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.

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!

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.

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.

Hw 2- comments

Carrie:

I feel that your correct in saying that you can not "understand the world for what it truly is because everything we have come to understand is through subjective observations." One thing that I have heard is something about mentally ill people and it connects to what you are saying. There are some who say that they are the ones who are better able to understand and see the world for what it truly is. They are not bound by our subjective views but instead their illness can be seen as a way to help them be more of an absolute individual.

I feel kinda sad that we are the only ones who can feel what we feel. It makes the world seem so lonely and creates this space between each of us. Because if we are the only ones who can feel what we are feeling then sympathy from other people or joint reaction/ emotions count for nothing if we feel different things. How do you feel about what he said?

enjoyed your post, hope i get to read more

Vincent:

I liked your points. I like how you say that even though we are alone we still try and achieve accompaniment with other people. And this leads us to be more influenced by those people we communicate with.

I agree that by interacting with different people you expand your own knowledge and thoughts. They can lead you to have deeper thoughts or can give you some good points you yourself had never thought of. But this takes away from you being an absolute individual. I feel that secluding yourself would be effective but wouldn't really be possible. Humans strive for attention and the need to be close to other people. And no one would know they are original because they would not be able to see anyone else and I feel after a certain time most people would want to break out of the "box" and join the crowd.

I enjoyed your post. You had some really good thoughts.

" The Ethics of Absolute Freedom"- first thoughts

My definition of an absolute individual is someone who is a complete/pure individual. Thus in reasoning no one is an absolute individual and no one can ever be. The only possible way to have no outside influence is when you trap yourself in a dark room with out any outside influence. Though after taking the time to review the text and discuss it, Banach contradicts himself. Saying we are not an absolute individual because of the fact that we are influenced by the people around us and our surroundings. But he also states that "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately". He is saying that no one else can experience what we ourselves do making us individual of other people because we experience different things. We can not fully understand what other people go through. 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.

Knowing that we are not individuals but rather a collective group of our society being influenced by the things that we come into contact with on a daily basis makes it so there is no objective. The only thing that confuses me is where the point of focusing on only ourselves comes in to figuring out individualism.