I'm so lost!!!

I have just finished the book and let me say that I am so shocked and I have never had more questions!! He finds out that he's getting the guillotine penalty and of course, it scares him. Even someone with no emotions doesn't want to die. He sits in his cell contemplating whether it really matters if he dies or not. He gets all depressed and starts thinking, "but everyone knows life isn't worth living. Deep down I knew perfectly well that it doesn't much matter whether you die at thirty or at seventy, since in either case other men and women will naturally go on living and for thousands of years" (pg. 114). He comes to terms with his somewhat inevitable death and then the chaplain comes in, gets him upset with his obsession with converting him to Christianity, and Mersault ends up screaming at him so fiercly that the guards have to restrain him. He thinks about Maman's death and says something that shocks me: "So close to Maman's death, Maman must have felt free then and ready to live it all again. Nobody, nobody had the right to cry for her" (pg. 122). I suddenly realized that he's not a completely souless person. He had a reason not to cry although he just realized it himself. But this is what really shocked me: "I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again. For everything to be consummated, for me to feel less alone, I had only to wish that there would be a large crowd of spectators the day of my execution and that they greet me with cries of hate" (pg. 123). Okay, so I get why he wouldn't want to be alone on the day of his death but why would he want cries of hate? Obviously, I wouldn't want anyone to see me die and be happy about it but why would someone want to die with whole town hating him? Maybe to feel like your death was justified? But that still doesn't make sense.
Those last few pages of the book brought out a chracter I never would have expected. This Mersault wanted to speak for himself, he felt genuine emotions instead of just anoyance and he "opened himself to gentle indifference" ( pg. 122) consiously. He had a transformation without anything really changing about him. I don't think I'll ever meet someone like him in my lifetime and to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I would want to.

Is Mersault a jerk or not?

From reading up to chapter 6, I have come to the conclusion that Mersault is actually not a big jerk. He has emotions but he expresses them "unusually". I believe that he is capable of compassion and love but he has this "nothing matters" attitude, preventing him from enjoying the good things in life. If he were to write his own manifesto, I have no doubt that his would be the most depressing one to read. On page 41 he says, "looking back on it, I wasn't unhappy. When I was a student, I had lots of ambitions like that. But when I had to give up my studies, I learned very quickly that none of it really mattered". I'd like to point out that he never said he was happy. Just that he "wasn't unhappy". I don't think that he was ever really happy or if he even knows what happiness is. He definetly hasn't found true happiness, in my opinion. Even when Marie practically proposed to him, he had absolutely no opinion of it. He sounded like he just didn't want to talk about it anymore. Although it doesn't seem like he expresses emotion, I noticed that he had a mini-reaction towards his mothers death on page 39. He says, "I realized he was crying. For some reason, I thought of Maman. But I had to get up early the next morning. I wasn't hungry, and I went to bed without any dinner". I find it very hard to connect to him but I think that by him not eating, it means he was sad. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my interpretation of it. I honestly think that he is just scared; scared of loving and losing. All his actions are to prevent him from participating in life. He has this whole monotone outlook on life because he has experienced loss or failure of some sort and it has changed him. From that first quote, he said he has to give up his studies and maybe his loss of "freedom" impacted him more than it would anyone else. His boss was right when he said that he has no ambitions. If he thinks that there is no point to anything, though, why does he sleep with Marie? If nothing matters, would it really make a difference if she was in his life or not? I think he is just confused; kind of how I'm getting myself.

Contradictions

So, first off, let me just say that I <3 Huckabees was a very strange movie. It was confusing and made your brain scattered but I have to admit, very enjoyable. The main idea or question that the characters were focused on was, “Do we live in a world that is meaningful and makes sense”? In this movie, there were two main things that stuck out to me: the blanket concept and the “pure being ball thing”. When Benard says that “everything is the same, even if it is different”, my head starts reeling. In a way, I agree with him and honestly, I’m not too sure why but there’s a more “sane” part of my brain that totally disagrees with this. How can love and hate be the same? How can black and white be the same? Banach has brought me to believe that everyone is different and “no one feels what I feel” so how can it all of a sudden be that simple; that everyone and everything is the same? I don’t know what to believe anymore.
I actually understand the ball thing a little too well. Obviously, I’ve never tried that kind of “therapy” before but I understand the desire to escape for just a second. I can do this on my own semi-well. Of course, I cannot block out everything but I can certainly space out for so long that I forget where I am. It usually happens when I’m reading or I’m listening to music. When I read, someone can be screaming my name right in front of me and I would hear absolutely nothing. I really like getting into my little “safe haven” because there, I can feel no troubles, sorrows or stress. I don’t have to worry about anything. I suppose that Albert and Tommy liked this idea of nothingness a little too much because they actually managed to stop thinking completely, which I’m not to sure is a good thing. It’s good to escape for a little while but eventually you have to get back to reality, which I believe Caterine also said.
It surprised me that while Tommy has this idea of “once you realize the universe sucks, you got nothing left to lose”, he was the one still trying to find the meaning of life. He seemed pretty convinced that life was pointless yet he became happy when he found love with Dawn. Tommy is a contradiction in himself. Based on his beliefs, I would assume that he would have no reason to be happy or try to find the meaning of life but he seemed the most obsessed with it.
As usual, I have got myself stuck with more questions than answers. What’s sad is that I will never find the answers.

Blog Comments #2

[To Carrie L. Oct. 03. 2009]

I'm so grateful that you figured out Sysiphus because I had no idea what that was all about. I really like how you rambled and came across some very intriguing ideas. I'm totally with you on the whole death-is-depressing-to-think-about thing. I actually really like that you thought that maybe life doesn't have to have a meaning. So many people spend their whole lives questioning what the purpose of life is. Maybe it is just that simple; that there is, in fact, no meaning. But a statement like that also raises questions like if there is no meaning, then why do we do the things we do? Why NOT just sit in a corner doing nothing? I love the idea that "Everything is cause and effect. The road is being built behind us, not something we walk on". Even if you stopped referencing Banach, your intital ideas came from his lecture. This post was great!

[To Hayley S. Oct. 03. 2009]

Wow, this was very well thought out. I love how you started off with childhood things so that you showed an example. At first, I agreed with Banachs idea that "we are all trapped in our own minds" but now that I read your blog, my opinion changed. Just because you wrote about how a death can impact you more if you were close to the person, I saw a different perspective. I also really liked how you said that "Aspiring to complete internal happiness is not realistic" because I completely agree. Although some people may be happier than others, no one can ever really have complete internal happiness. I believe that it would take longer than a lifetime to achieve happiness and even then it is impossible. Relating to how you said that we need human interaction, I cannot possibly be happy when someone I love is full of sorrow. So,in my opinion, as long as someone you love doesn't have complete internal happiness, neither will you.Your blog has expanded my thinking. Great job!

Inevitable death.....True happiness?

Wow...

So I'm reading over Banach's lecture and this sentence pops out at me and almost smacks me in the face. I begin to wonder about the "worthlessness of our lives given our inevitable death". I immediately think of the saying, "life sucks, then you die". I mean, if that is true, then what the heck is the point of being here? Is it worth it to have fun and accomplish your goals if it is all going to end anyway. At the moment, I'm listening to Anabor's 'Let The Games Begin' and there is a line that says, "It's the thrill, it's the thrill that I live for". It makes me ponder if that sentence is foolish, based on Banach's general idea of 'life sucks, then you die'. Is it really possible that "our life is a series of meaningless actions culminating in death, with no possibility of external justification"? I really hope not. I, personally, take pride in my accomplishments and I have a habit of reminiscing over all my good or not so good memories. Is it all just a waste of time?

Ah, but the real question is that aren't you really wasting your time if you don't take advantage of the one life you have? Just because death is inevitable, does that mean we shouldn't participate in life? I think if we are going to be on this earth for 70 or so years, we should definitely have fun, live it up. I mean, I think that's way better than being emo and stuck in your room all the time and not connecting with people that could actually make a big difference in your life. How can you ever really experience happiness if you're like that?

But then again, what is true happiness? How can you achieve it? I somewhat agree with his idea that "one must lose all hope of external value before seeking value within. The theme that true happiness must come from within is one that is familiar to all of us, and it is the key to understanding the existentialist conception of happiness". I say somewhat because while I do agree that happiness comes from within (you can choose whether or not to be happy), I also believe that you must look further than what inside you to achieve happiness. I only say this because I personally get most of my happiness from interacting with others. Of course, not everyone is like me so some people don't need companionship to be happy. But because no two people are alike, can there actually be a definition for true happiness and how you can achieve it or is it something that is different for everyone?

I've just been rambling but I feel like I have a little more understanding...but like I said before in a previous blog....an answer to one question raises a million new ones.

Comments for the last two assignments

[To Lauren G. Sept.29]

I really like your first idea because I feel like if he thinks we are all "trapped in our own mind" then he really is just talking to hear himself talk because he doesn't know other people. I think that alot of people judge themselves on how they think other people see them when in fact, those people are doing the exact same thing so basically, everyone is wasting their lives thinking about someone else. This kind of leads me to think that our existence may be pointless if we're always worried about people's opinion. I'm pretty sure we should be doing something with our lives. So, in fact, if everyone is doing this, then there is no such thing as an absolute individual because we are all doing the same thing without realizing it.

[To Christina C. Sept. 29]

I really liked your idea that "we are not so alone that we are "trapped within yourself". We wouldn't be able to have experiences to develop our own ideas and opinions if we allow ourselves to be trapped in our own world. If we do not have our own ideas and opinions on anything then we cannot be individuals and then there no such thing as "absolute individualism"" because I also feel that Banach contradicts himself sometimes. But then again, how can you ever find the answer to something if you don't try to find all of the solutions. In my blog post, I wrote that "absolute individuals" do not exist because we are all pieces of someone else. Our opinions, our moods, our overall personailty comes from the things we observe around us and how we react to them. I also like how you put your own quotes to prove your point instead of just relying on the lecture. It made your arguement stronger. I personally dont like or agree with "Birds of a feather flock together" but we all have our own opinions.

[To Ali C. Sept 16]

Dude! My head is reeling! This was super well thought out. I really like how you were just ranting but you built off of what you were saying. Like you thought something and was like "Oh wow! I just realized something else!" I love how you sounded like you were actually wanted to discuss this topic instead of it sounding like you were only doing this for a grade. It made it that much more interesting. Some of your main points consisted of whether or not you believed in an "absolute individiual" and how each of us are alone in this world. This reminds me of Banach's other idea of a "mental TV screen" that portrays how others view you as well as how you see other people. He was saying that each of us in trapped in our own mind and "our only access to the world being a television screen on one wall on which we percieve the images of other people..." which connects to when you said "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."I'm trying to figure out how you can develop more and I'm drawing a blank. I'd say just continue what you're doing now.This post really made me think about the idea of a "moderate individual" because when I first read Banach's lecture, my immediate thoughts were "I don't believe in an absolute individual and that's final". I never actually thought of there being a middle ground. I really like the idea:"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." It brought a whole new perspective on Banach's theory that I hadn't thought about before. So, to wrap up this "novel" (haha) this post was just, "wow". So, I hope to hear more things like this. Bye, bye.

[To Daury S. Sept. 16]

Ok, so first off, I liked how you went straight to the point and didn't beat around the bush. I also liked how you put a qoute that seemed significant to what you were talking about and your personal response to it. Basicia;lly, your whole point was to say that some people may be similar characteristics but no one is actually "the same" as anyone else and that you agreed with the statement that other people may only see you subjectively but never internally. This actually reminds me of Banachs idea that "each of us is alone in this world" because you said "because we only see things in our own mind and what people do or think is our perspective" and esentially, these two ideas adhere to eachother.To further develop your ideas, a good idea is sometimes contradict yourself and try to see it through a different perspective so that you can gain more knowledge on the topic you are discussing. You can also trying ranting about random things (related to the topic, of course)and don't backspace too much so that you see where your random ideas take you. Also, little things such as punctuation and spelling are worth double checking. Your ideas made me think the difference between the "same" and "simliar". Sure, if you look at things from a different view, such as a scientific view, some things are just fact. For instance, two Poland Spring bottles are the same but a Poland Spring bottle and a Tropicana bottle are similar because they both hold liquids but different types. Is there really such a thing as a "same" kind of person? Is it possible to be the same as another person? I think no one can be the same. The same way twins can share the same DNA but they each have a unique fingerprint.I'm not really sure what I'm getting at but really, I'm just saying that I don't believe that a person can be the same. I'm not even sure a person can be really "similar", either, but that's a discussion for another day.All in all, although my brain is now turning, I will say goodbye for now.

Meaning of life....?

So, I'm reading over Banach's lecture and something he says immediately catches my eye. It catches my eye because it is all too familiar to me "the ways in which we try to excuse our actions by pretending that we are simply our bodies and are controlled by the forces that determine them". As a matter of fact, I was guilty of this exact thing yesterday. My friend and I were talking about how we were worried about making new friends in college. I said, "I'm not the kind of person that walks up to somebody and says 'Hi! I'm Yazmin! Wanna go get lunch together?' Most likely, I'll be waiting for someone to talk to me and take it from there". But when I think about it and from reading Banach's lecture, why can't I be? If I have "human freedom", why can't I change that about myself? The real question is if I change my personality, will I be content with myself? Will I feel like I'm being fake? Honestly? The answer is "yes". If I suddenly woke up one morning and decided that I was going to be super perky and outgoing, I would be completely and utterly FAKE. Those who know me would ask who the heck was in my body. Maybe I would be content because I was making friends but it would be fake because I wasn't being myself. But what really intrigues me is that "no matter how I try to avoid it, I am free to do whatever I choose". Why does it intrigue me? Because this gives me no excuse to limit myself. By limit, I mean that I can do whatever I want, be whoever I want to be. I just had a thought...... If I can be whoever I want to be, does that mean I don't want to be me, meaning that I'm not authentic?

One question that really stood out to me was Mara's. She asked, "Would you say that figuring out who you are has to do with the meaning of life?" As I ponder that in my mind, I still say that I have no answer for that question. I mean, does anyone really know who they are? And not just the basics like your history or your dreams. Really, who is anybody? You know those people that go on vacation for a while to "figure out who they are"? When they come back, do they ever have an answer? Isn't figuring yourself out a life long journey? Some people never even know who they are. Where do you even begin to look? Would the answer be a one word answer? Like, "I AM BLANK?" Or would that be a conversation that lasts for days? And is the meaning of life figuring out who you are or learning about who other people are? If the meaning of life has to do with just you, I'd say that meaning was pretty selfish.

I can see that I'm pretty much getting nowhere. One answer equals a million new questions.

Absolute Individuals: Do they exist?

Where do I begin? Well, hasn't anyone ever wondered, "do I really exist?” Like, for instance, I'm having a conversation with a friend and in the back of my mind I'm saying, "Am I really talking to someone? Or are they a figment of my imagination? Am I really just talking to myself?" Thinking this reminds me of when Banach says, " 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" and “No one else can feel what we feel”. Having quoted that last statement, do I really believe that? Honestly? I think that we all have feelings but when I say I’m depressed and you say “I know how you feel”, you are DEAD WRONG. That’s one of my pet peeves. No matter HOW much you’re situation is SIMILAR to mine, you do not know how I feel because your happiness may be different than my happiness.

And randomly switching to something different, I actually don't agree with Banach's idea of "absolute individuals". No matter how hard you try, it is impossible to be an absolute individual. Believe it or not, everyone is a mix of everyone else. Every mix is different, yes, but that changes the way we view individuality. Say that I like rock music, I didn't randomly say "Now I'm going to like rock". Someone showed it to me so I appreciated it. Ok, maybe that's a bad example. But say, I have certain political views, that doesn't make me an individual because other people may have those same views. Maybe they're not as intense as mine but they're the same. Actually, now that I think about it, you can somewhat be an individual based on your intensity level. Like, two people can be upset, but I could be more upset than the other person which bring me to "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside".

When Banach says, "When you think about it, each of us is alone in the world...we cannot feel what is going on in any one's mind", it reminds of every time one my friends has a problem and I feel completely useless because I have no idea how to fix it. Sure, there's the ever popular "everything's going to be okay", but how lame is that? And the fact that he says that we are alone is kind of a downer, regardless if it is true or not. As much as I hate to admit it, I believe he's right. Sometimes we all just fade into our little world and 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. I know you're probably reading this like, "WHAT IS SHE TALKING ABOUT!?" and honestly, this is just proving my point. I'm fading away into oblivion again. However, despite the fact that he thinks we are alone in this world, I believe that, indeed, we can connect with other people. We can communicate and find similarities within ourselves and that other person and share common interest. Of course, this doesn't mean that we allow them into our head to reverse the "we are alone" statement, but we can let people in emotionally. We are alone truly alone if we allow ourselves to build a wall.