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.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HW 3: Blog Post 2
When Banach talks about the existentialist view of human freedom and attempts to figure out what precedes what, essence or existence, it made me question why does it matter? Why do we have to have a set rule for everything? Why can't some objects' existence be established after its purpose was created? And why can't other objects' existence come before its purpose? And another possibility can be that sometimes something's existence might not even have to have a destined way of life. Why does Banach insist to look at existence from two extreme point of views where the concepts of "Existence precedes essence" and "Essence precedes existence" is applied as such a general statement to all that exists?
I believe that humans don't have a preconceived destiny or purpose. I mean, I haven't even found my essence yet. I don't know what I want to do with myself or who I really am yet. How do we even find our essence? What if what we found to be our essence is just something we convinced ourselves to be? I mean, is it like a sudden epiphany moment where you know for sure who you are or is it something you develop over time?
I do agree though that "man is free, man is freedom." We might not have full control of "the various elements within our experience that come from outside us, but we can view them and combine them in any way we like." We have the power of editing the way our surroundings are presented to us in our minds. But what's the use of having freedom in our minds, if we're still limited to the physical ways we are allowed to represent our thoughts? Banach says "...what we shall make of ourselves is up to us" and the "BE AUTHENTIC". He keeps repeating the concept of mental freedom, where we're allowed to think whatever and however we want. But how are we supposed to think freely when our minds are bombarded with dozens of remarks and opinions daily. For me, I'm pretty sure half or probably even more of these comments will slide subconsciously into the back of my mind and alter the way I think about things even without realizing it. Is that my fault? Would that mean that I don't know how to use my freedom correctly and that I can't think for myself?
This reminds me of the discussion we had in Snyder's class about how important it is for people to think for themselves. How do we learn to think and come up with ideas for ourselves? Ideas that we ourselves come up with rather than "regurgitating" the things we hear (which is exactly what I'm doing now with our class discussion). What if I thought of something completely out of the blue without any type of outside influence and coincidentally enough, the thought was said elsewhere. Does that mean my comment isn't original or authentic just because someone else came up with it? What if we heard a phrase or a saying that we completely found ourselves connecting with, does that mean we're submitting to outside influence because we're taking statements made in our "TV screens" and letting them interfere with our mind's process? Do we have to figure everything out on our own in order to be an absolute individual who uses his/her mind's freedom to its fullest extent by not letting any interruptions from our daily interactions mess with our thinking?
Self-deception according to Banach is someone who subjects to a role, whether through his body, brain, personality or hormones. However, he says we still have the freedom to choose which role we want to play so freedom is inescapable. So is he trying to say that our true "self" is basically our minds and that what we are physically doesn't represent the real us at all? And that our decision to play a role such as a mother, teacher, or friend, is an act of betrayal to our minds? He says we are so much more than just a role and that this physical aspect of our lives don't represent who we really are at all. I don't understand. Why can't we project our mind, our "self" into our roles? If I'm talking to a friend, why can't I represent my mind and its thoughts through the contents that I'm talking about? How would that be deceiving my self? We might not be able to fully express our minds through conversations and "role playing", but I don't think they're considered deceitful. I don't think we're living lies.
I believe that humans don't have a preconceived destiny or purpose. I mean, I haven't even found my essence yet. I don't know what I want to do with myself or who I really am yet. How do we even find our essence? What if what we found to be our essence is just something we convinced ourselves to be? I mean, is it like a sudden epiphany moment where you know for sure who you are or is it something you develop over time?
I do agree though that "man is free, man is freedom." We might not have full control of "the various elements within our experience that come from outside us, but we can view them and combine them in any way we like." We have the power of editing the way our surroundings are presented to us in our minds. But what's the use of having freedom in our minds, if we're still limited to the physical ways we are allowed to represent our thoughts? Banach says "...what we shall make of ourselves is up to us" and the "BE AUTHENTIC". He keeps repeating the concept of mental freedom, where we're allowed to think whatever and however we want. But how are we supposed to think freely when our minds are bombarded with dozens of remarks and opinions daily. For me, I'm pretty sure half or probably even more of these comments will slide subconsciously into the back of my mind and alter the way I think about things even without realizing it. Is that my fault? Would that mean that I don't know how to use my freedom correctly and that I can't think for myself?
This reminds me of the discussion we had in Snyder's class about how important it is for people to think for themselves. How do we learn to think and come up with ideas for ourselves? Ideas that we ourselves come up with rather than "regurgitating" the things we hear (which is exactly what I'm doing now with our class discussion). What if I thought of something completely out of the blue without any type of outside influence and coincidentally enough, the thought was said elsewhere. Does that mean my comment isn't original or authentic just because someone else came up with it? What if we heard a phrase or a saying that we completely found ourselves connecting with, does that mean we're submitting to outside influence because we're taking statements made in our "TV screens" and letting them interfere with our mind's process? Do we have to figure everything out on our own in order to be an absolute individual who uses his/her mind's freedom to its fullest extent by not letting any interruptions from our daily interactions mess with our thinking?
Self-deception according to Banach is someone who subjects to a role, whether through his body, brain, personality or hormones. However, he says we still have the freedom to choose which role we want to play so freedom is inescapable. So is he trying to say that our true "self" is basically our minds and that what we are physically doesn't represent the real us at all? And that our decision to play a role such as a mother, teacher, or friend, is an act of betrayal to our minds? He says we are so much more than just a role and that this physical aspect of our lives don't represent who we really are at all. I don't understand. Why can't we project our mind, our "self" into our roles? If I'm talking to a friend, why can't I represent my mind and its thoughts through the contents that I'm talking about? How would that be deceiving my self? We might not be able to fully express our minds through conversations and "role playing", but I don't think they're considered deceitful. I don't think we're living lies.
Monday, September 21, 2009
HW 2: Blogs Comments 1
Kate,
Your post includes a very nice summary of Banach's points in his lecture. I like how you almost reworded that whole section of his text and made it so it was easier to understand.
You talked about how the idea of absolute individuality can only remain an idea and can never be duplicated as a physical representation. There is no way that a person can be hidden from influences other than himself. You then brought up the point that I remembered being confused about and having to ask you about: how Banach contradicts himself. He starts off by telling us absolute individuality is impossible to achieve and then he goes into the idea that each of us is trapped in our own minds where everything there is attained only through our senses. So what is he driving at?
It would be nice if you included some of your own thoughts about the subject, an emotion that was triggered as you went through the reading. Have this affected the way your viewed life as an "individual"?
"We can not know how they are feeling but since we ourselves have been through some thing similar, we project what we felt onto them and reason with ourselves that we have in fact felt what they have." I liked this line a lot. I always find myself telling others I know exactly how they feel and I am so convinced that I do because the situations are so alike. But after the reading and much thinking on my own, it makes a lot more sense now. Everyone has their own variations of emotions and there's no way we can tell that what we've felt was exactly like theirs when the only entrance we have for accepting information is through our senses. Emphasis on "our" because another person's senses definitely will not take in their surroundings the same way ours do.
Your last paragraph really makes me wonder if these influences can be controllable. Going back to the second part of Banach's lecture (the one about freedom), he talks about how everyone has freedom even if it looks as if we are being limited or controlled by outside forces in some way because we were given the choice of whether or not we want to be altered by them or not, therefore it is our freedom to choose to be influenced or not. You say we're a "collective group of society being influenced by the things that we come into contact with on a daily basis makes it so there is no objective." Do you think it's possible to ignore the effects these things are possible of injecting into your lifestyle and the way you view life so that you can be an absolute individual? Or do you think that's completely absurd and impossible?
Your post has really stimulated me into questioning whether the absence of absolute individuality in a person is by default or as a result of the decision he chose to make by letting his daily interactions play as a puppeteer in the way he perceives the world.
Henry,
I know you already have 2 comments on your post but I had to comment it. Your own experiences with the idea of how limited we are in terms of the lens we perceive the world through remind me of some of my own. The extreme examples you gave might not make much sense but it does prove a point. Knowing that we are trapped in our minds where we can only interpret our surroundings based on the information our senses give us is weird especially when the human race loves to think that it knows the world better than any other creature.
I remember how I used to confuse myself with thoughts similar to your alien story (well not really that similar). I would think well, what if the corner of this chair looks round to another person? What if the sharp I feel is the curve she feels? What if the edge that digs into my skin is what she interprets a curve thing to do except that instead we both call it sharp? I see words as just representations of what we see, feel, and sense. It never does the description of an object justice.
"To be an 'absolute individual' we have to be trapped in our minds, with no distractions at all. I take this as earplugs in, mouth closed, eyes shut, no smells, suspended by wires in the air so we can't touch anything. This is clearly not a suitable way to live life, and I think that we don't have to go to such extremes to be an 'absolute individual'." This made me question whether absolute individuality is really that important. Why do we stress over it so much? It's like setting a goal we know we can not reach. What is so fascinating that lies after the achievement of absolute individuality? I feel like everyone is striving too hard to reach an identity that is different from everyone else, like absolute individuality would do just that. I mean even if a person does come to a state where he becomes an absolute individual, then who knows if his ideas will still end up being the same standard ideas everyone else has? We don't know because no one has ever been in that position before. And that is why we are so obsessed with the idea of individuality because we like to be different and becoming something no one has been before.
While reading your post, I found dozens of questions popping up in my mind so I knew I had to write them down. One thing I suggest though is pointing out some of Banach ideas that you disagree with since you said you only agree with him under conditions. And maybe posing some possible alternatives that can get us as close to absolute individuality as we could without being (as you said) blindfolded and suspended into the air.
Your post includes a very nice summary of Banach's points in his lecture. I like how you almost reworded that whole section of his text and made it so it was easier to understand.
You talked about how the idea of absolute individuality can only remain an idea and can never be duplicated as a physical representation. There is no way that a person can be hidden from influences other than himself. You then brought up the point that I remembered being confused about and having to ask you about: how Banach contradicts himself. He starts off by telling us absolute individuality is impossible to achieve and then he goes into the idea that each of us is trapped in our own minds where everything there is attained only through our senses. So what is he driving at?
It would be nice if you included some of your own thoughts about the subject, an emotion that was triggered as you went through the reading. Have this affected the way your viewed life as an "individual"?
"We can not know how they are feeling but since we ourselves have been through some thing similar, we project what we felt onto them and reason with ourselves that we have in fact felt what they have." I liked this line a lot. I always find myself telling others I know exactly how they feel and I am so convinced that I do because the situations are so alike. But after the reading and much thinking on my own, it makes a lot more sense now. Everyone has their own variations of emotions and there's no way we can tell that what we've felt was exactly like theirs when the only entrance we have for accepting information is through our senses. Emphasis on "our" because another person's senses definitely will not take in their surroundings the same way ours do.
Your last paragraph really makes me wonder if these influences can be controllable. Going back to the second part of Banach's lecture (the one about freedom), he talks about how everyone has freedom even if it looks as if we are being limited or controlled by outside forces in some way because we were given the choice of whether or not we want to be altered by them or not, therefore it is our freedom to choose to be influenced or not. You say we're a "collective group of society being influenced by the things that we come into contact with on a daily basis makes it so there is no objective." Do you think it's possible to ignore the effects these things are possible of injecting into your lifestyle and the way you view life so that you can be an absolute individual? Or do you think that's completely absurd and impossible?
Your post has really stimulated me into questioning whether the absence of absolute individuality in a person is by default or as a result of the decision he chose to make by letting his daily interactions play as a puppeteer in the way he perceives the world.
Henry,
I know you already have 2 comments on your post but I had to comment it. Your own experiences with the idea of how limited we are in terms of the lens we perceive the world through remind me of some of my own. The extreme examples you gave might not make much sense but it does prove a point. Knowing that we are trapped in our minds where we can only interpret our surroundings based on the information our senses give us is weird especially when the human race loves to think that it knows the world better than any other creature.
I remember how I used to confuse myself with thoughts similar to your alien story (well not really that similar). I would think well, what if the corner of this chair looks round to another person? What if the sharp I feel is the curve she feels? What if the edge that digs into my skin is what she interprets a curve thing to do except that instead we both call it sharp? I see words as just representations of what we see, feel, and sense. It never does the description of an object justice.
"To be an 'absolute individual' we have to be trapped in our minds, with no distractions at all. I take this as earplugs in, mouth closed, eyes shut, no smells, suspended by wires in the air so we can't touch anything. This is clearly not a suitable way to live life, and I think that we don't have to go to such extremes to be an 'absolute individual'." This made me question whether absolute individuality is really that important. Why do we stress over it so much? It's like setting a goal we know we can not reach. What is so fascinating that lies after the achievement of absolute individuality? I feel like everyone is striving too hard to reach an identity that is different from everyone else, like absolute individuality would do just that. I mean even if a person does come to a state where he becomes an absolute individual, then who knows if his ideas will still end up being the same standard ideas everyone else has? We don't know because no one has ever been in that position before. And that is why we are so obsessed with the idea of individuality because we like to be different and becoming something no one has been before.
While reading your post, I found dozens of questions popping up in my mind so I knew I had to write them down. One thing I suggest though is pointing out some of Banach ideas that you disagree with since you said you only agree with him under conditions. And maybe posing some possible alternatives that can get us as close to absolute individuality as we could without being (as you said) blindfolded and suspended into the air.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
HW 1: Response to Part I of Banach's Lecture
Absolute Freedom; I've never actually heard of that term before. But after reading Banach's article, I've realized that that wasn't the first time I've came across this idea before. Many claim themselves to be individuals but the truth of the matter is, no one can actually achieve absolute individuality. Everyone has been influenced by an outside source in some way, whether it be through opinions or emotions.
Banach tries to explain that none of us are able to experience what another person is feeling. Everyone has their own variation of what they feel sad is or what happiness is. And even when people say they "understand" they really don't, at least not in the deeper sense. What they're actually doing is trying to recognize your feelings through the senses of their own. The way their feelings are felt, the way they deal with them emotionally differentiates them from everyone else. No two people are the same in their interpretations of the world around them. Our senses and the way we interpret the things we hear, see, and feel is what separates us from the rest and ultimately what makes us so-called individuals.
That's why Banach compares us to the state of being imprisoned in a "dark room with no windows" and the only access we have to the real world is through a television screen on one side of the wall. We don't have any alternate options to understand the world around us. The only way we can perceive situations is through our senses. It's crazy to know that our senses don't really let us perceive our surroundings objectively and that there's is no way of figuring out if our senses are deceiving us or not. Sometimes we do recognize these deceits but for the most part we probably go around not noticing most of the things our senses mislead us into believing. I feel so vulnerable, yet so curious about what's really going on "out there" that our senses are not providing us with information about. It's frustrating to know that I can't ever see or better yet, understand the world for what it truly is because everything we have come to understand is through subjective observations. Objectivity through our senses is impossible.
Realizing the fact that we really are alone in our feelings and knowing that no one else can achieve a replica of our pain is such a distressing thought. Understanding that I can never really have that type of connection with someone where they can have the exact same experience as I did makes me redefine the meaning of connection. How can we say we understand something when we really don't? How can any type of relationship develop if there isn't a connection formed? And doesn't this connection have to be made through something even deeper than a general form of understanding?
Banach tries to explain that none of us are able to experience what another person is feeling. Everyone has their own variation of what they feel sad is or what happiness is. And even when people say they "understand" they really don't, at least not in the deeper sense. What they're actually doing is trying to recognize your feelings through the senses of their own. The way their feelings are felt, the way they deal with them emotionally differentiates them from everyone else. No two people are the same in their interpretations of the world around them. Our senses and the way we interpret the things we hear, see, and feel is what separates us from the rest and ultimately what makes us so-called individuals.
That's why Banach compares us to the state of being imprisoned in a "dark room with no windows" and the only access we have to the real world is through a television screen on one side of the wall. We don't have any alternate options to understand the world around us. The only way we can perceive situations is through our senses. It's crazy to know that our senses don't really let us perceive our surroundings objectively and that there's is no way of figuring out if our senses are deceiving us or not. Sometimes we do recognize these deceits but for the most part we probably go around not noticing most of the things our senses mislead us into believing. I feel so vulnerable, yet so curious about what's really going on "out there" that our senses are not providing us with information about. It's frustrating to know that I can't ever see or better yet, understand the world for what it truly is because everything we have come to understand is through subjective observations. Objectivity through our senses is impossible.
Realizing the fact that we really are alone in our feelings and knowing that no one else can achieve a replica of our pain is such a distressing thought. Understanding that I can never really have that type of connection with someone where they can have the exact same experience as I did makes me redefine the meaning of connection. How can we say we understand something when we really don't? How can any type of relationship develop if there isn't a connection formed? And doesn't this connection have to be made through something even deeper than a general form of understanding?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
