Sometimes it is common to look at someone who is not like you or who doesn't adhere to social norms and automaticaly strike them as "strange" and move on. That's what I feel like is happening when Meursault is analyzed.
I don't think it is accurate to say that you can just take the emotions out of everything all of the time. If that were the case life would be a lot easier for a lot more people. When it comes to Meursault I think he is feeling more over the course of the whole book than is let on. Just the fact that it seems like Meursault aims to please and that takes away from the idealogy that you should live for yourself and yourself alone. When Raymond asked Meursault to write the letter for him, he justified writing it as "I didn't have any reason not to please him" (32)
The fact that he did things for others before the murder and the murder itself was him doing Raymond another favor so obviously he was never completely heartless and emotionless. Everyone has emotions it is immpossible to stop them but not everyone shows them in the same ways. Everyone has their own emotional outlets and maybe Meursault's outlet is simply not letting his emotions break him down, so he puts on an indifferent facade to cope. It's hard to pinpoint why people do the things they do so no matter how much you try to analyze Meursault one direct answer is probably not going to be found.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
Meursault: A deeply indifferent man or one who is hiding behind a mask?
I don't really know how i feel about the stranger yet, i don't dislike it but it is not one of those book that i cannot put down. I'm still making my judgements about it.
Meursault, is a man who is indifferent about everything and he never really shows his emotions. I do think he feels things because every person has opinions, i just think that he feel his emotions to himself. I feel like the way people are is because of the things that have happened to them and how it has affected them. I think that Meursault does not fit into the norm when it comes to human interaction but then again what is "normal" anyways?
the way that the story is being told is just through a lot of observation. Meursault is ridicualously objective and I think that being that way is what helps him cope with things. the way i see it, is that if he doesn't allow himself to be attached to anything then he would not be setting himself up for disappointment. that is not a happy way to live but everyone has their own coping mechanisms. If we got a chance to look into his past i think we would be able to get a better understanding as to why he is the way he is but i don't think that is the direction the book is going so i don't think it will happen.
I don't really know how i feel about the stranger yet, i don't dislike it but it is not one of those book that i cannot put down. I'm still making my judgements about it.
Meursault, is a man who is indifferent about everything and he never really shows his emotions. I do think he feels things because every person has opinions, i just think that he feel his emotions to himself. I feel like the way people are is because of the things that have happened to them and how it has affected them. I think that Meursault does not fit into the norm when it comes to human interaction but then again what is "normal" anyways?
the way that the story is being told is just through a lot of observation. Meursault is ridicualously objective and I think that being that way is what helps him cope with things. the way i see it, is that if he doesn't allow himself to be attached to anything then he would not be setting himself up for disappointment. that is not a happy way to live but everyone has their own coping mechanisms. If we got a chance to look into his past i think we would be able to get a better understanding as to why he is the way he is but i don't think that is the direction the book is going so i don't think it will happen.
Monday, October 26, 2009
I <3 Huckabees response.
Whilst being a very odd movie I think that I <3 Huckabees brings up some very good ideas and questions that resonate within me about life and how we “should” live it.
I think the fact that Albert goes through all this effort to see if seeing one man several times is more than mere coincidence is slightly odd. Does there have to be an answer for everything? Why do we as people always try to have an answer for everything however trivial the subject matter really is?
When Bernard is trying to explain to Albert in a positive way that we as living things on earth are all connected no matter what is very true. No matter how much effort you put into separating yourself from another thing you are never going to be successful. At the end of the day we are all still apart of this planet so it seems that somehow we all must be connected. It’s like that friend of a friend of a sister who knows Brad Pitt. We all connect somehow.
It seems to me that a lot of people always bring a negative connotation to everything. Why must it always come down to being alone in the world and nothing really mattering? Why can’t we just be? Without any stipulations or expectations just live. How can we accurately say nothing matters in life when there are things those same people who are saying that are attached to. It’s a contradiction. “If nothing matters, how can I matter?” –Tommy’s girlfriend. When Tommy’s girlfriend was packing her bag and Tommy was trying to convince her to fight the good fight with him and find true meaning the realization hit that if life didn’t matter to Tommy how could she legitimately matter to him also? You can’t. I don’t know it just seems to me that the people who actually believe this type of thing only allow meaninglessness to present itself on their terms. Only when it’s convenient for them, its like a switch between nothingness and simply life.
The fact that the movie does not take itself seriously at all says a lot to me. it just gives me the feeling of life is too short and meaningful to twist it into something miserable dreary and lonely. We should appreciate our lives for what they are not for what they are not.
Whilst being a very odd movie I think that I <3 Huckabees brings up some very good ideas and questions that resonate within me about life and how we “should” live it.
I think the fact that Albert goes through all this effort to see if seeing one man several times is more than mere coincidence is slightly odd. Does there have to be an answer for everything? Why do we as people always try to have an answer for everything however trivial the subject matter really is?
When Bernard is trying to explain to Albert in a positive way that we as living things on earth are all connected no matter what is very true. No matter how much effort you put into separating yourself from another thing you are never going to be successful. At the end of the day we are all still apart of this planet so it seems that somehow we all must be connected. It’s like that friend of a friend of a sister who knows Brad Pitt. We all connect somehow.
It seems to me that a lot of people always bring a negative connotation to everything. Why must it always come down to being alone in the world and nothing really mattering? Why can’t we just be? Without any stipulations or expectations just live. How can we accurately say nothing matters in life when there are things those same people who are saying that are attached to. It’s a contradiction. “If nothing matters, how can I matter?” –Tommy’s girlfriend. When Tommy’s girlfriend was packing her bag and Tommy was trying to convince her to fight the good fight with him and find true meaning the realization hit that if life didn’t matter to Tommy how could she legitimately matter to him also? You can’t. I don’t know it just seems to me that the people who actually believe this type of thing only allow meaninglessness to present itself on their terms. Only when it’s convenient for them, its like a switch between nothingness and simply life.
The fact that the movie does not take itself seriously at all says a lot to me. it just gives me the feeling of life is too short and meaningful to twist it into something miserable dreary and lonely. We should appreciate our lives for what they are not for what they are not.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
comments on parts 3 and 4
Arisa,
I too disagree with most of what he is saying due to his contradictory statements. A part that made me a little irritated was when he pretty much says to be free we have to set an example for others. Well wait a minute... wasn't what he was saying before that was that we have to be true to ourselves to be absolutely free. It seems to me that he is either confused about his OWN ideas or he is just trying to be annoying.
I like your ideas a lot and I also get a sarcastic tone in your writing and that makes it much more enjoyable to read. Throughout your post you take an idea stated by Banach and go on to basically rip it to shreds. I wonder what his motives were when he was writing this. Maybe he was trying to get a rise out of us and we fell for it.
I enjoyed reading your post and keep up the interesting writing!
Henry,
I too stated in my own post that it is pointless to live life knowing you are going to die and ultimately refusing to fight the good fight. I think that if that was truly the case then mankind would not last that long and life expectancies would also shorten due to the lack of simply wanting to live. I am willing to admit that there is one main thing about this lecture that I can agree to which you touch upon briefly, being "that happiness comes from struggle". If you don't know what it is like to suffer than how can you truly appreciate the happiness you have? I think happiness would be more plentiful if you do not take it for granted and realize that not everyone is “happy”.
Throughout your post you pretty much take the main ideas from the lecture, clarify it and draw your own conclusions from there. Most of them are not in agreement to Banach's but you state how it could possibly make sense and I liked that. You made your post very direct so fishing for the main idea of your post was not needed which is always nice from a reader’s standpoint. I enjoyed reading your post and keep up the good writing!
I too disagree with most of what he is saying due to his contradictory statements. A part that made me a little irritated was when he pretty much says to be free we have to set an example for others. Well wait a minute... wasn't what he was saying before that was that we have to be true to ourselves to be absolutely free. It seems to me that he is either confused about his OWN ideas or he is just trying to be annoying.
I like your ideas a lot and I also get a sarcastic tone in your writing and that makes it much more enjoyable to read. Throughout your post you take an idea stated by Banach and go on to basically rip it to shreds. I wonder what his motives were when he was writing this. Maybe he was trying to get a rise out of us and we fell for it.
I enjoyed reading your post and keep up the interesting writing!
Henry,
I too stated in my own post that it is pointless to live life knowing you are going to die and ultimately refusing to fight the good fight. I think that if that was truly the case then mankind would not last that long and life expectancies would also shorten due to the lack of simply wanting to live. I am willing to admit that there is one main thing about this lecture that I can agree to which you touch upon briefly, being "that happiness comes from struggle". If you don't know what it is like to suffer than how can you truly appreciate the happiness you have? I think happiness would be more plentiful if you do not take it for granted and realize that not everyone is “happy”.
Throughout your post you pretty much take the main ideas from the lecture, clarify it and draw your own conclusions from there. Most of them are not in agreement to Banach's but you state how it could possibly make sense and I liked that. You made your post very direct so fishing for the main idea of your post was not needed which is always nice from a reader’s standpoint. I enjoyed reading your post and keep up the good writing!
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Response to parts 3 and 4
''Our life is a series of meaningless actions culminating in death''.
So then why even bother living if this is the statement one chooses to live by? If in the end nothing we do will count for anything then why waste your time trying to decode humanity and giving an answer-- not necessarily a right one to every question that is posed?
So clearly if I chose to believe this statement that would not only pessimistic but it would make life pointless. Why make the effort to live a "good" life if in the end it won't matter because we are all going to die? I think that living your life by those thoughts are counter-productive and just a waste. Living is a gift that not all are granted, so why waste the little time that we do have on this earth questioning why we are here and thinking so negatively?
Happiness, what is it? Is it just endorphins that my brain sends gets in waves when something I like happens. Is being truly happy a constant state of euphoria and you feel like nothing could ever possibly touch you? Is the emotion happy the same for everyone? Probably not, so then why does David Banach yet again talk as though he knows what exactly everyone else feels?
To be "happy": "'One must lose all hope of external value before seeking value within.'' I'll admit that the concept of this is nice, only extracting "happiness" within our selves. However, what happens if a material object or something along those lines allows you to realize what makes you happy. Music makes me happy, so by saying that is that just not genuine, are we incapable of having anything make us happy? Am I happy? I couldn't tell you. Happiness is a fleeting emotion and I think emotions run really high so if I'm feeling happiness I feel like nothing could touch me, and if I am not feeling so optimistic, I want to wallow in my own self pity for a while until I snap out of it. Well, is anyone really happy all of the time? I don't care what someone tells me the answer is no.
If suppose we do find our happiness within ourselves entirely, will it last? :"one must lose the promise of external value, but they find a more real happiness, one that cannot be taken away by the external forces beyond their control." I think as well that the concept of that is nice but the effectiveness of it is not realistic. So if something was to happen with my family for example and it is not a "happy" thing, am I still happy anyway because I initially allowed myself to be happy alone? If I do become sad which most would, does that mean I was never really happy in the first place? No, it is normal for emotions to vary, someone can not be in a state of happiness all of the time. Our brains do not work that way.
I am "happy" most of the time, and I think that what allows me to achieve this happiness is genuine. In the first part of the lecture doesn't it state: "No one else can feel what we feel", so then why is Mr. Banach saying now what it takes to be truly happy, when he in fact does not know how I feel? If feelings are so one-sided, why does he insist on telling others how to be happy? I think he should just stick to his initial thoughts and stop flip flopping.
So then why even bother living if this is the statement one chooses to live by? If in the end nothing we do will count for anything then why waste your time trying to decode humanity and giving an answer-- not necessarily a right one to every question that is posed?
So clearly if I chose to believe this statement that would not only pessimistic but it would make life pointless. Why make the effort to live a "good" life if in the end it won't matter because we are all going to die? I think that living your life by those thoughts are counter-productive and just a waste. Living is a gift that not all are granted, so why waste the little time that we do have on this earth questioning why we are here and thinking so negatively?
Happiness, what is it? Is it just endorphins that my brain sends gets in waves when something I like happens. Is being truly happy a constant state of euphoria and you feel like nothing could ever possibly touch you? Is the emotion happy the same for everyone? Probably not, so then why does David Banach yet again talk as though he knows what exactly everyone else feels?
To be "happy": "'One must lose all hope of external value before seeking value within.'' I'll admit that the concept of this is nice, only extracting "happiness" within our selves. However, what happens if a material object or something along those lines allows you to realize what makes you happy. Music makes me happy, so by saying that is that just not genuine, are we incapable of having anything make us happy? Am I happy? I couldn't tell you. Happiness is a fleeting emotion and I think emotions run really high so if I'm feeling happiness I feel like nothing could touch me, and if I am not feeling so optimistic, I want to wallow in my own self pity for a while until I snap out of it. Well, is anyone really happy all of the time? I don't care what someone tells me the answer is no.
If suppose we do find our happiness within ourselves entirely, will it last? :"one must lose the promise of external value, but they find a more real happiness, one that cannot be taken away by the external forces beyond their control." I think as well that the concept of that is nice but the effectiveness of it is not realistic. So if something was to happen with my family for example and it is not a "happy" thing, am I still happy anyway because I initially allowed myself to be happy alone? If I do become sad which most would, does that mean I was never really happy in the first place? No, it is normal for emotions to vary, someone can not be in a state of happiness all of the time. Our brains do not work that way.
I am "happy" most of the time, and I think that what allows me to achieve this happiness is genuine. In the first part of the lecture doesn't it state: "No one else can feel what we feel", so then why is Mr. Banach saying now what it takes to be truly happy, when he in fact does not know how I feel? If feelings are so one-sided, why does he insist on telling others how to be happy? I think he should just stick to his initial thoughts and stop flip flopping.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Arisa,
I too, really like the quote you used "Even if I were a puppet, my body and its actions completely controlled by some malevolent master, what I am, my mind's eye would still be free untouched".
No matter what we do according to Mr. Banach we are free in our heads and I can agree with that..
However, I can't say I agree with the whole making excuses for yourself as a way to opt out of a bad decision. Whist it is possible to make an excuse out of a act of "bad faith" isn't me making said excuse simply exercising my "Freedom" that we have "all of the time"? I think that's too shady for my taste. Despite David Banach's constant backpedaling, I do like your thoughts.
I think one's progression or lack thereof is simply why we as humans are NOT free all the time. (sorry if I keep going back to that I cant get over the freedom thoughts :) ) It is up to the person inside the external to decide how you want to act or the paths that you take. Saying that allowing a roadblock so to speak to hinder ones progression is not ok it’s not only idealistic but unrealistic.
As David said in his passage that we have to work with the cards we are dealt with and based on that you can decide to be free or not. I think that it is not only the internal mind doing any possible holding back; I think its something deeper than that.
Granted most of it is the mind trying to hold you back but maybe there is a reason that the road block is there in the first place? Now the question arises am I supposed to drive around the road block or do I close my eyes and hope it goes away? The answer to that question is something your mind and your mind alone can tell you. I feel as everything could happen for a reason so maybe your mental roadblock in the grand scheme of things going to help you achieve greatness.
Your blog made a lot of other thought come into my head and sorry if it seems jumbled... but very insightful and relatable post!
Julie,
Your blog raises a lot of questions within me. To say that it is "human nature" to long to know what we do not is not accurate in my mind. If we are all on "our islands of subjectivity" than saying human nature exists would be inaccurate right?
"One question that is constantly on my mind when I am reading Banach's writing is why do we need so much?"
I agree why do we as people want to know the answers to everything? I guess the saying ignorance is bliss doesn't sit well with people anymore. I think that there is a reason as to why we don’t know the answers to these "big" questions, it's because there isn't one.
You can’t make emotions into something tangible and objective that everyone can look at and relate to, everything is different depending on the person.
I like that you are questioning Banach's fundamentals, I also don't think there is a reason to dictate what is freedom and individuality. Who knows the answer? No one. So why does Banach constantly try to say that what he is trying to sell to us the readers as truth? What does he really know anyways? I can say what the meaning of life is and act as though my views are the truth but that does not mean that it really is.
Now that we have read more of his lecture Mr. Banach is getting on my nerves. Anyways I liked your post a lot and keep up the good writing!
I too, really like the quote you used "Even if I were a puppet, my body and its actions completely controlled by some malevolent master, what I am, my mind's eye would still be free untouched".
No matter what we do according to Mr. Banach we are free in our heads and I can agree with that..
However, I can't say I agree with the whole making excuses for yourself as a way to opt out of a bad decision. Whist it is possible to make an excuse out of a act of "bad faith" isn't me making said excuse simply exercising my "Freedom" that we have "all of the time"? I think that's too shady for my taste. Despite David Banach's constant backpedaling, I do like your thoughts.
I think one's progression or lack thereof is simply why we as humans are NOT free all the time. (sorry if I keep going back to that I cant get over the freedom thoughts :) ) It is up to the person inside the external to decide how you want to act or the paths that you take. Saying that allowing a roadblock so to speak to hinder ones progression is not ok it’s not only idealistic but unrealistic.
As David said in his passage that we have to work with the cards we are dealt with and based on that you can decide to be free or not. I think that it is not only the internal mind doing any possible holding back; I think its something deeper than that.
Granted most of it is the mind trying to hold you back but maybe there is a reason that the road block is there in the first place? Now the question arises am I supposed to drive around the road block or do I close my eyes and hope it goes away? The answer to that question is something your mind and your mind alone can tell you. I feel as everything could happen for a reason so maybe your mental roadblock in the grand scheme of things going to help you achieve greatness.
Your blog made a lot of other thought come into my head and sorry if it seems jumbled... but very insightful and relatable post!
Julie,
Your blog raises a lot of questions within me. To say that it is "human nature" to long to know what we do not is not accurate in my mind. If we are all on "our islands of subjectivity" than saying human nature exists would be inaccurate right?
"One question that is constantly on my mind when I am reading Banach's writing is why do we need so much?"
I agree why do we as people want to know the answers to everything? I guess the saying ignorance is bliss doesn't sit well with people anymore. I think that there is a reason as to why we don’t know the answers to these "big" questions, it's because there isn't one.
You can’t make emotions into something tangible and objective that everyone can look at and relate to, everything is different depending on the person.
I like that you are questioning Banach's fundamentals, I also don't think there is a reason to dictate what is freedom and individuality. Who knows the answer? No one. So why does Banach constantly try to say that what he is trying to sell to us the readers as truth? What does he really know anyways? I can say what the meaning of life is and act as though my views are the truth but that does not mean that it really is.
Now that we have read more of his lecture Mr. Banach is getting on my nerves. Anyways I liked your post a lot and keep up the good writing!
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
homework #3- blogpost #2
"It is impossible to abdicate our freedom."
To be free, in the sense of inner freedom-- not just free rights or privileges is something that we cannot escape no matter what according to David Banach. I cannot say i agree fully.
What happens if something is occurring in your head in which it is not allowing yourself to be free? What does it mean to be free? To be truly free does that mean that I have to be in touch with my individuality as well? Are those too terms a package deal? And to show my "freedom" do I have to say it loud and say it proud, or can I choose to keep myself closed off. And by not saying who I exactly am aloud or in writing in which my peers are reading, does that make me less free? Does that make me "fake"? Am I betraying myself due to my lack of willingness to share with the world something I consider private?
According to everyone else, to be truly free within my self, I have to know who I am, and how I plan to be that person all of the time.
Coinciding with David Banach's concept of being free no matter what you do, you are free inside your own mind. Of course everyone has their own inner- dialogue, but does that shape you? The way you act your "essence"-- to me, can say a lot about someone's "level" of freedom. By making excuses for yourself, to justify your actions does makes you less free? Or is that some other issue in your head. Does longing for acceptance make you less free?
Who is someone else to tell me weather or not I am "free"? I think that even facing inner demons becomes a hindrance to achieve that absolute freedom or "individuality". What if there is something in my mind blocking me from being who i want to be fully, that mechanism that makes me bite my tongue when I want to shout out and yell. Does that make me less free from some Joe Shomo who is not afraid to run rampant on people?
Do bad decisions also create a road block in the path to "freedom"? "Thus, we all have the tendency to act in bad faith"-- well, by "acting" in the first place isn’t that simply exercising the right to be "free"? Pretty much all David Banach was talking about in a lot of part two is how it is up to us, the person, to make of what we want to out of your given situation. To each his own. Isn’t saying "acting on bad faith" a contradiction to his whole argument of "freedom"? If i am free why does someone else have the right to deem a choice I make to be one of "bad faith"?
"We now need to see what view of human happiness and of morality arise from this single conception of human freedom. Both of these can be summed up by the single slogan 'BE AUTHENTIC'." Again how do I know if I am being "authentic"? Is there some sort of authenticity rubric hidden somewhere that you can refer to, making sure you are "authentic" all of the time? What I personally may view, as being "authentic" may not be what someone views it to be. So who’s right? Who then is really "authentic"? How can someone (being David Banach) say to be "authentic" when that word can mean many different things for many different people? What may be authentic to you may be inauthentic to me…
In the first part of his lecture I whole-heartedly agreed with him, but now as I am reading the part two I am not so sure I agree with his ideas, or how he goes about saying it. I get a sense of a condescending tone, which makes me less inclined to agree, based on principal.
... That is just me acting on the “freedom” I apparently have all the time....
To be free, in the sense of inner freedom-- not just free rights or privileges is something that we cannot escape no matter what according to David Banach. I cannot say i agree fully.
What happens if something is occurring in your head in which it is not allowing yourself to be free? What does it mean to be free? To be truly free does that mean that I have to be in touch with my individuality as well? Are those too terms a package deal? And to show my "freedom" do I have to say it loud and say it proud, or can I choose to keep myself closed off. And by not saying who I exactly am aloud or in writing in which my peers are reading, does that make me less free? Does that make me "fake"? Am I betraying myself due to my lack of willingness to share with the world something I consider private?
According to everyone else, to be truly free within my self, I have to know who I am, and how I plan to be that person all of the time.
Coinciding with David Banach's concept of being free no matter what you do, you are free inside your own mind. Of course everyone has their own inner- dialogue, but does that shape you? The way you act your "essence"-- to me, can say a lot about someone's "level" of freedom. By making excuses for yourself, to justify your actions does makes you less free? Or is that some other issue in your head. Does longing for acceptance make you less free?
Who is someone else to tell me weather or not I am "free"? I think that even facing inner demons becomes a hindrance to achieve that absolute freedom or "individuality". What if there is something in my mind blocking me from being who i want to be fully, that mechanism that makes me bite my tongue when I want to shout out and yell. Does that make me less free from some Joe Shomo who is not afraid to run rampant on people?
Do bad decisions also create a road block in the path to "freedom"? "Thus, we all have the tendency to act in bad faith"-- well, by "acting" in the first place isn’t that simply exercising the right to be "free"? Pretty much all David Banach was talking about in a lot of part two is how it is up to us, the person, to make of what we want to out of your given situation. To each his own. Isn’t saying "acting on bad faith" a contradiction to his whole argument of "freedom"? If i am free why does someone else have the right to deem a choice I make to be one of "bad faith"?
"We now need to see what view of human happiness and of morality arise from this single conception of human freedom. Both of these can be summed up by the single slogan 'BE AUTHENTIC'." Again how do I know if I am being "authentic"? Is there some sort of authenticity rubric hidden somewhere that you can refer to, making sure you are "authentic" all of the time? What I personally may view, as being "authentic" may not be what someone views it to be. So who’s right? Who then is really "authentic"? How can someone (being David Banach) say to be "authentic" when that word can mean many different things for many different people? What may be authentic to you may be inauthentic to me…
In the first part of his lecture I whole-heartedly agreed with him, but now as I am reading the part two I am not so sure I agree with his ideas, or how he goes about saying it. I get a sense of a condescending tone, which makes me less inclined to agree, based on principal.
... That is just me acting on the “freedom” I apparently have all the time....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)