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.