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?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
