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!