The story of the wealthy man and his mother really intrigued me. I was appalled that Meursault said "I thought the traveler pretty much deserved what he got and that you should never play games." I'm assuming he doesn't like deceitful people. We can tell from the book that Meursault is an honest person, not afraid to say what he really feels such as telling Marie that he doesn't love her. His opinion on the story lets us know that he finds it stupid that people like creating excitment in their lives that isn't necessary and as a result the man is punished for it. For Meursault, life pretty much has no meaning and he has no interest in getting out of the boring life that he leads because it's perfectly natural. He also refers to the story as unlikely but natural. The fact that the event happened by chance made it both unlikely and natural. And because this was so natural he didn't express any kind of emotion towards the story. This is what his whole life is about. The natural occurances of things and that they don't need any sort of analyzation or opinion.
This makes me think of our unit question: What is the right way to live life?
There is no one definition of the right way to live that will encompass everyone's life. As long as you yourself agree with the way you're living, then I say that's the right way. Meursault is completely content with living a pointless life. And for a lot of us, the key is to lead a meaningful life filled with experiences, emotions, dreams and goals. Both hold their own truths.
People say to live life everyday as if it were your last. For people like me, I would try to do something "meaningful" that will give me a surge of emotion. We base our lives on emotions. Every decision and action that we make is based on what we're feeling and how we think the decision will affect the way we feel or how others will feel. Meursault is different. He tells us that even if he dies later, he would still spend his last day the way he spends it now. The fact that he's so sure that his last day will always be one of indifference shows how much he actually believes that life is meaningless. And when I say meaningless, people would automatically think of it as a pessimistic idea because we are raised to think that we have to make something out of our lives. The mere thought of just letting the motion pass is frown upon because "we must not let our one life go to waste." This saying implies that life is valuable. Meursault's detached attitude obviously contradicts this perspective. And who is it to say that he's wrong? To us, he's stupid for wasting his life. To him, we're the stupid ones adding excess events into our lives just for the heck of triggering emotions (such as Marie's proposal and the chaplain's belief in God).
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Who is this guy? Blog Post
Judging by Meursault's detached attitude towards life, my first impression of him was of an inconsiderate and careless loner. He seems to be unengaged or doesn't find much importance in all that he does. He shows much indifference towards his mother's death although it can be argued that that's the way he copes with loss. He also doesn't project much interest in his "love" life. He sleeps with Marie and when she asks him if he loved her, he said he didn't. When she asks him if he would marry her, he said marriage didn't matter and that if she wanted to marry him then they would do it. He doesn't seem to care at all about the stuff people would normally find importance in. Another example was when he witnesses his neighbor abusing his dog. When asked if he thought that was terrible, he replied with a simple no. When his other neighbor asked for his opinion on whether he should beat up his girlfriend for suspected cheating, Meursault said go ahead and even agrees to help him write the letter that lures her in and pretend to act as a witness to her suspected infedelity.
He seems to just go with the flow, not caring about what happens or about any consequences. He never seems to have a set schedule or anything planned, doing what he feels like. His job is probably the only responsible aspect in his life, but even then, we consistently hear him saying "It's not my fault." He seems to take on Caterine's philosophy where he feels life is meaningless. Maybe it can be argued that it's not that he doesn't care about life, but that he accepts it more for what it is. He accepts the idea that death is natural and that's probably why it seemed like it was so easy for him to let his mother go.
Camus created this character porbably because very little of us can actually relate to him. Most writers would invent characters that readers can understand but in this case, Camus wants to push our thinking, have us step into his shoes and look at the world through this character's emotionless eyes. People tend to find objects in their life that they deem valuable for whatever the reason may be. But the point is that these objects are given values through humans; they aren't predetermined values. Meursault's objective view of life in this case percieves all objects as valueless.
As we criticize Meursault for being such a compassionless person, maybe we ought to take a step back and see things from his perspective. Maybe we are the ones who need to reevaluate our lives because maybe the bad thing here isn't being Life's pushover, but instead is going against the natural way of things, setting schedules for free times (reference to the woman he saw at the restaurant), putting value in something that originally didn't, and creating meaning in a meaningless world. (I just contradicted my whole Manifesto.)
He seems to just go with the flow, not caring about what happens or about any consequences. He never seems to have a set schedule or anything planned, doing what he feels like. His job is probably the only responsible aspect in his life, but even then, we consistently hear him saying "It's not my fault." He seems to take on Caterine's philosophy where he feels life is meaningless. Maybe it can be argued that it's not that he doesn't care about life, but that he accepts it more for what it is. He accepts the idea that death is natural and that's probably why it seemed like it was so easy for him to let his mother go.
Camus created this character porbably because very little of us can actually relate to him. Most writers would invent characters that readers can understand but in this case, Camus wants to push our thinking, have us step into his shoes and look at the world through this character's emotionless eyes. People tend to find objects in their life that they deem valuable for whatever the reason may be. But the point is that these objects are given values through humans; they aren't predetermined values. Meursault's objective view of life in this case percieves all objects as valueless.
As we criticize Meursault for being such a compassionless person, maybe we ought to take a step back and see things from his perspective. Maybe we are the ones who need to reevaluate our lives because maybe the bad thing here isn't being Life's pushover, but instead is going against the natural way of things, setting schedules for free times (reference to the woman he saw at the restaurant), putting value in something that originally didn't, and creating meaning in a meaningless world. (I just contradicted my whole Manifesto.)
Monday, October 26, 2009
Huckabees Blog Post Assignment
Objectively, I don't think the world has much meaning to it, but we somehow create meaning in our lives because we are so determined to dig for a purpose. Bernard says "Everything is the same even if it's different." Therefore everything holds the same value and just as everything is the same amount of importance, they also all hold the same amount of unimportance. The statement that everything is important and that "the center is everywhere" contradicts itself because if everything is the same, then they become meaningless. But then again, it's human nature to isolate objects and create some sort of importance in them whether it's great importance or not. We individualize ourselves and our surroundings and try to incorporate a purpose into its being.
I thought it was weird that Albert was so convinced that his coincidences with the man had some meaning to it and that he went as far as consulting an existentialist detective about it. When I think about coincidences I don't think of fate, I think of it as accidents... that just happens. This reminds me of a conversation I had with Rachel and Gavin yesterday. Rachel believes that everyone basically has a set purpose in life that they need to find and complete before their souls were at peace. Both Gavin and I agreed that purposes didn't exist and everything's just an accident. People can make of their life what they can and label something as their "purpose", but it has nothing to do with fate. I remember Rachel asking something like Don't you think your parents were meant to meet each other and have you so you can do what you're meant to do in life? To that I responded No, we're here just because we are. It just happened. After a bunch of back and forths, we didn't manage to convince the other of our ideas at all. ..Woah I just realized that sounded a lot like the fractured philosophies of Bernard's and Caterine's.
I'm not trying to say that life is meaningless, live meaninglessly; that we shouldn't do anything with our lives but just wander aimlessly about. Even though in my opinion, life isn't made to have an intended purpose, that doesn't necessarily mean we can't insert our own purpose into it. We can each determine what our individual mission in life is. This is the purpose we chose for ourselves that will add on the sort of meaning we've been craving for to our lives. It isn't something decided for us by outside forces (whether that's what we convince ourselves of or not).
I don't think I actually understood Albert's revelation in the end about the two overlapping philosophies. Did he combine the two or did he declare one over the other? I should look more into that because I don't think my extremist view is a healthy one.
I thought it was weird that Albert was so convinced that his coincidences with the man had some meaning to it and that he went as far as consulting an existentialist detective about it. When I think about coincidences I don't think of fate, I think of it as accidents... that just happens. This reminds me of a conversation I had with Rachel and Gavin yesterday. Rachel believes that everyone basically has a set purpose in life that they need to find and complete before their souls were at peace. Both Gavin and I agreed that purposes didn't exist and everything's just an accident. People can make of their life what they can and label something as their "purpose", but it has nothing to do with fate. I remember Rachel asking something like Don't you think your parents were meant to meet each other and have you so you can do what you're meant to do in life? To that I responded No, we're here just because we are. It just happened. After a bunch of back and forths, we didn't manage to convince the other of our ideas at all. ..Woah I just realized that sounded a lot like the fractured philosophies of Bernard's and Caterine's.
I'm not trying to say that life is meaningless, live meaninglessly; that we shouldn't do anything with our lives but just wander aimlessly about. Even though in my opinion, life isn't made to have an intended purpose, that doesn't necessarily mean we can't insert our own purpose into it. We can each determine what our individual mission in life is. This is the purpose we chose for ourselves that will add on the sort of meaning we've been craving for to our lives. It isn't something decided for us by outside forces (whether that's what we convince ourselves of or not).
I don't think I actually understood Albert's revelation in the end about the two overlapping philosophies. Did he combine the two or did he declare one over the other? I should look more into that because I don't think my extremist view is a healthy one.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Manifesto
Part I: Who Are We?
I find it pointless the way people try so hard to figure out the meaning of life, the key to true “human happiness”. Where is this going to get us? In a pile of confusion and frustration, that's all. I get so tired of questions like “What is the real way to live?” and “What is our purpose in life?” These questions are asked so many times to the point where for many, have begun to lose its meaning. It’s not natural to just raise a question like that and expect the person to have an answer on hand. We tune these questions out because they tend to get frustrating. I find that I come across bits and pieces of these answers during the most unexpected moments. Maybe it’s while I’m having the time of my life with my friends that I realize that those are the moments I should be striving for in life. Or maybe it’s at night when I’m thinking about death that I realize I need to cherish all that I have now before I lose them. Or maybe it was that one time where I was watching an infomercial about cancer patients and about 30 or so minutes into it, I began feeling ashamed of the way I took my life for granted. Everything I was worrying about that time was put into perspective, miniscule compared to the worries of the cancer patients. These were all moments that had led me to a deeper perspective and a more refined approach to life. Moments like these I distinctly remember because they’re almost like epiphanies where everything just makes perfect sense for that one second. These were thoughts that rang crystal clear in my head and were powerful enough to reshape my values. The point is, everyone will have their own experiences and develop their own approach to life. I believe we should just live and let our experiences be our teachers as opposed to figuring them out through discussions and asking each other “How should we live life?”
As I was watching Gossip Girl this week, there was a scene where Serena, a teenager, enlists out of college and leaves her home in hopes of seeking a true identity. Her mother says "Enough is enough. This need to find out who you are. Do you think anyone really knows who they are? We don't. We just live." And Serena responds by saying, "So that's it? That's your advice? To give up?" People spend their lives in search of something that can tell them "yes, this is you," trying to dig through cracks in their personality to find that one special thing that sets them apart from the rest. But at the end of the day, they'd still be as clueless as they were when they set out to "find themselves." Maybe it's just me who feels this way. Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for the population. But seriously, can anyone tell me that they're certain what "who you are" is a description of? What defines our “self” exactly? Banach states it's not our physical appearance, brain, or personalities because "in each of these cases [we are] deceiving [ourselves]." He says "I am more than just these, and no matter how hard I try to avoid it, I am free to do whatever I choose.” What does he mean by “more than just these”? I’ve always been convinced that your identity is defined by your personality. Banach obviously disagrees because he sees it as an excuse that limits the things we choose to do. He’s stating that being our personalities is self-deception. What exactly is he asking us to be then if we aren’t are brains, bodies, or personalities? If it's not any of that, then how are we supposed to define ourselves? How would we describe ourselves if we're not allowed to say we're girls, or doctors, or mothers, or someone with a perky personality?
Reading Banach’s lecture does tend to get a little frustrating though because he doesn't explicitly describe the right way to live. He tells us we are puppets by seeing "little pictures of ourselves projected by other people and we often tend to try to make ourselves into these little pictures by playing roles." He insists that everyone is leading their lives according to others expectations. He speaks condescendingly, labeling our actions as befitting to the “roles” that we play as if it was a flaw. What is so wrong in choosing to be a mother or a businesswoman? He is basically labeling all of us as posers. He believes that we let "other people determine what we are instead of deciding, ourselves, what we will be" and that "we all to some extent tend to make ourselves into the image other people have of us." How is it that he can tap into our brains and tell us how we operate our lives when he was the same person that said we live in our own "islands of subjectivity" and that no one can ever understand another person's thoughts or feelings?
Part II: Abandon Search for External Value
The meaning of life: the reoccurring record that sings us to sleep most nights. Nightly rituals where we're mentally going through the lists of things we need to do the next day... only after we rewind and go through the events that happened the day before. We wonder why we put ourselves through such grueling tasks when we’re just going to lose it all in the end. What is the point to all this? We wake up groaning, reluctant to pull our bodies out of the covers. But what do you know? Most of us eventually throw off our covers, abandon all comfort, and set out to work in hopes of finding success one day. And as most would agree, success equates to happiness. Banach believes that there is no "final resting place", no place we can happily settle in and call it success because there aren't any "external values that we can live up to, no external viewpoint from which our life can be viewed to be valuable." Since we don't have a clue to what pre-existing standards we are being held to, we should not count on finding value through the outside world. We need to capture value and happiness within ourselves and in order to do that we need to "lose all hope of external value."
Many pessimists might think that the troubles we go through in life are pitiful and not worth doing because in the end death will take all that we've achieved back. We slave all day and night only to face an inevitable loss; a loss of not only our lives but everything around us, people and possessions and all. Everything we've worked for, everyone we've encountered all poof, gone with the last beat of our hearts. No more new experiences; this is the closing chapter that ends it all. And as we listen to our books shut, we do all that we can to ignore the sound coming from the slamming of the papers laughing at how much work we've put into getting nowhere. And as that thought dawns on us, it's only fair that we agree with Banach, that "our life is a series of meaningless actions all culminating in death." I am aware that this is a reoccurring theme in my life, but I’ve begun to slide out of that state of mind. Like Sisyphus, I've found content in rolling my rock up a hill to where it would come back down and I would have to roll it back up again and again. The goal is not to find that external "final resting place," to reach a goal or to "live up to some set of pre-existing standards." The goal is to find value within yourself, to treat your experiences as chances to learn new lessons, and not as stepping stones to reach something external that you believe will establish your value. It's to live in the moment.
We think finding out "who we are" is proof of our value but like Serena's mother said, no one really knows who they are, "we just live." There is no preconceived course that we have to follow, nor any other object that exists have to follow. There is no purpose we are subjected to. Everything is cause and effect. The road is being built behind us, not something we walk on. The quest to finding out who we are is, what our purpose is, is just like that invisible final resting place Banach talks about. It's something that we don't know of and can never reach. But still, we find ourselves rolling the rock up the hill. Life may be inevitably sealed by death and I may never be able to find out who I really am but even then, I'd rather go through it enjoying everything it has to offer, challenges and all, instead of sitting by a corner for the rest of my life waiting for the end.
I find it pointless the way people try so hard to figure out the meaning of life, the key to true “human happiness”. Where is this going to get us? In a pile of confusion and frustration, that's all. I get so tired of questions like “What is the real way to live?” and “What is our purpose in life?” These questions are asked so many times to the point where for many, have begun to lose its meaning. It’s not natural to just raise a question like that and expect the person to have an answer on hand. We tune these questions out because they tend to get frustrating. I find that I come across bits and pieces of these answers during the most unexpected moments. Maybe it’s while I’m having the time of my life with my friends that I realize that those are the moments I should be striving for in life. Or maybe it’s at night when I’m thinking about death that I realize I need to cherish all that I have now before I lose them. Or maybe it was that one time where I was watching an infomercial about cancer patients and about 30 or so minutes into it, I began feeling ashamed of the way I took my life for granted. Everything I was worrying about that time was put into perspective, miniscule compared to the worries of the cancer patients. These were all moments that had led me to a deeper perspective and a more refined approach to life. Moments like these I distinctly remember because they’re almost like epiphanies where everything just makes perfect sense for that one second. These were thoughts that rang crystal clear in my head and were powerful enough to reshape my values. The point is, everyone will have their own experiences and develop their own approach to life. I believe we should just live and let our experiences be our teachers as opposed to figuring them out through discussions and asking each other “How should we live life?”
As I was watching Gossip Girl this week, there was a scene where Serena, a teenager, enlists out of college and leaves her home in hopes of seeking a true identity. Her mother says "Enough is enough. This need to find out who you are. Do you think anyone really knows who they are? We don't. We just live." And Serena responds by saying, "So that's it? That's your advice? To give up?" People spend their lives in search of something that can tell them "yes, this is you," trying to dig through cracks in their personality to find that one special thing that sets them apart from the rest. But at the end of the day, they'd still be as clueless as they were when they set out to "find themselves." Maybe it's just me who feels this way. Maybe I shouldn't be speaking for the population. But seriously, can anyone tell me that they're certain what "who you are" is a description of? What defines our “self” exactly? Banach states it's not our physical appearance, brain, or personalities because "in each of these cases [we are] deceiving [ourselves]." He says "I am more than just these, and no matter how hard I try to avoid it, I am free to do whatever I choose.” What does he mean by “more than just these”? I’ve always been convinced that your identity is defined by your personality. Banach obviously disagrees because he sees it as an excuse that limits the things we choose to do. He’s stating that being our personalities is self-deception. What exactly is he asking us to be then if we aren’t are brains, bodies, or personalities? If it's not any of that, then how are we supposed to define ourselves? How would we describe ourselves if we're not allowed to say we're girls, or doctors, or mothers, or someone with a perky personality?
Reading Banach’s lecture does tend to get a little frustrating though because he doesn't explicitly describe the right way to live. He tells us we are puppets by seeing "little pictures of ourselves projected by other people and we often tend to try to make ourselves into these little pictures by playing roles." He insists that everyone is leading their lives according to others expectations. He speaks condescendingly, labeling our actions as befitting to the “roles” that we play as if it was a flaw. What is so wrong in choosing to be a mother or a businesswoman? He is basically labeling all of us as posers. He believes that we let "other people determine what we are instead of deciding, ourselves, what we will be" and that "we all to some extent tend to make ourselves into the image other people have of us." How is it that he can tap into our brains and tell us how we operate our lives when he was the same person that said we live in our own "islands of subjectivity" and that no one can ever understand another person's thoughts or feelings?
Part II: Abandon Search for External Value
The meaning of life: the reoccurring record that sings us to sleep most nights. Nightly rituals where we're mentally going through the lists of things we need to do the next day... only after we rewind and go through the events that happened the day before. We wonder why we put ourselves through such grueling tasks when we’re just going to lose it all in the end. What is the point to all this? We wake up groaning, reluctant to pull our bodies out of the covers. But what do you know? Most of us eventually throw off our covers, abandon all comfort, and set out to work in hopes of finding success one day. And as most would agree, success equates to happiness. Banach believes that there is no "final resting place", no place we can happily settle in and call it success because there aren't any "external values that we can live up to, no external viewpoint from which our life can be viewed to be valuable." Since we don't have a clue to what pre-existing standards we are being held to, we should not count on finding value through the outside world. We need to capture value and happiness within ourselves and in order to do that we need to "lose all hope of external value."
Many pessimists might think that the troubles we go through in life are pitiful and not worth doing because in the end death will take all that we've achieved back. We slave all day and night only to face an inevitable loss; a loss of not only our lives but everything around us, people and possessions and all. Everything we've worked for, everyone we've encountered all poof, gone with the last beat of our hearts. No more new experiences; this is the closing chapter that ends it all. And as we listen to our books shut, we do all that we can to ignore the sound coming from the slamming of the papers laughing at how much work we've put into getting nowhere. And as that thought dawns on us, it's only fair that we agree with Banach, that "our life is a series of meaningless actions all culminating in death." I am aware that this is a reoccurring theme in my life, but I’ve begun to slide out of that state of mind. Like Sisyphus, I've found content in rolling my rock up a hill to where it would come back down and I would have to roll it back up again and again. The goal is not to find that external "final resting place," to reach a goal or to "live up to some set of pre-existing standards." The goal is to find value within yourself, to treat your experiences as chances to learn new lessons, and not as stepping stones to reach something external that you believe will establish your value. It's to live in the moment.
We think finding out "who we are" is proof of our value but like Serena's mother said, no one really knows who they are, "we just live." There is no preconceived course that we have to follow, nor any other object that exists have to follow. There is no purpose we are subjected to. Everything is cause and effect. The road is being built behind us, not something we walk on. The quest to finding out who we are is, what our purpose is, is just like that invisible final resting place Banach talks about. It's something that we don't know of and can never reach. But still, we find ourselves rolling the rock up the hill. Life may be inevitably sealed by death and I may never be able to find out who I really am but even then, I'd rather go through it enjoying everything it has to offer, challenges and all, instead of sitting by a corner for the rest of my life waiting for the end.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Blog Comments #3
Maggie,
I enjoyed your post so much. It's clear and I can understand the points you were trying to make and why you thought that way. I agree that it is difficult to understand how you would find happiness within yourself when happiness is usually defined as a feeling you get from something that happened or from someone you love. But happiness can also be viewed as finding peace within yourself and being satisfied with the person you are excluding the outer world. But that type of happiness seems too hard to achieve as well. Like you said, Banach's beliefs do seem too idealistic.
I liked your explanation of the slave masters and how by becoming slave masters they're now subjected into a role where they have set expectations. They're now slaves of their own expectations and go about their lives living with this set of restrictions. They've lost their freedom by taking away others' freedom. This makes me wonder if expectations are necessarily the good thing that most people say they are if they're as bad as Banach says. Are expectations - something that's supposed to be seen as motivational towards human growth - also the gate that keeps us from being free and authentic?
I agree with your argument against Banach's viewpoints of a painter's freedom. We may be limited to the resources given to us, the landscape, the colors, etc., but our imaginations are not limited and we can think of whatever we choose to think of.
I think you've covered a lot of ground in this one post, so I don't really see any areas you need to expand on or revise. Your post was really insightful. It made me question the idea of happiness and what it really means to be happy and how you know when you're happy. It made me think about how I can find something in myself that is "infinitely better" than the things I find outside or if I have already and I just didn't realize I have.
I can't wait to read more from you. Your ideas are so clear and well written. (:
Sam R.,
Your post was really fun to read. It looks like you just spilled all your thoughts into one post, slapping one thought on top of another but it made complete sense to me. I liked the quote you picked out: “Is it true…that if God is dead then all things are allowable?” Aside from laws and religion, I think everything's allowable. It just depends on what your conscience decides is the line between what is morally right and wrong.
I agree when you said that to be free we have to abandon all morals. Morals are like invisible lines set to restrict us from certain behaviors. It's like a universal language when we automatically know right from wrong because it's been drilled so deep into our minds since the day we were born. And like you said, I also agree that not having complete freedom might not be such a bad thing after all because restrictions are what keeps the world running properly. So why is our world so obsessed with having freedom? What is the balance between too much and too little?
I think you should look at Manley's question of "Are we free?" from a different perspective, maybe one involving our mental freedom as opposed to just our physical freedom.
Your post made me compare how much happiness I actually take from my external world to how much I find from within myself and I realize I have no idea. Happiness to me is just one big ball of mush taken from all angles of my life. Every time I find myself laughing about something from the outside world, I find myself finding that same happiness within myself. Like the feeling you get initially from your outside influences generates even more within yourself and vice versa. I don't know if that makes any sense though because I can't really put it into words.
I also thought that it was interesting that you asked: "Does happiness even play a role in something being meaningful?" My initial thought was yes it does. All people want is to be happy. It's the drive that goes in all the things that we do.
I enjoyed reading your post a lot. It really made me think about my own life and how much happiness plays a part in the meaningful aspect of my life. Hope to read more from you (:
I enjoyed your post so much. It's clear and I can understand the points you were trying to make and why you thought that way. I agree that it is difficult to understand how you would find happiness within yourself when happiness is usually defined as a feeling you get from something that happened or from someone you love. But happiness can also be viewed as finding peace within yourself and being satisfied with the person you are excluding the outer world. But that type of happiness seems too hard to achieve as well. Like you said, Banach's beliefs do seem too idealistic.
I liked your explanation of the slave masters and how by becoming slave masters they're now subjected into a role where they have set expectations. They're now slaves of their own expectations and go about their lives living with this set of restrictions. They've lost their freedom by taking away others' freedom. This makes me wonder if expectations are necessarily the good thing that most people say they are if they're as bad as Banach says. Are expectations - something that's supposed to be seen as motivational towards human growth - also the gate that keeps us from being free and authentic?
I agree with your argument against Banach's viewpoints of a painter's freedom. We may be limited to the resources given to us, the landscape, the colors, etc., but our imaginations are not limited and we can think of whatever we choose to think of.
I think you've covered a lot of ground in this one post, so I don't really see any areas you need to expand on or revise. Your post was really insightful. It made me question the idea of happiness and what it really means to be happy and how you know when you're happy. It made me think about how I can find something in myself that is "infinitely better" than the things I find outside or if I have already and I just didn't realize I have.
I can't wait to read more from you. Your ideas are so clear and well written. (:
Sam R.,
Your post was really fun to read. It looks like you just spilled all your thoughts into one post, slapping one thought on top of another but it made complete sense to me. I liked the quote you picked out: “Is it true…that if God is dead then all things are allowable?” Aside from laws and religion, I think everything's allowable. It just depends on what your conscience decides is the line between what is morally right and wrong.
I agree when you said that to be free we have to abandon all morals. Morals are like invisible lines set to restrict us from certain behaviors. It's like a universal language when we automatically know right from wrong because it's been drilled so deep into our minds since the day we were born. And like you said, I also agree that not having complete freedom might not be such a bad thing after all because restrictions are what keeps the world running properly. So why is our world so obsessed with having freedom? What is the balance between too much and too little?
I think you should look at Manley's question of "Are we free?" from a different perspective, maybe one involving our mental freedom as opposed to just our physical freedom.
Your post made me compare how much happiness I actually take from my external world to how much I find from within myself and I realize I have no idea. Happiness to me is just one big ball of mush taken from all angles of my life. Every time I find myself laughing about something from the outside world, I find myself finding that same happiness within myself. Like the feeling you get initially from your outside influences generates even more within yourself and vice versa. I don't know if that makes any sense though because I can't really put it into words.
I also thought that it was interesting that you asked: "Does happiness even play a role in something being meaningful?" My initial thought was yes it does. All people want is to be happy. It's the drive that goes in all the things that we do.
I enjoyed reading your post a lot. It really made me think about my own life and how much happiness plays a part in the meaningful aspect of my life. Hope to read more from you (:
Response to Banach's Lecture Part 4
I was very intrigued by the story of Sysiphus. Banach keeps saying "Think of Sysiphus as happy." And I didn't really get it at first. I mean how could someone subjected to rolling a rock up the hill for life be happy? It just doesn't make sense. But then when I see it as a reference to human life it suddenly made so much more sense. Many pessimists might think that the troubles we go through in life are pitiful and not worth doing because in the end death will take all that we've achieved back. We slave all day and night for ourselves only to face an inevitable loss. But it's fine. This is life and for me, I rather go through it enjoying everything it has to offer, challenges and all, instead of sitting by a corner for the rest of my life waiting for the end. Like Banach says, it's not what you accomplished that matters, it's the process and the steps that you took that got you there, whether it's failure or success. It's the lessons you gain from these experiences that makes all your work worthwhile. You can push the rock as high as it goes only to watch it come back down and have to roll it back up again, but see it as a chance to meet new challenges and learn new lessons instead of a meaningless road of sweat and turmoil.
This post brought me new hope. I hate the thought of death sometimes. Knowing the world would go on without me, and facing the loss of not only my life but everything around me, people and possessions and all. The feeling of knowing that I would never have the chance to enjoy new experiences again just depresses the hell out of me. But it's this fear that drives me into wanting to make my life meaningful, to better myself as my own person, to fill it with lessons learned, and not with physical materials or accomplishments. It's made me dig deeper beneath my surface, beneath my stack of materials and artificial desires, and made me reevaluate the importance of my family and friends. Life isn't a competition. It's about being the best and most selfless person you can be. It's about bringing joy to the people you love and to let them know how much they really mean to you. I know it's like getting so corny right now. But once you really like really understand the feelings behind those sentences, the words become so much more meaningful and real.
I feel like our existence doesn't have to have a meaning and life just happened because it just did. There's no preconcieved purpose. I think we just happened to be given a life and what we make of it is up to us. It doesn't matter. We do what we do and we change the "course" of nature just like every other situation would. There is no preconcieved course that we have to follow, nor any other object that exists have to follow. Everything is cause and effect. The road is being built behind us, not something we walk on.
This post isn't even referencing Banach anymore. Sorry, got carried away. Plus, I'm so confused about part five that I don't even know where to begin with that.
This post brought me new hope. I hate the thought of death sometimes. Knowing the world would go on without me, and facing the loss of not only my life but everything around me, people and possessions and all. The feeling of knowing that I would never have the chance to enjoy new experiences again just depresses the hell out of me. But it's this fear that drives me into wanting to make my life meaningful, to better myself as my own person, to fill it with lessons learned, and not with physical materials or accomplishments. It's made me dig deeper beneath my surface, beneath my stack of materials and artificial desires, and made me reevaluate the importance of my family and friends. Life isn't a competition. It's about being the best and most selfless person you can be. It's about bringing joy to the people you love and to let them know how much they really mean to you. I know it's like getting so corny right now. But once you really like really understand the feelings behind those sentences, the words become so much more meaningful and real.
I feel like our existence doesn't have to have a meaning and life just happened because it just did. There's no preconcieved purpose. I think we just happened to be given a life and what we make of it is up to us. It doesn't matter. We do what we do and we change the "course" of nature just like every other situation would. There is no preconcieved course that we have to follow, nor any other object that exists have to follow. Everything is cause and effect. The road is being built behind us, not something we walk on.
This post isn't even referencing Banach anymore. Sorry, got carried away. Plus, I'm so confused about part five that I don't even know where to begin with that.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
HW 4: HW 2: Blogs Comments 2
Marco,
I liked how you picked out one idea from Banach's text and focused on just that. I liked your new definition better than Banach's in that our purpose in life can go far beyond our intended purpose. It makes perfect sense to me. A pair of scissors might have been made to cut things but who says you can't take the end of the scissors to hammer a nail (it would be hard but I'm just trying to make a point). "'Essence" precedes 'Existence' which precedes 'Essence' where the new essence doesn't have to match up with the first essence." You've took the two ideas, which both made sense separately and applied it into a world where both would make sense. (:
"Destiny to me is a very flawed idea, the notion that things are all planned out encourages people to float through life and let things happen, but the reality is that people make things happen, and destiny has nothing to do with it." I agree with this. This accentuates the existence precedes essence notion more. For humans, we really have no idea of figuring out what our preconceived destiny is and if it even exists. That's why it's more important to create our own destiny, and come up with our own essence. Although many people confuse their own destiny with the one they come up with on their own. The phrase "I was born to sing" or "humans were born to save the earth" are made up. It's a belief. The thing that made us did not tell us what to do or how to act therefore we have complete freedom to decide our own destiny.
Your post really cleared up a lot of my own confusions that I had of the text. I agree with all of your ideas. Thanks for the post. I enjoyed it a lot.
Yazmin,
I found your post interesting. The way you perceive your personality as the definition of who you are internally brings me back to Banach's idea where he talks about how many use the fact that "I am my body, or my brain, or my personality, or my hormones" as an excuse to limit the things they do. He says that "in each of these cases, I am deceiving myself" and that we are more than just these, which leads me to wonder what does he mean by more. Because like you, I always thought of ourselves as our personality. And that what we are in our minds are projected through our personality thus mind=personality. But apparently Banach disagrees with this notion. I found it true that if we don't stay true to our own personalities that we are being fakes but Banach is saying that being our personalities is self-deception. I don't know what he's actually asking us to be.
"If I can be whoever I want to be, does that mean I don't want to be me, meaning that I'm not authentic?" I think it just means that you have the freedom to decide what role you want to put on and it depends on what you mean by "me." Is that "me" your personality, or your mind?
Your second paragraph reminded me of what I wrote in my post. Like do people have sudden revelations of who they are or is it something that takes a whole lifetime to figure out or if it's even possible to find out at all. When you say "some people never even know who they are," it makes me wonder if I'll be one of those people. It's scary to know that there's a chance that you will never be able to find who you are and what your purpose is in life. And matter of fact, what is the definition of "who you are?" If it's not your body, your brain, your personality, or your hormones as Banach poses, then how are we supposed to define ourselves? How would we describe ourselves if we're not allowed to say we're girls, or doctors, or mothers, or someone who is perky?
Your post really made me think a lot and really clarified a lot of my thoughts. Thanks for the post. It was really relatable.
I liked how you picked out one idea from Banach's text and focused on just that. I liked your new definition better than Banach's in that our purpose in life can go far beyond our intended purpose. It makes perfect sense to me. A pair of scissors might have been made to cut things but who says you can't take the end of the scissors to hammer a nail (it would be hard but I'm just trying to make a point). "'Essence" precedes 'Existence' which precedes 'Essence' where the new essence doesn't have to match up with the first essence." You've took the two ideas, which both made sense separately and applied it into a world where both would make sense. (:
"Destiny to me is a very flawed idea, the notion that things are all planned out encourages people to float through life and let things happen, but the reality is that people make things happen, and destiny has nothing to do with it." I agree with this. This accentuates the existence precedes essence notion more. For humans, we really have no idea of figuring out what our preconceived destiny is and if it even exists. That's why it's more important to create our own destiny, and come up with our own essence. Although many people confuse their own destiny with the one they come up with on their own. The phrase "I was born to sing" or "humans were born to save the earth" are made up. It's a belief. The thing that made us did not tell us what to do or how to act therefore we have complete freedom to decide our own destiny.
Your post really cleared up a lot of my own confusions that I had of the text. I agree with all of your ideas. Thanks for the post. I enjoyed it a lot.
Yazmin,
I found your post interesting. The way you perceive your personality as the definition of who you are internally brings me back to Banach's idea where he talks about how many use the fact that "I am my body, or my brain, or my personality, or my hormones" as an excuse to limit the things they do. He says that "in each of these cases, I am deceiving myself" and that we are more than just these, which leads me to wonder what does he mean by more. Because like you, I always thought of ourselves as our personality. And that what we are in our minds are projected through our personality thus mind=personality. But apparently Banach disagrees with this notion. I found it true that if we don't stay true to our own personalities that we are being fakes but Banach is saying that being our personalities is self-deception. I don't know what he's actually asking us to be.
"If I can be whoever I want to be, does that mean I don't want to be me, meaning that I'm not authentic?" I think it just means that you have the freedom to decide what role you want to put on and it depends on what you mean by "me." Is that "me" your personality, or your mind?
Your second paragraph reminded me of what I wrote in my post. Like do people have sudden revelations of who they are or is it something that takes a whole lifetime to figure out or if it's even possible to find out at all. When you say "some people never even know who they are," it makes me wonder if I'll be one of those people. It's scary to know that there's a chance that you will never be able to find who you are and what your purpose is in life. And matter of fact, what is the definition of "who you are?" If it's not your body, your brain, your personality, or your hormones as Banach poses, then how are we supposed to define ourselves? How would we describe ourselves if we're not allowed to say we're girls, or doctors, or mothers, or someone who is perky?
Your post really made me think a lot and really clarified a lot of my thoughts. Thanks for the post. It was really relatable.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
