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.