Wednesday, December 4, 2013

This is the End...

We have come to the end of an amazing semester and I really do not know where the time went. It felt like just last week I entered this class for the first, and it felt like just yesterday that my group and I gave our presentation on Kierkegaard.

I have to say, this was one of the best classes I have ever taken in my life. This class turned out to be everything I hoped it to be. My first glimpse on existentialism was in the last two weeks of high school, and it was great to end my college education with this subject again. It has completely changed the way I view life. I went from thinking life just flat out sucks to looking at the true potential of life.
I feel reassured that everything that I feel about life is something that others feel the same about. Life is hard, often cruel, unpredictable, yet… amazing!

To read what the famous Philosophers’ have said was definitely challenging for me as the semester progressed, but I left every single class feeling awakened! This was literally the only class I looked forward to each week, and that says a lot for me as I am really burnt out on school. But the complexity of the concept, the language, and the classroom teaching style made this not just a subject, but an experience. I am grateful to have had this milestone in my life.

Now to reflect on this week’s class. I really enjoyed how the groups had video clips as a part of their presentation. I am a very visual person and this helps a lot. So props to you guys!

Bad faith:

As I was reading this section I was having some difficulty truly understanding, in plain text, what it really was. After class it made sense; Bad faith is recognizing that the intentions of a situation and choosing to put on a mask and be something your not. You see what it is for what it is, and although against it or not in favor of it, still continue to carry through with it and endure it with a smile on your face (so-to-speak).
I have been in Bad Faith way more times in life than I can possibly imagine. To be honest, it made me feel like a really weak person, almost ashamed in myself. I felt categorized and identified as an individual who is almost always in bad faith. I left that class feeling pretty bad about myself. But that’s a good thing. I am going to try to live in good faith more often, because I understand that no person can never be in bad faith. However I shall work towards that.

Its finding that balance between transcendence and facticity that makes bad faith possible. If one is over emphasized over the other bad faith occurs. For instance, if I say “I am going to be a millionaire in a year!” I would say I am in bad faith (unless I win the lottery of course). In reality there is a super slim possibility of that becoming true. But if I believe it can happen with all of my passion, I am in bad faith. I am ignoring the facticity of the whole situation.

Being for Others:

What I have to understand is that I, myself, is out in the world. The way other people perceive and act towards me, is a part of who I am as an individual. When I really get to thinking about it, its true. I sat there initially in class saying “No, I am who I am not” what someone else thinks of me does not make me who I am. But then I got to thinking. Actually, what people think of me, in one way or another changes the way I behave outwardly. We are responsible for the way we act outwardly and have to accept that we will be judged based on our actions. This will ultimately become a part of who we are.

“How responsible are we for our identity?”

My response: We are only as responsible for our identity as long as we have control over it. Because sometimes there is no way that I can change the way a person perceives me, for all I know they could perceive me badly just because I look a certain way, they were in a certain mood when they saw me and didn’t like me or something. I am only responsible for the actions that I take to influence a person’s perception of me. I just have to be the best person I can possibly be.

“Can one derive a sense of self without other people?”

My response: I would say yes, but only under the assumption that I have been in a society prior to being without other people. But if I have never know other people and I was just put on earth by myself and never once say a human being (In an extreme instance) I do not think I would have a sense of self seeing as I form myself based on others.

“Hell is other people.”

Yes!!! Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes!!! I completely agree. If we think it is life that is absurd, other people make life way harder. We live day to day (without being completely conscious of it) trying to give a positive image of ourselves to others (whether we know them or not). It is other people who can bring you down, make you feel stressed out, make you angry, and so on. It is ultimately what other people think of you at the end of the day that makes us reflect on ourselves.


But, for those people who are there for us in the hardest times of life, the ones who pick us up, encourage us, keep us company, is that really hell? That’s where I draw the line on that and begin to contemplate the true meaning “Hell is other people”. 

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

The Great Jean-Paul Sartre!

As I read through the example essays, provided to us by Thad, I could not help but notice that each and every one of them utilized something that Jean-Paul Sartre had said. I was unable to read the material prior to class on Monday, so I learned as I went along, and read during class. But while I was in class I began to understand why all of those sample essays reflected Sartre’s works. First reason being for the fact that it was probably the last thing in class that the students covered. But, I believe the real reason is because he literally defines existentialism. It says in the preview “It is Sartre who is mainly responsible for both the formulation and the popularization of existentialism.” But what has me confused about that is that I thought Kierkegaard was the Father of Existentialism. Anyways! I find that the way Sartre explains things it is much straighter forward, and seems much more spot on.

“Man simply is. Not that he is simply what he conceives himself to be, but he is what he wills, and as he conceives himself after already existing---as he wills to be after that leap towards existence.  Man is nothing else but that which he makes of himself.”

Sartre makes this clear that this is the first principle of existentialism. It makes perfect sense! We exist because we will ourselves to live. If we chose not to live then we would take the easy road out and just kill ourselves. (That’s what I feel people with no will or drive to live would do—suicide). We cannot be something were not, for we are just what we are and nothing more. (((Oooooooo I feel like a philosopher)))  We are all unique and we have different things that motivate us to live each day and we all have different aspirations for what we plan to achieve down the road.

This is where responsibility comes into play. What I found interesting with this is what Sartre said about for all of mankind.

“What we choose is always for the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is for the better for all.”

This is something I really didn’t agree with, as I side with Dostoevsky here. I feel that there will come a time where people, regardless of how harmful it could be to themselves or to others, will pursue their most advantageous advantage no matter what. This is because they have the choice to do so. Our own free unfettered choice to do whatever it is that we desire. I do not feel that a person will always choose something that will always benefit mankind.

But to Sartre this is what gives us responsibility for our actions. That we are to do what is best for us because we represent it for all.

His example:

“If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes man , that man’s kingdom is not upon earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or is, to take a more personal case, I decided to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. Lam thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.”

I think that if Sartre were to come back to this world now and see just how things are I think that this would change. My counter example would be that I could be a Christian and join a communist trade union and still hold my faith, and I would advocate my stance should the opportunity arise. I would not care if mankind was against this. I know lots of father who have small families and are not there for them although they know it is wrong of them to do so and that they should be holding that responsibility. But it doesn't happen.

I do believe that we are all responsible for the actions that we carry out in our lives, and we are the ones who have to live with the effects of those actions. They may not be for the benefit of mankind but they are something that each individual will have to live with. 

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Death

For me I thought Heidegger was the toughest piece to read thus far. In class I learned the this was just a part of the way that Heidegger spoke. Of course there is always that translation flaw that comes when you turn German to English, but this piece was still different. Heidegger created his own little language, or twist on language, in order to avoid clear distinction. He refused to make distinction. What I also found interesting is that he really didn’t care about the external world. This is because he wanted a total view. It was interesting to me that he say the Nazi movement as something to be admired, although he did not support genocide, it was the way that the Nazis expressed their view of a perfect world. Correct me if I’m wrong, but that is the take I got from his background information.

Now its deep though time!

When we die… Is it peaceful? Will it hurt? Will there be another life on the other side? Will we end up in a heavenly paradise and look over the world in which we came? No one really knows, nor will we ever know.

For Heidegger, being in the world comes to an end in death, as reference to Da-sein.  Da-sein is life, the actual state of being in life. For the authentic Da-sein this is denied, because death is not something a Da-sein can experience.

“Death does not reveal itself as a loss, but as a loss experienced by those remaining behind.” (pg. 140)

Heidegger even goes further to saying just how death can be formulated. And it is in these three things:
  1. 1.       As long as Da-sein is, not-yet belongs to it, which it will be--- what is constantly outstanding.
  2. 2.       The coming-to-its-end of what is not-yet-at-an-end (in which what is outstanding is liquidated with regard to its being) has the character of no-longer-being-there.
  3. 3.       Coming-to-an-end implies a mode of being in which the actual Da-sein absolutely cannot be represented by someone else. (pg. 141).


For death is something familiar to us. In this world it occurs at every given moment. People die and others are born and that’s just the way things are.

The first group asked us to write down a question and reflect towards it. (if I can remember it properly)

“How would you feel if death were to come at this very moment?”

My response was along these lines:

If death were to come at this very moment I would welcome it with open arms, not for the fact that I no longer want to be a part of this world, but for the fact that if it was really going to happen, it is clearly inevitable. I cannot escape death, as there will be a day where I will have to face it and either accept it or not accept it. The point is, regardless if you accept it or not, your going to die if it is really is happening. Although there are a million things that I would still like to do in my life, and that I am still young, I have no grudge against death itself. For death is something meaningful. Because if you think about it, we only have meaning in life because of the short time that we have in this physical being. If we were to live for eternity, I would lose purpose in life I think. So why resist something that we all know if going to happen, just accept it and in that moment appreciate the life that you had before.

Now! When the second group asked their big question, I was not quite ready for that one…

For Heidegger the most fundamental of all questions is “Why are there essents, why is there anything at all, rather than nothing?”

But “What is my biggest question?”

It is: “Will I ever have to courage to be the person that I truly want to be?”

After the day is set and done and after I have thought over my day and everything going on in my life, it is this question that presents itself to me more often than I care to give it credit for.

There is this ideal person that I truly want to be, but for some reason, I just cannot come to terms with it. It is as if I am too scared to take that leap forward and become the person that I should and want to be. I am almost certain that this question will continue to haunt me for quite sometimes, and maybe, just maybe, I will get the benefit of having it answered one day. 

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

What If?

As I laid in bed Monday night, I found myself reconsidering about how I live my life.

For hours before, I learned the truth behind why one of the classmates, in which I look up to in this class, hasn't been around for two weeks. It occurred to me that I could have never seen this person again. For not knowing them, and for having no real emotional connection, it is absurd to me to think that this person could have been wiped out of my life forever. What’s worse is I would have never been able to say goodbye or thank you for all that they have done for me although they did not intend to. In that moment, I found myself being grateful, and I was struck with awe and wonder. For at that moment, I did not know what to think, what to feel, I was completely lost in the moment. I wanted to cry, but it was restrained by gratitude and happiness. For I am someone who truly believes, that every person in your life is of value to you in one way or another.

Reflecting on this, I got to thinking:

What if I would die tomorrow?

What would people remember me by?

How long will they miss me for?

Will I have made a difference in the world?

As Miguel de Unamuno said: “Act so that in your own judgment and in the judgment of others you may deserve eternity, act so that you may be irreplaceable, act so that you do not deserve death.”

WOW!!

“Act as if you were to die tomorrow, but only in order to survive and become eternal.” (pg. 159).

WOOOOOOWWWWWW!

I got to thinking about my family… What it would mean to them if I was gone?

My friends… would they cry and remorse? What would they remember me by?

My pets… What would happen to them?

My legacy… what would it look like?

I am just a typical person who works as a security guard to make it through college. I am aiming for a career that I am uncertain that they will need me in any time soon. I have an internship that I am not completely fond of, but I have to do. I work hard in school, and stress each day to get through it (I am so tired of school). I go to the gym, run, play with my dogs, and care for my birds. I play xbox whenever I get a free chance. My life is in no way perfect, and is filled with struggle, but it is life all the same.

It hit me!

If I were to die tomorrow, everything that I see as a complete struggle and miserable in fact is not as bad as It could be. I could not have my life. I can do what I want with my life, “act so that I deserve eternity.” If I were to die tomorrow, I would be disappointed with myself right now, as I would have not accomplished or left the impact that I wanted to by this point.

Monday night was a life changing moment for me.


It was extremely ironic once again about the topics that we covered in class. It almost seems as if this class is running in a parallel dimension in my life right now, like it’s a stalker in the shadows. Dostoevsky hit the nail on the head last week, and this week Unamuno did it for me. I am glad to see that I am not only one who found Kierkegaard’s philosophy philosophically heroic. I now have three favorite philosophers: Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, and Unamuno.  

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

My Life, My Choice!

According to Feodor Dostoevsky, “something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages must really exist, or there is one most advantageous advantage which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for which, if necessary, a man is ready to act in opposition to all laws, that is, in opposition to reason, honor, peace, prosperity--- in short, in opposition to all those wonderful and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all” (pgs. 40-41).

At this current moment in time, I am battling with my own “most advantageous advantage”. With only one semester left of college, I plan to leave home against my parents will (for they do not know it yet), and to pursue a road in my life which will not be easy but worth it. My whole family has had this set of morals for which I should live by since I can even remember! “Go to school, get a career with good benefits, do not do drugs, do not drink alcohol, do not watch TV and do homework at the same time…” the list goes on and on. I agree as to why they have done this for me, and I am completely grateful for their guidance. After all I am about to attain my degree and about to enter the big world; I can see the horizon out yonder, and I am almost there.

But! I will be choosing to leave the comfort of my home, leave all I have ever known behind, and start a life for myself. In fact I will be taking this journey with a person I have only met four months ago.

Does it sound absurd? Yes.

Is it absurd? Yes.

Is it worth it? Maybe not in the eyes of everyone else in this world, but to me Yes. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY WORTH IT.

What if just for once, just once, I wanted to do what I wanted with my life, and no one could take that from me? What if I have found something that I find worth the battle and the struggle? What if I already know what I am going to be expecting but I am still willing to go through with it?

I know that one day I WILL be as successful as I would have been if I had taken the easy road. My determination and will, will guide me to my goals and dreams. Out of my own free unfetter choice, I will choose to oppose all the reason and everyone’s opinion to fight for something that I could have achieved much easier. But that is the most amazing thing of life! That that is my choice!

“And in particular it may be more advantageous than any other advantages even when it does obvious harm, and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason about our advantage--- because in any case it preserves for us what is most precious and most important--- that is, our personality, our individuality” (pg. 45).

I am fascinated with the fact that my situation can go either the way I hope it to or it can go straight down the drain and turn out to be a catastrophe. I could become emotionally hurt, my family could turn their backs on me, and I could lose everything I have ever known for good should this all backfire on me. Should it turn out that way I will have learned a valuable lesson and I will continue on towards my goals, and I will do everything to prove everyone else that I did things wrong but I still achieved it all in the end. (Although I am pretty sure everything will be just fine).

My desire is overpowering this whole situation. “Desire can, of course, if it desires, be in agreement with reason; particularly if it does not abuse this practice but does so in moderation, it is both useful and sometimes even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often, desire completely and stubbornly opposes reason, and… and… and do you know that that, too, is useful and sometimes even praiseworthy?” (pgs. 45-46).

It was so ironic that we got to read Dostoevsky’s work at this current time in my life. In a sense, as I sat in class last night, I felt more empowered by my decisions. A sense of closure if you will. I am not the only one who would oppose everything telling me not to and to do it anyways. I am not alone, and this author has clearly seen this.

“I believe in that, I vouch for it, because, after all, the whole work of man seems really to consist in nothing but proving to himself continually that he is a man and not an organ stop” (pg. 47). 

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Master Vs. Slave Morality

Something I found interesting that that brought up was.

“Can one be a master… Be a ruler… Do ruler things…and have slaves… and have a “Slave morality”?
I would say No. For Nietzsche action is proof. In Nietzsche’s eyes if one is truly a master, and believe himself to be above others and to look down on slaves in despise then they cannot have slave morality. For they are the noble men, the ones who have their own free will, those who are not made for pity, and are the heroes.

But then he contradicts this with saying:
“I add immediately that in all the higher and more mixed cultures there also appear attempts at mediation between these two moralities, and yet more often the interpenetration and mutual misunderstanding of both and at times the occur directly alongside each other---even in the same human being, within a single soul” (pg. 76).  

The way Nietzsche makes it appear as if no way could someone who is a slave, ruler, someone who owns slaves and does the things of a true ruler have the morality of that in which he rises above. But then he goes to say, “Oh but by the way guys these two moralities can exist in one person, the same soul.
I also found it interesting to learn the differences between “good” and “bad versus “good” and “evil”.
For in the master morality “good” is considered to be “noble” or the desired outcome, and “bad” is considered to be shameful, even disgraceful.   According to slave morality, those who embrace the idea of “evil” thus inspire fear. They allow others to determine how things will be for them out of fear of rising up and taking control of their own life and their own morals. They show pity, patience, humility, and friendliness. They do not have free will, and they fear to seek out what they could be for themselves. “Wherever slave morality becomes preponderant, language tends to bring the words “good and “stupid” close together” (pg 78). This is because even they cannot see that they are being suppressed, that they do not have free will. They are blind. Such a morality is not honored by those of the master morality.

“Slave morality needs an opposite and external world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to be able to act at all, --- its action is, from the ground up, reaction” (pg 82.)

“The reverse is the case with the noble manner of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say “yes” to itself still more gratefully and more jubilantly---its negative concept “low” “common” “bad” is only an after-birth, a pale contrast image in relation to its positive basic concept” (pg 87).

What this tells me is the only time that a person who holds true to master morality will only seek out opposition in order to prove they are right and above the one who they feel is wrong. Whereas with the person who holds slave morality close they seek out opposition as a source to base their own interpretations off of. A slave morality individual will look outward for interpretations, looking for reason to justify their claims and the way they feel.  A master morality character will already have their minds set and they will merely only be trying to convince other of their interpretations because for them, they are right and everyone else is wrong.

“If you had to repeat every action forevermore, what would you change?”


If I felt that everything I did now would continue to happen to me forevermore, I would not change anything. If I change one thing, it will affect another. I can make good, or I could make bad choices. If I make choices that will lead me in the right direction, there will always be a tempting choice later on to lead me in the wrong direction. It is a never ending battle, and I would just choose to not do anything differently. One way or another, nothing lasts forever, and if it repeated forevermore then so be it. 

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Reason and Will

Finally!!! A class where I felt that I learned something. Sometimes I feel like as if I just go into class and just listen to people debate how they interpreted the stories and the material but rarely do I ever get the “that’s exactly what the author was going for” sort of thing. I really didn't learn anything from the first group, but the second group! Wow! Great job guys! I honestly found Nietzsche’s works to be rather confusing to me and I am glad I was given the information I needed to clarify the way I interpreted it.

From the discussion of how Nietzsche and Socrates differed I think it had to do with Socrates believed in reason and rationality completely whereas Nietzsche believed that will to power was the essence of life itself.  You need will to survive in Nietzsche’s eyes, but you need reason to survive in the eyes of Socrates. I also think that that is a reason on its own that Nietzsche did not completely agree with Socrates because when Socrates died he surrendered his will for the sake of reason. He choose to not escape from his death or plea for forgiveness all so he did not look like he was going back on everything he ever said. He felt as if everything he said was completely true and he gave his will up to prove a point to the people. And for Nietzsche a person who gives up their will is practically dead anyways.
I believe this also goes against Nietzsche’s views on truth because he philosophizes that there is a realm of truth and being but reason is excluded from it.

“Let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”: these always demand that we should think in an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing, our “objectivity,” be.”

This is yet another thing that I could see the two philosophers viewing differently on. Nietzsche is proposing that truth comes with only the perspective eye. The more view and perspectives we have about a certain thing then the more truth that we will gain about the thing. But reason would argue that there is only one way of seeing something. It either is or it isn’t. There is no other way of looking at the objective truths. But for Nietzsche the more you know about it the more true it can become (in my opinion).

In conclusion I would like to share what I felt about the quote that group two brought up at the very end of class and asked us to reflect on.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

Other than it meaning clearly what it says, that everyone has a different way of doing things and there is no right way to do something, I believe that this has something to do with the whole finding truth through different perspectives. In a sense I think it is telling the readers who are reading about Nietzsche’s philosophy that what he is saying is merely only a perspective in our quests to find our inner truth. That his way is only one way. We can either take what he says to heart or believe it to be true or merely use it for our overall knowledge. There is no right way to viewing, interpreting, and carrying on about our lives. As one day we will find our own truth through our own will perspectives and with our own will to lead us the way. 

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Truth

I just want to take a moment to thank my group for these last few weeks. I know we had a rough time wrestling with this content and we lost two group members in the process, but man it feels good to have our presentation over with. It definitely did not help with the wordiness of the text. I swear I will probably have dreams about some of this stuff in the future from reading it so much. That was the hardest seven pages of reading in my life hands down. Overall I am extremely happy with the way our presentation turned out. Hopefully the rest of the class felt the same way about our presentation.

After dissecting Kierkegaard’s material I see things a little differently. Especially with the way I feel about things. It actually helped me to clarify some of my religious feelings. In a sense I can relate to Kierkegaard seeing as he too was born into a religious family, but he believed in science and objective facts. But at one point he became re awakened and up took his religious faith once again. In a sense that’s where I stand with my religious view. I have many doubts in my religion and I do not really want to be a part of it until I accept the objective uncertainty and take faith in God fully and passionately. It may not be at the age of 25 for me, but perhaps one day it will happen for me. I do not want to go into the House of God and pray if I do not completely believe. I want to go for me, not for everyone who thinks I should be involved in church.

In highlight I decided to share a few quote that I felt kind of wrap up what Kierkegaard was trying to emphasize in this section.

“Inwardness in an existing subject is at its highest in passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a paradox is grounded precisely in its relation to an existing subject. Thus the one corresponds to the other. By forgetting that one is an existing subject, passion is lost, and in truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing subject becomes something fantastic rather than an existing human being, and truth becomes a fantastic object for its knowing.”

This all comes back to finding meaning to our life and finding truth within ourselves. Taking a step back and realizing that for us to exist and not just be an existing subject we have to be THE existing subject. It is our choice how we choose to carry on and feel about life. Seeing as Kierkegaard took strong emphasis in the individual this is important for us to know.

 “Objectivity emphasizes: what is said; subjectivity: how it is said.” 

This distinction is important as most of his existential work revolves around this philosophy.
As Kierkegaard explains, there are some things that are rooted in subjectivity and others in objectivity. In subjectivity, the concepts of immortality and religion are directly rooted here. According to Kierkegaard they serve no purpose in the realm of objectivity as they are something that cannot be proved. He makes it distinct that those who chose to seek out the truth in the uncertain being in fact truth get further away from the truth. He uses God and Immortality as his examples seeing as they are both something that cannot be achieved through hard core proof.

I also found it interesting the differences that occur in the absurdity aspect with Kierkegaard versus Camus. Whereas Camus said that the absurdity occurs with the individual struggling against the world, Kierkegaard indicates that the absurdity takes place within the existing being, which the struggle the individual has internally. In a sense I side with both of them, as I believe that it is important to understand that absurdity can take place you against the world and I think that an internal absurdity does in fact occur. I mean, I have internal debates within my mind and the way I feel, but of course absurd things occur in the actual world. So I choose to take a stance in the middle of both philosophers as I find both of their contribution equally important. 

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

To Believe or Not to Believe?

Just quickly I wanted to share this thought in class but I never got the chance to about the picture of the “Just Judges.” I figured the reason he hid the real copy in his cabinet that this means that even if the people judged the fake picture it would not mean anything to him because they were judging something fake. Now if the people were judging the real copy of the picture then it would mean something as if they were really judging Jean himself. I do not really agree with the whole authenticity and exclusivity thing that someone else had said. I do not think it had anything to do with him having the almighty authentic copy in his hands to do as he wanted with it, but he just did not want the wrong people to judge the real copy.

Now switching over to Kierkegaard!
“Suppose, however, that subjectivity is truth, and that subjectivity is the existing subjectivity, then, to put it this way, Christianity is paradox, paradox and passion fit one another exactly, and paradox exactly fits one whose situation is in the extremity of existence” (pg27).

We as humans cannot prove that God exists….We can merely only believe. If one is to be a Christian there needs to be a relationship with God himself. We cannot just try to grasp his existence but embrace it.
Being raised in a family that is predominantly Christian, I too have accepted the objective facts of my religion. Having gone to church every Sunday when I was very little, and pretty much up until I was 17, Christianity is all I have really known. But for some reason, to me, it just does not fit with me. I do not have the passion for it that my family has. I do believe that there is an all mighty entity out there that is watching over us, and I do believe in a heaven. I believe that if I do good things, and live by a good way, I will one day have the benefit of walking through the gates of heaven into an afterlife that no one can prove exists.
There are so many contradictory things that go against religion. Science and supernatural instances, like ghosts for instance. Evolution and science sway my feelings towards my religion. However I feel as if I do have faith, but maybe faith in the wrong thing.
“Faith is the objective uncertainty along with the repulsion of the absurd seized in the passion of inwardness, which is just inwardness potentiated to the highest degree”. (pg27). Only the true believer can have faith. So for this I am lost and a non believer :/

One of the most interesting quotes I read was, “It is easier to become a Christian when I am not a Christian than to become a Christian when I am one…”

That is truly absurd! I have a hard time wrapping my mind around what that could mean. Is it really easier for someone who knows nothing of Christianity to accept it before I can accept it myself? Is it because I have doubt of religion itself due to the objective facts that science has laid out on the table?

For those who were never seriously religious who have had a near to death experience was and meet this “God”, that they never really took for existed or fully believed in, they started to after the incident. For now they had the passion that is required for faith.

“What it is to be a Christian is not determined by the what of Christianity but by the how of the Christian.” ----if someone could clarify this for me a little further I would be appreciative of it.

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Little Prince Chapter 1

Now for a happy twist! I was able to get my all time favorite book in yesterday! I want to share this with all of you who have not read or ever heard of this book. It is titled The Little Prince by Antoine De Saint-ExupĂ©ry. Each blog I will post a section of this book as I find it is completely relevant to this class and finding meaning to life. 





Finding True Meaning

I found this class, and its readings, to be particularly influential to me. The purpose of me taking this class to begin with was because of the content of this one class; to discuss finding meaning to life.  

One of the most interesting things I read:


“Likewise and during every day of an unillustrious life, time carries us. But a moment always comes when we have to carry it, we live on the future: “tomorrow”, “later on”, “when you have made your way”, “you will understand you are old enough.” Such irrelevances are wonderful, for, after all, it’s a matter of dieing. Yet a day comes when a man notices or says that he is thirty. Thus he asserts his youth. But simultaneously he situates himself in relation to time. He takes his place in it. He admits that he stands at a certain point on a curve that he acknowledges having to travel to its end. He belongs to time, and by the honor that seizes him, he recognizes his worst enemy. Tomorrow, he was longing for tomorrow, whereas everything in him ought to reject it. That revolt of the flesh is the absurd.” (pg. 192)

There will come a day where I will look back on my life and find that the meaning that I aspired to achieve by that given moment in my life will more than likely not be achieved. Everyday things happen that hinder my goals and dreams, temporarily offset my aspirations. Some of these things I have no control over, and some I do. I have to look inward upon myself and pull from why is it that I continue to live as I do knowing that one day everything I have ever accomplished will mean nothing to anyone. Knowing that one day I will cease to exist and time will erase my existence. That in itself is truly absurd in my eyes. I cannot change it, nor can I get back the days of my life that have passed.
This is why I find that passage so influential. One day I will realize that I was living for tomorrow when in reality I should be living in the today, not merely trying to pass time, but to enjoy the time that I have. I must live in the moment and treasure what I have now because for all I know tomorrow I could cease to exist.

When faced with the subject of suicide, I found it rather interesting to hear everyone’s’ thinking behind it. Some were saying how people can recover from those emotions, and that they found a new meaning to life. Whereas some students pointed out that those same people could have merely put their emotions aside and continued to live on as if life truly had no meaning. I believe that those who have taken their lives literally found that they had NOTHING left to live for. They no longer found meaning to life… I honestly believe that this sense of “recovery” does not quite exist. Once a person gets to this point in their life where they find they have nothing left to live for and cannot find that meaning from within, they are already in a sense dead. I think almost 90 percent of people who consider suicide snap out of it rather quickly and find a new meaning to life, that it was never a serious deal to them. They were merely lost in their own thoughts, and felt alone and out of place in an indifferent world. But to the other 10 percent who literally contemplated for a great deal of time trying to find their meaning to life, that those people are never going to quite recover from those emotions. In one way or another that dark place will always be in the back of their mind.

Often times I have wondered why it is that we have to live in such a cruel world of struggle and perseverance. Life never seems to be easy, and even when it does it is so cruelly short lived. I was not blessed with the happiest life and everything I could ever want out of it. I have had to work my way up, experience life’s cruelties all on my own, and move forward from it. I admire those who have had it harder than me; those who have lost everything and know what it is to have to world turns its back on you. I admire those people who learned to keep fighting and moving through life feeling completely alone. I question how some people can throw their lives away by jumping off a building, overdosing on some kind of drug, or shooting themselves fatally. How is it that those who continue to live were able to continue living feeling as if they had nothing left, while others just give up and stop trying to live? That is truly something absurd. Where do we draw the line between life and death?

I still have so many questions, and hopefully through further reflection I will find some answers to these concepts.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

The Stranger

After a heated debate from Monday night’s class I think I have a better understanding of The Stranger. I found it rather interesting to see other people interpret the story differently than I. Though I may not have agreed with what other people’s interpretations of the story were, or their justification behind it, it was admirable to see people take sides and defend what they interpreted. It allowed for the class to be much more enjoyable, and for me to think into my own interpretations further and question myself internally. As a matter of fact, I even swayed with some of my understandings because of other students bringing up examples of why they sided the way they did. So thank you to the class for teaching me some new things!


I can remember reading excerpts from this book back in high school in my AP English class. I never really thought much of it; much less even understand its meaning. I do admit however, that something about the excerpts did perplex me, and had me thinking about things in a different light (Not like life instances).I was however confused as to what it really meant and what I was supposed to get from it. Half of what I read in that class did that to me. It was the excerpt of the shooting of the Arab that had me thinking the most. After re-reading the entire story again it finally allowed me to tie up some loose ends. You see, when I read the excerpt I thought that it was just an instance of cold blooded murder with remorse. After reading the entire story, I see the situation from a different light. Honestly, I feel as if sun and heat is symbolic for adrenaline. I heard throughout discussion that it could be metaphoric way to describe him feeling anger, but I honestly think it was merely adrenaline. He lived in the moment, and adrenaline only exists in present time instances. You cannot feel adrenaline for no given reason. Anger you can feel for many reasons, but he had no motives behind the killing. Merely him being agitated by the sun and the heat were what drove him to the murder. I honestly think you cannot assume that he was in fact angry because he never did explicitly state that he was anywhere in the book.


 I also found interest in one student who clarified, that in French, the book was really meant to say the foreigner. I should have done more research into the book itself; but after hearing that it completely changed my view towards the book. At first I figured the “stranger” in the book was an internal thing. I figured Meursault was a stranger from himself; that he could not come to terms with his own rational thinking and feelings. As I read further, I was wrong. He knew exactly what he wanted to feel, and what he wanted out of life. He was completely fine with the way he was going through life. He knew himself, and he merely accepted it for who he was. When you take the translation as “the foreigner” you see that it is he who is separated from the society. A foreigner is known as someone that is unlike the rest of the population who surrounds them. They have different expectations, views on life, and justifications for what they do. It makes complete sense that Meursault is the foreigner because he separated himself from the typical thought processes of those around him.

I look forward to learning more about some of Camus’s writings. 

I have not read the stories to be covered in the next class, but it will be interesting to see if these stories are similar to The Stranger

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Why Existentialism?

I never thought I would see myself taking a class on this subject matter. I guess I will start with why it is I took interest in this class to begin with. The last two weeks, upon high school graduation, my AP English teacher began reading us a small book by the name of The Little Prince. For the duration of this course, I will be quoting and referring this text quite often. I will be going and purchasing this book within the next few days so I can share with you what it is that I learned from it. This was the first book that provided me insight to the subject of “Existentialism”. Every day, for a week and a half, my teacher would read one chapter to us at the very end of class. We did not know its title at the time, or what the purpose of the book was. We were not told “Hey guys we are going to be learning about existentialism for the next couple weeks”, it just happened that way. At the very end of the book we were told to write what it is we “felt” the book taught us. Little did I know that the book held a much greater meaning. I honestly felt a sense of enlightenment after realizing what it was we had just learned.

“For what reason, do we as people exist?”

“Why is it we feel the way we do about events that occur in our lives?”

“Is there some ultimate purpose to our lives?”

These were questions that we were asked to reflect on after hearing this story. To sit there, and contemplate the answers to these questions, is not an easy task. I began to sit there and wonder:

“Why are these questions even relevant?”

“What is this honestly going to teach me by reflecting now?”

“Does this matter?”

“Why?”

I had no idea a class like this even existed, and I had no idea that this was a part of physiology. When I found this class, when enrolling for upper division humanity credits, I was ecstatic to discover it. I wanted to know more about what this subject matter was truly about. With only three days to truly reflect on the subject matter, it was not enough for me. I wanted answers then, and I still have them now.

After reading the introduction to this book, I am still no closer to understanding its “science” then I was back then. I honestly know close to nothing about the great philosophers of our time. I overheard some people in class talking about theories of physiology from these great philosophers and I could not connect in any way. Being an Air Traffic major, we really do not see this side of the learning experience unless we pursue it on our own. It is not required for me to take this course, and it will mean nothing to me graduating if I do not take this. I simply want answers and a better understanding of what Existentialism is truly about. From what I have learned today, it is merely an attitude, a way we think and process our lives, our sole purpose for being.

Now I will share something of “blog worthy” review. While I was reading I found several excerpts that gained my particular attention. Now I am not sure if there was any intent behind this, or if these happen to be authors of existential writing. Again, I am in no way, shape, or form, any kind of physiology know-it-all. I do not even know many of the great philosophers’ names.

These are just two examples I chose to use for this discussion:

1.      “The philosopher is a conceptual sculpture. He uses his language to give a shape to his prejudices and values, to give his attitudes a life of their own, outside of him, for the grasps of others”(introduction, xii).
2.      “The existential attitude finds itself in syndromes, interpreting a feeling as a mark of identity, converting an insight about oneself into an interpretation of the world, resolving self doubt by exaggerating the self in everything. The existential attitude is first of all an attitude of self-consciousness. One feels herself separated from the world, from other people. In isolation, one feels threatened, insignificant, meaningless, and in response demands significance through a bloated view of self. One constitutes herself as a hero, as an offense, as a prophet or anti-Christ, as a revolutionary, as unique. As a result of this self-exaggeration, the world becomes – whether apparently or “really” is irrelevant—more threatening”(introduction, xiii).

What I find interesting about these two examples is that in one is referring to a man, and the other a woman. To me, it almost seems as if the man is the one who holds the true answers, “the conceptual sculpture”, focusing out on other rather than himself. The woman “feels” separated from the world, as “unique”, and is reflecting inward on herself. I still have no closer understanding as to what the intentions of this were, but it is food for thought for me.

So I guess I will turn this over for discussion, and perhaps debate!
What do you feel the intention of the excerpts could be holding? Is there pun intended? Perhaps there is a focus on the man versus the woman in existential explanation? What is it that you think?