Through most of the story Meursualt's character has come into question a lot. But I feel like he is just misunderstood. From the reader's seat we can not get to much information from his point of view. Every so often I can relate to Meursault's actions and how he expresses himself with other people. I feel like he does the things he does and the way he acts because he does not want to be hurt, and how can you be hurt if you do not care about anything? Sometimes when he talks with people and just says what they want to hear could be because he does not want to continue talking with them or he does not want to get them upset.
I feel like this way of living is not meaningful. Its almost like living for everyone else. He leaves his real emotions behind and lives indifferently with his life. But once he shoots someone everything starts to change. In the cell of his, he has only his thoughts for company and soon starts to dwell on his feelings and thoughts. He even describes his feelings of wanting to cry as stupid. Not having felt anything in a long time, his need to cry felt stupid and a sign of weakness. While yelling at the Chaplain, Meursault was finally sure of his life (he got his answers to life). After having kept everything in for so long and not identifying with it, having it all come out at once must have been a relief. I can say that I have had times where I would just like to let everything out and be open for once but I feel like I would be too exposed, that having everyone know everything about me would leave be vulnerable in some ways. And I feel like we all have our little outlets to release some of our frustration, pain, sadness, anger, happiness somewhere where they will not hold us down. I feel like perhaps Meursault felt more comfortable living detached so that he would not need to experience anything that would make him feel anything. Having being judged by all those people is their own fear of not understanding how Meursault can live out his life without feeling anything and yet most of us probably have their own ways and when questioned about it would also be viewed as odd.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Who is this Guy?
I feel like Meursault is the type of person who likes to keep his emotions bottled up where he does not let them show. He goes through the day uncaring and yet I feel that in his head many thoughts are going on but he does not dwell on them. After the funeral he is sitting and watching everyone go by and is merely observing their actions, sort of living through them. Yet he really only gives observations and I wonder what he is really thinking about. I wonder if he ever thought about joining them, actually going out and "living" instead of being passive and a spectator. I think while reading this book many people consider him to be a jerk because he is indifferent to his mother's death and goes through life detached. But I feel if everyone was to reflect on their lives there would be certain moments in which everyone was detached or indifferent to the world around them. I know I certainly do. If something is on my mind and I am trying to figure things out it can be seen as not really being involved in life but I am actually just trying to solve something. There are also the times where you feel like you just have to be alone. That another persons company is not wanted and that you just want to close your self to the outside world. This for me comes from being too stressed or that I feel very cramped with everyone always around me, even though one can argue that just because there may be many people in a room, you are still alone. So in a way I can relate to Meursault because no one really knows how one is going to act when a parent dies and I feel like because something happened in his life, he is unable to perhaps trust other people and himself because he can not be open.
I agree somewhat with what Vincent had brought up in class that the author was leaving Meursault so detached from the world so that the reader can be part of the story by bringing/ plugging in their own emotions. I can tell how someone can be reading and fill in their emotions to the lack of Meursaults. Although there are certain points in his life where I feel like I would go about it in the same way and even do it sometimes in my life. While he is talking to Salamano and Raymond about how their day had went or in gaining a friendship it felt to me that he was merely accommodating them, in both instances he felt nothing and said what he thought they wanted to hear, so that the conversation would not drag on any longer or that he would not have to add anything to the conversation. I often feel like at certain points I do that when I do not really like the person and so I am just trying to find a way out of it by merely saying what they want to hear. I also do that when I want to prevent any confrontation, I just put nothing forward like my thoughts and feelings so that nothing could be brought up that would cause a conflict. I guess in a way we are both being lazy and perhaps scared to actually show our true feelings because we do not know how they will be interpreted.
I agree somewhat with what Vincent had brought up in class that the author was leaving Meursault so detached from the world so that the reader can be part of the story by bringing/ plugging in their own emotions. I can tell how someone can be reading and fill in their emotions to the lack of Meursaults. Although there are certain points in his life where I feel like I would go about it in the same way and even do it sometimes in my life. While he is talking to Salamano and Raymond about how their day had went or in gaining a friendship it felt to me that he was merely accommodating them, in both instances he felt nothing and said what he thought they wanted to hear, so that the conversation would not drag on any longer or that he would not have to add anything to the conversation. I often feel like at certain points I do that when I do not really like the person and so I am just trying to find a way out of it by merely saying what they want to hear. I also do that when I want to prevent any confrontation, I just put nothing forward like my thoughts and feelings so that nothing could be brought up that would cause a conflict. I guess in a way we are both being lazy and perhaps scared to actually show our true feelings because we do not know how they will be interpreted.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
different philosophies
I believe that there is no right answer to whether we live in a meaningful world because everyone has his or her own ideas on what living a meaningful life looks like. There are also some who believe that their lives are not meaningful and see no real point in life and then there are others who think everything is meaningful and wonderful. These are the two extremes and I feel like on most days of our lives we are a mixture of both, we do not lean to much on one side but instead are somewhere in the middle. I think our answers come from our experiences, if we go through something bad or sad in our lives we might result to having the opinion that life is not meaningful and then we can go through something that makes us happy or changes our life in a good significant way and we think, yea my live is meaningful.
“Everything is the same, even if it’s different” (Bernard and the blanket). I believe that this is true. I feel like there is more to our lives then how we are living them and we are not really seeing the big picture. Though often times I can see where people will be like, we’re not connected, nothing matters. Just like in Banach’s lecture where he says that we can only feel our own pain and no one else’s, we cannot really connect with anyone. Looking at the guy sitting across from you on the subway there is no clear picture that says we are the same, even if we are different. Nothing bounds them together then perhaps that they are both living. But I want to believe that everything is the same, and everything matters. It paints a much more beautiful picture of the world. I can see how we are the same and connected. One action I take will undoubtedly affect someone else and vise versa. Nothing we do in life only affects us. This is the beginning to thinking with a view on life that is meaningful.
“Once you realize the universe sucks, you got nothing left to lose” (Tommy). I also agree with this statement. If you convince your self that nothing matters and there’s no point to anything then why do anything? Or you can do anything because of the fact that it is unimportant. I think Tommy had fallen to the end of his journey and just stopped caring and figured that since so many bad things kept happening one after the other, there was not much point to anything, I can say truthfully there have been moments where I feel like I’ve been pushed down too much and do not see the point of getting back up anymore. But then something happens in which someone extends their hand and helps me back up. I feel like for Tommy that was Dawn when he meets her in the burning house.
Thus there is no one real truth to it. There will be a forever “overlapping, Fractured philosophies” of life and whether it’s meaningful or not. People just need to figure out their own truths and perhaps like Albert needs to experience both extremes first before figuring out where he stands in life.
“Everything is the same, even if it’s different” (Bernard and the blanket). I believe that this is true. I feel like there is more to our lives then how we are living them and we are not really seeing the big picture. Though often times I can see where people will be like, we’re not connected, nothing matters. Just like in Banach’s lecture where he says that we can only feel our own pain and no one else’s, we cannot really connect with anyone. Looking at the guy sitting across from you on the subway there is no clear picture that says we are the same, even if we are different. Nothing bounds them together then perhaps that they are both living. But I want to believe that everything is the same, and everything matters. It paints a much more beautiful picture of the world. I can see how we are the same and connected. One action I take will undoubtedly affect someone else and vise versa. Nothing we do in life only affects us. This is the beginning to thinking with a view on life that is meaningful.
“Once you realize the universe sucks, you got nothing left to lose” (Tommy). I also agree with this statement. If you convince your self that nothing matters and there’s no point to anything then why do anything? Or you can do anything because of the fact that it is unimportant. I think Tommy had fallen to the end of his journey and just stopped caring and figured that since so many bad things kept happening one after the other, there was not much point to anything, I can say truthfully there have been moments where I feel like I’ve been pushed down too much and do not see the point of getting back up anymore. But then something happens in which someone extends their hand and helps me back up. I feel like for Tommy that was Dawn when he meets her in the burning house.
Thus there is no one real truth to it. There will be a forever “overlapping, Fractured philosophies” of life and whether it’s meaningful or not. People just need to figure out their own truths and perhaps like Albert needs to experience both extremes first before figuring out where he stands in life.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
comments on part 3 and 4
Jia min,
I agree with you that Happiness is a relative term because it has no one true definition. Banach explains it as we are the only ones who can tell how we ourselves are feeling and we use our own experiences to define how other people are feeling. Thus based on our opinion some people think our own definitions are what is happiness and others take it as everyone has happiness in accordance to themselves and their feelings.
I kinda agree with you that we do not have freedom but I feel it is still in our presence of mind to choose to follow those set rules. Though I agree it might be harder for us today because of all that society wants of us. That and the different expectations everyone holds for themselves and what others hold for them.
I think its interesting what you said "I believe that there is real happiness when one feels it and I don't expect that we need to explain to anyone when we feel that real happiness." That it feels like if we start to explain then everything can come into the open and we may notice that their are flaws with in our thinking and that will break the spell. Or something like that.
I love your ideas and your post, it got me really thinking.
Marco,
I agree that no ones lives are meaningless because they die. People are always leaving behind something of themselves so that others can learn from them. I also love your definition of happiness. I feel like this is a more real definition and more relatable then Banachs.
I agree with you that Happiness is a relative term because it has no one true definition. Banach explains it as we are the only ones who can tell how we ourselves are feeling and we use our own experiences to define how other people are feeling. Thus based on our opinion some people think our own definitions are what is happiness and others take it as everyone has happiness in accordance to themselves and their feelings.
I kinda agree with you that we do not have freedom but I feel it is still in our presence of mind to choose to follow those set rules. Though I agree it might be harder for us today because of all that society wants of us. That and the different expectations everyone holds for themselves and what others hold for them.
I think its interesting what you said "I believe that there is real happiness when one feels it and I don't expect that we need to explain to anyone when we feel that real happiness." That it feels like if we start to explain then everything can come into the open and we may notice that their are flaws with in our thinking and that will break the spell. Or something like that.
I love your ideas and your post, it got me really thinking.
Marco,
I agree that no ones lives are meaningless because they die. People are always leaving behind something of themselves so that others can learn from them. I also love your definition of happiness. I feel like this is a more real definition and more relatable then Banachs.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Human Happiness and The Ethics of Freedom
While reading the third section for Banach's lecture, it seemed that he had no hope and was very pessimistic when he stated " Existentialism is often associated with such themes as the absurdity of human existence and the worthlessness of our lives given our inevitable death". Thus there is no real point to our lives since in the end none of it will matter because we are going to die. This reminds me of a point in Andy's class where most people who believe in the after life, say that once we die we go to a better place so our present lives hold no real meaning. But Nieztsche comes up with a new view of on how to look at our life where the way you live your life now, will be how you forever live your life. Meaning we repeat what we do in the next life, making our lives in the present hold more meaning then the point where our lives are like a vessel in which carry us to a new and better life at the time of our death.
He also states that we must lose hope in order to find oneself and by extent happiness. The example given is The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy finally is able to go home but the hot air balloon, leaves with out her and she is unable to think of how to get back home. Just at that moment Glinda the good witch comes and tells her she had the power to go home the whole time but she didn't mention it because it would hold more meaning when she finds the answers within herself. "The despair and rebellion we feel at the loss of our external sources of value are the necessary price of a greater value and happiness that comes from within ourselves." This kind of states that when we try ourselves to find meanings to our life and other things it holds more value then when you get outside sources to help you. The existentialists view of happiness "is to get ones value from within oneself". Thus we find our value, through our own struggle and in achieving our definition of ourselves it cannot be taken away from us. This can also relate to his point where the struggle is important not the result. For once you have your answer its done but the journey to achieve it holds all the meaning to whether you looked inside yourself or went to outside help.
I think its interesting that Banach says that we should only choose things that are good for everyone. This is because what ever we choose will wind up effecting someone or something in its course of action. Though I am confused because before he had stated that we are alone and that we are the only ones who can feel what we feel and that to be an individual is to be free from outside influences. But here he says that our actions have consequences and that we should choose according to that reasoned outcome. I sort of agree with this but what if in thinking of others you detain yourself from being happy or living a good life. If you have to keep in mind other people and in a way put them first, then our lives would only be important in view of their lives, we would come second and then looking back there would be no real values. I believe that everyone is free to a certain degree. Even though some may argue that others restrict them, I believe we ourselves are the only ones who can stop ourselves from being free. Humans have a tendency to restrict themselves and blame it on others. But I can kind of see his point in to be free we have to live for everyone. It goes back to point where we cannot control how we are made but the decision of how we shape ourselves is still up to us to decide. Certain rules and guidelines are given to us but it is indeed our right and freedom to choose how to act on those rules how we best see fit.
He also states that we must lose hope in order to find oneself and by extent happiness. The example given is The Wizard of Oz, where Dorothy finally is able to go home but the hot air balloon, leaves with out her and she is unable to think of how to get back home. Just at that moment Glinda the good witch comes and tells her she had the power to go home the whole time but she didn't mention it because it would hold more meaning when she finds the answers within herself. "The despair and rebellion we feel at the loss of our external sources of value are the necessary price of a greater value and happiness that comes from within ourselves." This kind of states that when we try ourselves to find meanings to our life and other things it holds more value then when you get outside sources to help you. The existentialists view of happiness "is to get ones value from within oneself". Thus we find our value, through our own struggle and in achieving our definition of ourselves it cannot be taken away from us. This can also relate to his point where the struggle is important not the result. For once you have your answer its done but the journey to achieve it holds all the meaning to whether you looked inside yourself or went to outside help.
I think its interesting that Banach says that we should only choose things that are good for everyone. This is because what ever we choose will wind up effecting someone or something in its course of action. Though I am confused because before he had stated that we are alone and that we are the only ones who can feel what we feel and that to be an individual is to be free from outside influences. But here he says that our actions have consequences and that we should choose according to that reasoned outcome. I sort of agree with this but what if in thinking of others you detain yourself from being happy or living a good life. If you have to keep in mind other people and in a way put them first, then our lives would only be important in view of their lives, we would come second and then looking back there would be no real values. I believe that everyone is free to a certain degree. Even though some may argue that others restrict them, I believe we ourselves are the only ones who can stop ourselves from being free. Humans have a tendency to restrict themselves and blame it on others. But I can kind of see his point in to be free we have to live for everyone. It goes back to point where we cannot control how we are made but the decision of how we shape ourselves is still up to us to decide. Certain rules and guidelines are given to us but it is indeed our right and freedom to choose how to act on those rules how we best see fit.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Comments on part 2
carrie:
I love how you are always so insightful. Questioning the reason behind why any of it matters ( existence vs. essence) is something that should be brought up about a lot of things. Why does any of it matter when in truth you will probably never get a definite answer. It is just something that can not have one specific view on it but has many.
I never really thought about the whole idea of essence in relation to ourselves. I also do not know what to do with my life or if I even have a purpose. But I do believe that it is something that you either know since a young age or its something that you learn on the way. As you go though life there will moments where you think to yourself this is it, this is what I'm good at and other moments where you are going to question everything you have done so far.
I agree with you that its hard to be a complete individual when everything is influencing our lives 24/7. Though I agree with Banach that what makes us free, even though we can not help how we are made or what we hear is how we use the outside influences to shape ourselves and create ourselves outside the norm of everything else. Because not everyone will shape themselves as you shape yourself using what influences you.
I love your post. You brought up many interesting questions in which made me think alot about my life. I also feel like I need to say that in thinking about all of this, you will just confuse yourself or be even more subjective to other peoples points of view and you just need to live the life you want. Cause in any way we go about our existence we have no real say or freedom and we are not individuals. So why bother? Hope to read more from you!
I never really thought about the whole idea of essence in relation to ourselves. I also do not know what to do with my life or if I even have a purpose. But I do believe that it is something that you either know since a young age or its something that you learn on the way. As you go though life there will moments where you think to yourself this is it, this is what I'm good at and other moments where you are going to question everything you have done so far.
I agree with you that its hard to be a complete individual when everything is influencing our lives 24/7. Though I agree with Banach that what makes us free, even though we can not help how we are made or what we hear is how we use the outside influences to shape ourselves and create ourselves outside the norm of everything else. Because not everyone will shape themselves as you shape yourself using what influences you.
I love your post. You brought up many interesting questions in which made me think alot about my life. I also feel like I need to say that in thinking about all of this, you will just confuse yourself or be even more subjective to other peoples points of view and you just need to live the life you want. Cause in any way we go about our existence we have no real say or freedom and we are not individuals. So why bother? Hope to read more from you!
vincent:
I like how you give a different point of view from many other people. Most agree with what Banach has to say and yet you disagree with all his points. I admire you for this because it gives me more to think about, then just taking his words for the truth.
I disagree with you when you say that humans do not have freedom. I feel that the only people that can take away your freedom is yourself. Yes, society can but it is within our choice to follow the set rules that are given to us. These rules may wind up as the factor for the loss of our freedom but in truth each person has say over his mind and body. For instance Banach says that we are our minds, even though our body may be subject to control of others there is still our mind which can never be chained down.
I disagree with you when you say that humans do not have freedom. I feel that the only people that can take away your freedom is yourself. Yes, society can but it is within our choice to follow the set rules that are given to us. These rules may wind up as the factor for the loss of our freedom but in truth each person has say over his mind and body. For instance Banach says that we are our minds, even though our body may be subject to control of others there is still our mind which can never be chained down.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The Identity of ourselves
Do we imprison ourselves and deny our own freedoms?
People have been known to "deceive" themselves "and act as if we weren't free". We feel the need to fit the "expectations of other people". Thus we delude ourselves into thinking there is no other choice, then to make ourselves into what other people want of us. In thinking, no one can be an absolute individual because we choose who we are based on subjective views of the world. Denying our freedom by telling ourselves there is no other way. This way we only connect with the face in the mirror. the person we project to the world rather then the one that lives inside of us, who knows that there are more options then what we give ourselves. Much tension is created this way. Banach says people seem to wonder "how the person in the glass can be ME if I am standing out here looking at it". Though I think in general people do not find it odd to be both inside the glass and outside it because they identify themselves with the person in the glass more then the one staring at her own reflection. The person in the glass can also be seen as a role, "we play the roles; we make ourselves into characters in the plays". It seems like life is one big play. And the role/ character we choose to play is someone who has been defined by the people and places around us. But the question arises why do we allow ourselves to trap ourselves. Everyone is free to choose, "we cannot escape our freedom". This freedom is always there in the back of our minds even if people do not realize it. The body can be controlled but the mind is free. Our body plays along with all the whims of society and our mind watches and waits patiently for its turn, to bring sense back and remind us that we are indeed free to make our own choices.
"Our freedom is, thus, a freedom of synthesis. It is the freedom to pull ourselves together into the type of coherent whole that we will ourselves to be". In this sense people can still be something of what they make of themselves. Even if everything is determined in how we are made it is still in our power on how to act on those things. For example the saying " when life gives you lemons, make lemon aid". Thus the complaining or argument that we not absolute individuals because everything influences is in some words incorrect. Because we have the will to use those influences to shape ourselves into something better and new. And in turn this puts a much brighter outlook on life, that we do indeed have freedom to which we can obtain our individuality.
People have been known to "deceive" themselves "and act as if we weren't free". We feel the need to fit the "expectations of other people". Thus we delude ourselves into thinking there is no other choice, then to make ourselves into what other people want of us. In thinking, no one can be an absolute individual because we choose who we are based on subjective views of the world. Denying our freedom by telling ourselves there is no other way. This way we only connect with the face in the mirror. the person we project to the world rather then the one that lives inside of us, who knows that there are more options then what we give ourselves. Much tension is created this way. Banach says people seem to wonder "how the person in the glass can be ME if I am standing out here looking at it". Though I think in general people do not find it odd to be both inside the glass and outside it because they identify themselves with the person in the glass more then the one staring at her own reflection. The person in the glass can also be seen as a role, "we play the roles; we make ourselves into characters in the plays". It seems like life is one big play. And the role/ character we choose to play is someone who has been defined by the people and places around us. But the question arises why do we allow ourselves to trap ourselves. Everyone is free to choose, "we cannot escape our freedom". This freedom is always there in the back of our minds even if people do not realize it. The body can be controlled but the mind is free. Our body plays along with all the whims of society and our mind watches and waits patiently for its turn, to bring sense back and remind us that we are indeed free to make our own choices.
"Our freedom is, thus, a freedom of synthesis. It is the freedom to pull ourselves together into the type of coherent whole that we will ourselves to be". In this sense people can still be something of what they make of themselves. Even if everything is determined in how we are made it is still in our power on how to act on those things. For example the saying " when life gives you lemons, make lemon aid". Thus the complaining or argument that we not absolute individuals because everything influences is in some words incorrect. Because we have the will to use those influences to shape ourselves into something better and new. And in turn this puts a much brighter outlook on life, that we do indeed have freedom to which we can obtain our individuality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)