Let me first start off by saying that Meursault is border line crazy. To kill someone just because your hot is insane. He shot the Arab as if he wasn't a human and to make matters worse he shot him four times. It seems to me that Meursault gets out his emotions by not showing any. I know that makes no sense but if you think about it when something bad happens to Meursault he lashes out at people... or says things that he knows will hurt. Such as when his girlfriend asked him if he loved her he simply said it doesn't matter. "Then she wanted to know if i loved her. I answered the Sam way i had last time, that it didn't mean anything but that i probably didn't love her" How can he be so blunt when his girlfriend is talking about a serious topic.

Although Meursault is not very emotional after the shooting he shows some type of growth. In the interrogation office when he is getting a chance to be forgiven by god he states that he doesn't believe in god but then realizes how sincere he is about his passion for Christ. "I was struck by how sincere he seemed..." He shows more compassion from before and actually shows that he is listening and paying attention to his emotions. Although he seemed some what compassionate with the officer as soon as he got into the cell he acted as if he wasn't in jail, like his life was still normal. 

I think that Meursault has a hard time of expressing his feelings and getting out how he really feels. I think that if he opens up about his feelings he might be judged or taken advantage of such like any emotional person. But i believe that if he doesn't open up towards Marie she might eventually leave him. He has rejected her idea of love twice, if that was me i would have left him the first time. 

I hope by the end of the book Meursault shows more emotion or else i will find the book pointless. His blahness makes me dread reading but i keep reading on just to see if he shows any emotion. Hopefully this book shows his drastic emotional change!

Who is this guy?!

Man of mystry? Existential thinker? or Big jerk? What category does he fall under? Meursault is rather depressing and doesn't hold very much emotion. His mom passes away and at the end of the day all he could say "It occurred to me that anyway one more Sunday was over, that maman was buried now, that i was going back to work, and that, really nothing had changed" Now i no for a fact any emotional person or person with any type of heart would show some emotion and shed at least one tear. Meursault shows no emotion for anyone, his girlfriend asked him if he loved her and he simply said it didn't mean anything and that he probably didn't. 

Meursault spends a lot of time noticing other people's emotions instead of his own. He goes into great detail about his neighbor and his dog. He describes there whole routine and how even though his neighbor is really close to the dog he describes how he curses his dog out and at night he can hear the dog whimper. Kirosa brought up a great point of how she thought the dog whimpering was a metaphor in compression to  Meursault trying to be emotional. 

I think if we knew about Meursault's childhood his blandness and boring life would be more understandable and all his awkward actions wouldn't be so confusing. Such as why he said "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". Maybe if more back round information was given questions like that wouldn't be unanswered.  

The tone of this book is very boring. After reading a couple of pages i start to feel as if I'm in the same shoes as Meursault, which i very boring and unemotional. I like books that have a sense of feeling and keep me interested this book just makes me want to shoot the author because he mad such a character that cares about absolutely nothing! I'm interested to see how the books end because maybe his interactions with Raymond will give him some type of feeling which will lead to him building emotions. 

Is life really meaningless?

My life? Hmm my life is complictaed, I am a teenager trying to fit in yet be unique. If what  Bernard said is true “Everything is the same, even if it’s different.” then are my long mornings of trying to find the right outfit useless? Is all the time i spend shopping just meaning less? Even though i don't want to... i have to agree with Bernard's statement. I spend so much time trying to be different when in the end there is one more person in the world who dresses just like me and acts just like i do so in the end my act of trying to be unique in my style and actions is meaningless. 

Day after day i sit in classrooms in order to learn pointless things... such as how do shapes effect a building, how does the mood of the book change the characters emotions? Honestly some of the things taught in school are just pointless and i will not use most of it in my future. But if those things don't matter to me how do i no what i say to my friends don't matter to them. I sometimes go off for walks to look up at the sky and think about life. I think about all the conversations i had that day and analyze them. I try to figure out what made me have that conversation and in the end i come to the conclusion that none of them mattered and i only had them to get my energy out and talk.  

Day after day Albert sat on a rock protesting why they should leave the marsh as it was. He made poems tried getting existentialism detectives to help him find his meaning in life and nothing really seemed to change the mind of the cooperation. Albert sitting on the rock was one of the most pointless/ meaningless things because it didn't help him accomplish anything he just got degraded. In the end Albert helped dawn find her true self and helped her realize she didn't need to follow the picture perfect scene to love herself. 

After watching I love Huckabee's i came to the conclusion that my life is not meaningless just some of the things i do and participate in are meaningless and don't effect me in the long run. 

 

HW 3 comments on richard's post

I like how you gave your opinion about mulitple topics and not just one. Your thoughts were very insightful and i agreed with them. You should try and open you ideas by using some quotes to back up you ideas... weather you agree or disagree with the quote it will make your argument a lot stronger. 

Your thoughts about the ethic's of freedom brought up everything we discussed in class and showed how you payed attention and you backed up your opinion nicely. 

Your statement "But if we are fully free then our society wouldn't have any type of consequence." Really made me think how no matter how hard we try we are held back by society and there rules... which can't be bended or broken in anyway. 

You should once again reread over your work for punctuation and spelling mistakes, but overall i think this post was better then your last. Keep up the good work i can't wait to read your next post.

HW 3 comments on jacara's blog

I really liked how you started your post. Your really grabbed my attention and you didn't just make a statement without backing it up. Your sense of humor and affection when talking about how the question " are we free" really bothers you... it made me laugh out loud.

I disagree with your statement "I don't think there is such thing as complete happiness" because someone can be comeptley happy when there really withdrawn into something they love... such as spending time with someone they love, playing there favorite sport or just laughing really hard till they cry. There is always something that makes someone completly happy in my opinion. 

We haven't really discussed the opposite point of view in class. Like how can some one achieve total happiness by relying on someone or external things. Your blog brings up many points to discuss during class.

I really enjoyed reading this blog it brought me in a lot more then your past one. Keep up the good work.

post # 3

Banach's lecture was over whelming but very powerful. He opened up my mind to many things such as are we really free or are we controlled by everyone or everything we do. How we can be the only ones to find happiness and we are basically alone in this world. I agree with some of his ideas but disagree with others.

I think that as people/ humans we are never free. There is always one person who will be higher then us telling us what to do. As kids we have our parents telling us what to do at home and during the day we have teachers who tend to get us in trouble if we don't act a certain way. When we grow up we will always have a boss who will tell us what to do. If we don't have a boss we will have our conscious which will control us into doing the right thing most of the time. If we don't then the law/ police are after us and we are controlled even more. In my opinion i don't think we are ever truly free, we are always constricted by some rule or law that keeps us from being free and doing what we truly  want to do. 

A big topic during Banach's lecture was happiness. "The existentialist's secret of happiness, then, is to get ones value from within oneself" This means that the only way you are going to be truly happy is if you get it from your own self, such as your own heart, soul, thoughts..etc. I agree with this quote because who else knows you like more then yourself? No one which means if you make yourself happy and not worry about people judging you and classifying you, you will find true happiness in yourself. 

If we rely on other's to make us happy all the time we will suffer. " The Existentialist enjoins us to be ourselves and make the source of our nature and values our own internal decisions.." Why base our happiness of external things, when there are internal things that make us a lot more happy. We should be based off authenticity not how we fit in with a certain group of people! 

hw # 2

What is it that makes us?

Does essence precede existence or does existence precede essence. What is it about essence that makes someone who they are, emotionally and spiritually. Or is it the thought of being an actual object/ body and living that makes us who we are. According to Sartre existence precedes essence "We exist and then we create our nature, our essence, who we are" Seeing how i believe in God and reincarnation etc i disagree with his statement. I believe we are born as a spirit and then form into our bodies.

When i first read his paper in class my friend Ally and I  were discussing how we are just orbs (spirits) with out our shell( our body's) and then with our "orb" we make the rest of our life up. Such as the friends we make based on personality and the relationship's we get into based on the emotional connection we make with a person. 

I can meet someone for the first time and introduce myself as what i see myself as or i can introduce myself as what i want other people to see me as. Is it the costume of someone that gets them accepted into a group of people or is it the person's true identity that gets them accepted?. We are all judged and all try to fit into a certain group of people, and don't get the opportunity to act our self. Were ever we go we act fake in order to be accepted. I don't talk to my mom the same way i do with my friend's... is that me being fake or me respecting my mom as an older figure? 

If something bad goes wrong we blame someone or something  else for the outcome instead of our self's. We control our body's, our thoughts, and our emotion's. "I am free to do what ever i choose" Banach thinks we have power over our self's and shouldn't blame other's for the outcome of what we cause weather its bad or good. I agree with this because no one can make us do anything we don't want. Such as being rude to a teacher, yelling at our mom, hurting someone, etc. We are in control of our body and mind which makes us responsible for everything we contribute in. 

I don't necessarily agree with all of Banach's idea's and theory's but i do think his idea's are logical and opens one's mind for debate.

 

comments for hw # 2

It was interesting how you spilt up the statement "absolute freedom" and explained what you thought each word meant and connected it back to the lecture. It was entertaining how at one point during your blog you sort of have a conversation with the reader when you say "I don't want to sound like a cynic.." it pulled me more into your blog cause i felt like you were holding a conversation with me.

Its obvious that one major point was that you agree with the lecture to a point but that you still have your own opinions about certain topics, such as how freedom is a dream and ideas are just thoughts to people who can't accept that we are tied down. (Btw that sentence really had and impact on me) 

In your blog you talk about how were alone and don't really understand each other's emotions... if this is true how do relationships work? how are people attracted to one another? 

I thought overall your blog was good and it grabbed my attention from the start. There were a couple of grammar mistakes so just reread over you work when your finished. 

Reading your blog opened my mind about a couple of things... how in reality no matter how hard we try we will always be constricted by someone who is higher then us that will controls us and how we are always constricted by our own thoughts so we never open our minds to others.

I really enjoyed your blog i can't wait to read your ones to come.

comments for hw #2

It was good how when you disagreed with Banach's statement you you backed it up with a thoughtful response and didn't just say..."i disagree". It was interesting how instead of using full quotes you just used a certain statement or category... for example : absolute individuals and absolute freedom, it seemed a lot more powerful then if you would have used a whole quote. 

After reading your blog it was clear that one of your main point was that you disagreed with Banach's opinion and that you thought it wasn't possable to be an absolute individual because you believe that everyone is considered family.

Your blog connects to a lot of what i have been taught in the past. I don't agree with it but in church it is taught that everyone is one and that we are all connected in some way. Everyone's opinion is different so there is no right or wrong idea about this topic.

Reading through your blog i found grammar mistakes and punctuation mistakes so just reread over your work once your done. You should expand your idea's a little more by using more evidence from the text and then explaining why you disagree with that certain quote. 

After reading "Also it depends on religion because we as people are viewed to be one big family and to help and care for each others. and basically that means that we depend on one another", it brought the whole concept of religion into the picture because different religions believe in different things so depending on what you believe in our whole perspective can be changed.

I enjoyed your blog and the new idea you brought up for me, can't wait to read your next blog.

Individuality comes from what we make our self's. Weather we let other peoples contradictions effect us or if we but a block wall between others and us. "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside" Someone can come up to use and ask us what's wrong. They can say "oh i know exactly how you feel" Truth is no one really knows how we feel. They might feel the connection in the situation but never the same exact feeling. After reading that quote i understood the point David Banach was trying to make. What makes us individuals or gives us our individuality is the feelings we have... every one feels something different depending on the situation but never knows exactly what we are feeling at that moment.