What makes an individual a stranger? Could it be the fact that you know nothing of him, or his background, where he’s from? In Mersault’s case, the people who actually did know him, who have eaten with him, vacationed with him, especially conversed with him, can’t seem to read him. Albert Camous’s “The Stranger” introduces to readers both the life of an empty soul, and the mind of an existentialist writer, both connecting on a deeper level.
During the funeral of his own mother, Mersault seems rather impatient and bored during the reception. As opposed to the normal reaction one would get to their own mother’s passing, his was an unusual case, one that will be magnified further on. “Just then the caretaker came in behind me. He must have been running. He stuttered a little. ‘We put the cover on, but I’m supposed to unscrew the casket so you can see her.’… He looked at me and then asked, ‘Why not?’ but without criticizing, as if he just wanted to know. I said, ‘I don’t know.’ He started twirling his moustache, and then without looking at me, again he said, ‘I understand.’ (pg. 6)” In the text, Mersault goes out of his way to stop the caretaker from doing even the simplest of tasks. Not having seen his mother in a couple of years after placing her in a Nursing home you would imagine him to want to at least see her one last time, especially on the day of her reception and burial. Instead, he doesn’t care for the little things that can hold meaning . Usually, the procedure for standard receptions are that the casket will only be closed when the deceased has been physically unbearable to view due to certain circumstances. Obviously his mother doesn’t fall under this category, yet Mersault decides to once again make decisions for himself and not for others, such as the close friends in the home that knew his mother probably better than he did all those years of never speaking but living amongst each other in they’re apartment.
After a long weekend of what was supposed to be spent mourning, Mersault disrespectfully takes Marie to a weekend getaway and tries rekindling old romances with her. She finds him odd and peculiar yet she loves this about him. The way Marie finds unusual interest in him due to his peculiarness, Mersault finds in the strange woman in Celeste’s restaurant. Her movements which were described as robotic caught Mersault’s attention immediately, the way she hadn’t paid him no mind at all eluded himself from his usual mind state of never caring. “Then she stood up, put her jacket back on with the same robotlike movements, and left… I eventually lost sight of her and turned back. I thought about how peculiar she was but forgot about her a few minutes later (pg.44).“ This is significant as Mersault’s sketchy way of living life without motive or understanding is always viewed through a window by everyone around him. His encounter with the small woman from Celeste’s brightens his eyes for a brief moment as he realized there is actually someone out there who doesn’t find his aloofness impressive for once.
Marie, Raymond, and Celeste all have something in common when it comes to their mutual friend Mersault; they all find him to be a “man”. The way Mersault carries himself about, living life only in a serious manner never seeing the insight of things was viewed to Celeste as manful, as people only come to restaurants to escape their usual lives at home and dining out is always considered a privilege. Mersault does thing constantly, even alone at times, making his dining plans always strictly business. Marie is attracted to him even though she is only a physical attraction to him and things can never excel between them. Raymond views him as a man because he dares to do the things that he himself cannot do as a man, such as write a vengeful letter to a woman, one that includes as much hatred as one can possibly possess. And Mersault referring to both Raymond and Celeste as both of them having the same equivalent friendship to him, which is interesting because Mersault is able to kill a random person for Raymond, a man he is not so close too. Only one can ponder on the thought of what Mersault might’ve done for Celeste, just another “friend”.
Mersault as a character has never taken a liking to the world he is in on a personal understanding. He is constantly observing everything. He observes the world that is beyond his grasp. He blames the sun for an inconvenience that he doesn’t see as a huge deal, killing a complete random person. No reason at all for his actions, not accepting his place in the world, he feels his belonging, his actuality, will only turn into a reality once he is in a place within this world that can accept him for the “man” he is. In his eyes, that place is prison. The only thing he misses behind those prison walls, is not the life he had of a successful man, not the beautiful woman everyone else wished they had possessed, but the world itself, and the way it works. He uses his prison time only to sleep, not taking advantage of any yard time. His only times he can enjoy taking another look at the outside world, is when he got a visit from Marie or when he was in court. Noticing and observing as much as he can, because everything and everyone is apart of the world he Is not, fascinating him in unusual ways. Albert Camous describes his novel as what he explains to be “the nakedness of man faced with the absurd.”
In conclusion, Albert Camous, the French existentialist author, explores the emptiness and meaningless life of a lost soul in which the events in his lifeline lead him not to an ordeal of hope and chance of finding himself, but to a not-so happy ending, all built up on what was described as “luck”. Instead of an individual taking the usual route of exploring his inner self in hopes of discovering their purpose or greatness that they possess, Camous shows readers the life of one who doesn’t care about where his path is leading and the sad life lived by a meaningless man, one who is unidentifiable to others. The man who is described as The stranger.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
The Stranger - blogpost no. 2
q1. Is there a connection between the little woman from Celeste's being at court to Mersault and the way he is viewed by others?
q2. Did Mersault's timeline of unfortunate events happen by what is called "chance" or did he choose his own fate knowingly?
Mersault mentions when he is in Celeste's restaurant that the little strange woman who sat at his table ate her meal and did every single action of hers robotlike. He found her movements "peculiar". iI find this interesting because within two pages of each other, the word peculiar is mentioned, once by Marie describing why she is maybe so into Mersault for his peculiarness, and once after by Mersault showing such curiousity in the small woman mainly because of her peculiarness. I wonder if, while viewing this woman as someone strange and robotic, she was looking at Mersault as the strange one at the dining table.
Raymond explains in court that Mersault's timeline of events were just one big pile of misfortune. No one seems to believe this as the lawyer pushes the argument that the kind of man Mersault is, one who doesnt mourn over the death of his mother and befriends pimps, are the ones who choose they're fates. In the end Mersault explains to himself in his head, maybe i am a criminal as he goes over the timeline, himself planning to kill the arab, acceptingly writes the hatred letter and plays the role of a false witness, doesnt stop raymond from beating a woman, arrogant to his mothers death. Although everyone views him as guilty, everyone who knows him stands up for him and tries to justify his actions more than he has even tried. The old man states "you have to understand" more than once, and i think that the kind of person Mersault is goes a long way, more than meets the eye of the stranger.
q2. Did Mersault's timeline of unfortunate events happen by what is called "chance" or did he choose his own fate knowingly?
Mersault mentions when he is in Celeste's restaurant that the little strange woman who sat at his table ate her meal and did every single action of hers robotlike. He found her movements "peculiar". iI find this interesting because within two pages of each other, the word peculiar is mentioned, once by Marie describing why she is maybe so into Mersault for his peculiarness, and once after by Mersault showing such curiousity in the small woman mainly because of her peculiarness. I wonder if, while viewing this woman as someone strange and robotic, she was looking at Mersault as the strange one at the dining table.
Raymond explains in court that Mersault's timeline of events were just one big pile of misfortune. No one seems to believe this as the lawyer pushes the argument that the kind of man Mersault is, one who doesnt mourn over the death of his mother and befriends pimps, are the ones who choose they're fates. In the end Mersault explains to himself in his head, maybe i am a criminal as he goes over the timeline, himself planning to kill the arab, acceptingly writes the hatred letter and plays the role of a false witness, doesnt stop raymond from beating a woman, arrogant to his mothers death. Although everyone views him as guilty, everyone who knows him stands up for him and tries to justify his actions more than he has even tried. The old man states "you have to understand" more than once, and i think that the kind of person Mersault is goes a long way, more than meets the eye of the stranger.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Who is this guy? - blogpost
In the book "The Stranger", Meursault has gone to the nursing home where his mother resided prior to her death. Once its over, he has some of that "delicious" coffee that he craved, and caught a small weekend fling with an ex coworker. "Who is this guy?" is the perfect title for this blog post because that is exactly what we want to figure out. His neighbor, with a devious past life and a ruined present, confides in him because he finds that "men" can talk to each other. Mersault is seen as a man to his neighbor because his mother just past, he works very hard, and holds a decent composure. The way i look at Mersault, is as an emotionless, inhumane person. He walks around with the belief that he holds a stature that is above others and he may live within society however hed like. For those who do choose to live with society, do it in a manner way, and have humane morals, ones that society will judge and help to create a person. Mersault killing a man on the beach just to do it, to satisfy his own curiousity, is inhumane and morally wrong. One who chooses to live in they're own imaginative world, where there are no rules or limitations for one, not limitations physically but rather spiritually, is one that is in deep trouble.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Huckabees blog
After watching “ I heart Huckabess” in class, I connected the movie to the essential question, do we live in a world that is meaningful and makes sense? The characters in the movie explore this same question as they dig for answers, only to find that the answers will not be buried into text as they had hoped for. Novels, authors, and experts on existentialism help selective individuals try to find they’re reasoning or “purpose” in this life and the next.
The movie had seemed so obvious almost as the main character, the activist trying to save bits of nature found on a Huckabees’ parking lot, hires two existentialist detectives that are hired to follow him around all day and analyze the kind of person he is in order to determine who and what makes him connected to other things or people in this world. The two existentialist detectives are also a couple, so a follow-up question I had during the film was whether the two had joined together based on the hypothesis of them both once being lost and feeling unconnected in this world when younger, much like how the boy is.
The movie then takes a turn as Mark Wahlburg is introduced in the movie as another client of the two existentialist detectives, who after all this progress he had made of discovering who he was, receives a book that he deeply analyzes to be the answer to his question, which also only made him ask more and more questions about who he is. The book he had received was actually from an author who based her novel on exactly the opposite of what the existentialist detectives were preaching. As the detectives followed they’re patients around studying them, the novelist was studying them, following them around.
The boy starts to follow the author’s words instead of the detectives, but still practicing they’re strategies on self-relaxing. He doesn’t know which route to go anymore to find himself, and only confuses himself more. In the end, he feels that everything is for a reason, coming to the conclusion that the novelist was once under the detectives wings but separated to a solo lifestyle, preaching the opposite after leading a life of confusion. He also believed that the author led him back to the detectives purposely because they're lifestyle of battling witty comments based on life was all a hoax for they're teamwork to satisfy the client down the road, helping them to realize both sides and coming to a conclusion on they're own much rather than being told who who they are.
I believe the world we live in is as meaningful as we want it to be. We can look at the world as a dangerous and dark place, or it can be seen as the most safest place in the world. I think whether the world itself is a scary place, it is seen and judged by the people in it, based on the people in it. Nothing makes sense to you unless you can actually try to make sense of it. To show your dedication to understanding something is even a start, and whatever conclusion you make of it is your conclusion, no one is right just like no one is wrong. We pay psychiatrist to analyze us and be told who we are, through discreet answers. that is because they know no more than we do, they listen to the questions we ask and only help us to ask questions we havent thought of yet, not answer our questions.
The movie had seemed so obvious almost as the main character, the activist trying to save bits of nature found on a Huckabees’ parking lot, hires two existentialist detectives that are hired to follow him around all day and analyze the kind of person he is in order to determine who and what makes him connected to other things or people in this world. The two existentialist detectives are also a couple, so a follow-up question I had during the film was whether the two had joined together based on the hypothesis of them both once being lost and feeling unconnected in this world when younger, much like how the boy is.
The movie then takes a turn as Mark Wahlburg is introduced in the movie as another client of the two existentialist detectives, who after all this progress he had made of discovering who he was, receives a book that he deeply analyzes to be the answer to his question, which also only made him ask more and more questions about who he is. The book he had received was actually from an author who based her novel on exactly the opposite of what the existentialist detectives were preaching. As the detectives followed they’re patients around studying them, the novelist was studying them, following them around.
The boy starts to follow the author’s words instead of the detectives, but still practicing they’re strategies on self-relaxing. He doesn’t know which route to go anymore to find himself, and only confuses himself more. In the end, he feels that everything is for a reason, coming to the conclusion that the novelist was once under the detectives wings but separated to a solo lifestyle, preaching the opposite after leading a life of confusion. He also believed that the author led him back to the detectives purposely because they're lifestyle of battling witty comments based on life was all a hoax for they're teamwork to satisfy the client down the road, helping them to realize both sides and coming to a conclusion on they're own much rather than being told who who they are.
I believe the world we live in is as meaningful as we want it to be. We can look at the world as a dangerous and dark place, or it can be seen as the most safest place in the world. I think whether the world itself is a scary place, it is seen and judged by the people in it, based on the people in it. Nothing makes sense to you unless you can actually try to make sense of it. To show your dedication to understanding something is even a start, and whatever conclusion you make of it is your conclusion, no one is right just like no one is wrong. We pay psychiatrist to analyze us and be told who we are, through discreet answers. that is because they know no more than we do, they listen to the questions we ask and only help us to ask questions we havent thought of yet, not answer our questions.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Manifesto
Its hard to describe each and every individual, that is why David Banach labels us as "absolute individuals". To prove his point based on every single person being different he writes his lecture based on existentialism and the freedom of human beings. His lecture "the ethics of absolute freedom" shows his meaning of freedom and how one can be free. Freedom can only come a long way, and as for society us as a whole have also come a long way, molding and changing our views of what actually make us free as human beings.
As Individuals, we perceive things differently, such things as images or experiences. Banach uses the "face/candlestick illusion" to demonstrate a major point of his. His point discussing the way people choose to see this photo, whether it be two people kissing or a candlestick, says a lot about that direct person and they're state of mind. "Each of us is trapped within our own mind, unable to feel anything but our own feelings and experiences." Our mind relates only to things that happened to us specifically. To think beyond what you know, or outside the box based on other's experiences, only helps to expand knowledge but can never help to escape your own feelings and thoughts. Banach refers to all individuals as "absolute". The word absolute is used by him and meant that each individual is completely and absolutely different. In the math-world, a single number, like "3", is viewed as a whole value. Every number is a whole value, but every number also has an opposite, or what is referred to as their "absolute" value. Just as the number "-3" has its own absolute value, it being 3. Each number has its own absolute value and no other number carrying the same. Banach refers to Human Beings in a similar way. No other human shares that same value, as they are all absolute in they're own way.
We are all different from each other and see things differently. Banach gives off three words that help to better understand the mind of individuals, "Essence precedes existence", and in other words, for something to exist, essence must first pursued the creator. He uses the example of paper-cutters being seen as a good product, but with the potential to be a great product, so the inventor tweaks them to become today’s pair of scissors. Whether it is a pair of flawed paper cutters or a picture depicting two different things, people choose to see what they want to see. Everyone is captivated by they’re own strength and mind. We are brought up being told how to live our lives and told right from wrong, when we reach that certain age where help is no longer attained to us, it is up to us to choose whether we will live by those rules growing up or try to excel to newer heights, living life in a careless point of view. As Americans we are told that we are free and have that privilege when compared to other places. Except, to live in a world full of rules and laws which we must abide by, does that make us entirely free? It makes humans want to disobey and nudge away from goodwill living, such as drinking laws and driving laws, etc. We are prisoners to our own minds because growing up taking in years of the same lecture by parents, teachers, and media brainwashes us to live life a certain way. Even laws and rules that we live by each and everyday are tweaked and improved by our nation so that obedience may become an indefinite.
Humans handle series of events from they’re lives in a way that they can achieve as much fun and excitement, or any other emotion prospered, from it as they can. Life is definitely too short, a common saying for years, which I completely agree upon. I too think about how short life is, and how it seems practically impossible to come out on top successfully in such a short period of time. Which is probably the huge reason we as humans love to read up on celebrities or the extremely wealthy, living they're luxurious lives on top, through magazines or television screens to get a glimpse of the life that we all would like. We chase these dream-lives because to have money means that you have no worries and lead nontrivial lives that need no meaning. As humans, we try to pursue money in so many alternatives, including shackling other human beings for our own gain. "It is self-defeating to attempt to use other humans as objects to satisfy our desires." Banach believed that in order for us to be free, we must desire the freedom of all men. Thinking backwards in history to slavery days, where owning slaves was desired and normal between Humans, trading them around and selling/buying actual human beings taking them for granted. Obviously we live in a new era, a completely different lifestyle now, where all men are treated equally and fair, in some state of manner. Suppose Banach included the freedom of Prisoners, and as they are condemn as men without freedom, then is letting all those prisoners free to live amongst us going to make us better people?
I believe that in order to obtain freedom, it must be done through a mental and physical state. Only in our minds can we accept us for who we are and stop judging ourselves. There are many ways to be free, for some being free means only escaping their reality. The negatives to this is the drug-abuse or other addicting formulas, but once that 'escape' leads them back to they're actuality, they are back within a world of hatred and violence. Some people may live in a hostel environment, mainly third world countries, but when they step foot into they're church and begin to practice they're beliefs, they may feel safe and free once again. Everyone can be free in they're own way. Its whether or not we choose to pursue that freedom.
As Individuals, we perceive things differently, such things as images or experiences. Banach uses the "face/candlestick illusion" to demonstrate a major point of his. His point discussing the way people choose to see this photo, whether it be two people kissing or a candlestick, says a lot about that direct person and they're state of mind. "Each of us is trapped within our own mind, unable to feel anything but our own feelings and experiences." Our mind relates only to things that happened to us specifically. To think beyond what you know, or outside the box based on other's experiences, only helps to expand knowledge but can never help to escape your own feelings and thoughts. Banach refers to all individuals as "absolute". The word absolute is used by him and meant that each individual is completely and absolutely different. In the math-world, a single number, like "3", is viewed as a whole value. Every number is a whole value, but every number also has an opposite, or what is referred to as their "absolute" value. Just as the number "-3" has its own absolute value, it being 3. Each number has its own absolute value and no other number carrying the same. Banach refers to Human Beings in a similar way. No other human shares that same value, as they are all absolute in they're own way.
We are all different from each other and see things differently. Banach gives off three words that help to better understand the mind of individuals, "Essence precedes existence", and in other words, for something to exist, essence must first pursued the creator. He uses the example of paper-cutters being seen as a good product, but with the potential to be a great product, so the inventor tweaks them to become today’s pair of scissors. Whether it is a pair of flawed paper cutters or a picture depicting two different things, people choose to see what they want to see. Everyone is captivated by they’re own strength and mind. We are brought up being told how to live our lives and told right from wrong, when we reach that certain age where help is no longer attained to us, it is up to us to choose whether we will live by those rules growing up or try to excel to newer heights, living life in a careless point of view. As Americans we are told that we are free and have that privilege when compared to other places. Except, to live in a world full of rules and laws which we must abide by, does that make us entirely free? It makes humans want to disobey and nudge away from goodwill living, such as drinking laws and driving laws, etc. We are prisoners to our own minds because growing up taking in years of the same lecture by parents, teachers, and media brainwashes us to live life a certain way. Even laws and rules that we live by each and everyday are tweaked and improved by our nation so that obedience may become an indefinite.
Humans handle series of events from they’re lives in a way that they can achieve as much fun and excitement, or any other emotion prospered, from it as they can. Life is definitely too short, a common saying for years, which I completely agree upon. I too think about how short life is, and how it seems practically impossible to come out on top successfully in such a short period of time. Which is probably the huge reason we as humans love to read up on celebrities or the extremely wealthy, living they're luxurious lives on top, through magazines or television screens to get a glimpse of the life that we all would like. We chase these dream-lives because to have money means that you have no worries and lead nontrivial lives that need no meaning. As humans, we try to pursue money in so many alternatives, including shackling other human beings for our own gain. "It is self-defeating to attempt to use other humans as objects to satisfy our desires." Banach believed that in order for us to be free, we must desire the freedom of all men. Thinking backwards in history to slavery days, where owning slaves was desired and normal between Humans, trading them around and selling/buying actual human beings taking them for granted. Obviously we live in a new era, a completely different lifestyle now, where all men are treated equally and fair, in some state of manner. Suppose Banach included the freedom of Prisoners, and as they are condemn as men without freedom, then is letting all those prisoners free to live amongst us going to make us better people?
I believe that in order to obtain freedom, it must be done through a mental and physical state. Only in our minds can we accept us for who we are and stop judging ourselves. There are many ways to be free, for some being free means only escaping their reality. The negatives to this is the drug-abuse or other addicting formulas, but once that 'escape' leads them back to they're actuality, they are back within a world of hatred and violence. Some people may live in a hostel environment, mainly third world countries, but when they step foot into they're church and begin to practice they're beliefs, they may feel safe and free once again. Everyone can be free in they're own way. Its whether or not we choose to pursue that freedom.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Blog Post #3: Response to part lll and part lV
"Life is a series of meaningless actions culminating in death"
I liked this quote from Banach alot because it really made me think and share a different side of insight to my usual train of thinking. I think that what Banach is saying in his Lecture is that humans handle series of events in a way that they can achieve fun or excitement or other emotions as much as they could through them. These events happen so that we as humans have something to do, distracting us until our ends. A common saying is always heard throughout our years, "life is too short", which i believe to be true. I too think about how short life is to come out on top as celebrities do or the very much wealthy. Maybe thats why those people living the glamourous life is always on our television screens and magazine covers, so that we may read up on them and get a glimpse of the lives we wish to have.
Banach believed that in order for us to be free, we must desire the freedom of all men. I connected this thought with another quote he had in his lecture, "It is self-defeating to attempt to use other humans as objects to satisfy our desires". Immediately i had thought backwards into history to slavery times, where owning slaves was desired and modern between Humans, trading them around and selling/buying actual human beings, taking them for granted. Obviously we live the exact opposite lifestyle now where all men are treated equally and fair, in some state of manner, but i still dont see how we as individuals are free now that freedom in all men is given. Not to contradict Banach or rearrange his words but suppose if he hadnt included the freedom of Prisoners, and they're condemnement as men without freedom, then is letting all those go and allowed to live freely outside of jail going to make us better as people?
In Banach's lecture he mentions "The Myth of Sisyphus" and the story of Sisyphus is shared in his words. The myth of Sisyphus says that as punishment to the 'condemned' Sisyphus, they thought WITH REASON that there was no better (and dreadful)punishment than "futile and hopeless labor". Its funny because in our day and age now, and not mythical, we almost reward Prisoners with LESS than petty wages to do hourly services within correctional facilities until the day they are released so that they have money to claim on the outside. It was interesting tho to find in Banach's Lecture that Philosophers believe that if one's sources of external value have been taken away, you will then find value within yourself. Two children stories were included to create a visual of what this means, How the Grinch stole Christmas and The Wizard of Oz. Both show the moral of the story to be that they're real values came from within, and for all they're time to be wasted chasing things representing value to them, and the value found from within was much greater than any external thing they possessed or seeked, because it could never be taken away.
I liked this quote from Banach alot because it really made me think and share a different side of insight to my usual train of thinking. I think that what Banach is saying in his Lecture is that humans handle series of events in a way that they can achieve fun or excitement or other emotions as much as they could through them. These events happen so that we as humans have something to do, distracting us until our ends. A common saying is always heard throughout our years, "life is too short", which i believe to be true. I too think about how short life is to come out on top as celebrities do or the very much wealthy. Maybe thats why those people living the glamourous life is always on our television screens and magazine covers, so that we may read up on them and get a glimpse of the lives we wish to have.
Banach believed that in order for us to be free, we must desire the freedom of all men. I connected this thought with another quote he had in his lecture, "It is self-defeating to attempt to use other humans as objects to satisfy our desires". Immediately i had thought backwards into history to slavery times, where owning slaves was desired and modern between Humans, trading them around and selling/buying actual human beings, taking them for granted. Obviously we live the exact opposite lifestyle now where all men are treated equally and fair, in some state of manner, but i still dont see how we as individuals are free now that freedom in all men is given. Not to contradict Banach or rearrange his words but suppose if he hadnt included the freedom of Prisoners, and they're condemnement as men without freedom, then is letting all those go and allowed to live freely outside of jail going to make us better as people?
In Banach's lecture he mentions "The Myth of Sisyphus" and the story of Sisyphus is shared in his words. The myth of Sisyphus says that as punishment to the 'condemned' Sisyphus, they thought WITH REASON that there was no better (and dreadful)punishment than "futile and hopeless labor". Its funny because in our day and age now, and not mythical, we almost reward Prisoners with LESS than petty wages to do hourly services within correctional facilities until the day they are released so that they have money to claim on the outside. It was interesting tho to find in Banach's Lecture that Philosophers believe that if one's sources of external value have been taken away, you will then find value within yourself. Two children stories were included to create a visual of what this means, How the Grinch stole Christmas and The Wizard of Oz. Both show the moral of the story to be that they're real values came from within, and for all they're time to be wasted chasing things representing value to them, and the value found from within was much greater than any external thing they possessed or seeked, because it could never be taken away.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
HW #3 post - Comments
Leticia's page...
Good post. I liked how you used a general question and not only answered it but connected to it on a personal level. I agree with your take on Banach's lecture because just as he perceives us to be complete individuals i find that everyone being labeled as individuals is so that everyone's differences are seen even greater. i liked how you showed that answering the question made from Banach's lecture was only difficult enough to create a new question to answer it. Maybe you could try finding a connection between the question you made to Mara's question that captured your attention so much, then restate your main idea. it made me think about how my life has been led so far, and after a conclusion i decided that it is possible for my life to have come down this road compared to the other doors i couldve walked through long ago in life, such as Instead of going to public High School if i chose to stay in catholic school, and went there for High school. Much would be different for me. Great post, great thoughts.
Ariel's page...
good stuff. I like the way you took two sepearate quotes from Banach's lecture and connected the two. I agree with your main idea that everyone has different interpretations as to what seems to be valuable to us(hopefully that was what you were aiming for...). It seems that at this day and age the only things viewed as "valuable" are the electronics that we carry in our pockets. Just as the quote you picked out had mentioned, the golden rule, "act only as i would have others act." If others are going out and getting that brand-new ipod or cellphone, should we act just as them? i liked how you answered Banach's questions with your own interpreted answer. Perhaps to help show your understanding of his questions to your answers as a connection, you could lead off afterwards with some follow-up questions of your own. after reading our post, i thought abt individuals and happiness and where to pursue it. I thought first about how we all choose to pursue happiness by owning as much electronics as we could, but i started to think maybe im asking the wrong questions? what if i should be asking myself if those who cannot afford to pursue these devices are still happy without them? I actually gained these thoughts from reading your post. It was good. keep it up
Good post. I liked how you used a general question and not only answered it but connected to it on a personal level. I agree with your take on Banach's lecture because just as he perceives us to be complete individuals i find that everyone being labeled as individuals is so that everyone's differences are seen even greater. i liked how you showed that answering the question made from Banach's lecture was only difficult enough to create a new question to answer it. Maybe you could try finding a connection between the question you made to Mara's question that captured your attention so much, then restate your main idea. it made me think about how my life has been led so far, and after a conclusion i decided that it is possible for my life to have come down this road compared to the other doors i couldve walked through long ago in life, such as Instead of going to public High School if i chose to stay in catholic school, and went there for High school. Much would be different for me. Great post, great thoughts.
Ariel's page...
good stuff. I like the way you took two sepearate quotes from Banach's lecture and connected the two. I agree with your main idea that everyone has different interpretations as to what seems to be valuable to us(hopefully that was what you were aiming for...). It seems that at this day and age the only things viewed as "valuable" are the electronics that we carry in our pockets. Just as the quote you picked out had mentioned, the golden rule, "act only as i would have others act." If others are going out and getting that brand-new ipod or cellphone, should we act just as them? i liked how you answered Banach's questions with your own interpreted answer. Perhaps to help show your understanding of his questions to your answers as a connection, you could lead off afterwards with some follow-up questions of your own. after reading our post, i thought abt individuals and happiness and where to pursue it. I thought first about how we all choose to pursue happiness by owning as much electronics as we could, but i started to think maybe im asking the wrong questions? what if i should be asking myself if those who cannot afford to pursue these devices are still happy without them? I actually gained these thoughts from reading your post. It was good. keep it up
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HW 3 - Banach's Lecture pt. 2
"Essence preceeds Existence"... This was one of Banachs main idea in the second part of his lecture. What Banach was trying to say was that for something to exist, essence must first persuede the creator who has made what is existing. Or if something has already existed but is flawed and the creator then comes up with an idea of essence that helps improve or help to become more convenient. The author used a pair of scissors as an example. He was suggesting, i say suggesting because we dont necessarily know this is true, that the creator of scissors, like all other great men of inventions, had saw the lack of greatness in a quality product and decided to tweak or improve with thoughts of their own. I suppose that connecting this to Banach's first part of his lecture would mean that the creator he is generally speaking of must first see dissapointment in that existing object in they're eyes but maybe not in the eyes of other people. This reminds me of once again us being refered to as "absolute individuals". We are all different and see things differently. Some may even choose to see things over others by choice when focused on, such as a pair of flawed paper cutters that can be tweaked and evolved into the modern infamous pair of scissors.
I like Mateo's question “Does the outside world affect your freedom?” This question ties into Banach's lecture tremendously as everyone is supposedly captivated by there own strength and mind. In the longrun, for anyone, there are no limits. Everyone is allowed to do so. Although to this day society chooses to mold and perfect a set of unflawed rules and laws that we as humans are forced to abide by. Its anyone's choice to break those laws, its whether we get "caught" for them and are forcefully punished for those actions. As Americans we are told that we are free and have that privilege when compared to other places. But to live in a world full of rules that we must practice each and every day, does that make us completely free? In the end all i could do was answer Mateo's question with another question. My answer began to lead to a political opinion being expressed, which is a road i dont wanna go down. SO i end this post here before i ramble on.
I like Mateo's question “Does the outside world affect your freedom?” This question ties into Banach's lecture tremendously as everyone is supposedly captivated by there own strength and mind. In the longrun, for anyone, there are no limits. Everyone is allowed to do so. Although to this day society chooses to mold and perfect a set of unflawed rules and laws that we as humans are forced to abide by. Its anyone's choice to break those laws, its whether we get "caught" for them and are forcefully punished for those actions. As Americans we are told that we are free and have that privilege when compared to other places. But to live in a world full of rules that we must practice each and every day, does that make us completely free? In the end all i could do was answer Mateo's question with another question. My answer began to lead to a political opinion being expressed, which is a road i dont wanna go down. SO i end this post here before i ramble on.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
HW 2 - Comments 1
(Comments to Ariels page)
Great stuff. You made some interesting connections between Banachs words and your own. You depicted some great imagery with your own words, allowingme to both visualize and see a connection of my own to your text. Im beginning to think that you were able to feel some sort of "absolute freedom" within yourself when you arrived here in NY as opposed to your old life back home in LA. It seems as though you lead the life of the ordinary outcast from another state like seen in all those movies haha. Unless thats just how i choose to see your life because of what i am exposed to due to television and such (whole different topic). i think to further expand your post or some ideas for your next one you can explore your opinions on why Banach COULD be right, or if you did agree with him, why. You did mention however the significance behind his words if he were to be correct. I wonder if i myself have friends that i choose to let in or ones that are able to read and understand me or are thinking exactly what i am thinking. i have an idea of who those friends are in my life, so i believe some do share similar thoughts and everyone is not 100 percent "absolute individuals". Your words about those who either connect with you or pretend to also reminded me of todays lecture about who's real and who's fake. Good stuff.
...CHris OVer and OUtt
(Comments to Leticia's page)
Great stuff. i like the way you started off by quoting Banach and how you interpreted his words into your own. Although i must admit grammer became a very small issue in your post, but in the end was still an issue. I understand where you stand on Banach's words, but im still not so clear as to what Banach was truly saying, not in your own words, but if someone else were to interpret his words how would they go about? I noticed a connection between the class's discussion as a whole, to your words where you mentioned in your post how u both agree and disagree with Banach's words. I guess if you were interested in expanding your post, or an idea for future posts, you could write about both sides you agree/disagree over with Banach, and maybe you could find a connection between the two and his words. Good stuff
Great stuff. You made some interesting connections between Banachs words and your own. You depicted some great imagery with your own words, allowingme to both visualize and see a connection of my own to your text. Im beginning to think that you were able to feel some sort of "absolute freedom" within yourself when you arrived here in NY as opposed to your old life back home in LA. It seems as though you lead the life of the ordinary outcast from another state like seen in all those movies haha. Unless thats just how i choose to see your life because of what i am exposed to due to television and such (whole different topic). i think to further expand your post or some ideas for your next one you can explore your opinions on why Banach COULD be right, or if you did agree with him, why. You did mention however the significance behind his words if he were to be correct. I wonder if i myself have friends that i choose to let in or ones that are able to read and understand me or are thinking exactly what i am thinking. i have an idea of who those friends are in my life, so i believe some do share similar thoughts and everyone is not 100 percent "absolute individuals". Your words about those who either connect with you or pretend to also reminded me of todays lecture about who's real and who's fake. Good stuff.
...CHris OVer and OUtt
(Comments to Leticia's page)
Great stuff. i like the way you started off by quoting Banach and how you interpreted his words into your own. Although i must admit grammer became a very small issue in your post, but in the end was still an issue. I understand where you stand on Banach's words, but im still not so clear as to what Banach was truly saying, not in your own words, but if someone else were to interpret his words how would they go about? I noticed a connection between the class's discussion as a whole, to your words where you mentioned in your post how u both agree and disagree with Banach's words. I guess if you were interested in expanding your post, or an idea for future posts, you could write about both sides you agree/disagree over with Banach, and maybe you could find a connection between the two and his words. Good stuff
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
HW 1 - Banach's Lecture part 1
David Banarch's "The ethics of Absolute Freedom" 's part one lecture is based on Individuality and freedom. Going over the first lecture in class, there were some words that needed to be read over and discussed within my group. Beforehand we came up with some text-reading strategies. One strategy that i practiced was "dumbing down" the words in which i can understand easily. Right from the start, the text sarts the reader off with a grasping hook with the statement "The modern conception of man is characterized, more than anything else; by individualism." Of course the term individualism will be magnifined even further in this transcript. Although no actual definition is provided my take on individualism is that it describes all persons as individuals and what separates them. The transcript is broken down into sections that help the reader to get an idea of what existentialism is, seeing how there isnt just one simple answer.
I thought that individuals being refered to as "absolute" was interesting because to be called absolute individuals meant to me that we are all 100 percent different. the main argument so far in the lecture was that we percieve things differently, such as images and experiences. Images like the ones that you see one or the other in it, and in order to catch the other image you have to focus hard. When humans look at these photos in an unfocused glance, they only see the first thing that comes to mind, and whether you see two people kissing or a candlestick in one photo, it says alot about that person and theyre state of mind, so it says.
I thought that individuals being refered to as "absolute" was interesting because to be called absolute individuals meant to me that we are all 100 percent different. the main argument so far in the lecture was that we percieve things differently, such as images and experiences. Images like the ones that you see one or the other in it, and in order to catch the other image you have to focus hard. When humans look at these photos in an unfocused glance, they only see the first thing that comes to mind, and whether you see two people kissing or a candlestick in one photo, it says alot about that person and theyre state of mind, so it says.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
