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 Even then he seemed withdrawn, but I feel like this showed something about himself.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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
“[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.
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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
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
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
Sunday, October 11, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)