so no one could die, his own death ended in an eternal punishment of having to push a boulder up a hill that would just fall down again just as it reached the top. In this absurd situation, Sisyphus found satisfaction in the struggle to keep trying with the boulder, and this was Camus’ point. Sisyphus had to look within himself to find some meaning in his life since there was no outside power that was going to help him. Albert was no Sisyphus.
Albert was also not like a Dorothy, who was one day in her comfy farmhouse and the next traveling by tornado to the Land of Oz, where a wicked witch was out to kill her.
When she discovered there was no outside power to help her because the Wizard of Oz was a fraud, she found the strength inside herself to help her friends and herself.
In spite of the fact that Albert’s act of burning down Brad’s house was not a redeeming one, Albert discovers a sort of existential sympathy for Brad, who loses his beautiful house to the fire and his wife to the fireman. There is a happy ending with Albert back in his own job. Getting even by arson does not give meaning to life, but then “I Love Huckabees” is a comedy, and we do not have to try to make sense of it the way we do with our own lives. In my life if my world suddenly goes upside down, which it did two years ago when a new coach started benching his strongest players. I had to decide between saying, “Everything sucks” and riding it out continuing to do my best.
What was happening had nothing to do with me and so my world made no sense. The only way to give the experience meaning was to find it in me, and I think that is what the existentialists, Sartre and Camus, as opposed to Bernard and Vivian, are trying to tell us. The meaning in the universe has to come from inside ourselves.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Sample from Manifesto
It's 3:30 in the morning during a blackout in New York City, and I'm stuck in a 4 x 4 x 8 foot elevator shaft on what I believe is the 13th floor of a 27 floor building. It’s at least 100 degrees in here, and I have just taken a break from yelling for about three consecutive hours. After the first 15 minutes I stopped pretending that I was not that scared and started in on some high pitched screams. Unfortunately, I am not alone. All too close to me is an elderly religious lady (just my luck) with a hearing aid. My screaming is frying her eardrum. I should just be quietly praying for my soul, she says. “If it’s God’s time to take your soul, it’s best to just hand it over.” “Hey, I’m only 15. I’m still creating my essence,” I reply. She tells me, “God gave you your essence and he can take it away or let it live for ever after death. Your choice.” “Some choice,“ I say. Determination sets in for me as I decide to pound and bang the walls of the elevator harder and harder and keep yelling my high-pitched shriek. I think I hear distant voices as I hurl myself at the walls. The air is getting oxygen poor, and the old lady is telling me to save my energy, which God gave me, for God. Does he need it back? I keep hurling and shrieking. Suddenly there is some kind of heavy tool banging away at what used to be the front door. I collapse on the floor.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Comment on Sandy's blogpost
I think your response brings a lot of insight into the third part of Banach's lecture. I particularly liked your emphasis on the fact that there can be "negativ influences in the world" that make finding the value in yourself hard. That seems to be Camu's point in using the myth of Sisyphus to explain his idea of existentialism. Being condemmed for eternity to push a boulder up a hill that will always roll down again is about as negative an outside condition in the world as it can get. Camus is saying that the fact that Sisyphus keeps trying and does not get crushed by the boulder means he is finding the strength inside himself to make " a defiant gesture" to his fate.
When you wrote about your expirience having "outside influences" get you down so much that it was hard to find your "value within", you were being defiant against whatever was getting you down and using inner strength to overcome it and get on with your own life.
Thanks for your post, I admire your courage
When you wrote about your expirience having "outside influences" get you down so much that it was hard to find your "value within", you were being defiant against whatever was getting you down and using inner strength to overcome it and get on with your own life.
Thanks for your post, I admire your courage
Thursday, October 1, 2009
HW # 4 Blogpost # 3
Response to "The Existentialist View of Human Happiness" by David Banach
I can understand why Camus would like the Greek myth of Sisyphus as a way of explaining human happiness in an absurd world. An absurd world I guess is a world without a higher power (a god) who put people on earth for his own reasons and gives meaning to their life. I looked up the myth and the reason that Sisyphus was condemned forever to roll a boulder up a hill until it almost reached the top when it would roll back down again was because he had made a fool of Zeus and Hades during his lifetime. His punishmen was really bad because even death could not save him from it since he was already dead.
Saying that man's fate during his lifetime is like Sisyphus's fate after he died seems on the surface like saying that the life of human beings is absurd if no matter what we do in this world we are all just going to die. Camus seems to be making the point that it is the struggle to achieve our own goals that makes our lives worthwhile and that the struggle has to be constant to give life a purpose. Reading about Camus made me think of how i feel when athletes who have just done something great thank god for their achievements. I always think "You should thank yourself. You're the one who worked hard so that you could have this time of glory." I realize that a religious person could tell me that these athletes could be thanking god for inspiring them to work hard, but the point is that they are finding great value in the hard work they do challenging themselves to get better and better at their sport.
Another interesting thing about successful athletes (can be true about any successful people) is that to be happy it seems as though they have to keep challenging themselves. Tiger Woods has enough money to retire. He does not have to keep playing and risk losing and having people say that he is not that good anymore. He keeps challenging himself because that is what gives meaning to his life not his money and his collection of trophies. In addition, he gets a lot of satisfaction from inspiring kids to play his sport or to just work hard at whatever they choose to do. In a Camus philopsophy way he keeps pushing up boulders, and there will always be another one coming down for him to try to push up again. The satisfaction or happiness in life comes from all the hard work that makes us get better at something. Awards are nice but the thrill of getting them does not last that long.
My feeling is that there is a lot to be said for existentialism. It puts responsibility on us to make what we can of our own lives and do it in a way that does not hurt others and is good for humanity. Then when death comes, it is not depressing because everyone can say that we had a good life. Maybe death is depressing for people who had once thought they were going to spend eternity on a soft cloud with beautiful angels and now believe they are just going to rot in the ground. I think it doesn't really matter whether we believe in god or not when it comes to the best way to live our lives to achieve satisfaction from what we do.
I can understand why Camus would like the Greek myth of Sisyphus as a way of explaining human happiness in an absurd world. An absurd world I guess is a world without a higher power (a god) who put people on earth for his own reasons and gives meaning to their life. I looked up the myth and the reason that Sisyphus was condemned forever to roll a boulder up a hill until it almost reached the top when it would roll back down again was because he had made a fool of Zeus and Hades during his lifetime. His punishmen was really bad because even death could not save him from it since he was already dead.
Saying that man's fate during his lifetime is like Sisyphus's fate after he died seems on the surface like saying that the life of human beings is absurd if no matter what we do in this world we are all just going to die. Camus seems to be making the point that it is the struggle to achieve our own goals that makes our lives worthwhile and that the struggle has to be constant to give life a purpose. Reading about Camus made me think of how i feel when athletes who have just done something great thank god for their achievements. I always think "You should thank yourself. You're the one who worked hard so that you could have this time of glory." I realize that a religious person could tell me that these athletes could be thanking god for inspiring them to work hard, but the point is that they are finding great value in the hard work they do challenging themselves to get better and better at their sport.
Another interesting thing about successful athletes (can be true about any successful people) is that to be happy it seems as though they have to keep challenging themselves. Tiger Woods has enough money to retire. He does not have to keep playing and risk losing and having people say that he is not that good anymore. He keeps challenging himself because that is what gives meaning to his life not his money and his collection of trophies. In addition, he gets a lot of satisfaction from inspiring kids to play his sport or to just work hard at whatever they choose to do. In a Camus philopsophy way he keeps pushing up boulders, and there will always be another one coming down for him to try to push up again. The satisfaction or happiness in life comes from all the hard work that makes us get better at something. Awards are nice but the thrill of getting them does not last that long.
My feeling is that there is a lot to be said for existentialism. It puts responsibility on us to make what we can of our own lives and do it in a way that does not hurt others and is good for humanity. Then when death comes, it is not depressing because everyone can say that we had a good life. Maybe death is depressing for people who had once thought they were going to spend eternity on a soft cloud with beautiful angels and now believe they are just going to rot in the ground. I think it doesn't really matter whether we believe in god or not when it comes to the best way to live our lives to achieve satisfaction from what we do.
HW # 4 Comment on Remy's Post
Remy still has not written his 2nd blogpost. I guess I will respond to a blog post from somebody else.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
HW # 4 Comment on Alicia's post
Dear Alicia,
I really liked your reflection about the part religion plays in people's lives in response to Banach's lecture on existentialism, part 2. As you say, for religious people essence has to come before experience because essence, that is our human nature and our values, comes from our god if we believe in one. God is the creator of all things.
You seem to be believing the way I do that people created religion because it gives explanations and makes life less scary in the sense that it makes believers feel less alone in the universe. It also makes death more acceptable by offering heaven as a great place to end up.
As you say, not believing in a god can seem lonely, and I guess that is why existentialism can seem depressing to some people. But it is also depressing if people use their religious values to make themselves feel superior to people from other religions or to people who have no religion.
I really liked your quote from Tuck Everlasting. That was a great book to make readers understand why death is necessary because to live forever on earth would be hell. No one would ever want to stay at one age for ever. Imagine staying in kindergarten for ever or in high school for ever. Humans need to grow. Our lives need to change.
I don't know if god exists and if one does whose god would it be? As you say, we can't know for sure about the existance of god, but we can have faith in humanity because we can see it around us. When so many people took action against Hitler, including Sartre who joined the resistance in France, that was a good thing. We know that. Fighting evil or feeding starving children is a good thing. We can't live perfect lives but we can try to develop our talents and contribute in some way to humanity. That is what I understand to be using our freedom to create our essence. If we feel at the end of our lives that we have made an effort and not let humanity down, the death won't seem that scary.
Your quote from Tuck Everlasting was so good. "Don't be afraid of dying, be afraid of the unlived life" is a great existentialist line. The idea is to use our freedom to create our values and live our lives so that when death comes we won't have regrets.
I really liked your reflection about the part religion plays in people's lives in response to Banach's lecture on existentialism, part 2. As you say, for religious people essence has to come before experience because essence, that is our human nature and our values, comes from our god if we believe in one. God is the creator of all things.
You seem to be believing the way I do that people created religion because it gives explanations and makes life less scary in the sense that it makes believers feel less alone in the universe. It also makes death more acceptable by offering heaven as a great place to end up.
As you say, not believing in a god can seem lonely, and I guess that is why existentialism can seem depressing to some people. But it is also depressing if people use their religious values to make themselves feel superior to people from other religions or to people who have no religion.
I really liked your quote from Tuck Everlasting. That was a great book to make readers understand why death is necessary because to live forever on earth would be hell. No one would ever want to stay at one age for ever. Imagine staying in kindergarten for ever or in high school for ever. Humans need to grow. Our lives need to change.
I don't know if god exists and if one does whose god would it be? As you say, we can't know for sure about the existance of god, but we can have faith in humanity because we can see it around us. When so many people took action against Hitler, including Sartre who joined the resistance in France, that was a good thing. We know that. Fighting evil or feeding starving children is a good thing. We can't live perfect lives but we can try to develop our talents and contribute in some way to humanity. That is what I understand to be using our freedom to create our essence. If we feel at the end of our lives that we have made an effort and not let humanity down, the death won't seem that scary.
Your quote from Tuck Everlasting was so good. "Don't be afraid of dying, be afraid of the unlived life" is a great existentialist line. The idea is to use our freedom to create our values and live our lives so that when death comes we won't have regrets.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HW # 3 Blog Post #2 (existentialism)
I am not a religous person. Even though I have been taken to church a few times and I was born on December 25th, I have to admit that the only times I think about saying something to God is when I am in trouble: "Please God don't let that kid score on us." Satre's existentialist idea that there is not a god who has given us our human nature that is as Banach says, " a pre-conceived idea of what we were to be and what we were to be good for" is not at all depressing to me. It is a good thing.
The fact is that when I think about human nature I think about how we use the expression "It's just human nature" as an excuse. For example, we think that it is human nature to be greedy and out for ourselves, to make fun of others because we are insecure, and to take all the credit to satisfy our sad egos. But when Barack Obama gives a really inspiring speech, we don't say "That's human nature. " We think what an unusually gifted individual he is. To me, this individualism is part of what Sarte is getting at. When people do extraordinary things that help the world or even set any kind of personal goal and reach it, they are taking responsibility for their own acts. I think this might be what Banach is saying when he is describing existentialism as "honoring the responsibility we have to create our own nature and values."
On the other hand, when we humans don't take positive actions to improve our lives, we blame human nature, this force outside ourselves. When Banach talks about common excuses we all use for not making an effort like "I can't pass this course, I just don't have the brain for calculous," I think he is saying that the existentialist view about a statement like this would be that you aren't exercising the freedom you have to change your life. If you believe that you were just born a certain way and that other people were born a certain way and are stronger than you are, you might think that you could never challenge them even if they are wrong.
This idea of creating our own essence which I guess is about our values and the way we would like ourselves to be makes me think about why Sartre came up with his existentialist views. I know that he fought against the Nazis in WWII. He would think that people who hid Jewish people so they wouldn't be taken to concentration camps were heros in an existentialist way. It would be easier not to hide them and just say to yourself, "Who am I to challenge Hitler?". In fact, it would be more like human nature to want to protect yourself and your own family. Deciding to save someone else and risk your own life would mean that you don't feel powerless because of outside forces. You would be creating your own values not acting like a sheep.
The fact is that when I think about human nature I think about how we use the expression "It's just human nature" as an excuse. For example, we think that it is human nature to be greedy and out for ourselves, to make fun of others because we are insecure, and to take all the credit to satisfy our sad egos. But when Barack Obama gives a really inspiring speech, we don't say "That's human nature. " We think what an unusually gifted individual he is. To me, this individualism is part of what Sarte is getting at. When people do extraordinary things that help the world or even set any kind of personal goal and reach it, they are taking responsibility for their own acts. I think this might be what Banach is saying when he is describing existentialism as "honoring the responsibility we have to create our own nature and values."
On the other hand, when we humans don't take positive actions to improve our lives, we blame human nature, this force outside ourselves. When Banach talks about common excuses we all use for not making an effort like "I can't pass this course, I just don't have the brain for calculous," I think he is saying that the existentialist view about a statement like this would be that you aren't exercising the freedom you have to change your life. If you believe that you were just born a certain way and that other people were born a certain way and are stronger than you are, you might think that you could never challenge them even if they are wrong.
This idea of creating our own essence which I guess is about our values and the way we would like ourselves to be makes me think about why Sartre came up with his existentialist views. I know that he fought against the Nazis in WWII. He would think that people who hid Jewish people so they wouldn't be taken to concentration camps were heros in an existentialist way. It would be easier not to hide them and just say to yourself, "Who am I to challenge Hitler?". In fact, it would be more like human nature to want to protect yourself and your own family. Deciding to save someone else and risk your own life would mean that you don't feel powerless because of outside forces. You would be creating your own values not acting like a sheep.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
HW # 2 First comments (existentialism)
HW # 2 First Comments
Dear Remy C.
Hmm, well this blog post was really interesting (although in an extremely un-orthodox way). I like the fact that when I read your writing here I can have mental image of you saying this as if we were just having a regular/random conversation. Your writing technique can vary from very precise too exceedingly odd and the contrast makes for an even balance overall when I read this post.
Your quote in the second paragraph, “We’re visitors in a museum of illusion, and even we ourselves are apart of the show, covered up in that magic saran wrap.” This quote really embodied what this post was all about as it was also easily understood and gave a whole new light on how I can interpret reality for what it is. The problem is that I don’t like illusions and I do not like to be tricked because I want to control certain aspects of my life like a mastermind chess player, I want to be a step ahead of my opponents. In other words I am increasingly trying to understand reality.
In the third paragraph of your post you say “Human flourishing/ happiness is typically the satisfaction of our 5 senses.” This quote really made me stop and think about how nobody thought that up in class so applause for you…… Any way I would like too build off of how important changes in individuals 5 senses can alter one’s sense of absolute freedom.
Your points about the Illusions and the 5 senses are extremely intriguing as you seem to imply that there is this mental block that humans have not yet coped with and the question I want to ask you is, how do us visitors (humans) fight through the wrappings and the illusions to reach absolute freedom? If it is even reachable.
I really enjoyed reading this post and I hope you have the time to build off of it as well as answer the couple of questions I had up there.
Dear Remy C.
Hmm, well this blog post was really interesting (although in an extremely un-orthodox way). I like the fact that when I read your writing here I can have mental image of you saying this as if we were just having a regular/random conversation. Your writing technique can vary from very precise too exceedingly odd and the contrast makes for an even balance overall when I read this post.
Your quote in the second paragraph, “We’re visitors in a museum of illusion, and even we ourselves are apart of the show, covered up in that magic saran wrap.” This quote really embodied what this post was all about as it was also easily understood and gave a whole new light on how I can interpret reality for what it is. The problem is that I don’t like illusions and I do not like to be tricked because I want to control certain aspects of my life like a mastermind chess player, I want to be a step ahead of my opponents. In other words I am increasingly trying to understand reality.
In the third paragraph of your post you say “Human flourishing/ happiness is typically the satisfaction of our 5 senses.” This quote really made me stop and think about how nobody thought that up in class so applause for you…… Any way I would like too build off of how important changes in individuals 5 senses can alter one’s sense of absolute freedom.
Your points about the Illusions and the 5 senses are extremely intriguing as you seem to imply that there is this mental block that humans have not yet coped with and the question I want to ask you is, how do us visitors (humans) fight through the wrappings and the illusions to reach absolute freedom? If it is even reachable.
I really enjoyed reading this post and I hope you have the time to build off of it as well as answer the couple of questions I had up there.
HW # 2 First comments (existentialism)
Dear Alicia,
This blog post has definitely been the best of all the ones I have read from both Manley’s class and Andy’s class (finnaly a blog post that’s 100% readable). This post gave me a whole new perspective at which to observe existentialism that I hadn’t even heard in the very very long English Class discussions.
I liked how your blog seemed to flow from the topics of authority, to parent child relation, and finnaly individualism. I liked what you said in the 2nd paragraph, “no one can really enforce ‘ethical’ behavior or ‘code of action’ for anyone but themselves.” This really put into perspective the “ by the book” way people use authority over one another but when you reach the age where you now have the authority you do not have to follow that code of action.
Your final statement out of paragraph # 2 really exemplified how one should live their life, “we can only be happy if we set out to be.” Every individual should have the freedom to be happy, and there are many different ways people will interpret realizing their own true happiness.
After reading your third paragraph about how you can not fully connect with your parents on a specific level, I almost thought you were secretly wishing you maybe have a twin to have someone to relate with. But, after reading your final paragraph you justified your reasons for placing that statement earlier in the post by saying, “who would really want someone being identical to the way you are? Doesn’t comparisons and disagreements make life more interesting”? I’m sure after reading that statement that it would “hit home” too many people who play this game of life way too safely and cannot seem to break out of their shells to embrace the realistic freedom that they have.
Sorry for being so long winded but your post offered up a lot to say. Also, another sign of a great writer is that you were able too start and end with a similar statement to leave the reader (me) thinking. Please build off of this post. Can’t wait for what you have to say next.
This blog post has definitely been the best of all the ones I have read from both Manley’s class and Andy’s class (finnaly a blog post that’s 100% readable). This post gave me a whole new perspective at which to observe existentialism that I hadn’t even heard in the very very long English Class discussions.
I liked how your blog seemed to flow from the topics of authority, to parent child relation, and finnaly individualism. I liked what you said in the 2nd paragraph, “no one can really enforce ‘ethical’ behavior or ‘code of action’ for anyone but themselves.” This really put into perspective the “ by the book” way people use authority over one another but when you reach the age where you now have the authority you do not have to follow that code of action.
Your final statement out of paragraph # 2 really exemplified how one should live their life, “we can only be happy if we set out to be.” Every individual should have the freedom to be happy, and there are many different ways people will interpret realizing their own true happiness.
After reading your third paragraph about how you can not fully connect with your parents on a specific level, I almost thought you were secretly wishing you maybe have a twin to have someone to relate with. But, after reading your final paragraph you justified your reasons for placing that statement earlier in the post by saying, “who would really want someone being identical to the way you are? Doesn’t comparisons and disagreements make life more interesting”? I’m sure after reading that statement that it would “hit home” too many people who play this game of life way too safely and cannot seem to break out of their shells to embrace the realistic freedom that they have.
Sorry for being so long winded but your post offered up a lot to say. Also, another sign of a great writer is that you were able too start and end with a similar statement to leave the reader (me) thinking. Please build off of this post. Can’t wait for what you have to say next.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Devin M hw#1 post
Based on part 1 of David Banach's "The Ethics of Absolute Freedom" Individuality and Freedom, Individuality is a truly depressing state. In fact, he defines it as a trap. It seems that we are stuck inside ourselves without a clue about what anybody else is thinking or feeling. I think we all know people who we think are clueless to a certain extent in some situations. Are former president for example had some famous clueless moments, for example when he arrived in Brazil and said, "Oh, you have black people too." I think we are not quite as alone as Mr.Banach seems to think. The reason that Barack Obama became President was because there was a majority shared feeling that many of the poliicies of the previous administration were terrible, torture being one example and the justification for the Iraq war (all those weapons of mass destruction......not) being another. My point is that I may not be able to know excactly what another person is feeling or thinking all the time, but I am pretty darn sure that I know what some people are thinking about a particular subject because I can feel a shared connection and it's a feeling I trust.
Actually, as human beings, we are not alone. We are part of humanity. There are always other people who have certain points of view and opinions we share. Mr.Banach's idea that we are trapped " in a dark room with no windows " because we can't share feelings and experiences with others is not the kind of individuality I can recognize. The whole idea of friendship is based on having shared feelings. It's true that we can't know everything another person is thinking. That would really be painful and no fun at all. We are not mind readers and we don't want to have our minds read. That would really be a loss of personal freedom.
Actually, as human beings, we are not alone. We are part of humanity. There are always other people who have certain points of view and opinions we share. Mr.Banach's idea that we are trapped " in a dark room with no windows " because we can't share feelings and experiences with others is not the kind of individuality I can recognize. The whole idea of friendship is based on having shared feelings. It's true that we can't know everything another person is thinking. That would really be painful and no fun at all. We are not mind readers and we don't want to have our minds read. That would really be a loss of personal freedom.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)