The Stranger Blog Post #2

Adressing the Stranger-Part 2

The following is a continuation of my previous post discussing the question of, Can detachment lead one to happiness?
Can detachment lead me to happiness?

Albert Camus says yes and my teacher says no. Like any other I am stuck in between without knowing the right path to follow. But did Meursault really know what path to follow, or was he simply walking without destination? Is it truly necessary to understand life in order to live it? I don't think so.

Reading part 2 of the stranger with this set of mind allowed me to actually relate to the main character, Meursault. In my life I have leant about the meaningless theory. Similarly to the one mentioned in the movie I love huckabees, it discusses how everything around is actually meaningless. I used to wonder how we possible could attain happiness from emptiness. But it made sense. As I witnessed people practicing this theory in their daily lives and witnessed the great things they achieved it made reconsider my original thoughts, the ones my main teacher, society, had taught me about my life.

Indeed Meursault characterization is described as extremely detached which led others to misunderstand him, especially in part 2 of the book. After killing a man Meursault is sent to prison and then questioned about his actions. Showing no feelings of regret or guilt was actually a self sabotage due to the fact that in order to be truly forgiven one must be sorry. Meursaul was just as the judge described him, "I have never seen a soul as hardened as yours. The criminals who have come before me have always wept at the sight of this image of suffering (p. 69)". This quote does not only represent his detachment and practical suicide, but his authenticity. If Meursaul has no feelings of guilt then he is not going to show them, and if he is asked a question he will answer accurately to his thoughts otherwise he would just remain quiet.

After a long period of time Meursault grew used to the environment in prison. He did not like it, but he was not unhappy. He is described to be in indifferent with what is going on around him, even in the moment before his death. However, surprisingly enough even at this moment he still said, " I felt I had been happy and that I was happy again" (p. 123).
To conclude this situation, his extreme detachment caused him to lose the case and be executed, which is not the ideal ending for someone who lived happily and satisfied most of his life.

Furthermore, seeing the consequences of detachment illustrated by the author made me question of my theory regarding detachment leading to happiness. This is because I consider the most important part of life to be when we look back at our entire life and feel satisfied about what we did. In other words, it is not how we live our lives but what we achieve before death what really counts for us. And looking at Meursault life, he did not really achieve anything in his life but he was still satisfied with it; which once again contradicts my original beliefs. However, he still claims to have something right before his death, and that being aware that he was still alive. "I was sure of my life and sure of the death I had waiting for me. Yes, that was all I had. But at least I had as much of a hold on it as it had on me. I had been right. I was still right. I was always right. I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another. I had done this and I hadn't don't that. I hadn't done this thing but I had done another" (p. 212). In other words, despite Meursault's situation he still believes that he had lived the right way, and there was nothing to regret. Even when he spent the last years of his life in prison on an execution expected him, it was right. This puzzles me because it contradicts my original idea of what really matters in my life. I cannot fully state what truly matters in his life therefore I cannot relate to this character in this part of the book. It could be the air in his lungs or/and simply the ability to identify life as perfect despite the situation what truly matters. In other words what we did or didn't do in our lives does not matter. Every person's life is as important as another's, therefore there is no need to value unnecessary things that are known to bring happiness. Because of this, I consider Meursault as someone more advanced than any of us. However, being advanced is not always an advantage.

We are taught to belief that we must work towards happiness as opposed to living happily right now. Money, possessions and prizes are considered as life achievements, ad if one did not get these before his death, the he is considered a failure regardless is he was happy or not. So maybe what our society values is not truly happiness, but that which supposedly attains it. Looking at it this way makes me understand Meursault characterization even more. I too want to feel satisfied with what I have and how I am, and Meursault may be an actual role model in my life.

However, role models are not always right. After reading this book I consider Meursault life to have no sense of balance. As previously mentioned his detachment is too extreme to be understood by others, and being understood is something essential in our lives even if we claim not to need that understanding. I think that there are levels of detachment one can practice in order to be happy. In my life I have been practicing this detachment at some extent and I can state that I am not unhappy with my life. Of course dominating this "advantage" and being present every moment of our lives takes too much practice. Similarly to Meursault I am also realizing that life itself limits us to live, therefore I need to find to find a way in other to cope with it.

In conclusion, I do believe that detachment can lead a person to be happy therefore, being detached is actually an advantage. I have witnessed it and experienced it. By not being attached, I am not emotionally affected, which allows to me to see everything clearer. There are indeed levels on which a person can experience detachment. Being too extreme about it can lead you to be seen as someone cold and insensitive and would cause others not to find a way to relate to you. You must find a sense of balance that will keep you from suffering about insignificant things, such as failing, and keep people close to you for when you need them. It is possible to live happily and satisfied! It really is!

Who is this Guy?! -Response to "The Stranger"

Who is this guy?! Who is he indeed.

Can detachment lead us to happiness? Adressing The Stranger-Part 1

Meursault is the most detached character I have ever encountered in my literary experience. This extreme detachment and his perspective towards life make him one of the most unique characters I have come across. As a reader I cannot say I fully understand this character's motivation however, I can relate to his reasoning at some extent. I believe that the author of this book, Albert Camus, was aiming to base his book on one of the biggest questions we all have, how can we achieve happiness? Therefore by searching for that answer myself, reading this book gave me a number of things to re consider about my own happiness, and all thanks to the intriguingly round characterization of Meursault. After reading part one of this book and analyzing the main character and his life I have come to the conclusion that perhaps it is possible of attain happiness by being emotional detached.


Emotional attachment is “a connection that fastens things together"(Free dictionary). It is important to understand what detachment is in order to understand Meursault characterization better. Based on my experience as a reader you must be very open minded when reading the stranger, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand how detachment might actually lead us to experience happiness and satisfaction in our lives. I am aware of this because ever since the first lines of the book, "Maman died today. Or yesterday maybe. I don't know. I got a telegram from the home...that doesn't mean anything. Maybe it was yesterday", I have been bias considering Meursault as a cold and detached character throughout part one. It was not until I had to re read some of the chapters that I understood that he was something beyond my original judgment of him. Then I grew more and more interested on his perspective on life and considered this theory.

Throughout part one Meursault mentions that he has happy life. If seen from a general point of view, his life is pretty standard. He is portrayed as a regular man with a regular job without outstanding anyone around him. However according to his statement, "I wasn't interested in a change of life...people never change their lives, that in any case one life was as good as another and I wasn't dissatisfied with mine at all", this could be somewhat interpreted as an actual happy life by the audience. This is not only a contradiction to our society’s' beliefs but something we cannot wrap our minds around. Since when having a "repetitive common life" makes a person happy and most of all satisfied?! The author of this book understood something most of us cannot. Emotionally attaching ourselves may actually cause us to be depressed and this is because we are attached to failing as well as succeeding which is why we cannot succeed to be happy. Depression is something Meursault was never described to experience. And reading this book could actually be an opportunity rather than a lesson. However, easier said than done. Living detached is one of the most if not the most things to practice. We have been taught to attach ourselves ever since the beginning of our lives, to our mothers; the ones who gave us birth and natured us. How could we possibly live by saying "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" like Meursault did? How could we possibly become that detached to not be "dissatisfied" with our lives?

At the end of part one Meursault experienced a change from his usual monotone life to a unusual emotional experience that led him to live differently. Even though he constantly claims that in life and in a man there is no actual change, it was clear that his life had changed, even if he didn't intend for it to happen. In the book Meursault killed a man. But the reason of why he did it is not actually explained by the author. It was not self defense and it was not that Meursault was threaten by the Arab either. Therefore, as a reader I had to analyze his reasoning. And I came to the conclusion that Meursault is not an irrational character but an unreasonable one. He did not need a reason to not cry for his mother as he did not need one for killing a man. To him he did not do anything wrong but those around him instead the opposite. In this last chapter, when Meursault describes leaving his world of happiness and "knocking four quick times on the door of unhappiness" he is aware that things will ever be the same. However, Meursault perspective did not change. Which causes me to think that his perspective is not actually based on what he experiences but a continuously practice ever since a change. I believe that what led Meursault think this way is when he realized that life itself killed ambitions. As he stated, "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" and for some reason killing a man is the same, it doesn't really matter. And this could be because Meursault is actually too focused on himself and his surroundings to a point that those who come across in his life are nothing more than that, people who come an go, and all in a non emotional way.

This reminds me of the movie I <3 huckabees. In this movie LIFE and how to live it in order to be happy is also discussed. One of the methods to live happily is by considering life as something meaningless. For example, even when Meursault considered the death of his mother as meaningless he still stated that he was not unhappy with his life. So what does this tell us? Looking at this situation from an outside perspective it is "sick" to be that cold. You are not only utterly misunderstood by everyone around you but there is no way to be able to relate to someone else when you consider everything as meaningless. And even if you encounter someone who shares a similar point of view wouldn't that bond be meaningless as well? According to our definition of happiness it is important to value people and things around us and cherish and protect them for as long as we can. Therefore we can create good memories and these will accumulate in a way that would make us think that we had a happy life. However if these memories are not enough, then that person would consider most of his life as miserable and not be happy in the present. Therefore seen this way Meursault method actually makes sense. If we life by being g present every single moment of our lives, not remembering the past or planning the future, then these memories not really matter and we can finally enjoy living and not simply the thought of living that the future holds.

In conclusion for part one, as a reader I was able to gain so much from this character. I think that Albert Camus is someone who has too much to teach to the society, and writing this book was a great way to communicate his thoughts on life. Even though we cannot relate to it or even understand it is possible that the way he sees life might actually be a door towards happiness. In other words living detached may actually be a unbreakable promise to ourselves to be happy and satisfied exactly with the way our lives are, even if we are in prison.

Huckabees Blog Post Assigment

Do we live in a World that is meaningful and makes sense?

Having meaning in our lives is essential to pursue some type of purpose or dreams in our lives. And this is because these ARE meaningful to us. But how do these things become meaningful to us? Who decided what was meaningful and what wasn't? What is a meaningful world?

Because these questions tend to be too overwhelming and extremely confusing some people decide to live a meaningless life. And it is meaningless that it is meaningless, otherwise it would be too depressing. Meanwhile the ones that create meaning into their surroundings and live by it are often finding different ways of managing all these in a way that would bring them happiness. Both "methods" are practiced with the purpose of living better along with others. Each person decides what is best for himself and is entitled to his opinions. Living a life meaningfully or meaningless is irrelevant as soon as that wanted peace of mind and happiness is attained. The movie I love Huckabees is a representation of this idea, and focuses more on a debate between these two different methods to live. It is up to the mean character to decide what is best for him after experiencing for OPINIONS on how to live life.

The movie begins with the quote "what am I doing, what am I doing?I don't know what I am doing. I am doing the best that I can. Now this is all I can ask to myself. Was that good enough? Is my work doing any good? Is anybody paying attention?.... nothing in this world make any sense to me." Just like we all do, the main character of this movie, Albert, has so many different questions about life. And he clearly does not have the answer for his own questions he keeps on asking himself, just like the most of us. Being this confused leads a person to seek for help. It is a natural response that all people do.

The first please Albert assists to claims to be an existential organization that helps people learn something significant about their lives. These people argue that the world is connected, and that everything and everyone have the same value. For example, the Eiffel tower being the same as a hamburger inside the big blanket of the universe. However, the main main purpose these company has towards him is to make him forget about the identity that Divides him from the rest of the world, so the he can feel part of it and everything he wished or wanted was not desired any longer because he already had it. In other words Albert has everything he needs to live happily he is simply not aware of it.

The alternative point of view Albert encounters is somewhat the opposite of the one previously mentioned. It discusses that nothing is connected and life has not meaning by itself. He discovers this through his "other", Tommy, who absolutely believes in this idea because of his personal experience with life. Tommy introduces him to this perspective and the woman who began this conflict helps Albert learn something about himself he ignored his entire life.
Although Albert eventually agreed to pursue this perspective of meaninglessness he still had to be aware that he will be dragged back to human drama and desires. "From pure being to human suffering."

Albert somehow realized at the end of the movie that perhaps we all may be connected because we see each other in other people. However, in reality there is no real connection, we simply make it up. We bond to other people and feel their pain because we have experienced it before. Seeing the whole situation from this perspective then who of these two "methods" of living is the correct one? "One is dark and the other one is not dark enough...One is on one extreme and the other one on the other extreme... Two overlapping fraction philosophies born out of that one pain." Albert did find a way of life, but he created it himself.
Isn't that one's task in life anyways?

HW #5: Response to Ethics of Absolute Freedom III

III. The Existential view of human Happiness.

According to the text "the secret of happiness is to get ones value from within oneself. In doing so, one loses the promise of external value, but they find a more real happiness that cannot be taken away by external forces beyond their control." Based on my understanding of this existentialists view of happiness I could say that I do not entirely agree. I might not thoroughly understand his point, but I do not think that we, humans, are able to get ones value from within oneself without getting an external value first. In my point of view I think that rather of finding a new value from within it would be changing one's values after a meaningful experience. All sources of external value will not be taken away nor banish because when we express our values externally then other people adopt them and then express them once again. It is a chain of beliefs that happens ion a pattern. External to internal then Internal to External. That is what I think.

Although Banach makes an excellent point, all humans need something to learn first before becoming part of this society. It is possible that because of the values that were transmitted to us during our childhood prevent us from recognizing happiness. However Banach argues that learning that we cannot attain happiness from the exterior is "the necessary price of an important lesson." According to him it is only from our island of subjectivity that we would be able to attain happiness, and this is because "the value one gets from within is infinitely better than the value one vainly attempts to get from outside".
However, this statement is obviously debatable. I do not agree with him because as previously mentioned People need to learn different values in order to find themselves and what makes them happy. It is their choice to follow and teach these values to future generations in their lives. But it is necessary to learn them in order to identify freedom.

This comes from a very basic idea. Without black we cannot identify white. Without good we do not know evil. I think this is the same as the values that society offers. When we feel limited by these values then we understand why we are feeling in such way. If we did not have these values then we would not be able to identify when we are limited and when we are not, then we would actually live as absolute individuals.

But because we are "forced" to live in this place of ideas, values and ethics we cannot live as free. It is possible however to live free by living far away from society and not learning unnecessary things to live. Such as how to behave or how to speak. It is because we live with others that we NEED some sense of structure and order. And values come from this original purpose. If you were to live alone in one island, the island of subjectivity, then you would eventually create your own values. For example, if you are used to collecting food during the morning, but you are very tired from walking all day you decide to save food for the next 3 days rather than collecting it everyday. Then you learn to restrain yourself and give the art of collecting food as important. As well as taking care of your body and resting when you need to. It is inevitable to have values in our lives even if they come from within. We will eventually limit ourselves because of the values we have created. It is no different than living along with others, it just gives you more free time.

HW #4 Comments on Second Post

To Neville:
This is an interesting second post on this topic. I enjoyed reading it.
I specially liked how you began your post with what you are focusing on on Banach's idea of existentialism. I liked your personally tone. Thanks to it I was able to understand your point much more.

Religion is a very delicate topic. And because it is this way it is so easy to misinterpret or to misunderstand. Considering that there is something we must understand. Religion explains existentialism. Therefore it is easy to base our self existence in someone Else's idea, so that we do not have to think of it on our own. Banach has constantly mentioned religion because it plays a big part in every one's life. Even if they do not believe in it or are part of it. I do agree with you that "religion and existentialism are confusing ideas" but when these are fused together things make sense in a way. The reason that you might be confused is because you understand Existentialism as Human creating ideas then ideas creating humans. Rather than the other way around as the church suggests. I also think that human beings came first and creating this phenomenon called God, and then explained their own existence. If seen this way, then Banach's text will be obviously confusing and contradicting from our point of view.
However, just as you said "there are questions to this world that are too big in scope for the human mind to grasp." The reality is that there is no answer for these questions and therefore it is not possible for us to know the truth.

This reminds me of the time we were first discussing this as a class. Bao Lin mentioned the egg and chicken just as you said it on your most. I did not think about that example before, even though it was taught to me since elementary school. Which suggests that people in general are aware of this big question that concerns us all. They question their own beliefs and influence others, creating chains of new ideas, which causes even more questions. At this point we do not even know the main origin of this idea. That is why most people base their theories on human nature. What do we need?

In order to expand your ideas I recommend you to study more about religion and it's origins. It might be non sense for you, but I personally think that if you do, you will be able to obtain an answer on why religion explains existentialism the way it does. Also why it was made and how it was made will help you build this answer. Although it will not be the answer you are looking for it will be part of a bigger explanation. Where do we come from?
I was baptized and did my first communion in the catholic church. Of course I had to study it for years before doing any of this. It is just a world of beliefs that are enforced into you and convince for a while. But because of it I am able to understand a bit more of where these ideas Banach is mentioning come from. Just remember to be open minded when you are being shared new ideas about who we are or where we come from. After none of them is the correct answer.

After reading your post I began to remember more about my past and my religious experience. I used to believe in God and love my church. But things get confusing when people begin throwing different ideas into to your life and if one of them makes more sense than the other, the change of mind is inevitable. Currently I do not believe in God. However I still call myself a catholic because I do like being part of that community, not because of their beliefs. I was baptized that way and I do not plan on chaining that. I still respect my religion and honor it, and I am aware that even if I want to continue being a part of it, it will not be the same as it was before.

Thanks for writing this post. I actually enjoyed doing this assignment because of your work!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

*Aja unfortunately did not post a response to the text, therefore I will comment on Jia Min's work.*

To Jia Min
On #2Banach's Lecture Continued

Great post Jia Min! I really enjoyed it because I found it very intriguing. You brought up an unusual argument that I have also been considering for the past month. Although you have very interesting questions I do not think there is an absolute answer for these, so any of your thoughts or arguments are completely valid to consideration as the truth. Your own truth. I also liked your tone. Throughout your post I was able to identify your sincerity and interest for this topic. Mentioning your main argument at the beginning of your post "Essence precedes Existence. Essence preceded "bad"faith"? was a great hook. Overall your post is very organized and clear. Great work!

I understand that there is no correct answer to what precedes what. Essence or Existence. Existence or Essence. Regardless of what comes first we have created this puzzle to begin with. Or it could have been dictated to us by a more powerful phenomenon. It is currently unknown. I think that in the end this comes down to doing the right thing in order to achieve something else. This is one of the ideas that drives people throughout their lives. In religion it would translate to: "Being a good neighbor so when I die I can go to heaven and live in eternal peace" And there are people who believe in this and it is absolutely valid. However, it is also valid to question this thinking. Is it possible that religion is "bad"? Is it possible that a criminal is the good man and the victim the bad man? What if their morals tell otherwise? And who has conveniently created these morals anyways? On your post you state that it is indeed possible.
"Do we have the right to tell someone something when we didn't experience it ourselves but watched others did it and put that as our "bad" event/experience for our knowledge, telling us we shouldn't do that?" Considering that we do not have the right to do so, but we are only protecting ourselves, then how could judging a criminal be considered justice? But the main concern that we all have regarding this if this will make us free. We have chosen to experiment with different situations in order to attain this feeling of freedom. And this is because we do not know the answer to "what freedom consists of?" Although in our inner island of subjectively things may be different, we do not reflect those aspects or ideals in our reality which causes us to feel trapped. So could freedom just depend on our perspective of life? Or could it actually be obtained after doing the right thing?

I share a similar point of view. As previously mentioned I have thought of a similar argument for the past month. What is right and wrong? How could live our lives in order to achieve happiness, freedom, or peace? These questions have been present in our lives for quite some time now. And so far we have not obtained an answer, and I honesty think we never will. However, we can find our own way of living, and it would be the right way of living for us. We simply have to be aware that this is not the truth and we have just created it in order to accept ourselves and our surroundings which would cause us to live as free individuals. But easier said that done. How could we find our own right way to live? We would need other people who are also finding this and our purposes/ideas would inevitable collapse creating something more general. Such as "If we are good to one another we will live in peace" Then the chain would start all over again.

Your post has made me reconsider my original thoughts on freedom. In my opinion I know that there is no right or wrong way to live life. But saying" just live it" would imply many different factors. We are simply not able to just live our lives. And not because we are incapable, but because we are not allowed. Discussing who is right and who is wrong then categorizing that person is merely a bad habit that has been present from generation to generation. Indeed we have no right to tell what is right and wrong because ultimately it would contradict someone Else's definition of it and lead to another question: "which on of us is right?" Recently I have been working on an experiment. So far it has been quite interesting but I know that I cannot identify it as the right way to live yet. This experiment consists of allowing people or situations be the way they are without making them wrong or right. If my friend confesses to me that she has stole 500 dollars to cover her medical bill, I would not support her nor judge her. If she were to ask for help then I would help her because there is nothing wrong about it. But there is also nothing right. I could have simply said no, I just did not feel like it.
Although I have always known that there is nothing true to believe I have never practiced it before. Because it simply does not go along with society's ideal.

In order to develop your thinking I invite you to consider practicing my experiment for a while. It is completely understandable if you do not wish to do so. I just think it will lead you to come up with more ideas regarding this topic. I am aware that you want answers, so you can provide them to yourself based on your own experience.
As for your writing, although it is very organized and clear there are some minor grammar mistakes on your post. I recommend you to simply reread your post once you are done. I personally do not care about these because I understand what you are trying to communicate. I am just pointing them out for you.

I want to thank you for writing such interesting post. I would like to share more ideas about it with you. Your work has made me think more about my own life and my current actions. I really appreciate it. I am looking forward on reading your next post!

HW #3: Blog post #2

Response to "the Ethics of absolute freedom"
(Part II Continued again...)

Am I free?
I think not.
"How can I be free when most of my external circumstances are determined by forces beyond my control...?" but also How can I be free if I do not allow myself to be that way?
These two questions are more similar than what you think. Banach's suggests that an individuals freedom is determined by that individuals perspective. As he said "the answer to these questions lies in the nature of our radical individuality." We cannot truly control what is happening around us. "the objects that appear, how they appear, and when they appear" cannot be determined. However we are able to control our own perspective of how we see these external circumstances, and act according to what we think is right for us. I believe that this is the only we way we can truly feel we are living as free individuals.

It is possible that who we truly are is "the self within its island of subjectively" who lives "free in virtue of its radical individuality." And if we act according to our own self, living authentically, then we would be able to live and practice freely. However, must of us choose to keep the real self hidden, and act according to society's expectations. Imitating someones style, adopting someones favorite phrase, etc. are different ways of forgetting who we truly are and believe that we are forced to become what society makes of us. Most people do not recognize the possibility of being free due to their comfortable lives as slaved robots. This is often considered as normal.

How can I be free when "I cannot help where I was born, what type of body I have", what type of parents I have, How I was treated as a child, etc, etc, etc?
I think that the first step to understand freedom is to understand that what we experience in our past or present does not determine who we are or how we became. However, most people think differently. We are taught to believe that the experiences that occurred outside of our subjective self have an impact on who we are, and therefore create an explanation of our thoughts, behavior, and purposes.
I believe that it is our future that makes us who we are. Take the following example for instance.
You are a week away from summer vacations and you have two tickets to Hawaii for you and a dear friend. You know that the weather will be perfect the day of your flight, and everything is ready for your trip. During that week you will be extremely happy and excited because you know that you are going to Hawaii. Regardless of all the work, pressure, obligations, etc. You still feel relaxed as if you were already there... After 3 awesome weeks in Hawaii you know are aware that you will have to go back the following day. There, in the perfect sun, the magical view of the ocean before you, surrounded the calm and exotic environment, you feel horrible. This is because you know that soon you will be back to the city. Back to your obligations, your work, etc.
This example represents that a person does not really "be" in a certain way because what he experienced in the past or by the type of present he is being part of. Our ideas of what is good or bad were given to us by our society. For example, going to Hawaii=good. Going to work=bad. Therefore we know how to feel when we become aware of things that we will experience. And interesting enough we define freedom as being one of the "good" things that happen in our lives. Such as going to Hawaii, or going to Six Flags during the weekend, or having time to practice our hobby. However, this freedom is just temporary. And we consider it freedom because of the simple fact that it is something we WANT to do without the feeling of being limited or obligated to something.
So this leads me to think that as people from this society we "become free" at times, which is not the same as being free. So how could we remain as free individuals under this culture?
As previously mentioned, I think that the only way to consider ourselves as free individuals realistically speaking, is by changing our perspective on external circumstances. For example, a school janitor could be the happiest man in the world for having the job he has. This would be if he sees his job as an opportunity to provide a clean space for children who will be preparing for their own future in it. By providing such space he is contributing to the lives of many children. And although those children will not truly appreciate his work they will feel comfortable to learn in that clean area. In other words is it up to you to determine how your decisions, actions and words will make you live as someone who is not trapped within unable to make a difference. It all depends on our own perspective on life and thereby freedom.

In conclusion, we do not truly know what freedom is. Because no one in our community has truly experienced it. I do think that we can believe we ARE free because of our perspective in life, but we cannot really live as absolute free individuals. It is not because we do not want to. We all actually want to be free. Be able to do what we want, when we want it, how we want it, without being afraid of how other will look at us. But it is just not possible for us. And this is because we know what it is to live as part of a society with specific ideals which is under one culture which is in one country which is divided form the rest. We know that there are rules to follow and work to accomplish. If one day we decide to leave everything we are "attached" to and do what we want (or be free), we would either starve or get arrested. And no one really wants any of these two, because these do not feel COMFORTABLE.

HW #2 Assigment: Blog comments 1

To Neville F:
Nice first post! I liked how you began your post by relating to the reader using a very common example. The question you asked Do you just think to yourself, why is that person so happy? Or why is that person so sad? at the beginning of your post made me want to continue reading. And this is because I have asked myself that question and I share a similar answer.

In your post you mention that your idea of the train relates to Banach's idea on the Ethics of Absolute Freedom. By not knowing what other individuals are feeling we see them objectively, regardless of how hard we may try not to. I understand that as human beings we learn to become "individuals" in this society. And it is indeed impossible to know exactly what other person is feeling or thinking. However, we are able to relate to another person based on what they are feeling. Because as human beings under the same society we share similar aspects, and it is highly possible that someone experienced a very similar situation like us. Therefore that someone will be able to understand at some extent our feelings and thoughts by relating to them. Causing that person not to see others objectively but subjectively.

I can relate myself to what you are saying. In my response to this text I shared a very similar idea. I do not agree with Banach's idea entirely. I too think that it is possible to understand another person and feel what they are feeling because they have experienced it before. Although we are different individuals we are able to connect and not live alone unlike Banach states. This also reminds me of how families, specially siblings claim to know each other. This includes what they are thinking or feeling. And most of the times it is very easy for families to understand each other after living together, and experiencing the same situation together. Although their perspectives may be different, they are able to connect with one another and share the same idea. How could this example support Banach's idea on seeing other people objectively, when there are people out there who can see through other people?

To help you develop your ideas on this topic, I recommend you to be more organized and make a draft of what you want to write. List all your ideas and explain each one of them by using examples or outside information to support them. Clearly explain what your opinion is on Banach's idea and explain why you agree/disagree with him by using quotes from his text. You could also discuss how there are people who agree with him and write why do you think they do. That would make your post very interesting to read. Also you could ask more interesting questions regarding this topic that would make the reader think more about your point. This will also cause the reader to reconsider his/her point and expand their knowledge on this topic.

After reading your post, I became to disagree even more with Banach's specific idea on seeing others objectively. After I became aware that there are others who think similarly I was able to think about it more and consider other factors. Such as, if most of my classmates disagree with this idea because society has somehow made us believe in such way, then what made Banach think oppositely? His life experiences must have been very different from ours, and if they were what could they have been? I realized that people obtain answers based on self experiences rather than learnt knowledge from previous generations.

Thank you so much for writing this post, because although it was short it made me think about other possibilities. I really became more interested on learning what other people around me have to say about this text. I hope you add more to your post.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To Aja:
Great first post! I liked how you summarized Banach's idea at the beginning. It is very clear and helpful for me. Although it is a summary I can identify what your point of view is on this idea by briefly explaining and restating his point. Then you continued by explaining your thoughts which makes your post very organized overall.

On your post you discuss your idea regarding the definition of an Absolute individual. I understand that you agree with Banach at some extend. It is indeed true that "we only feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears" However it is possible to relate to other people who have experienced similar emotions. This contradicts Banachs idea of us, as absolute individuals, "being trapped within ourselves." It is not impossible to be able to know what other people is feeling or thinking after getting to know that person and spending a fair amount of time with him or her in order to do so.

This is similar to what Neville wrote on his post. Similar to you, he did not entirely agree with Banach's idea on only seeing people objectively and not being able to know what they were feeling. Neville said: "As humans some of us share some general aspects. And since their are so many people on this earth, their at least has to be someone that went through the same thing as you did. Although that person felt emotions in their own way, if its closely similar then there could be reason why some people say its the same". In other words, as previously mentioned, there are other people out there with a very similar situation like ours. By the simple fact that we live under the a very similar culture. And those people will be able to connect with us in some way and understand our emotions.

In order to develop your work and your knowledge on this topic I recommend you to write down all your ideas or arguments. Then you can find evidence from the text to support your ideas and explain why it supports it. By doing so you will be able to have a deeper understanding of this complex topic. The question of what is being an absolute individual? has no right or wrong answer therefore you have to show the reader how your own answer to this question will impact his. You are already organized so you could only add more of your opinion with more evidence.

I personally agree with your definition of an absolute individual. I do think that people are capable of knowing what other people are feeling based on their own experiences. After reading your post I realized even more that in fact there are other people who think similarly to me. So, I continue to wonder what made Banach think differently. I think that our own society teaches us to connect to other people in a way, but it could also be our own nature to do so.

Thank you for writing this post. It made me think more about my own ideas and arguments regarding this text. I appreciate your work and I am glad we share a similar point of view.

HW #1: Response to "The Ethics of Absolute Freedom"

I mostly agree with Banach's definition of an absolute individual. This is because I also consider that being an absolute individual is being "alone" in the world. However this may vary depending on our points of view.

In this text, Banach discusses questions such as "what is human freedom?... What is human flourishing or human happiness? What general ethic or way of life emerges when we take our individualism seriously?... what ought we do?" These unanswerable questions open many possibilities that allow us to interpret the right way to live our lives.

Existing in this world might mean absolutely nothing. We are born into a world of ideals and we adopt them as our own as we become part of it. We learn that as individuals we must create a way of living happily. However it is often confusing of what to do in order to achieve this happiness.

Banach discusses that as individuals "we only feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and ours fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside." I agree with this statement because indeed no one else can feel exactly what I am feeling subjectively. However I do not agree on what he says about how other people around us see us. "Other people only see us from the outside, objectively..." This is because I have experienced relating to other people and identifying myself with them based on what their description of their own emotions. To me this represents a connection with someone else, which might contradict Banach's original statement of being "alone" in this world. I think that objectively we are indeed alone. However being able to connect to somebody else and being able to see through another person allows yourself to see a reflection of yourself in somebody else.

An example of this would be my relationship with on my friends. We have known each other for nearly 4 years and we do not know much about each other's past. Just by being who we are now we are able to connect regardless of what we experienced in the past. I see myself in her sometimes and I feel that there is nothing I could say that she wouldn't understand. This is one example of why I think that we are not entirely alone and it is possible to find happiness in other individuals rather than obtaining it by ourselves.

Furthermore, society gives us definitions to describe our emotions. This automatically limit us to freely experience new emotions. Either because these could be categorized as wrong or because we are not supposed to feel them. We are only able to describe our feelings based on the society's definition of them. As well as physical sensation. We do not know exactly what it is to feel an object. But we do remember what it feels like and we can imagine that other person feels the same when they touch that one object. This is another example of connecting with somebody else.

Banach states that "Each of us is trapped within our own mind, unable to feel anything but our own feelings and experiences...unable to perceive or contact anything but the images of our mental TV screen" This could be interpreted as a realistic statement. And seen as such I do agree with him about us having an image of what the world is and only being able to experience part of it by ourselves. No one else can experience something for us. 0r feel something for us. But when two people have experienced similar things there could be relatedness between those two individuals. My main point is that, moments such as being "trapped in a dark room with no windows" can be experienced with someone else. Because other people are experiencing the same thing but in a different place. And that place was an imaginary division created by society itself that divides us from the rest of the people around us. Such as the example Mr. Manley used in his post. Being in a crowded place, such as the subway, does not mean that people is truly together as it is physically seen. But subjectively they are so divided from one another categorized as absolute individuals.

In conclusion, we are not free and most of us are actually aware of it. We do not feel free to do what we want or live the way we want to. We allow ourselves to be limited and we follow rules, values, or definition that form a civilized community. As living robots there is no way we can fully experience life. Our fears of failing or not being accepted into a society that does not even consider itself as a group to begin with is even greater than our desire of feeling the pleasure of actually being free.