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!
Monday, September 28, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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.
(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.
Monday, September 21, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
