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.

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 <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.

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!

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.

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!

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....

homework #2

Yazmin, I have to say if reading your post my already slightly scatter-brain became even more scatter-brained if that’s possible. But that’s a good thing I promise!

As you know it also annoys me deep to my core when someone sings the same old song of "I know how you feel" been there done that, but many times I find myself trying to almost justify my feelings to others when I’m talking at them harping about whatever it is I need to harp about. Now, based on what you wrote I ask myself, why? Why do we all feel the need to justify our thoughts to someone else so maybe they can get an inkling as to what we feel? Next, I ask myself why do I care if they get it or not? Feelings are personal and now it doesn’t bother me one bit if no one gets it. I get it and that’s all that matters. I feel that you can agree to that.

Io add on to your thoughts about fading into your "own little world" which I can agree whole heartedly with might I add is that maybe having my "own little world" is like my mind telling me when it needs to submerse itself into my own world of "subjectivity"? A coping mechanism? Quite possibly, but I think when your heads in the clouds so to speak its up there for a reason.

"We can still be someplace but not really be "there". When that happens, I feel like that is when I'm most myself because I'm just in my own head."

You can only be yourself 100% of the time in your own head, anywhere else I think is not realistic. Not to say that, that leads to fakeness on the "outside world", just that sometimes thoughts get filtered and as a result not fully yours.

I truly wrote entirely too much I may have beat your "novel" ha-ha but your post made me think and I allowed my mind to wonder and now you have to read it so ha! :)

Great post and snaps for Yazmin!!


Corey, I completely agree with your thoughts about the aspect of being separate from the world at times as a slightly positive if not helpful thing. I myself find that taking time to myself to get away from everyone else is a very helpful way to relax and collect my thoughts.


I feel as though if you did not have this time to be a separate entity, than you would not be able to fully understand yourself let alone attempt to understand others. That’s not a very productive way to think. Free will i feel, is one of if not the most important thing to living, no matter how someone tries to shape you into something it is up to you and you alone to agree to it or not.


I too cannot say with first hand knowledge about drug-induced subjectivity, however I think when someone is tripping on acid for example I think they will not really be contemplating these matters they will be too wrapped up with seeing things such as “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds”… I think, I don’t know for sure…


I like your thoughts about fights with others and how whether you like it or not it can lead you to conclude things that may have not crossed your mind without your own ideals being questioned in the first place. I myself don’t like to admit when I’m wrong in a argument, and even I can admit when I am being challenged the way someone else thinks about things gives me a little more insight than I’d like to admit. Their views can be helpful to further my point about being the only one allowed to be right. (Note the sarcasm here ha-ha)


Anyways since I‘m starting to ramble here, I liked your thoughts keep up the good work! ….wow that was cliché…

When I think of an "absolute individual" I think of someone who has yet to be tainted by the world we live in. "Each of us is trapped within our own mind, unable to feel anything but our own feelings and experiences. It is as if each of us is trapped in a dark room with no windows." Not necessarily a naive person, but one who has not really experienced much, nor has had others shape their thoughts and views. Everything they think is because they thought it, not because someone else did. I still am trying to figure out if there really is such a thing called an "absolute individual", and if so, where can I find one? According to David Banach to be an "absolute individual" one basically has to live under a rock without any real human contact. I feel as though it is more likely to find people who claim to be individuals but really they are not. To be a true individual you have to have had absolutely nothing anyone has ever said to you change your mind about something. "Thus, to be an absolute individual is to be trapped within ourselves, unable to perceive or contact anything but the images on our mental TV screen, and to be imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us." While I don't think that there is such a thing as an "absolute individual" I think there is a difference from someone who can speak their mind or not be afraid to think about what they do from sheep that follows everything everyone else says. We can call those moderate individuals. there are probably at least double the amount of moderate individuals than there are "absolute individuals" that is if there are any at all. It is to be an island of subjectivity in an otherwise objective world."

I've been really stuck thinking about the concept of "No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in any one else's mind." I have never really thought of this before, but now that I have read it, I can't seem to get it out of my head. What has always been one of my pet peeves is when you are venting to another or sharing what troubles you or even what has occurred in your life, and the person you are confiding in says to you "I understand." Upon hearing that unless you have been through the exact same situation as I, immediately I get irked. I always want to respond with a do you really understand? You've never been in my situation so how could you possibly understand? Even if you have, the way everyone deals with their emotions or thoughts are different so what might make me really sad may not phase someone else. That leads me to believe that as humans we are all so close and yet so far away.

"Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside. Other people only see us from the outside, objectively, and, hard as we may try, we can only see them from the outside" There is a lot of truth in this statement. So much truth that it is a little disconcerting to me. From experience, trying to make your feelings into something tangible, weather it be written down or spoken words is very difficult. Often times you either over express and make what you feel too extreme or you barely scratch the surface and don't fully verbalize what you are feeling. I think however the human mind is capable of trying to empathize, so while you can never really feel exactly what another person is feeling, you can try to translate it into your own head so it can make sense to you and only after that you can sincerely empathize.

Another idea that always has been in my mind is the thought of perception. "Actually, when you think of it, the only thing we ever perceive immediately and directly is ourselves and the images and experiences in our mind. 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." In class you (being Mr. Manley) mentioned something about color and every one's own interpretation of color. How do I know that what I see is the same as what everyone else sees. For example when one looks in the mirror at themselves what you see of yourself is most likely not what everyone else sees. You can pick out little thing about yourself that you think is so flawed or entirely too noticeable when in actuality no one notices it but you. That may just be paranoia or lack of confidence but it still alters you perception of yourself. Also, when one eats they could be eating what may be the most delicious thing in the world to them may be the most repulsive thing in the world to someone else. Everyone is different and that aspect of the human race really creates distance between one another.