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...

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?