HW 12 - The Stranger II

Are we the one who is in control of ourselves? Or the nature is the one who is controlling us? If so, is it possible to go against nature? In other words, are we adapting to the nature or vice versa?

As I kept reading the book The Stranger by Albert Camus, I realized the protagonist that he depicts is someone who just get used to everything that is happening to him and never had the ambition to make a little difference in his life. To many of the outsiders or readers I would call, might have a very strong reaction to this and must have asked why and how can this be? Why someone will just let things happen to him and don’t even have the tendency to make a change in his life? But as I trigger my thoughts in my mind, I understand why and find it more connected to this main character, Meursault.

I choose to talk about this, is because I found this pattern very often throughout the book. In part I of the book, Meursault kept talking about the sunlight that bothers him, his surroundings, or his own apartment most of the time other than opening the door of his heart to the readers. At the beginning, I thought the light is one of the significant images or motif that keeps appearing to grab the readers’ attention as a hint to certain details. But then I found out that nature is the bigger picture of the overall recurring images that I saw.

In part I when Meursault was at the funeral, he did not seem to show a lot of emotions towards his Maman’s death. Instead, he describes the sky “filled with light”, the sun “bear down on the earth” and the sun bothers him a lot because “it was getting hotter by the minute”. Based on these terms, we might just think he is cold and talked about things to distract him from what is actually happening to him. But at the end of part I when the sunlight comes up in the book again, it became a set up of the climax in the book. The “sun” as Meursault describes in chapter 6, it was “the same as it had been the day I’d buried Maman”, and it was the “burning” that caused him to “move forward”. This step that he took had caused him to commit a crime for murdering the Arab. As the climax comes, the readers are able to enter Meursault’s heart and get a little taste of his feelings. However, many of us including myself, as readers find it confuse why someone will do something like this and did not even have the tendency to confront for himself.

Until the moment I read part II of the book, I completely understand why and Meursault’s intention of being the self that he is being. Perhaps, his mom is one of the influence of triggering him to think human are able to adapt to anything and get used to it conventionally. But my interpretation of Meursault being this way or the author’s purpose of setting him up this way is to question is it possible to go against nature? When Meursault got into jail, he was not surprised or very upset, because he knew he could get used to this sooner or later. As he stated, “it was only natural; I was young.” This leads to think that Meursault views himself or human overall as very powerless characters in life. In other words to the extreme, he looks at things as nothing really matters that much, because we can’t make a change anyway. He sees the sunlight, furniture to memorize, his mom’s death…etc., all, as something that will happen or appear to be natural. Everything just happens, and human should be the one who is supposed to adapt to the environment, not to go against it. I think this is the main reason why Meursault behave this way in the book, because he sees himself as a powerless character.

He does not think killing the Arab is his fault, but only the sunlight that forces him to do so.

He does not cry in his Maman’s funeral, because the sunlight and the heat bothers him too much that made him so inhuman and emotionless.

He does not get too unhappy in the cell, because he thinks everything just happens naturally, and all he can do is to adapt to it.

…

All these excuses that Merusault gave himself have made him view himself as a even more powerless person. He tries to “kill time”, but he knew he couldn’t. Time is something that comes naturally and he knew it is impossible to. Therefore, he starts to memorize the positions of the furniture to put himself in a hallucinate state of mind. It is the way he views himself that caused him to lose his ambition, and he gave up on making a change because it does not matter to him.

In my opinion, I do think nature is something that we cannot control. But I disagree with the way Merusault view the world this way. Just like my own life, I do know time is something that I cannot control, and someday for sure I will die. But I will not just let things be, but to make a difference. What Merusault don’t realize is that he actually has a lot of power over his own self. If we realized our future is in our own hand, then we will not let nature to be on our way. Yes, we cannot control how others wanted to be, but we can control ourselves to be certain ways that satisfy what we desire. We are powerless perhaps, but we do have power over many things.

I do know why Mersualt acts in this way and to me; this is a tragedy!

HW 11 - Blog Comments 4。

To Quinn,

I think you have a good point, why he doesn't show feelings for his mom, but the dog? The fact that he only comment on the things that he actually see, seems to make sense now.

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

To Esther,

I know you are not done, but I am so looking forwrd to read the full version of this post. I like what you have already wrote as your post and I think you really did asked a great question to start from.

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

To May,

I agree with you, I think it is consider NORMAL that someone did not cry when one of their love ones has just passed away. Especially in the book, someone who spend half of their life time raising you, putting effort to take care of you to create the you now, is certainly part of you physcially and spiritually that you should never forget. What do you expect Meursault to react to this? It is definitely understandable that why he is so emotionless, and keep trying to get on track to his normal life. It is not that he doesn't care, it is just the way he should act to the outcasts.I like this post a lot, I find it very resonant to me.

HW 10 - Who Is This Guy? (Read the NEW DRAFT)

I don't know if I am lack of slumber or I am just tired. Reading the book The Stranger, I kept losing the lines and it takes longer to just read one page for me. Almost every line that the author wrote is detach from each other that caused me to lost track of what he is saying. Very random. I have to admit this is the most rare character that I ever read by now. He is not special, and I do think he is human. But somehow I just can't find the point that is on him to connect to mine.

As what we discussed in class yesterday, he doesn't seem to react to what is going on that much but he does react to his surroundings. In chapter one, when his mom passed away, he seems cold. Although he sounds like he is careless about his mother's death, this could seem as a hint of how he actually feels. When the director asked him if he wanted to see his "mother one last time", he said, "no". Then after awhile, he did mentioned that he "noticed right away that the screws on the casket had been tightened". This really indicates that he is human and he does being aware of his surroundings. It is just the way he react to things or express himself does not make sense to the outcasts. Just like the moment he realized his mother's casket has been sealed, he might not react to it right away, but he is definitely reacting to what is happening. If not, I don't think he will even bother to bring it up.

One of the motif that I found on this book is the light (sun, night, stars, . In every chapter, Meursault seems to be so distracted or he wanted to be bother by his surroundings, that he refused to open himself up to anybody. He does express his feelings, but only to the ones that he wanted to.

It is so ironic in a way that I feel disconnected from him, but I already wrote two paragraphs about him. From the first chapter when his mother died, he doesn't seem to react to it strongly. However, he did talked about the whole process of it. Does this mean he

Ideas are all over the place, not yet organized.

Since I saw John and May already commented on what I wrote above, I don't want to modify it as they are commenting on the new draft. So i will restart below. No offense. :)

↓↓New Draft↓↓

I don't know if I am lack of slumber or I am just tired. Reading the book The Stranger, I kept losing the lines and it takes longer to just read one page for me. Almost every line that the author wrote is detached from each other that caused me to lost track of what he is saying. I have to admit this is the rarest character that I ever read by now. However, he is not special, and I do think he is human. But somehow I just can't find the point that is on him to connect to mine. All these are caused by the fact that Meursault is a stranger to me. I am sure Camus delineates Meursault like this on purpose, and I think he expect us to feel comfortable reading about him. Aren't that's what we are doing every day? Passing by strangers, not by reading it, but seeing them. Why all of sudden we feel so uncomfortable reading one of these strangers that we used to see everyday?

Reading this character might seem strange to a lot of people because everything that he said is certainly absurd. He is emotionless throughout the first few chapters and he totally chooses to ignore the readers. Not only that Meursault is passive, he refused to be himself in the moment in front of the audience. It is because he views us, the readers, as strangers. Will you ever open up yourselves to share your feelings to the stranger who sit next to you on the subway? As passing by many strangers like the day we went to Madison Square Park, seeing those people that I completely don’t know is just the same as reading this book. They all just look so weird and it makes you wonder who and why they act this way. They could passed by you, stares at you, and walked away. Who am I to expect everybody to open up themselves to the others that they don’t know? With that being said, why should we as readers, expect so much from Meursault. He is just one of those strangers that we passed by everyday. Why can't we connect to him? We see this everyday.

As the story starts up with Meursault’s mom, who just passed away, Meursault doesn’t seem to have any emotions to it throughout the first few chapters that I read. However, he does describe the things or happening around him to the readers except his own self-awareness feelings. One part that I felt Meursault very cold was when the director asked him whether he wanted to see his “mother one last time”, he simply replied, “No”. Perhaps, from the dominant culture’s reaction, this may seem a little outrageous. But if you really did think about this, what kinds of emotions do you expect him to have when he suddenly heard that one of his love ones that has been taking care of him has died?

I think the way Meursault’s react to his surroundings is definitely understandable, and I would not consider it weird. Even from the second chapter at the end, he said, “really, nothing had changed” after his mother died, I still believe that Meursault is going through the process of grief but trying to move on fast. Just like when we are depress, people often tell us to feel better soon. It is the same for Meursault, I think he is trying to be optimistic about what had just happened to him, and thus he kept looking for distractions around him. Additionally, he is feeling something inside of him; it is just that he refused to open up to the readers. It is almost seem like he is completely numb about his mother’s death that he is unable or does not know how to express himself. He is fear of pain, therefore, he choose not to interact with feelings, but his surroundings, something that he can physically see. Like the way he describes the "light", "sun", "people on the street" and how people in the funeral react. He wants to detached himself from his own experience, but at the same time connect to the others.

It is so ironic in a way that I feel disconnected from him, but I already wrote four paragraphs about him. Maybe we still think Merusault is weird, cold, emotionless, and unique, but I do see that in all of us. We are all strangers, not only to Meursault, but to rest of the people that do not know. As reading this book, it really makes me want to know his background. Perhaps, if we amplify every strangers that we pass by, they all have some awesome stories to share.

HW 9 - I <3 Huckabees (Final)

Do we live in a world that is meaningful and make sense?

I am staring at this question that we supposed to answer for homework, and I felt like the question makes no sense to me. How do we suppose to consider something make sense or vice versa? Judging whether the world make sense to me or not, it is kind of frustrating, and meaningless to answer. However, I have to keep this assignment going, “no less than 400 words”, so I’ll just trigger my thoughts out as I am typing.

I remember one time when I was arguing with my brother about he doesn’t have any common sense; and he told me that there is no such thing called common sense. Common sense is really being interpreted as different cultures and values. Moreover, it really depends on how that person perceives. Using chop sticks might make sense to me, but it will make no sense to most of the Americans. Why using something so complicated to eat while you can just use a fork and pick up the food faster? This is similar to Banach’s lecture that we read from last unit. Everybody perceives differently, and how do we expect others to have common sense as us? A guy wearing a dress as a fashion view makes sense to me, but it makes completely no sense to my mom because we view things differently.

If everybody values different senses, how are we suppose to know whether the world make sense or not? By thinking about this, I reverse it and asked, what doesn’t make sense? By thinking it this way, I think everything make sense depending on the person’s point of view. But whether what make sense to me will make sense to the other that is another question.

With that being said, I think this idea is parallel with the movie I Heart Huckabees. The movie starts out that Tommy and Albert were struggling about the meaning of life and trying to figure out the “ultimate truth about reality”. While Tommy believe everything is disconnected, he starts to bond with Albert pretty fast throughout the movie with the helped of Caterine, just that they did not realized it. Then when at the end of the movie, they found out that everything is connected and it is made with the “two overlapping, fractured philosophies”. They soon realized that everything in this world is connected, and like Tommy said, “it is not special”. This whole idea about the meaning of life is that, if life doesn’t mean anything, what is. Or the other way around, if life is meaningful, what isn’t?

I totally agreed with what Bernard said in the beginning of the movie that “everything is the same, even if it’s different”. The sentence seems contradicts itself, but it makes sense. Just like how Caterine goes the extreme of nothing matters, and Bernard and Vivian goes to another that everything is connected, at the end, they do intersect each other, and that point is the ultimate truth about life is that everything does matter. Tommy starts off believe that nothing matters, and soon bond with Catherine and Albert. What he doesn’t realize is that they are different, but they are all in the same “blanket”, which at the end, when Tommy and Albert sat on the rock and said to each other, “it looks like you saw some truth”.

Similarly, when Caterine took a picture of Albert being upset on the elevator, the picture is just the same as the one that she took at last of Brad. The “tiny cracks” and small connections that hold us together in this universe, they are different person, but overall they are just one as a whole. We all suffer and go through difficult times, but the difference is that they are being play out in varies of ways.

I believe this is the meaning of life. The feeling of being connected, how one from far south could affect me in the north, that there is something we do not see, but only be able to feel. This is the ultimate truth about human life and this makes sense, and it is meaningful.

i ♥ huckabees

HW 8 - Personal Manifesto Reflection

Throughout this unit, I enjoyed reading and dissecting Banach’s lecture into pieces with meaning. Although his lecture often seems repetitive, I still appreciate his profound ideas about human life as individuals who are seeking for freedom and happiness. What helps me to understand it the best is by the discussion that we have every time we finished reading parts of his lecture. Not only helps me to collect more perspective about his ideas, it also deepens the meaning of his lecture to me personally.

After reading the whole lecture by Banach, I was actually pleased to write my personal manifesto to combine all the ideas that Banach offers with my own. However, I do face lots of difficulties during the process of writing this manifesto. At first, I thought I was planning to follow the format that the assignment was suggesting. But after few paragraphs of rambling and pre write, I personally didn’t like it. If writing something that I don’t find it worth to write, I just lost passion towards it really quick. Then it ends up, I am hang in the middle either restart or continue writing. Lastly, when I heard the song named “Desperado” at mid night, I start to have inspiration of how to write my manifesto. I am actually proud about my ideas of setting up the manifesto into my tone and style, but not the entire manifesto. Since I really get stuck at the end of not knowing how to end the manifesto, I think it actually ruin the whole essay as a whole. I will say, everything is imperfect. Of course.

In ten years, what I want to remember about the past month should be some of the ideas that Banach talks about in his lecture. Not that his ideas will affect my life in any way, is just his profound thinking about human life is something that I should be aware of. I will remember how he was saying that we are all alone in this world and nobody will feel our pain. Additionally, I will remember how he suggested to others that in order to find our identity and happiness, it has to be within us, internally. This is considering valuable and meaningful if it is found by us within. These are the ideas that I find it significant to remember in life as something new. Many of these ideas that Banach talks about are mostly new to me and it is completely something that I would never thought of unless someone bring it up. Thus, I think it is nice to learn something that you never been touch before. It really makes me reconsider about my life, but not to change my own ideal of living. Whether or not it makes me more enlightened, I think it is worth to feel the real sense of curiosity.

HW 7 - Manifesto (just the intro...)

I am sitting on this chair and being assigned to write a manifesto while I was day dreaming about the world outside. If you are sitting in the direction facing the window in the classroom, it is a better way to start dreaming. There are more than twenty human beings in this class breathing the same air as I do, but I felt like a spot light in the dark. Yes, I am in my own world with my own hallucination. I only hear my own voice and my heart beats, but I am not alone. Because there are more of these lonely souls out there that are experiencing the same thing as I am. All of us are different, nevertheless, we are the same – individualist. Perhaps, I am alone just communicating with my pen and paper, nothing unusual other than objects. But what this leads up to is a chance for me to open up the curtain and reveal my stage performance with the spot light in the dark. Then now, you are one of the audiences in my “absolute individuality” theater.

HW 6 - Blog Comments 3

Esther,

If I happened to read your post earlier, I should have told you that Manley actually did posted the link of the lecture in his blog that you can read online.

http://mrmanleysclass.blogspot.com/2009/09/link-to-banach-lecture-online.html

http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/sartrelecture.htm

Anyway, I think you still got the idea and you did touch the topic that he asked us to write about- human happiness. I have to agree with your own definition of happiness. I like the way you put it and it is very similar to my definition of happiness! “What ever you believe makes you happy is happiness. No one elses but your own. What ever you interpret to be enjoying is your own, you claim that to be your happiness.” I am very agree with this and it is so true to me.

I don’t know if you ever touch or criticize the thought about how Banach has define happiness for the readers and therefore it contradicts, because by following his definition of happiness, we would not have freedom.

However, I like the way that you come up with your own definition of happiness, which that I believe everybody should do other than following what Banach suggested in his lecture.

Although your ideas are like all over the place, I enjoy reading your idea about his lecture! It really shows the process of how you think and develop the ideas.

Bao Lin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

May,

I do agree with you that Banach’s lecture did cause a lot of criticism and many people are disagreeing with his idea including myself. I love how you shoelace the quotes into your writing and interpret it in your own words. Such as the terms that you used “not 100% sure what this is supposed to mean” and “I am not really sure what he means”. Nice Try! This sort of connects to Banach’s idea how everyone is unable to know how each other feel because we all are in our own island of subjectivity that we all perceive differently. I am glad that you did it this way throughout your whole post, because nobody really exactly knows what he really means. We just know based on our own understandings.

I think Banach did talk about the point of life such as getting happiness within, and how to be free. But he did not really enhance these ideas in that aspect. However, I like how you push yourself to think and lead further from his ideas. Additionally, I like how you make such great connections with Banach’s examples along with your own.

“Does this mean that we have to desire something in order to be happy and have absolute freedom?”

When I was reading Banach’s lecture, this is actually one of the question that I have asked in the margin, too. I would like to answer this question to share my opinion with you in this comment. I think the answer is yes, we have to desire something in order to be happy, but not necessary will have absolute freedom. I don’t know why getting freedom has to do with desire. But anyway, I guess because we desire for freedom, therefore we have to desire for certain things in order to move on and to get them. Relating back to desire something to be happy, I think this is true. I guess you can see that when you smile because every time when you get what you want, you immediately will smile. Or to think this way, you desire for happy, thus you are happy because that’s what you want. I don’t think people can be happy without desire; people must be looking for something in their life.

I love your post; it always deepens my ideas while reading your post. Thanks.

Bao Lin

HW 5 - Response to "The Ethics of Absolute Freedom III。

What is human happiness?

When I was little, a piece of candy, or just one simple doll would gratify me. I felt love and all I asked for were just always enough. I would not complain for more and I would not question the word "happiness". All I know is when I smile, that is the bliss of my life. Therefore, I do not over think this word or the definition of it. Somehow when I grew up, both I and the others around me have redefined it for me.

Reading Banach's lecture, he triggers my realization. But simultaneously, he has redefined “human happiness” that makes me feel like all my old memories of happiness have never existed. This sounds very disappointed. However, although his lecture makes so much sense in certain ways, I do not believe "there are no external values that we can live up to". If that is true, why do I still exist?

Who is he to decide whether “rolling a ball up a hill” could not be happy “eternally”? Everybody has their own values in life and things to reach for. Perhaps pursuing happiness “from within is infinitely better than the value one vainly attempts to get from outside”, but it doesn’t mean receiving happiness externally is not valuable. I even doubt if Banach is getting to the extreme and often times, struggles for happiness. If every human being on this earth has to get happiness as the way Banach has described, then we will never be free. I paused for awhile, and asked myself. Does he mean in order to be free; we have to give up happiness?

I certainly do not believe Banach is making any sense in his lecture since every argument that he talked about became a contradiction. Such as when he stated “no external viewpoint from which our life can be viewed to be valuable”, and “loss of our external sources of values are the necessary price of a greater value and happiness that comes from within ourselves” If that is what he meant, aren’t the “important lesson” from external is more valuable than the values within? Without making the mistakes and realized the disappointment, we will never know the external values are more valuable. To me, external values are necessary and often more valuable because they are the origins that lead me to the next-internal values.

Nevertheless, Banach’s lecture is often frustrated. Before he mentioned “one loses the promise of external value, but they find a more real happiness”, I never thought about there are real and fake happiness. Because to me, only “true happiness” are consider happiness. Why would people consider something that is not real “happiness”? Also, if people did not want to be the one that he suggested in his lecture, but trying to achieve happiness. That person is not being “authentic”. I do believe people find their own way to receive happiness, and what happiness really is are based on their own definition. This connects to part I of his lecture that we cannot feel how others’ feel and we are all “alone” in our own world. If that is the case, how is he able to know whether what we feel is not true happiness?

After reading his lecture, I learned that he is a hypocrite.

Perhaps, Banach did not intended to enhance the idea that “real value came from within and was greater than any value that could come from external things since it couldn’t be taken away” and at the same time being contradictive with his idea of being an existentialist. I personally take his lecture as one of the advices to live. To be honest, he did bring up many perspective of life that I never consider before. His ideas did not always seem relevant, but at certain points in my life, I find it helpful and sophisticated. All I need to do is break down his lecture and disconnect his arguments into a whole. Such as the example that he gives in his lecture, “One might imagine that if one could face one’s death, face the impossibility of getting any value from external accomplishments, and still find value within oneself, the value will be invulnerable. It could never be taken away. What else could they do to you?” I find his example very helpful. I imagine myself getting old and face death at some point in my life; this is a great way to cope with the fear of death.

He made me doubt about the word "happiness" once again...

HW 4 - Blog Comments 2

Esther,

Once I started reading your post, this line “We have no true control over anything only the power to change it” immersed me into it. But at the same time, it contradicts in my mind, because in order to have the power to make a difference, don’t we need to control ourselves in some ways to do so? “Life is already set, we should just play along”. This line is another line that really catches my attention also. At the same time, I am surprised about how you see your life in certain limits.

The “puppet master” is great term that you have used. I think everybody wants their strings to be cut. To do so, I think the first thing to do is to admit that we are puppets and we do not have full controls in this world. Then somehow, we did cut the string that we wanted to be cut because we no longer struggle. However, we all might just end up being mentally free, but never physically. As people said, the world is “connected”. Sometimes, I even thought if everybody got their strings cut, and act as an absolute individual. That sounds pretty scary and I don’t think everybody want to be alone.

“Are we able to ‘escape our own freedom’?” This is a very profound question. To answer it in a neutral way, I will say that either we are capable of, or not, we did escape our own freedom in either ways. I hope this sounds right. To me, by making a choice “ YES/NO”, we are escaping or going away from our freedom.

Example: I love ice-cream. By saying you love it, you might think you have more freedom compare to the others, because you get to have something more than the others. But at the same time, you miss the opportunity to know how it feels to dislike an ice cream. So either way, you miss a point of view. IS THAT WHAT FREEDOM IS ALL ABOUT?

Such as many points that you have claimed in this blog, did you escape from your own freedom? Either way, you gain and you loss something simultaneously. Now it makes me think. WHAT IS absolute FREEDOM?

I personally think limiting certain things is just a life style that people have. Of course there are no rule books that say how we should act. But people limit themselves for a reason. Regardless of how the govt. is trying to control people as a whole—“fake freedom”, I think people attempt to limit themselves to create standards. It is just a way people choose to live, and whatever that way is, that is freedom. By limiting my own life in certain ways, to me is free. Because I get to choose how I want to live.

Thanks for such a great post. It really ends up that deepens my thoughts. I have to say, this is a nice try. You did a great job, as well as Amanda’s.

Bao Lin :)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

May,

I like how you start your post by connecting to the “The Cave”. It is very interesting and a great connection.

When you mentioned the mirror, I think you have raised a great question. Do mirror lies? Thinking about it, it is very interesting. We only get to see ourselves when we see the mirror, what a pity. Just like real life, if we have nothing to compare to, we will find it hard to identify who we are. Why do we believe in mirror? Haha…

Or the mirrors never have existed. We are just seeing the ones that we want to see, and avoid the bad images of ourselves.

Your last question is such a great question. “Is it possible that we aren't even here that we just think we are?” It is hard and confused while thinking about it. Just like the question, how do we know that we are not in a dream/we are sleeping?

But to answer your question based on my logic, I will say it is not possible. In order to think you are here, you have to exist in some ways. You can imagine you are in somewhere else, but you have to be in certain setting in order to be, and then think along the way.

I guess a way to improve your post is just keep writing and connect back to the reading about freedom.

I have to say this, you and Esther both have such a great post that has deepens my thoughts. Thanks for raising points that I never thought of. It is my pleasure to read your post.

Bao Lin :)

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I did not follow the ABCDEF to do these comments because I think by just responding back to what people wrote help me to keep my thoughts flow. If you prefer me to comment your post in that form, I am more than happy to do so. Just tell me if that way will help you to improve your post better.

HW 3 - Response to "The Ethics of Absolute Freedom" II

If I tell you to stop reading on my blog, can you just press Alt+F4 or Command+W right away? Or if you can, what if I just drop your iphone, can you just forgive me right away without temper?

Often times, when I want to get distracted by something else and just not to think that one thing that bothers me so much. I just CAN'T do it! Instead, it stuck in my head even more. I even doubt if I am able to control how my mind thinks or if I am able to sort my thoughts in certain ways. It is kind of like how people pinch their fingers, and it just hurt so much in that moment, though it is not going to hurt forever. But just that amount of time that pain stays in you, it is just inescapable.

Is it possible to control how our mind thinks? It seems possible when we are rational. Such as your math teacher is giving you a lecture when you were little, 1+1=2, and 2+3 has to be 5. You can change your mind so fast if you said 6; and correct your mind in a blink of an eye. This is not the situation that I am talking about, what I am trying to point out is that there are certain ideas that are deep down in your mind that it just can’t go away or take longer to modify. Am I "deceiving myself" because of having this thought in my mind or I am just being stubborn.

By saying all these “I can’t” phrases, to Banach, it seems to be an excuse. But to me, I think people’s abilities are limited. I sometimes even think there is a little person in my mind that is controlling my brain. I want to be creative, but just that moment, I felt limited. “I am more than just these…I am free to do whatever I choose”, is that true? It sounds right, but is it possible to keep having this thought in my mind? Banach sounds like people are absolutely free, and there should not be barrier that can stop me to do certain things. Within this idea in my mind, it seems like my state of mind often have to be controlled in order to do so. By not believing in this, does it sound like what Satre calls that I am having a “bad faith”?

Referring back to the example I mentioned in the beginning, can you just don’t get mad at me for dropping your iphone right this moment? If you can’t, is it that you mind is controlling you that you can’t, or you just can’t forgive me right away. Either one, it reveals how we are not making “ourselves into little pictures on our mental TV screen determined by the script written by the expectations of other people”. I just simply don’t think we are absolutely free in certain moments in our lives even though we have the freedom to choose. Especially for the ones who don’t hide their feelings, and express their emotions right after the happening, before even think about should I cry or laugh. Of course we can decide whether to cry or not through the process of thinking, but arent't doing that will show that I am not "being authentic"? Emotions/feelings is just something that comes up to you, they are inevitable. We are not trying to meet other's standard in this case, we are just expressing how we feel. Does being sad or cry count as limiting my freedom since every single human being is living for happiness?

It might be true that we often be the one that others want us to be, which it limits many things that we want to do. It might be true that “the raw material that makes up our experience is determined by outside influences” can affect the way we think as many things as impossibilities. Aren’t this lecture is one of the idea that is telling me how to be free and gain more freedom in my lives? This is so ironic while I trigger my thoughts along the way.

How can I make myself “anew at each moment” and how can I be free if I listen to what Banach said, “Be authentic”? I thought we are suppose to be “ourselves” and create our “own nature and values”. Banach’s lecture might sound unique and profound, but by taking a side and making a statement, it creates an alternative. Such as reading Banach’s lecture, by following it, I feel like I am making myself as the image that “other people have” of me. By doing so, I make myself “into characters in the plays” in my mental screen TV “determined by the script written by the expectation” of Banach.

Having absolute freedom requires following what Banach said in his lecture. This means if you are not truly want to be the one that he has described,"the secret of human flourishing and of moral action lies in avoiding bad faith and honoring the responsibility we have to create our own nature and values", but still want or think you have absolute freedom, you are not "being authentic"(or do you still consider yourself real for being someone you don't want to be?). The moment we are born we are being tie to many things, just like we have a fight with ourselves. We win, but we lose. What is the point of this fight?

Banach’s lecture is definitely one of the great lectures I ever read by now with numerous suggestions of pursuing human happiness. But is it necessary to have “absolute freedom” to have a great life? I truly doubt about this question. It may seem we can do more, but I felt we did less. The way I identify absolute freedom is a person who does what he/she wants without being told by anybody and they just follow their hearts.

Instead of struggling for freedom or trying so hard to control our mind to be mentally free, I rather just be myself and accept the fact that I will never be free until I die. You can say that I am having “bad faith”, but by accepting the reality is like I just cut off one of the string that is attached on some part of my body. I am more free.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>>It is just hard to keep our state of mind to be free all the time. Just like you are in the jail, staring outside the window. Stars hanging out there or gates in prison? Keep in mind, there are days in this world. What will be the replacements of the beatufil sky with stars?

*OF COURSE HAVING A GREAT OPEN MIND WILL MAKE US HAPPIER, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T THINK WE ARE BEING HONEST TO OURSELVES--AVOIDNG REALITY.*

So the question now is not about freedom, but being authentic or not (to be or not to be, that's the question)...

HW 2 - Blog Comments 1

Esther :),

From reading your post, somehow you created the mood of loneliness. (It really drags me in) I can sort of relate to your personal story about how your foot fell asleep, I guess most people do have the similar experience as you do. Sometimes not necessary that our foot fell asleep, perhaps you have a stomached or sort of pain that is invisible, I find it hard to make somebody to believe that I actually feel pain. I think people might have experienced what we all have experienced, but it is just hard to make someone to actually feel the exact way as you feel. I guess… to make people feel how you exactly feel, it has to do with trust rather than sympathy. (I don’t know how I come up with this, hopefully making sense)

Sometimes I wonder, it is our own fault that we did not explain ourselves clear enough, or is it the other person who finds it hard to understand.

When you say “I sometimes wished that I could be alone. But David already claims that I’m already alone in the world”. I wonder how you define alone in this case. Do you mean spiritual alone or really isolated from everybody in the school?

I have to agree with what you said at the end. It is kind of difficult to just put this all at once… Perhaps, this connects to what Andy has said in class that people often don’t think. But I guess, it is just hard to put all the thoughts together...and thinking required a lot of that. (Figure things out, and lead to another thought)

Definitely OVERWHELMING...

By the way, thanks for bringing up the personal story about the foot fell asleep. It is a very resonant point.

Bao Lin

××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××××

May :),

I like the way that you connected this to your personal experience from many trips that you have taken. Somewhat, I can connect to your experience because I am Chinese. Yes, there are the poor and rich, regardless of the culture; we are all the same at some point. People all went through their hard times and everybody have their own afflictions at some point in lives. However, I am not very sure which part of David Banach’s speech has made you see how close we really are from China. (Perhaps a quote and tie back to your point?) I am assuming you are relating to the idea of we are all individuals in this world. If that is the case, then we are all close to each other because we are individuals, but very far away because every individual have their own thoughts.

Yes, if this is the case that I mentioned above. I do agree that there are no such boundaries on the map. We are just all individuals in the world. At the same time, it raise up the point that this contradicts with each other. We are the same and different, because we are all individuals in this world. What makes us different is that we all have different ideas. What makes us the same is that we all have our own difficulties, but different kinds. I guess this is what you mean by saying “Maybe we all just think there is a China and don’t really know that there isn’t one.” Nevertheless, I find this point very contradicted depending on perspectives.

I also like Banach’s metaphor about TV screens and how we see others and ourselves. In my opinion, I think a lot of these have to with the way people perceive things. We can see ourselves as getting trap, but we might also see that we are free. This very depends on the situation and our perspective.

I will like to answer to the question that you asked in the end of your post. Is it possible that everyone around you sees you differently than the person next to you? For this question, in terms of everybody’s appearance, yes! I think people do look at you differently compare to the person next to you, because we barely know everybody. Therefore we judge before we get to know the person. But in certain points, when people shared the thoughts and ideas about certain things, then people will see you as the same, more like a group that believes the same thing.

Your post is very interesting with some crucial points that deepen my thinking. Thanks.

Bao Lin

HW 1 - Response to "The Ethics of Absolute Freedom"

While reading "The Ethics of Absolute Freedom" by David Banach, it feels like I am in a big plastic see through ball. Not really being able to reach out, just individual self. Trying to speak, but a voice from myself reply. Trying to see, but only with my own vision and point of view. Trying to feel, but my heart is either selfish or too small to fit another. This sounds very lonely and isolated, but simultaneously, I have "absolute freedom". If we are "absolute individuals' in this world, then whatever I do will only mean to ourselves. Regardless of what I will do, anything will have no effects to the others. It sounds I am very "free".

In certain way, I do agree with what David Banach said in his lecture that "only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside." In my opinion, I believe that we all know ourselves better than anybody. It is impossible to be a shadow of someone else other than yourself. When we feel pain, our self is really the one who know how that actually feels. Somehow it makes senses, because if other really know how you feel, they wouldn't hurt you so badly. Everybody came to the world as individuals with their own life experiences and perceptions. In many ways, it is difficult to put ourselves in some body's shoes. Even we are not individuals, as human nature, we all tempt to be the greedy and self center. We often think for ourselves and try to make everything that benefits ourselves before satisfying others. It is just hard, to be selfless!

As mentioned before, if we are consider ourselves individuals, it seems like we will have more freedoms. We felt like we have less, because we always have to care about how other feels. It is sort of like connections between each other, whatever we do or act, it will have some effects to the others. But if we imagine ourselves as an independent individuals, we might have less boundaries in our lives and dare to do more things regardless whether it is right or wrong. By saying that, it doesn't mean having lots of freedom is happiness. This might sound weird, but it makes sense to me. Sometimes having so many freedom will cause a person to have no limits in life which means no standards. If we do not have boundaries in our lives, I will consider that as a meaningless life. I believe that everybody should have their own personality and standards in life that we should have our own life styles. We should pay more attention to the things that we like and pay less to the ones that are not. This is what makes life meaningful, having boundaries. Additionally, this shows "each of us is trapped within our own mind". It is all because we have boundaries in life with our own styles.

To get even further, if what David Banach said is right that we are all alone in this world. I don' t think it is very that lonely. From last year in Andy's class, we talk about different types of therapies. The one that I studied is called "Existential Psychology". Many therapist used this when people find no meanings in life or afraid to proceed. In order to keep the patient motivated, we should lead them to think that we are all individuals in this world. Then we should start to think that we have to be responsible for own lives. This often helps people to make decisions, because no matter it is right or wrong, as long as we are willing to take responsibilities in our lives, no matter what will happen to us, we will be able to handle the situation. The overall idea this draws, it is that we have much more freedom in lives. As long as we take the first step to make a decision and completely committed to ourselves that we will take responsibilities, then nothing should be limited and therefore, we have the "absolute freedom" in life.