The Stranger

At this point in time, I have just finished reading The Stranger, by Albert Camus, which in my opinion is a very strange little book. The way Meursault's character acts has bothered me from the start of the book, to the very end of the book. I feel like his attitude at first glance is very distanced and uncaring, and that he was supposed to be described that way. Every time he acted with indifference, it made me feel irritated that he wasn't acting differently. I feel like I acted more because he wasn't feeling at all, and that that was what Albert Camus' goal was. If you look at the other characters in the book, they also seem to feel a lot to make up for or to show the contrast between themselves and Meursault. Deep under the surface though, I feel like Meursault may have actually cared about things, but that even he did not acknowledge his own emotions.

Meursault started to change in part one of the book, right before he and Marie went with his friends to the beach. Jacara had pointed out the scene from chapter six, where he said "My cigarette tasted bitter" (top of page 47). Before this scene Meursault had constantly chain smoked without complaining about the taste of the cigarettes. At the time when I was reading this chapter I didn't think much of this quote, but I can now see that this was foreshadowing that something different was going to happen in the chapters to come. So much happened in chapter six, and very quickly. They arrived, they ate, they swam, the 'Arab' man cut Raymond, the women cried, then.. Meursault killed a man. That scene on the beach from page 57 to page 59 was very confusing, and packed with many similes. "The cymbals of sunlight crashing on my forehead", the sunlight reflecting off the blade ("the scorching blade slashed at my eyelashes and stabbed at my stinging eyes"), and after he fired the last four bullets, how he said "and it was like knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness." This scene was very difficult to understand because it moved so quickly and some people may not of known that these were similes. I know that some readers thought the blade really did slash at his face -I can admit that I had to read that sentence over again once myself- while Meursault was actually talking about the sunlight attacking his senses. My favorite of the similes was the one about knocking on the door of unhappiness, because of wording, as well as because it described what was to come in the second part of the book.

Somewhere in the last few chapters, I remember predicting that Meursault would start thinking and feeling right before it is too late. It said "It was only after Marie's first and last visit that it all started.. from that day on I felt that I was at home in my cell and that my life was coming to a standstill."(page 72) Some reason when I read this I felt like his life was changing from there on, in a positive way. Last week I can admit to reading a chapter ahead -I read chapter five- because chapter four ended with so much suspense that I just had to read the next chapter. As predicted, the last few chapters showed a turning point in Meursault's life; at the wrong time. He kept laying around, thinking, hearing his heart beating and staring at the clouds. I thought it was weird how Marie said "you'll get out and we'll get married!"(page 74). I know that some people may refuse to acknowledge what is really going to happen. I read a lot of murder mysteries, and whenever the homicide detectives have to notify the next-of-kin the family members or lovers always say something like "no you've got to be wrong. Maybe it was someone else that got killed", when really, they know the detectives are professionals and have not mistaken who got killed. Even though Meursault was in jail, Marie still thought they were going to have their own happy ending. At this time there was a possibility that he could be bailed out of jail (maybe).

The chaplain had a very bad approach to Meursault. He was heaping his beliefs onto Meursault and feeling like only his beliefs were the correct ones. Just because I may believe something different from what you believe, doesn't necessarily mean that one of us is wrong. It just means that we have different views and different opinions. Like Meursault, I got really annoyed with the chaplain. I don't think there was a big deal that Meursault was a non-believer, and that he didn't care for what the chaplain said. I know I didn't see what the big problem was when the chaplain constantly got angry and upset. Especially at the very end of the book, Meursault is about to be executed and what does the chaplain tell him? He tells him to pray. Like that is going to save Meursault when his death sentence is already written in stone.

I feel like the whole courtroom was set up wrong. The judge didn't really listen to Meursault, and Meursault didn't really say anything to begin with. I found the days of Meursault's trial to be very frustrating. The judge said that Meursault had committed first degree murder, meaning that he had planned ahead to kill the man who had cut Raymond. This is because Meursault had the gun in his pocket already, and that he was walking along the beach "looking" for that man. Even though I feel like Meursault just hadn't given Raymond back the gun after Raymond gave it to him before because everything had happened so quickly. The reason he had ended up with the gun in the first place though was to make sure Raymond didn't kill the guy. But then the guy cut him, and they rushed him to the doctor. I think Meursault committed murder in the second degree, meaning that while he was walking on the beach, he happened to still have the gun and he killed the man that hurt Raymond. I'm not even sure if it was an intentional murder. Meursault was walking, and all of a sudden he killed the guy. I'm not sure what year this book was supposed to take place in, but I know that sometimes people can be bailed out of jail, or do hard work to make up for their 'sins'.

When the witnesses testified, it made me wonder if something was wrong with me because I didn't think the way the judge was thinking. I did not notice that the day after Meursult's mom had passed away, he was starting his "affair" with Marie. I know that I would of spent the day after a loved one's death in my room crying, or with other family members. But maybe Meursault was so upset that he needed to be cheered up, and that could of been the reason he went with Marie to the movies. Or maybe that's just the way he is. For some reason I can't find a great wrong in what he did. The judge did not consider that maybe Meursault is just an emotionless person, and that his emotions do not ever come to the surface. Instead the judge said that Meursault does not have a soul and that he is evil because it seems like he doesn't feel anything. Sometimes I may seem like I don't feel anything, while I am thinking and feeling a lot inside. Like when I have gotten my ears pierced, in the past I am so scared at the time that all I say is "oww" really softly right after it has happened. Just because of those short moments where it does not seem like I'm feeling anything, it does not mean I am heartless. I know that I am anything but heartless, I care about people, and I feel emotions; because I am human.

For definitions of first and second degree murder, I looked at these websites:
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_second_degree.html

Mystery Man

While reading The Stranger, by Albert Camus, the main character Meursault seems very distant. The first scene where he finds out his mom died, he seems not to care. I think that he is trying to put up a shield, and portraying this uncaring person. He is trying to act like an emotionless man that is all by himself, and he is supposed to seem careless. Yet underneath all that, I feel like he really is upset. I know if I was in his shoes I would be a mess. My mom and I are very close, and we are also best friends. In the beginning of the book when he kept saying "it's not my fault", I feel like he was feeling really guilty. Maybe he felt like he had abandoned his mom, like he should of worked harder to take care of her and provide better care for her. When he was asked if he wanted to see inside the coffin, he said no. I feel like either he felt like she was still alive, or that he wanted his last memories of her to be from when she was alive, instead of her lying cold inside a wooden box.

At this point in the book he seemed very unmoved, alone. He kept falling asleep, and smoking, doing anything but acknowledging that his mother passed away. Then Meursault was standing outside under the tree, he was just thinking about how nice it was to get outside in nature for a while. All that seemed to be going through his head was how glad he was to have extra time off from work. The scene that I'm mainly focused on though, is how he spent his sunday standing next to the window, observing people. The whole day he chain-smoked, and started out the window. Even then he seemed withdrawn, but I feel like this showed something about himself. I feel like he was standing there, and thinking about how everyone walking on the sidewalk are alive, while his mom had just passed away. The way Meursault reacts to things is sort of surprising to me: "it occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed."(page 24) I would expect from someone that they would be really distraught if one of their family members passed away. He seemed to have had a close relationship with his mom, so I don't know why he is so aloof.

There are conversations with some people where he seems to hold back his opinion, and to just say what people want to hear. When he was talking to Raymond and he (the neighbor) wanted to teach his mistress a lesson, Meursault wasn't thinking anything, and he didn't seem to be feeling anything on the outside either. When he is with Marie though, he seems to express at least a little bit of feeling. While they are swimming around they seem like a happy couple in a romantic setting. Yet when she asks if he loves her, and he said "I answered the same way I had the last time, that it didn't mean anything but that I probably didn't love her." Maybe he is incapable of loving anymore, and that he has purposely distanced himself from everyone else, yet I feel like he should feel something. After this, Marie had asked him if he would marry her; and he said he would, because he didn't feel like it is a serious thing. There are times when he is interacting with individuals where he seems to care, and other times where he is indifferent. When he was at the beach with his friend and Marie, I feel like this showed the inside of him a little bit more. He was concerned when Raymond got hurt, he seemed to love Marie when they were lying on the beach together.

I feel like Albert Camus made Meursault the way he is-detached- to make his readers feel something. Because Meursault is acting so distanced, I feel like it is making me react even more than if he was upset, or showing any other emotion because it bothers me when he does not seem to care. Or maybe he acts so disconnected because he really does feel like a stranger. After all, we have all felt this way at least once in our lives.

“[Two] Overlapping, Fractured Philosophies.” In I <3 Huckabees

I <3 Huckabees is an enjoyable movie, that makes you think. It is a combination of a negative view on life, and a positive view on life or in Albert’s words two “overlapping, fractured philosophies.” Bernard believes that we are all the same, and that we are connected like “the blanket”. He demonstrated that we are all on different places of the blanket, yet we are all still part of the blanket: “Everything is the same, even if it’s different.” At first it seems like Bernard and his wife are trying to lend Albert and Tommy a positive way of thinking about life. I cannot remember Bernard’s wife’s name, as well as her view. I believe she was on the positive side as well since she was with Bernard, yet her main job seemed to be snooping around and spying on Albert.

The character Caterine had a more negative view on life, she felt like everything in the universe is meaningless. That is like the philosophy of nihilism, which I talked about in another of my posts: where whatever we do doesn’t make a difference because we are still going to die anyway. When Albert met Tommy, chaos slowly began to break loose. Tommy had gotten a hold of Caterine’s book, which led to Tommy’s wife (or girlfriend) and kid leaving. The wife had said to Tommy: “If nothing matters, how can I matter?” Tommy was in a major state of confusion and denial, so he was unable to answer her question.

The face placed on Huckabees is a model named Dawn who was Ken Doll’s (Brad’s) girlfriend. She acted like one of Brad’s groupies, acting stupid and being his cheerleader basically. In the commercials she would follow the director’s instructions and act like everyone expected her to act. Brad was trying to tell his girlfriend that she had a choice who to be, even while he was telling her to be pretty at the same time. Dawn responded, “it’s not a choice, I have to be pretty”. Brad was also a pretty boy who only cared about his image, and did not understand that he was not being himself.

Dawn was Huckabees Barbie Doll up until the scene where she came in wearing and bonnet and overalls, and Brad told her to leave through the back door so no one would see her. Dawn was acting who she is and wanted to be, which reminds me of the quote that Bernard said: “everything you ever want to be, you already are”. I found this a little bit confusing at first but it means that you have potential to be what you want to be because it is already in you. There is also a quote from when Tommy and Albert were hitting each other in the face; where Albert said: “I don’t feel like anything. I could be whatever is around me. I could be a rock, or I could be gold.” He did not feel like himself at that moment, which made him more aware of his surroundings. Tommy and Albert felt like the ball trick was brilliant because it cleared out their minds and helped them think about other things. Of course this is where Caterine says “you can’t just go that with the ball over and over again. It’s inevitable.. Then back to drama and suffering”. She was trying to tell them that you cannot escape for long, because no matter what drama and suffering comes back.

At the very end of the movie Albert and Tommy are sitting on the rock, and making faces at Bernard, Bernard’s wife, and Caterine. Bernard says, “I think we solved a case!” It seemed like they were pretending to be on negative and positive sides, when they were really all working together the whole time. In the end, Albert and Tommy seemed to find a meaning to their lives.

This I Believe

I strongly believe in being my own individual. I like to dress how I want to dress, and I try not to fit in with everyone else. Even if I may have the same bits of clothing as other individuals, I try to put them together in my own unique way. On the first day of school I was a little worried to dress “out there” before meeting my classmates. I remember wearing the same shirt as this girl in my class, yet I was glad to have mine be a little bit different from hers. Even though we had the same prints on our shirts, I had cut the neck of my shirt to fit differently from hers. I also realized that I had put my outfit together differently from how her outfit was. I like to stand out in a crowd, not just with the clothes I wear, but how I look.

Juan had posted this comment on one of my responses to David Banach’s lecture: “you mention that if people do not like what your wear, then ‘it's too bad for them’. This shows that you have personality and you are not trying to be somebody else in order to fit in.”

(Juan S.) I can admit that there are times where I want to dress a certain way for certain individuals, yet I learned a long time ago to dress for myself. I do not believe in dressing or acting like everybody else to try and fit in. I really like this quote Juan said about me, because he extracted it from my text without it even being there to begin with. I wrote about the way I dress, and Juan took it to the next level, talking about my personality.


I know we are supposed to use “sprinkling”, but I really like this whole quote:

“Our freedom is, thus, a freedom of synthesis. It is the freedom to pull ourselves together into the type of coherent whole that we will ourselves to be. Even if the raw materials from which we construct ourselves are determined (just a the materials of the artist are determined), what we make ourselves out of these materials is up to us alone (just as what the artist makes of her subject is up to her alone.)"

David Banach compares us to artists and discusses us as individuals like a big piece of artwork. I can relate to this example because I am a painter, and I often work off of pictures. Yet I take pictures and do my own version of the painting, using different colors and ways of painting what I see to make it mine. Banach was talking about how we take things that we see in the world, yet we make them into ourselves.

One day my mom told me that there are only three or four plots to a book, so I decided to look up this quote: “there are only three or four ‘simple plots’ according to most books”. I read a lot of books, and realize sometimes that I have read similar plots even though the books are by completely different authors. This quote seems similar to how Mr. Banach feels that we can take related resources, and make them into ourselves. Though people have many more variations than books do, I still feel like there are certain building blocks that people may work off of to create themselves.

I believe, in being myself. Some people are scared to be themselves, and hide behind personalities that they have created. I do not understand why some individuals put up a “front” for what they really are. A ‘front’ is to “put on a fake or false personality; not keeping it real.” Say as a make-believe scenario, that there is a boy who is constantly putting up an act to impress a girl. Yet the whole time he is putting on this act, (if the girl falls in love with him,) his goal has not really been achieved. The guy has not won, because the girl has fallen for the act of the guy, not who he really is.

I feel like it is wrong when guys think of girls as objects. I read a book by Nora Roberts where these two characters were saying how it was their right to use girls how they wanted to, and since it was a murder mystery the guys felt like they were allowed to dispose of the women once they were done with them. I believe that we are all humans, and that no one should feel like they can use and then cast away (kill) anyone else. Just like the quote from Mr. Banach’s lecture, “Can I choose to be a murder, a thief, or an exploiter of humanity?” I believe that it is wrong to take someone else’s life away from them, before the person is done with their life. In class I connected this quote to One Flew Over A Cuckoo’s Nest and an example with the main character: Randle McMurphy. At first Randle McMurphy was a very lively individual, with his own unique personality. Towards the end of the movie the doctors took him to another floor, and did some brain surgery on him. McMurphy comes back, as a walking vegetable. This scene was very disturbing, and in my opinion wrong, because they took away his personality and eventually his life without his permission. I found that to be unjustifiable.

I believe that everyone has the opportunity to make their own decisions, and that no one else can make those decisions for you. I also feel like everyone is accountable for their actions, and that they should take responsibility for those actions. Something that I really agree with David Banach on is that “we [all] attempt to deceive ourselves and act as if we weren't free, as if we were really determined by our nature, our body, or the expectations of other people." Some people let others make the decisions for them, while some are also too weak or scared to make the decisions for themselves. It's like those cliques that have one leader, and the rest of the people follow the leader without questioning anything that the leader is saying. Even though I do not feel this way, some people may feel safer having someone tell them step by step what to do in their lives. Yet life does not come with an instruction booklet, and people have to learn for themselves how to live.

I believe there is more to being a teenager than doing drugs and drinking. I don’t really agree with getting drunk to be wasted, or so high you can’t function. I like being in control of my body, and would not like some other force to be controlling me instead. One of my friends once said to me something along the lines of “you don’t smoke? What do you do with your life? Oh my God you’re an Angel!” My friend was so surprised, which I found a good example of how teenagers can be today. I feel like it is pathetic how dependent on drugs some kids are. How trashed they get just because it’s “cool”. I think it’s sad how some friendships are made where kids are just using other kids for drugs and alcohol.

I believe that it is bad to try and possess another individual, and that “if I attempt to enslave others or use them as objects, I make myself a slave and an object”, that “the person who uses other people as objects to satisfy his desires makes himself an object” and that “the manipulator, who attempts to buy and sell other people for his own ends, finds that he has sold his soul as well by seeing himself merely as his desires.” To summarize this quote, and connect it to a quote that I really like there is this quote: “Then you will find your servant is your master” (Wrapped Around Your Finger, By The Police) I like this idea that if a person holds someone else as a servant, they will find the servant to be their master. If you try to control another individual, you may find the roles to be reversed, and that they end up controlling you instead of the other way round.

While David Banach feels like we are alone, and that “no one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in anyone else’s minds”, I believe that there are times where we can share each other’s thoughts. Sometimes, you really can hear and think someone else’s thoughts. It just depends who the person is and the relationship that you have with them. For example, I am very close to my best friend Yasmin J. We have known each other since sixth grade, and can in a way share each other’s thoughts. We cannot have a conversation without echoing each other at least once. We have such a strong connection, that we can be talking about one topic, and then I could say something like “eww” and Yasmin would be like “what, are you talking about (insert name here)?” She knows my thoughts, without me having to say them sometimes.

There is the ongoing debate whether “existence precedes essence” (“We exist first and determine our essence by means of choice.” We exist and determine how we are after), or if “essence precedes existence” (our spirit comes before we exist.) These concepts remind me of the lyrics “how many years can a mountain exist, before it's washed to the sea? Yes, 'n' how many years can some people exist, before they're allowed to be free?” (Blowin’ In The Wind, by Bob Dylan) How many years can the idea of a person exist, after they are gone? This reminds me of how famous artists are known so many years after they have passed away. I believe that we are born, and we create ourselves how we are going to be. I do not find it possible for us to be born and already have some magical force directing our lives.

To come to a closure, I’d just like to say not to fall into the cookie cutter mold, but to try and be as unique as you possibly can. Yet if that is not possible, just try to be yourself.


References:
-David Banach’s lecture
-For the book quote: http://www.tameri.com/write/plotnstory.html
-Definition of “Front”: Urbandictionary.com
-The Lyrics to Wrapped Around Your Finger, by The Police: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sting+&+police/wrapped+around+your+finger_20132153.html
-Existence precedes essence: http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/sartre.html
-Blowin’ In The Wind, by Bob Dylan: http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/blowin-wind

Comments To Partner's Blog Posts, #3

Jace, I feel like you have brilliant ideas, and are capable of pushing yourself so much more than you are doing in your posts. I know this comment is late, because I just found out we had to do a third comment. Whenever you are commenting on my blog posts, I see that you understand, and you can connect to the things I write about. Yet when I look at your posts, they're really short, basically saying "I agree". In the future, try talking about parts that you agree with and why.

I'm still looking forward to working with you in the near future.

-Hannah
___________________________________________________

Kareem didn't have a third post on the Banach lecture.

"Last Comments" on David Banach's lecture

There are several things that I do not like in Banach’s lecture. One of the main parts that I disliked is part III, when they said Sisyphus should be happy rolling the rock up the hill over and over again. This idea of “all our activities [leading] to nowhere”, reminds me of nihilism. Nihilism is “an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth”, and “nothingness or nonexistence”. This means that some philosophers believe that we are living our lives, and that whatever actions we make are pointless because they lead to nothing.

Sisyphus leading the boulder up the hill is an example of him leading to nowhere for eternity. I really don’t let this concept of Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill, and how Camus said: “one must imagine him happy”. Rolling a boulder up a hill sounds like a pain in the ass, and he could just walk away from the boulder. I know the Gods apparently made him push the boulder for eternity, but that’s why I don’t believe in myths like that.

On the worksheet I wrote: The existentialist’s view of happiness is that we must find the happiness within ourselves. They connect Sisyphus to people struggling to live their lives, which annoys me. I know living one’s life may be stressful at times, but for Sisyphus, why is it that we must imagine Sisyphus was happy? It sounds like a miserable job to move rocks up a hill for eternity. I don’t really believe in all that God stuff, but I understand the happiness from within thing. Yet people look for happiness through others, through music, through art, drugs.. We are human. We can’t just sit there doing nothing and always being happy. But we can appreciate being alive.

In class, Jace said how school is like a boulder that we are constantly rolling up a hill, and that we do the same routine every day: waking up, going to school, going home, waking up, going to school.. Sometimes I agree with this, that we are going through the same routine every day. I remember at the end of the last school year I felt like I was walking on the exact same patch home every day, and how I felt like I needed to do something different. For the last couple of weeks I would walk down different roads leading to my house, because I felt like I was endlessly walking down the same path.

In class Jacara and I have had a lot of really interesting conversations about the parts of Mr. Banach’s lecture. Again, I don’t really like this section of Banach’s lecture as well. This lecture has been interesting to read; yet it is very frustrating for me to read it. When I was talking with Jacara I responded to where Banach said: “can I choose to be a murderer, a thief, or an exploiter of humanity?” by saying that we are allowed to do what we want to do, within some extent, but that it is wrong for someone to take another’s life away from them without their permission. This reminded me of One Flew Over A Cuckoo’s Nest, the main character was very lively and cocky. In a part of the movie they take him away to where the really crazy people are, and they extract part of his brain; which also took away his personality and made him into a vegetable. I felt really disturbed when we was transformed into this mess, because I felt like they had no right taking out part of his brain without his permission.

I liked the quote: “he makes himself into a character controlled by the very slaves of whom he makes himself an object. The person who uses other people as objects to satisfy his desires makes himself an object.” This quote reminded me of the lyrics from the song “Wrapped Around Your Finger” by the Police, that says: “then you'll find your servant is your master” which I have always found to be an interesting concept.

I usually really like when Banach talks about artists, and how “the artist is free to create; she does not follow any explicit rules.” Yet I did not like that he said: “yet her action is constrained by the requirement that her creation must be coherent.” When I was talking with Jacara she thought that the artwork has to make sense to at least one person, including the artist. Yet I said how artwork does not have to make sense to anyone but the artist, and that if it does not make sense to other people, it’s too bad.

To answer the question “are we free?” I said that we are as free as we can be, within a certain extent. We are free yet we have to follow laws, and how society is. If we act too free people may try to shut us up, or shut us down.

Comments to partners #2

To Jace:
Jace,
I appreciate the way you have restated some parts of Mr. Banach's lecture. I like how you said " it's sometimes depressing, sometimes exhilarating" yet I feel like you can expand on this post a lot more. I know from having discussions in Andy's class as well as this class that you're way of thinking is unique and easy to relate to. Yet when I read your blog posts they are short and don't show as much of you as I feel like they should.

What are some of your favorite lines in David Banach's lecture that you agree with and/ or feel like you can relate to? What are some things that you disagree with, and why? Also, if you still have the sheet with questions on it that students and Mr. Manley came up with, try to answer some of them.

Keep up the good work Jace. (Not sarcasm this time I promise). I'm looking forward to reading more of your ideas. Also, if you ever need any help you know you can ask me for it.
___________________________________________________
To Kareem:
Kareem,
I agree with and understand what you are saying in your post. Yet what if the people in their point of view are being real, while in other people's views that person is being fake? Do you disagree that people automatically act a bit differently with different people? Like the example that has been used in class,do you act one way with your friends, while you have to act appropriate for a job interview or with your parents? Or do you feel like this is us acting in your opinion "fake"?

In your posts you have discussed being fake, and you have discussed the saying "I feel your pain." Yet you have not discussed David Banach's lecture and how you feel about it. In the future, try to discuss lines David Banach has used in his writing.

Response to Banach's Lecture, Part 2

While reading David Banach's various parts of his lecture, I feel like my mind has been in a tornado. There are many parts that I understand, and many parts that I do not understand. There are parts that I do not like hearing about, as well as parts that I agree with. Yet I believe there are several important questions, all revolving around whether we are as free as we think we are, and what 'absolute freedom' really means.

I believe that everyone has the opportunity to make their own decisions, and that no one else can make those decisions for you. I also feel like everyone is accountable for their actions, and that they should take responsibility for those actions. Something that I really agree with David Banach on is that 'we [all] attempt to deceive ourselves and act as if we weren't free, as if we were really determined by our nature, our body, or the expectations of other people." Some people do let others make the decisions for them, while some are also too weak or scared to make the decisions for themselves. It's like those cliques that have one leader, and the rest of the people follow the leader without questioning anything that the leader is saying. Even though I do not feel this way, some people may feel safer having someone tell them step by step what to do in their lives. Yet life does not come with an instruction booklet, people have to learn for themselves how to live.

At my table we had a discussion about puppets, like how Banach said, "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 and untouched." I was picturing a person actually tied with strings, and society pulling at those strings. Puppets cannot move their bodies by themselves, they have a puppet master to move them, so I was thinking about people that let others make them who they are. While Jacara was saying how she thinks it's talking about how people think and their actions.

My favorite part of Banach's lecture was where he said "what we make ourselves out of these materials is up to us alone (just as what the artist makes of her subject is up to her alone.)" I really like this quote, because he compares us to artists and discusses us like a big piece of artwork. I can relate to this example because I am a painter, and I often work off of pictures. Yet I take pictures and do my own version of the painting, using different colors and ways of painting what I see. To make it mine. Banach was talking about how we take things that we see, yet we make them into ourselves.

I feel like people act in “bad faith” to try and separate themselves from other individuals. (Mr. Manley’s question.) It’s like when you try to punish a teenager, they sometimes act worse because they were yelled at. Some people like to do things just because others told them not to. This might be a sort of embarrassing example, but I can connect this to an experience I’ve had in my life. One time I was sitting on the train with my boyfriend at the time (who is now my ex) and his best friend. The best friend told my boyfriend to never let me read Twilight books because all of the girly girls read them. So when things were falling apart in our relationship, I started reading the Twilight series just because my ex and his friend told me not to. I was not acting in bad faith, but I was doing something purposely because they said not to.

There is this card in my house that says: “dare to be remarkable” on it, which really reminded me of this whole unit we’re doing on absolute freedom. I think this card is really cleaver, because for some people it is difficult to be out there and noticeable. There was this group of girls that used to go to SOF who I used to call “the rain-boot crew” because they all dressed the same, and on a rainy day they would all wear similar rubber rain boots. I feel like all those girls acted the same, and that they we not trying to be individuals. Groups like the rain-boot crew don't just happen in School Of The Future, there are examples of the rain-boot crew happens everywhere you go. I can even admit to trying to blend in sometimes, even though I think it is much more fun to dress in ways that are out there. Yet on the first day of school I tried to blend, because I hadn’t met any of the people of my class yet so I didn’t know if the people in my class could handle what I wear when it’s not like everybody else. Even if they cannot though, it’s too bad for them. When Banach’s lecture was summed up, the slogan said to “be authentic”, which is a really cleaver saying, which I agree with. People should act real and individual, not just a reproduction of everybody else.

I would continue what I’m saying in even more detail, but I feel like I could be rambling about being an individual for hours and hours. So for now, I’d just like to say not to fall into the cookie cutter mold, but to try and be as unique as you possibly can. Yet if that is not possible, just try to be yourself.

To Jace and Kareem

To Jace:
Jace am I going cray or is this all you had to say about what we were discussing in class? XP Keep up the great work!
__________________________________________________

To Kareem: I also agree with what you and Jace are saying. I really hate that saying "I feel your pain" because like you it seems ridiculous to me. People can't feel what you're feeling, they can only observe what you are feeling. I hadn't thought of this when I was writing my post, so I thank you for your point of view. I also admire the title of your post because it sums up the idea of your paragraph.

I suggest you dig deeper on how you feel about individual freedom as well as trying to talk abou Banach's lecture.

Banach's lecture

I think David Banach was saying how in order to be a free individual, a prefect individual, pure.. He was saying how in order to be free we have to be trapped inside ourselves, and that we can only view what we see through our eyes. His wording is really fancy but it also makes sense. With his example about the person next to us sitting down I got to realize how I am not experiencing what they feel, but am seeing them sitting down. I would have to ask them how they feel sitting down in the chair. Human freedom to me is how humans are free. Free to go about their daily lives, free to think how they want, speak how they want, freedom of speech.. The max amount that an individual can be free. Happiness is how one decides to feel, it doesn't always have to b how things make you feel, or people make you feel. When people decide to be free instead of being a follower can be appreciated, even though some people like to know what to do when someone tells you what to do. An example of appreciating freedom can be if you have been in a relationship for a really long time, and you're used to making a loved one happy, but then the relationship ends there is a sad,or happy feeling depending on how the relationship made you feel in the end. Like in a Lily Allen song she says how "[she] feels like she's been let out of her cage". Some couples depend on their other half and spend so much time relying on each other, that they do not learn how to please themselves. We should strive to be our own individuals and decide our own right and wrong for ourselves (within the law of course). I found it weird that I hadn't thought with depth about the topics that I read in David Bananch's lecture beforehand, but that once I was reading I agreed with him. I also felt like the way he was writing about other people's rear-ends was funny and odd, because I was looking at my mom sitting down and trying to just see her and wonder how she was feeling. Sometimes I wonder if we are all on one board game, being moved around by someone more powerful than we are. I'm okay with being quiet and not talking to myself like I was crazy but thinking in my head and creating conversations as if there really were several people in my head. Yet individuals need other individuals, or they get lonely, angry, upset.. My grandpa lives alone, and whenever he is around the rest of my family he talks a lot because he is lonely. Even with a pet, like a parrot to talk to, I think he would be better. Individuals are alone in their experiences and inside their minds, yet they communicate their thoughts and feelings to other individuals.