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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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)