Final Post

Well the semester is finally over and I feel like I have only hit the tip of the ice berg. So much has been discussed in this class that I don’t even know where to begin with this blog post, but I have to start somewhere so why not start with the basics. This is what I got out of the class in regards to what existentialism is. Existentialism is how we live life, it is the way we value the decisions in our lives. It is a way of evaluating what is important, what isn’t, what others think is important, how what others think is important affects us. I also realized that the philosophers that we studied didn’t have any regard for writing format so why should I, hence the horrible run-on sentence prior to this sentence.

A question was asked in class on Monday which I thought was pretty interesting considering the students in the class. The question was how this class has affected us, if we feel empowered, depressed, or indifferent. A majority of the students raised their hands saying they felt depressed which I thought was surprising. I was surprised because I didn’t think people in our class unparticular would care what other people so much, especially the guy who dances at the football games to Gangnam Style. I felt indifferent because I didn’t let the opinions of a small group of guys to affect my opinion on life. I can see why some people felt empowered because when someone tells you a certain way of life is good and that is how you are living then you will feel empowered. But personally if someone told me that what I what I was doing is wrong and causes me to be depressed over it I wouldn’t listen to that person because they just make me feel bad. But on the other side people let this make them feel depressed when they don’t have to live their life like that, this is just was a bunch of old dead guys said.  Anyways I’m sorry I’ve been rambling so much but my minds a little scrambled with finals and everything.

All in all it has been a pretty good class I learned a lot from it I now have a slightly different understanding of life after taking it. Like I said before I didn’t let this class get to me too much but I did find the readings interesting. However, Heidegger was a pain in the ass to read.  I don’t think I that I am alone in saying that I learned a lot from this class and I am positive others have learned even more than me. So I think the way the class was structured was pretty effective. I think it was the best way to teach the class. I think a lot more people would be depressed if we had a teacher trying to sway us in thinking a certain way. I didn’t take the class because I have had Thad before or because I was already interested in the subject I took it because I thought it would be interesting because I had theology teachers in the past who mentioned the class and said it was interesting. I remembered my past teachers telling me to not read too much into the text because it would only make me depressed, so I don’t think I was being defiant by not obsessing over this subject only I took what I have learned from other classes and applied it to this one.

With this sentence it is nice to be finally done. 

Sartre

One of the main topics in the reading by Sartre was choice. Sartre does not look at choice as something positive it seems. Instead he makes it sound negative by saying that we are condemned to live a life of choice. So what does this mean exactly? Well I think it means that we were condemned to live this life full of choices by being born. Our birth was not something that we chose but it is something e must deal with. From our birth on our choices are completely up to us and we must deal with the consequences. For some of you that mat may be getting irritated with how bland and straight to the point my blog is I hope you have realize that I used my power of choice to make this as simple to understand as possible. I do not use big words to make my posts more interesting because I do not think it matters that I know how to use the thesaurus tool on Microsoft Word. Which brings me to the next topic of discussion on how we live our lives. There were two methods discussed in class, the first was that we shape our lives off of what the others think or the second we digest what the other says and become our own person. I think that the majority of us shape ourselves off of what the others think. We do it to avoid being hurt. If we walk through a room getting insulted we think of why that is and we change ourselves to stop the insults. Modeling ourselves off of what others think is not necessarily a bad thing and I don’t think it only applies to how we act. I believe it is similar to what we consider to be good and bad. What we consider good or bad is based off of what the majority of us believes. Well in the case of how we act if the majority of us think acting a certain way is the right way then shouldn’t we act like it? Sure one can say that just because the majority of people think something is right doesn’t mean it is but then that is also the case for what is good or bad. So why not change the others opinion. I think people are constantly acting a certain way because of what others think. Take the classroom for example; it is always the same people adding to the conversation going in you know someone is going to talk. But every so often the people who normally talk don’t have anything to contribute they make comments like “I agree” or “irrelevant” because they think it is expected of them and by not doing it they won’t uphold their status. But this logic also applies to the students who don’t say anything because they are afraid they will be chastised by the class. There is nothing wrong with shifting the way we act to different social groups it could sometimes be taken as a sign of being polite. We all act differently when we are by ourselves than we do when we are with our close friends or when we are with our family or in class. We do it because we are acting in a way that is acceptable to the people around us. If somebody were to say that they act completely different than the people around them and do everything different than the others, I would say that person is lying. Because when does anyone want to be around someone that gets on their nerves. That person who acts uncivilized would end up being alone. 

Sartre

Jean Paul Sartre really had a pretty interesting opinion about choice. It seemed as though Sartre considered choice to be a curse and that it would be easier to have everything already determined for us. The problem he sees with choice is what the decision process does to us. I agree that trying to make a choice can be straining especially when there is a chance of a negative outcome. However, I disagree with Sartre’s perception of choice. I do not think it is a curse, at times it can be an inconvenience, but none the less it is still a great form of expression. If we didn’t have choice and living in a predetermined world would we even be studying this subject? I mean what is the point we already understand that things are the way they are why would someone feel determined to challenge it. Because in a predetermined world isn’t why speak of choice if a person cannot possibly follow in that principle.

I think determinism is like slavery; not being able to choose what we do is an invasion of our free will. I admit that at times choice can be a burden, and in this event I would think that a limited choice would be the best life style. As I’ve said before determinism is like slavery, choice is an expression of free will but comes with risks, but what does that say of limited choice. Bringing up the steak and burger theory, wouldn’t it be great to be given options. What’s easier a multiple choice test were you choose between four answers, or a test where you are given a long list of answers that you have to match to the questions.  Keep in mind that the matching test has fewer questions than answers. I personally think that the multiple choice test is easier. I would rather have a limited selection choice because then I have a higher chance of making the right decision. I don’t think choice is bad I think the affects of choice can be bad. But if we are able to eliminate some of the poor choices right away then we are more likely to make the right decision which in turn makes us happy.

I think that something has value because we choose it, not because it already has value. I feel this way because the fact that I at one point in my decision process decided that I wanted something, so I acted on it. The fact that it was my choice makes me appreciate it more. On the other hand something that already has a value can be good too, but where did that get its value from. Comparing it to a top ten list of super models how did they achieve their value? People must have decided that the models are prettier than other girls and someone must have chosen the number one model over the number two model for a certain reason. But it was the person who chose the number one model over the number to model that gave the top model the most value.

I feel that someone or something is given value based on the consensus of the herd. It was the herd’s choice that made something valuable.

While discussing A Sketch of a Phenomenological Theory, Thad gave us all a little scare. But that scare did help me better understand the discussion by having me experience the feeling. Magic seems to me to be a form of an excuse or reasoning. When something doesn’t go our way we react to it in a way that makes us feel better. When something doesn’t go as planned it sparks an emotion that at the moment we don’t necessarily know what we can do to balance our emotions but we start thinking of ways to achieve the balance. It was brought up that magic sort of brings us down. Because when something doesn’t go our way we make up a reason why it didn’t or why it wasn’t even worth it. I agree that it could be bad but I personally feel that I only fully rely on magic for petty stuff. What I mean by petty stuff is things like a party; I didn’t get invited to the party so I tell myself the party probably isn’t going to be that great. Another example is a homework assignment, the due date was moved up for a project, so I tell myself that the teacher only moved it up because they didn’t want to grade papers over the weekend. An example of when I don’t fully rely on magic takes place back in high school when I was on the wrestling team. I went up against a guy that was ranked number one and state and made of solid muscle. I ended up losing to this guy and I used magic to say that it was an unfair matchup, that match didn’t matter because it was still early in my career, and other things to comfort me. But that magic lasted only briefly I didn’t let that become the end all be all of my season. I decided to learn from that match and make myself better. I guess what I am trying to say is that we don’t have to let magic be the answer to all of our negative outcomes, we have a choice to make ourselves better so that next time the outcome will be more favorable. 

Heidegger

Well I must say that this week’s readings were a pain in the ass to follow. I think that the author of the book could have done a better job of translating the text by taking out all the redundant sentences. But I guess if he had done that the reading would have been too straight to the point for its audience, and too short to sell. Sorry to sound so negative but that reading really gave me a headache. I am very glad that I attended class Monday because the two groups that presented did a great job of helping me understand the text. To be honest I think they were the best thus far. I felt bad for the guy from group one who did the majority of his groups presentation it seemed that everyone was gaining up on him. Given the circumstances of the class I think that the way he used “Being” to mean Da-seign was ok; however others disagreed. My group did a presentation on Dostoevsky, and he spoke about being irrational to achieve free will. I think that by changing Da-seign to “Being” was irrational which made me appreciate it even more. I felt like it enhanced the conversation and we were no longer bound by the text.

One of the key topics discussed was in reference to existence. What is the problem with this question? What I got out of it was that by simply being, we exist. But to question what life is, is to question our life as well. Therefore if we question life then we clearly do not understand it. This brings me to my next point of fundamental ontology. Fundamental Ontology is the understanding of our existence before being able to question other things. I see flaw with this because if we question our own existence then how can we possibly understand. What I got out of the text is that we can never really understand what something is, because someone can always see it as different. Take the coke bottle for example. We see the bottle as a container, but others so it as a hard substance. Who is right in the matter we believe it to be what we think and they have their belief, therefore who is to say its true meaning.

The second reading was a little bit easier to follow. I’m not certain if it’s because the use of language in it or I just got used to his style. Either way I liked this piece more. I especially liked the topic of thinking. There are three forms of thinking meditative, thoughtlessness, and calculative thinking. Heidegger attacks thoughtlessness the most saying that it is the most used thought process both then and today. It seems as if meditative is the best because it is the process of reflecting on our lives. I personally like the thoughtless thinking. I like to think that I live in the now. I don’t think back on my life because I am capable of making it better in the present. I think that old age is the time for meditative thinking. I don’t see the point of making a few memories and reflecting on them I would much rather create more and more memories and think back on them later. When I am old I will be a meditative thinker and if I can’t reflect on my life the same way as I could when I was younger with fewer memories then I will be happy, because that means I truly lived life. We can’t truly define existence so why keep trying to; I think it is better to just live life to the fullest.

Unamuno

I found the readings to be very interesting. It may be because the emphasis they are putting on faith and religion. Considering that I am a catholic I feel as if I can better understand these readings opposed to some of the previous readings that didn’t emphasize Christianity and faith very much.

Unamuno talks about the dogma and how it is regarded as undeniably true. What he means in his remarks about dogma and the incontrovertible remarks made by the church are not necessarily true. However, people feel pressured into believing these remarks and base the morals off of them. Unamuno believes that since there is not much truth involved in this practice that the faith can easily be ruined.

I think what he means is that what we know and don’t know can effect what we believe in. If we know that something is fact but our faith tells us different we refute the faith and seek out something else to put our faith into so that we can base our morals of something. On the other hand if our faith tells us something that is true but we know it is not then we might feel betrayed by our faith which would also cause us to seek out something else to believe in and base morals off of that. When we feel betrayed by our faith we not only seek out a new belief system but our morals may also change because we can no longer trust them because of the way we created them. To sum up what I am trying to say is that if our faith falls apart so do our morals, because our morals are based off of our faith. If we choose a different belief then we are also choosing a different set of morals.

I am lead to question whether Unamuno thinks that we are capable of making good actions even if we deny our religious faith and the morals that go with it. I believe that he thinks we can. He says that though an individual may refute his religious faith he still has his faith towards mankind. Just because someone may not be religious does not mean that they aren’t capable of having good intentions.

There are plenty of religious people that do horrible things as well as there are non-religious people who amount to great things. I agree that I think it is mans faith in humanity and not just his religious faith that allows him to do good things. After all it there are cases when people to incredibly horrible things because of the poor morals they took from their religion. That being said I think that individuals who have a strong religious faith tend to have great morals and go onto do great things. The lessons taught in the bible teach us to treat everyone and everything with love and respect. Even if someone were to refute their faith in religion based on some of its false truths, they would still hold onto the lessons of love and respect and implement them into their morals and faith in humanity.

Unamuno and I agree that people who have faith regardless of the conflicting ideas will earn an afterlife. I strongly believe that is our faith that causes us to act morally and kind towards others. There are times when I doubt my faith and leans towards the ideas of reason and science, but then I compare the lessons I have learned from the two. Science and reason haven’t taught me how to act but only to respond. I think that faith teaches me how to act and prepare for my actions. Constantly wrestling with the two sides is just human nature. I think that having something to believe in is a vital element of human life, because if we don’t then what’s the point? I conclude by reiterating my comment about those who have faith deserve an afterlife; because why should someone who refused in believing an afterlife all their lives be accepted into that afterlife when the time comes. They will only continue to practice their beliefs in science, reason, and rationality because they now know what faith entails and therefore continue to disapprove of it. 

Dostoevsky

A few of the major themes that I saw where Free will, rationality, and determinism. I think free will has a lot to do with choice which I also believe to be our most advantageous advantage. The underground man makes a case that by breaking away from our real advantages and taking the road less traveled involves injurious and bad decisions. But at the same time this is our most advantageous advantage because we have the freedom to go down that less traveled road. I don’t think that we have to necessarily go down that less traveled road but I think have the choice and being able to think about it is a great expression of free will. Someone brought up in class that our greatest advantage doesn’t have to be a bad act it could be good like volunteering. But I would consider volunteering to be one of our real advantages. I personally believe that the majority of people try to do good things, which is why volunteering would be a real advantage because it is the road often traveled.

The underground man also calls us ungrateful, not stupid, but ungrateful. He is calling us ungrateful because we aren’t content with what we have or how we do things. We are constantly trying to break away from our routines to try something different. We tend to be so ungrateful that we are aware that going down the path less traveled we are causing harm but we still proceed anyway.

One of the themes was determinism, which means that everything we do is already determined. I think the underground man is trying to tell the gentleman this; because the underground man already knows what is to come from his actions. With this it seems that we don’t have freedom to choose because what we choose has already been determined. Everything we do in life is already determined from when we were first born, and in the end all we are is dead.

Dostoevsky is also attacking the idea of a utopian society. He does not agree with such a thing because it is too broad. A utopian society cannot provide for everyone because it doesn’t look at the individuals needs. He makes a statement at the end of the reading referring to that when everything is laid out on the table there will be more than there is there. You cannot account for everyone because of free will. All individuals have the free will to go a different way and therefore you cannot predetermine everything.  There is no way that the deterministic mindset can account for the things we do in the spare of the moment.

In regards to rationality, I do not believe that man is as rational as he thinks himself to be. Rationality is just a base for the things we do. Everything else we do is irrational because there is no way to rationalize what we do not yet know. After we have made the choice we try to argue why that choice was rational.

Towards the end of class we were asked if we had a kiss in our heart. Because the topic was in reference to Jesus, I responded that I do not have a kiss in my heart. Because when those two subjects come together I consider the kiss that Judas had in his heart to betray Jesus. I do not feel that I have any such kiss because I do not wish to cause any harm or suffering to anyone. Furthermore, I consider the kiss to be an act of betrayal because we our letting it fester inside of us, and I don’t believe that I have such evil in my heart. 

Having the Power to Favor a Morality

In class on Monday night we were asked to raise our hands in favor of slave morality or master morality, and I raised my hand for master morality. The most basic reason I chose master morality was because it just seemed more positive. I don’t want to favor a morality that considers itself kept down and bullied; I like to believe I can do anything. You may consider my reasoning thus far to be different then the complexity of the two moralities but this is how I feel. To back me up on this Nietzsche makes a statement in the beginning of from Beyond Good and Evil referring to the way we look at different moralities. I don’t think that everything he says about the two moralities is necessarily true to them. What I’m trying to say is that he could be off with some of his descriptions of the moralities, after all who is he to give a definition to something when we have already discovered that existentialism cannot be defined.

I bring up this last point because of the case brought up in class about Hitler. It seemed that the majority of the class considered him to be in the category of master morality, and a lot of it was based off of his empowerment. But when I was thinking about it I felt that Hitler could have been a lamb at one point. As I said I raised my hand in the beginning in favor of master morality, upon being asked again I kept my opinion. However, some people were swayed in favor of the other morality. If we could make this choice then why couldn’t Hitler, I think it is possible that he could have made the switch from slave morality to master morality. At this point I am stuck because the guidelines of these moralities is that it can only be one or the other, and I feel that Hitler is under a whole different class of a fucked up morality. I think the pressures of the slave morality got to Hitler to the point where he had to break away from its bonds and rise up. I don’t believe what we follow a specific morality all of our lives, I think our morality can change from situation to situation just as easily as we can raise our hands.

Having said that I would just like to say that in no way do I feel that anything that Hitler had done was good and in no way do I support him.

I would now like to talk about a different subject that won’t raise as much frustration and sensitivity as discussing Hitler. I enjoyed the topic of power that was brought up; unfortunately we weren’t able to spend much time on it. I think the best way to talk about power is to try to identify what it means. I know that my explanation is may be disagreeable, but don’t forget that you have the power to write a response. I think power is not simply having the capabilities to do something (some exceptions) but others must be aware of your capabilities as well. I think we make choices like earning a college degree not just for our own self gain; we flaunt that degree to let others know that we have the power to do something.  I think we are constantly trying to see a higher position in life and I also think that everyone in our class should agree. Though some might say they aren’t in school for the better job after graduating and just want the education because the information is interesting. Nonetheless they are still seeking a higher position because they wanted more than what they knew before college.

Contributing to the Blogger Herd

                I think that Monday’s class was one of the best classes we've had this semester. I was having a little trouble understanding the readings before going to class, but both groups did a terrific job of translating the material. Both groups did a really good job at getting the class involved especially the second group with the sheets of paper they handed out at the beginning.

                One of the main points brought up during the first half of class was “the herd”. During the discussion I was thinking of situations in my own life that involved the herd. And I must admit that I cannot recall a time in my life that I was not part of some kind of herd. Growing up I was involved in a lot of activities and constantly looking for more activities to participate in, I was not alone in this you see because there where others who did this as well. That is an example of being part of a herd and accepting it. Another occurrence involved participating in an internship in Disney World. A lot of my friends, people in my neighborhood and school were opposed of the idea of someone going off on their own. A lot of those people “members of the herd” felt that everything they needed was already there and therefore objected to going away to try something different. Though I was adamant about trying something new I was forced to leave the herd. Upon doing so I found myself in a new herd of people who were like me and wanted to try different experiences. What I am trying to say is that we are always part of a herd. Though we may sometimes think we are leaving it and going off on our own we are still part of some sort of herd.

                Another thing that was mentioned during the first group was would we rather follow science or religion? My response to this was that I would rather follow religion because I feel that it has good moral principles that improve our lives. Though science teaches us why things are and gives us explanations about events in our lives, I don’t think it teaches us how to live happy lives and be kind to one another. To sum up my thought on the subject I would just like to say that if there is anything we can take from all the religions in the world it is to be kind to one another, science on the other hand teaches us survival of the fittest.

                In the second reading “truth” played a big part. The way that I define truth is that it is something that we passionately believe to be just. I think that most of us share the same observational truths, and what I mean by this is that if someone is wearing a blue shirt that a group of individuals would be able to observe that that shirt is truly blue. But I think most people’s truths differ in terms of what we passionately believe in. For example someone who is confused with their gender has different truths that someone who is not. I was born a male and I truly believe that I am a male, and I’m sure everyone would believe that to be true as well. But what of the person who was born in a male’s body but truly believes that they are a female. Who are we to say that that person is wrong and that they truly are a male? Nietzsche says “There are many kinds of eyes. Even the sphinx has eyes – and consequently there is no truth”. I think that by saying there is no truth our beliefs are being stripped away from us. I believe that a life without truth is a life without meaning. Life is full of different events, why can’t it be full of different truths as well?

Spheres in Our Own Lives

                 In Kierkegaard’s Truth is Subjectivity, he talks a lot about what is truth and what we try to believe is truth but really just an objective opinion of it. I would like to talk about two things that are mentioned in this piece. The first is on the bottom of page 17 and at the top of page 18 in italics; quite simply I don’t know what the fuck he is talking about, it was like trying to understand Yoda on drugs. Now that I have that off my chest moving on, on page 19 he says that the man praying to God with his eyes clothes is praying in truth, opposed to the one who prays with his eyes fixed on the idol which is not truth. This is because the one with his eyes clothes is practicing his faith that there is another power and the only reassurance they need is inside of them. If you can see it in your mind and truly believe it then it is real to you. The man who was praying while looking at the idol is not in truth to God because he is not relying on his faith that there is a higher being. He is fixated on the idol in front of him; the man is following his eyes, not his faith.    

                 I really enjoyed reading Robert Solomon’s From Rationalism to Existentialism because it was very similar to my own views about faith and life. This piece even helped me grasp a better understanding of what existentialism is about, not what it is because as we have already read you cannot give existentialism a simple definition. I think that existentialism has something to do with the way we live life, what truths we hold and what paths we follow. I think the three spheres that where discussed make up a large portion of the    attempt to understand existentialism.

                The first sphere I would like to discuss is the aesthetic sphere. This sphere is interesting because I  feel that I follow this life style quite often in my life. Though I am a Roman Catholic and I try to follow the Christian ethic I find that a lot of my actions are made in an aesthetic thought process. One example of this is teasing. The bible tells us to not insult others unless we ourselves have done nothing wrong for someone to insult us; this is in accordance with the message from Jesus Christ telling his followers that those who are without sin may cast the first stone. What I have just described is in accordance with the Christian ethic, but when I tease someone it is in the aesthete. For reasons being that I have no concern of the moral or religious principles surrounding my actions, my only regard is in the self satisfaction I receive from poking fun at another’s expense.

                The bible tells us that we should not have sex until we are married because it is a sacred bond between a single man and a single woman. The bible says this because it does not follow the aesthete. Solomon states that the aesthete can become bored and is dissatisfied by repetition. By not waiting until marriage to have sex a level of sexual frustration may arise after a couple has wed. The partners become restless and long to expand their horizons and not just stick with one person. Marriage implies this message “in sickness and in health, until death do us part” meaning that you are taking a vow that you will remain faithful to your spouse no matter what. However, by living life in the aesthete it makes this vow difficult to uphold. For this reason I understand why you can only live in one sphere, it is because the contradictions among the spheres.

                The next sphere is the ethical sphere. The ethical sphere is different than the aesthetic sphere because you are not living by your own principles to fulfill your own satisfaction but instead you are living equally among a community following the group’s principles.  I have also followed this sphere at one time or another throughout my life. What I believe it means is that we make decisions based on where it will put us in the future not how we will feel right after. To expand on this I would like to give two examples one of the aesthete and one of ethics. The ethical man may be given the opportunity to have sex with an incredibly attractive girl that he met at a bar, but when he brings her home he realizes that he does not have any protection let alone does not even know her. So instead the ethical man turns down the sex and gets to know her better instead. Now for the aesthetic man, he too meets an incredibly attractive girl at a bar and brings her home with the intention of having sex with her. Regardless of the fact that he has no protection and knows nothing about the girl he proceeds to have sex with her. When the ethical man moves on from this moment in his life he can look back on it and be happy that he did not do anything too bold that may have impacted the relationship that he is in now. But when the aesthete looks back on this brief moment of satisfaction he will be discomforted by his action, for if he had gotten to know the girl better or waited to use protection he would not be living the rest of his life with a painful STD.

                I believe that a person cannot live life by following all the spheres at one time because of the numerous contradictions. However I feel that a person can go from following one sphere one minute and another sphere the next. I think that to only be able to follow one sphere would be like a robotic action, as humans we are not programmed to follow only one set of values.

A lot to Wrestle With

                For starters I would like to point out that I am not the biggest fan of Kierkegaard and am more of a fan of Camus. Probably because I feel that Camus tells more of a story which makes it much easier to follow. There were times while reading Kierkegaard that I got lost in his writings. I think that since Camus tells a story it is much easier to relate to and therefore easier to understand.

                Jean Baptiste makes it quite clear that he does not care too much for judges. But through my reading of The Fall I grew to understand why he feels this way. Throughout the story Jean is challenging us to admit our guilt and he is frustrated by those who do not. His attitude towards those who cannot admit what they have done wrong helped me realize why he does not like judges. Judges only judge other but never themselves, so who are they to call somebody guilty. I don’t think a person is guilty until they realize what they have done and feel sorry for it. I mean guilty in the emotion sense and not the legal sense. Jean is able to be a lawyer because he is not passing judgment on others; but instead he is helping other admit their guilt, just like he did to us in The Fall.

                The way Jean gets frustrated when people don’t admit what they have done wrong does seem a bit extreme, but I think we all do it. Most of us have been wronged by somebody once or twice in our lives, and if you are the exception then keep doing what you’re doing. But what I mean is, have you ever been wronged by someone and that person got away with it, leaving you hopeless? Your emotions have been messed with yet your offender is indifferent to what it is they have done to you. Personally I think it is frustrating when this happens and a person should apologize for having done it. It is in cases like this that I get frustrated when people do not admit their guilt.

                I would now like to talk about Kierkegaard writing titled The Rotation Method starting on page 8. Kierkegaard goes into detail about boredom and what it causes us to do. I agree that boredom causes us to advance because personally when I am bored I try to do something with my time. Then when I grow bored of the things I love I move on to something else to fill that void. What was troubling for me to understand was that he made a comment saying that gods could have created worlds just because they were bored. This is troubling to me because I do practice Christianity and I believe in one God, but I never thought about what if God grew bored of us. In other words what if our world is like the equivalent to the middle child of other worlds. What if what we do is seen as insignificant because there is another world that does it better. In reference to what I said before that when I get bored of something I love I move on to a new vice, well what if that is the same case for God. What if God got bored with our world and moved on to another leaving us to fall apart?

                Later Kierkegaard makes a comment about faith, “Faith is the objective uncertainty along with the repulsion of the absurd seized in the passion of inwardness potentiated to the highest degree.” (Page 27)  As a Catholic I feel that a world without God and heaven would be absurd. I have no other evidence telling me that this is true except for my faith. I believe that it is faith that allows us to disregard the absurd. 

An Absurd Fall

          

            I felt that class this week was a little bit harder to follow than the previous week’s class. I felt that the points brought up were a little bit difficult to follow, especially when discussing The Fall. The Fall was interesting to me because how the story line progressed. I felt that in the beginning it was a little bit slow and I kept questioning when is something going to happen. As the story progressed I started to pick up on what was going on in the main characters life that drove him to have such opinions. I believe that the reason behind his fall is his self conscience. It seemed as though everything he did he reflected on it to the point where his good deeds appeared to be bad. His thoughts made him appear as a fake individual. Fake in the sense that he is not acting like himself but instead the way he wants people to see him.

For instance when he tipped his hat to the blind man, this gesture was geared towards the onlookers in an attempt to win their favor. I understand the mental thought of why he is cautious of what complete strangers think of him because I do it every day, and I bet most people do as well. We are constantly concerned about what others think about us. For example, we base what we decide to wear on any given day to appeal to the satisfaction of others. What I mean is that most of us choose to wear clothing that shouldn’t give onlookers a bad perception of us. We do not want to be stared at in a negative way but instead positively, or not at all. Now what I meant before when I said his good deeds appeared bad is that he over thought what others might have thought about him over a simple action.

            His self conscience leads him to degrade his own being to the point where he thought about suicide. Why is it that one’s conscience can create such a heavy burden on oneself to the point of such actions? I think it was the repetitive self loathing that made him feel like a lesser man. He then speaks about the way in which he would treat woman. He would make them promise to be true to him without returning the same affections in return. He would pretty much use woman to sustain his own needs with little regard to the woman. Forgive me if my thoughts are not clear in my writing, but this is what I believe would cause such a man to fall.

            I would now like to touch on the subject of the absurd. It was brought up in class that it was absurd to want to end your life quickly; it is this statement that I whole heartedly agree with. Our lives are full of meaning to say that we have no purpose in this life but to die is absurd. I look at it in a way that our lives have check points. As we progress from generation to generation we accomplish something. This is something that I feel is full of meaning, just think of all we had to do in order to reach our twenties we have come a long way from when we could only crawl. What meaning is there in suicide? We end our lives so that we can no longer walk this earth. At the point of death our past lives lose their meanings as the generations grow older until no one remembers who we were or what purpose we would serve in the present. 

Strange with Strange Friends

Strange with Strange Friends

The Stranger was, well strange. This opinion is not limited to only Meursalt, but his friends as well. I feel this way because while reading this story about this man who neither expresses emotion nor even feels any emotion, I am constantly trying to figure out what’s up with this guy, when is he going to break down? As the story progresses I begin to lose hope that he is going to show anything that resembles a normal personality. Now, one can argue what is a “normal personality” but in this case I mean a personality that is filled with emotion.

                At first I thought to myself why do people want to be friends with such a strange individual, and then I came to this conclusion that maybe those people are strange as well. Take Marie for instance, Mersaults sex/swimming partner. At first Mersault introduced her as a girl that used to work with him but then left after shortly after, at first I thought nothing of it. However as I read more it occurred to me that maybe the job did not work out because of how strange she was. I mean were talking about a girl who is in a loveless relationship but still would like to marry Mersault. I think it’s strange that she would want to marry a man that tells her without any sense of guilt that he does not love her, yet is indifferent about getting married. I for one would think that could be a start of downward spiral in most relationships. Then to make matters even more interesting Mersault kills a man for no good reason, something that I thought was going to be the last straw in the relationship and from that point on there would be no talk of Marie for the rest of the story. With no regard to the fact that Mersault just killed a man and he said he did not love her she still stands by him to the end of days with the thought of marriage in her mind. You have to be strange to think that you can marry someone when you know they are serving a life sentence and you can’t even visit them.

                Next is Salamano, who I consider strange yet not as strange as the others involved in the story. Salamano hates his dog and treats it terribly aside from feeding it and taking it on walks. But then when his dog is gone he is sad and misses his dog and confides in Mersault who is indifferent about everything and everyone. He is can only confide in Mersault because everyon else is so turned off from Salamano because of the way they witness him beat his dog.

                Finally there is Raymond, an alleged pimp. Raymond is adamant about Mersault openly stating that the two of them are friends, which cannot be the case because Mersault is indifferent about everyone and has no need for friends, everyone is just there. What is strange about this man is that he was angry about this girl who he wanted to be done with, yet when she is gone he wants her back. He has Mersault write a letter to this girl asking her over so they can settle everything right. Mersault agrees to write the letter before and after Raymond says that he wants to get her naked and then kick her out of the house.

                I believe these people are strange because they exert behaviors that would not make most people feel comfortable, which is why Mersault is such a great friend. He is indifferent about everything and everyone and therefore his friends feel comfortable around him because he is open to them. Mersault is not only strange but also a terrible person as well.  It is his strangeness that causes him to be so terrible. He cares so little about everyone and anything that it causes him to be vulnerable to other people’s whims. Tragicaly he spent time in the company of a man who is considered a pimp and did act that only a pimp could only think about doing but be too conscious of doing said acts themselves.

                In conclusion I would like to talk about the trial about him being careless about his mothers passing and not so much the fact that he just killed a man. I believe that the trial was a metaphor. It was a judgment of the kind of person he is. His sentencing was death because not having a life fit the crime of being careless about his acts and emotions. 

Rereading for a Better Understanding of Self

Rereading for a Better Understanding of Self

Well I have finally finished reading the introduction for the third time this week and I am still a little unsure of what to write about. The fact that this is my first blog ever and I’m not exactly sure if I am following the blog structure correctly may have something to do with my difficulty of transferring my thoughts onto this post. I hope those who read this post won’t judge me too harshly for the content I display because I am still trying to figure this out.

                I felt that the introduction left me at a bit of a cliff hanger. As Robert Soloman went on trying to express the idea of existentialism he cited a handful of great philosophers who each said their piece about the topic. This was frustrating to me because I was searching for a definition amongst his pages, but was left with only an idea of what existentialism is like. My search for a definition came to an end when Robert Soloman stated at the end of the introduction “One might object that this sketch of the existential attitude and its philosophical expression has failed to give a definition of existentialism. But existentialism is not a dead doctrine to be bottled and labeled.” (xix Robert Soloman). It was because of my uncertainty about the subject which led me to read the introduction again and then again once more.

                The philosophers listed in the book are stating that existentialism is a way in which we see ourselves. The video camera examples appealed to me the most because it helped me better understand existentialism. We are as we think other people see us this is why the conscious is better than the self-conscious. It is the things that are going on around us that give our life meaning. If I were to succumb to my self-conscious only with no attention to my outer being how would I be able to put value on myself? It is the outer being that helps me understand the kind of life I am leading. The way I act in front of others causes me to think about how others are seeing me. Every day we are constantly thinking about what others are thinking about us. When we walk down the street and the passerby makes a glance up at you, you begin to question in your mind what that person may have been interested in about yourself. It’s this thought process that causes us to change in order to correct what may have gotten the passerby’s attention. It could be a bad thing which causes us to smell our armpit or possibly a good thing like the passerby may have been checking you out which may cause you to act with more confidence.

                I am confused with what the philosophers are saying about self consciousness, they say it is wrong because it hastens our moral judgment and can rob us of our principles. I believe that our self conscious can lead us to make decisions for the good of others and in a moral and highly principled way just as easy as it can lead us to the other.

                I hope my understanding of the topic is not too far off from what Robert Soloman was trying to explain. I believe with further reading of this book that I will arrive at a better understanding of what Existentialism is about. As for my blog post I really hope I completed it in the proper fashion. I believe that with good and hopefully not too bad of feedback that my blogging skills will improve over these weeks to come.  

Posted September 2 by Brendan McInerney