A theory brought up to me once before was that people relate to other people more easily in times of tragedy. The being because they are vulnerable and more prone to open up.
I had this in mind as I started to read the Book The Stranger by Albert Camus, where in the first chapter, on the first page in the first sentence the main character discovers his mother is dead. Yet it doesn't phase him because, as he stated on the last page of the second chapter
"Maman was buried now, I was going back to work, and that really, nothing had changed."
Meursault is unlike most who has lost a mother because he was unaffected and unemotional about something that is dramatic to most other people.
As the book continues it is clear he is a simple minded man who likes his routine and doesn't need a lot out of like to be content. Its something I've come to conclude he was brought up to believe.
"Looking back on it, I wasn't unhappy. When I was a student I had ambitions like that. But when I had to give up my studies I learned very quickly that none of it really mattered."
It was discovered later on in the book that it was because of his mother that he had to drop out of school and get a job. He had to learn about the hardship of life in a hard way. Giving up your dreams is like giving up a part of your childhood. For a lot of people dreams is all they have to get through the difficulties of the day because you had something better to look forward to in the logn run.
But that was taken away from him, and he no longer had that string of hope that told him tomorrow would be a brighter day.
In a way, I assumed that would mean he appreciated the things he did have more. But what I came to realize thanks to class discussions and group analysis was that he only truly took notice to the objective parts of his life rather then truly valuing the people in his it. He dismisses Marie's plea that she loves him and that they should get married as if she were talking about the weather. He puts more thought into her physical attributes and how he desires to have sex with her rather then pondering about how nice it is to have her in his life. This attitude towards his life comes up repeatedly as the book continues.
In the last chapter of the first part Meursault had just murdered the man trying to attack his friend Raymond. Although he had no personal motives or reason to shoot and kill this man, he was still charged and taken to jail for murder.
In the second part of the book we have the pleasure of seeing Meursault in a different setting, which helps shed a new light on his personality.
His is locked up in a cell for a year before his trial. While in the cell he must fight the urges of physical desires like smoking a cigaret, going for a swim or having sex. He comes to conclude
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
The stranger; far more strange then I originally thought...
The book The Stranger by Albert Camus reveals a new perspective that adds to the concept of existentialism. It is completely different then I <3 Huckabies simply because in the movie the main character is searching for the meaning of life or any meaning in his life at all, unlike the main character Mathew in The Stranger. Many search out the answer to the mysteries of the world so they can better understand the colplexity of life. Usually, from personal experience, I have concluded that it is easier for people to reach out after tradgedies have drastically effected them. Yet Mathew lacks any shock or sorrow when he lears of the death of his mother.
I wonder why Camus decided to begin the book this way, the first paragraph bluntly stating that she was deceased. His delayed reastion of not knowing what day it even happened .
The chapter goes into discussing how he wasn't really with her in the end being that she lived in a home a town away. So it wasn't as surprising to read the last sentance of the second chapter:
"It occurred to me that one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed."
This statment makes me wonder about his relationship with his mother when he was younger and how it changed when he grew up. Even though she wasn't a significent presence in his life when he was a man, didn't they have some kind of loving relationship before that would lead him to have a little grief of loss. Orignially I figured he come o acceptance with the fact that she was gone, but for him to not go through any of the typical emotions first is odd. He is truly different frm any other character I have read about in a book, and because of that it is much harder to relate to him, something I enjoy most about nmy favoriute books.
Yet it also gives him a sort of obscurity that makes me think deeper into how he apriaches life differently then I do.
(to be continued... too)
I wonder why Camus decided to begin the book this way, the first paragraph bluntly stating that she was deceased. His delayed reastion of not knowing what day it even happened .
The chapter goes into discussing how he wasn't really with her in the end being that she lived in a home a town away. So it wasn't as surprising to read the last sentance of the second chapter:
"It occurred to me that one more Sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed."
This statment makes me wonder about his relationship with his mother when he was younger and how it changed when he grew up. Even though she wasn't a significent presence in his life when he was a man, didn't they have some kind of loving relationship before that would lead him to have a little grief of loss. Orignially I figured he come o acceptance with the fact that she was gone, but for him to not go through any of the typical emotions first is odd. He is truly different frm any other character I have read about in a book, and because of that it is much harder to relate to him, something I enjoy most about nmy favoriute books.
Yet it also gives him a sort of obscurity that makes me think deeper into how he apriaches life differently then I do.
(to be continued... too)
Monday, October 26, 2009
I <3 Exstestential Thinking
This unit has been a pretty complex one and far more intriguing then I would have originally thought exstestentialism to be.
Its true, as Banach so nicely said, that everyone sees the world differently from one another and therefore we may all be along in our individual thoughts and different opinions. It seemed to me thoughout a lot of Banach's lecture that many of the things humans strive to accomplish were worthless since no one ever fully understands one or another or where we came from or where we're going.
But it was thanks to the I <3 Huckabies film that help me to realize that nothing is black and white, but a mixture or cynicism and optimism according to how you choose it to be.
It was Alberts concluding statement at the end of the movie that one exstestential view was too light and seemed to avoid the crulty and bad in the world, while the other was too dark and say things in too much of a negative light.
Its was interesting how as the movie progressed, one of the major arguments was how connected we are to one another in various ways. But mainly how man is able to relate to another in a time of desperation and sadness, probable because that is when man is most vulnerable.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Its true, as Banach so nicely said, that everyone sees the world differently from one another and therefore we may all be along in our individual thoughts and different opinions. It seemed to me thoughout a lot of Banach's lecture that many of the things humans strive to accomplish were worthless since no one ever fully understands one or another or where we came from or where we're going.
But it was thanks to the I <3 Huckabies film that help me to realize that nothing is black and white, but a mixture or cynicism and optimism according to how you choose it to be.
It was Alberts concluding statement at the end of the movie that one exstestential view was too light and seemed to avoid the crulty and bad in the world, while the other was too dark and say things in too much of a negative light.
Its was interesting how as the movie progressed, one of the major arguments was how connected we are to one another in various ways. But mainly how man is able to relate to another in a time of desperation and sadness, probable because that is when man is most vulnerable.
TO BE CONTINUED...
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Random internet surfing...
I came across this video on Current.com and thought it was pretty funny.... enjoy!
http://current.com/16vdi4c
http://current.com/16vdi4c
Friday, October 2, 2009
Banach, banach banach. Part IX
We've all taken a lot of time to map out how we came to be who we are and what influences effected our growth. But once you've become settled with ourselves- or even before you have- we must decide who we want as our companions.
Life would not be worth living unless we had someone to share it with. To fall in love, have a strong bond and share the beauty in the world is what life is all about. But regardless of who we're friends with or not, we must always interact with people, no matter how you decide to treat them.
Since I was a child I've heard the same expression countless times from authority figures; "treat others the way you want to be treated". Banach bring up the same theme of acting the way you'd expect others to act because "to be free, then, I must follow the golden rule and act only as I would have others act." We obviously want to be treated well with respect and kindness and the only way I've ever given or received it was when there was mutual understanding. Like Banach said "we must choose courses of action that we wish all humans to take."
A majority of the time people try to be good due to their faith. Many religions say that if you pray to him and carry our his good deeds you will have a spot in heaven for eternity. That made me wonder about the people who don't follow a religion, "if god is dead (or does not exist) then all things are allowable?" People usually hold back when a higher authority is watching, so if there was no higher power monitoring our actions would we feel more compelled to act more freely regardless of the consequences?
To me, it shouldn't matter as much about preparing a long line of good deeds as proof that we are worthy of heaven. I think its more important to make the best of the time we have on earth since none of us know for sure what to expect in the after life. We must help make lives easier for the less fortunate and live life as if it were our last because we never know how long or well it can last. "To be free, we must desire the freedom of all men." This quote best embodies the golden rule I think people should like by. "
Then again, I sometimes think some of our issues can be resolved with a good hug <3
Life would not be worth living unless we had someone to share it with. To fall in love, have a strong bond and share the beauty in the world is what life is all about. But regardless of who we're friends with or not, we must always interact with people, no matter how you decide to treat them.
Since I was a child I've heard the same expression countless times from authority figures; "treat others the way you want to be treated". Banach bring up the same theme of acting the way you'd expect others to act because "to be free, then, I must follow the golden rule and act only as I would have others act." We obviously want to be treated well with respect and kindness and the only way I've ever given or received it was when there was mutual understanding. Like Banach said "we must choose courses of action that we wish all humans to take."
A majority of the time people try to be good due to their faith. Many religions say that if you pray to him and carry our his good deeds you will have a spot in heaven for eternity. That made me wonder about the people who don't follow a religion, "if god is dead (or does not exist) then all things are allowable?" People usually hold back when a higher authority is watching, so if there was no higher power monitoring our actions would we feel more compelled to act more freely regardless of the consequences?
To me, it shouldn't matter as much about preparing a long line of good deeds as proof that we are worthy of heaven. I think its more important to make the best of the time we have on earth since none of us know for sure what to expect in the after life. We must help make lives easier for the less fortunate and live life as if it were our last because we never know how long or well it can last. "To be free, we must desire the freedom of all men." This quote best embodies the golden rule I think people should like by. "
Then again, I sometimes think some of our issues can be resolved with a good hug <3
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Existance > Essence... i think
This has been my favorite part of Banach's speech.
The first part had a lot of truth that every person views the world through a different perspective then one another, and although we may have some qualities in common "when we look at another person or object, we don't see it directly as it is; we see it only as it is represented in our own experience."
But one way people do attempt to understand others like themselves is through religion, or an opposition to religion. We can all somewhat categorize ourselves into a specific belief, weather that may be Atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Spiritualism. People follow the belief they feel best suits the lifestyle they desire to lead and then link themselves to a bunch of other followers.
Religion is what helps people relate to others in reference to thoughts of a higher power, afterlife and how to live a just life.
What makes this all somewhat controversial is that some religions challenge the beliefs of others. Which is what causes hatred and wars.
But what most religions agree on is that a higher power exists, where there is one or multiple gods. And with God, people were created, contributing to the theory of essence preceding existence "Our happiness and fulfillment consist in our living up to the external standards that God had in mind in creating us. Both our nature and value come from outside of us."
But what if God doesn't exist at all? What is he is part of an essence the existance of man thought up as a coping mechanism. A source of faith and hope that man would like to believe exists but is nothing more then a mythical made up idea? There is no way of knowing is the chicken came before the egg, so how can we know for sure an essence came before existence if nothing was there to come up with the essence?
Doesn't there always have to be a beginning?
So I have to side with Banach's theory that existence precedes essence and that "man is nothing else but what he makes himself to be" as opposed to what ever god intended for his little creation.
I'd like to entertain the thought that God exists, but sometimes I'm just not so sure. I just think that how can we think we as humans are the essence from god come down to exist on earth when we don't even know for sure is God exists himself?
Does it make a difference to dedicate so much time and effort believing in God and religion? Will it really help us to be better people, or ignorant to other traditions and paths in life? Our existence and how we came to be shouldn't define us, but our ambition and methods of succeeding in what we desire should. "Nothing outside of us can determine what we are" unless we let it.
"We must do it ourselves, from the inside."
Perhaps religion is something that helps to define who we are and where we're going. Maybe its easier to be a part of something bigger rather then being a small insignificant individual in this increasingly large world.
Sometimes I think its too hard for people to be their own person because they are so scared loneliness.
But what tuck tucker once said in the book Tuck Everlasting "don't be afraid of dying, be afraid of the unlived life."
To be editted & continued...
The first part had a lot of truth that every person views the world through a different perspective then one another, and although we may have some qualities in common "when we look at another person or object, we don't see it directly as it is; we see it only as it is represented in our own experience."
But one way people do attempt to understand others like themselves is through religion, or an opposition to religion. We can all somewhat categorize ourselves into a specific belief, weather that may be Atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or Spiritualism. People follow the belief they feel best suits the lifestyle they desire to lead and then link themselves to a bunch of other followers.
Religion is what helps people relate to others in reference to thoughts of a higher power, afterlife and how to live a just life.
What makes this all somewhat controversial is that some religions challenge the beliefs of others. Which is what causes hatred and wars.
But what most religions agree on is that a higher power exists, where there is one or multiple gods. And with God, people were created, contributing to the theory of essence preceding existence "Our happiness and fulfillment consist in our living up to the external standards that God had in mind in creating us. Both our nature and value come from outside of us."
But what if God doesn't exist at all? What is he is part of an essence the existance of man thought up as a coping mechanism. A source of faith and hope that man would like to believe exists but is nothing more then a mythical made up idea? There is no way of knowing is the chicken came before the egg, so how can we know for sure an essence came before existence if nothing was there to come up with the essence?
Doesn't there always have to be a beginning?
So I have to side with Banach's theory that existence precedes essence and that "man is nothing else but what he makes himself to be" as opposed to what ever god intended for his little creation.
I'd like to entertain the thought that God exists, but sometimes I'm just not so sure. I just think that how can we think we as humans are the essence from god come down to exist on earth when we don't even know for sure is God exists himself?
Does it make a difference to dedicate so much time and effort believing in God and religion? Will it really help us to be better people, or ignorant to other traditions and paths in life? Our existence and how we came to be shouldn't define us, but our ambition and methods of succeeding in what we desire should. "Nothing outside of us can determine what we are" unless we let it.
"We must do it ourselves, from the inside."
Perhaps religion is something that helps to define who we are and where we're going. Maybe its easier to be a part of something bigger rather then being a small insignificant individual in this increasingly large world.
Sometimes I think its too hard for people to be their own person because they are so scared loneliness.
But what tuck tucker once said in the book Tuck Everlasting "don't be afraid of dying, be afraid of the unlived life."
To be editted & continued...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Hw # 1: The Ethics of Absolute Freedom? My response...
As a teenager nearing the end of my adolescence, I am constantly wondering where I fit into things and how I might fit into them in the future. Throughout childhood I was given rules and boundaries set by my parents to follow or else I am considered disobedient. It took me a while to figure out the consequences for not listening aren't as great as they once claimed. That began my revelation that just because my parents said something didn't mean they were entirely correct and therefor I was obviously smarter then them.
In retrospect, even though people in life hold superiority or authority over another, no one can really enforce "ethical" behavior or "code of action" for anyone but themselves. You have your own judgments on whats right and wrong, and for someone to tell you what they should be takes away from your own freedom to be an individual. I believe that being your own person emerges from doing things your own way, not giving in to the norm. We have to set our own standards to meet, because we can only be happy if we set out to be.
Looking back on my life so far, I think of how although I have lived with my parents for 17 years, they don't know me as deeply as I wish they did. We have existed in the same household since the day I came out of my mothers whom and yet I am still misunderstood, nagged and punished for things I don't think I deserve. Even though they ask me about my day and try to sympathize the bad and praise the good, they never completely relate and feel its extreme effect it has on me as like I do. Even though we share the same DNA, we still weren't connecting the way I desired to. The two people who have seen me change can't relate, so who can?
I feel these observations contribute to the idea of absolute individualism. Sometimes, no matter how hard we try we can't get someone to feel exactly the way we are feeling. All we can do is listen and wonder. Like Banach said "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes and our fears immediately, subjectively from the inside."
Although I agree with most of the points Banach is proposing, i feel that his views are a bit extreme. Because even though I think no once can COMPLETELY feel ALL or what i feel or see EVERYTHING I see through my eyes, they can still relate to some aspects. When you think about it, who would really want someone being identical to the way you are? Doesn't comparisons and disagreements make life more interesting? Its not that we're all alone, its that we are all free to be our own person and must figure out what to do with ourselves.
So in order to flourish and find happiness we must stop looking into others to figure life out, but look within ourselves. If Banach is right and we all are completely alone in this world, then shouldn't we make the most of our time with ourselves?
In retrospect, even though people in life hold superiority or authority over another, no one can really enforce "ethical" behavior or "code of action" for anyone but themselves. You have your own judgments on whats right and wrong, and for someone to tell you what they should be takes away from your own freedom to be an individual. I believe that being your own person emerges from doing things your own way, not giving in to the norm. We have to set our own standards to meet, because we can only be happy if we set out to be.
Looking back on my life so far, I think of how although I have lived with my parents for 17 years, they don't know me as deeply as I wish they did. We have existed in the same household since the day I came out of my mothers whom and yet I am still misunderstood, nagged and punished for things I don't think I deserve. Even though they ask me about my day and try to sympathize the bad and praise the good, they never completely relate and feel its extreme effect it has on me as like I do. Even though we share the same DNA, we still weren't connecting the way I desired to. The two people who have seen me change can't relate, so who can?
I feel these observations contribute to the idea of absolute individualism. Sometimes, no matter how hard we try we can't get someone to feel exactly the way we are feeling. All we can do is listen and wonder. Like Banach said "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes and our fears immediately, subjectively from the inside."
Although I agree with most of the points Banach is proposing, i feel that his views are a bit extreme. Because even though I think no once can COMPLETELY feel ALL or what i feel or see EVERYTHING I see through my eyes, they can still relate to some aspects. When you think about it, who would really want someone being identical to the way you are? Doesn't comparisons and disagreements make life more interesting? Its not that we're all alone, its that we are all free to be our own person and must figure out what to do with ourselves.
So in order to flourish and find happiness we must stop looking into others to figure life out, but look within ourselves. If Banach is right and we all are completely alone in this world, then shouldn't we make the most of our time with ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
