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...