I feel like Mersault is not really a stranger anymore. It feels as if we know him we've learned that he is withdrawn and he tends to look at things in a very nonchalant way that suits him. His attutide and outlook is something that I have become quite used to.
But now that he is in jail and able to reflect. His attitude is changing and its getting a bit weird. His change is slow and it is giving the reader a chance to see the new and imporved Mersault but still it is something that was slightly unexpected.
Call me cynical, but I really like Mersault. I love that he had the ability to be uncaring in so many different situations. I think that it makes him the most honest character in the book and its good to be able to depend on someone who will tell the truth. The reader can see that all the other characters are obviously clouded by emotion and thoughts and most likely let everything get in the way of honesty.
Mersault is the one person that the reader can count on to be himself no matter what and I really liked seeing things from his point of view.
I envy him a little to be honest. There are times when I wish that I could be unfeeling but at the same time totally honest. I think that I would love to be Mersault for a day and see how people would react to and honest person that was completely nonchalant and indifferent to those around him. I feel like sometimes I really need to pull a Mersault. To maybe be someone else for a moment. Would that mean that I'm fake? Is it even possible to not care?
What would happen then? It makes me curious.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Who Is This Guy
So far I'm getting the feeling that Meursault is very unfeeling and nonchalant about life. I feel like his attitude is okay. I don't mind, in fact I would actually prefer Meursault's view on life to the view that the detectives had in I Heart Huckabees. I think that being detached helps people to think more clearly on the things that are actually happening and not just life as a whole.
Meursault to me seems like he has a clear head and isn't letting emotions get in the way. But in a way being detached isn't such a good thing because he can not truly feel. This might be helping to deal with the death of his mother, the feeling of being detached might be his way of keeping a distance with life so that things never really touch him.
I think that it is a safety thing here and I can truly relate with his mood. I feel like in order to think straight sometimes we need a clear head, sometimes we need to not feel. Meursault has a gray look on life. Like everything is the same color and everything looks the same therefore everything evokes the same emotion from him, no matter what the situation.
When we did the stranger activity in the park it was interesting to see how people act. I never really pay attention to people in the street unless I'm walking with people but besides that no. I feel like I could be detached when I was observing people. It seemed that everyone was detached anyway into their own little bubble.
Meursault to me seems like he has a clear head and isn't letting emotions get in the way. But in a way being detached isn't such a good thing because he can not truly feel. This might be helping to deal with the death of his mother, the feeling of being detached might be his way of keeping a distance with life so that things never really touch him.
I think that it is a safety thing here and I can truly relate with his mood. I feel like in order to think straight sometimes we need a clear head, sometimes we need to not feel. Meursault has a gray look on life. Like everything is the same color and everything looks the same therefore everything evokes the same emotion from him, no matter what the situation.
When we did the stranger activity in the park it was interesting to see how people act. I never really pay attention to people in the street unless I'm walking with people but besides that no. I feel like I could be detached when I was observing people. It seemed that everyone was detached anyway into their own little bubble.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Huckabees Post
There are things that we do that make sense and there are things that don't make sense. I think that only you can determine what makes sense and what doesn't. In the movie there were things that made sense and things that didn't...i guess.
I think that in the end we do matter. I think depending on mood a belief like that may change. I feel that as we go deeper and deeper in to this topic I am becoming more and more nonchalant towards life and this idea of us mattering. And these assignments feel a bit redundant.
Bernard says "Everything is the same, even if it’s different.” which can be true depending on point of view. In my life I like to believe that what I do matters that who I meet and what I say matter. I want to feel like there is a point to life. I also feel that we can be easily manipulated.
Like Dawn, one minute she was the shining face of Huckabees and then one small 5 minute talk and she drastically revamped her life. Which was odd. Is that all it takes for us to completely change our lifestyle?
I feel that if you question life to much you become paranoid and you believe anything. I think that when it comes to life that it is best to just roll with the punches and that is exactly what all the people in the movie were not doing.
Bernard was looking too hard at his life to the point where he thought that something meaningless was meaningful. But that brought him to meet his other which ended up being great thing for him. Which brings me back to how somethings are meaningless and somethings are. But everything is connected.
At the end of the day everything does matter, the little things the big things and everything in between. I just think that there is no reason to go crazy about one thing in particular. Spread everything out in an even matter and let thing coincidences come and go as they please and see where they end up.
But of course that theory also poses the question of predetermination. Is all we do part of something that has already happened? And if the answer is yes then that poses the question of do we matter?
Then we end up back at square one. And I give up. Everything matters and don't think about it my philosophy.
I think that in the end we do matter. I think depending on mood a belief like that may change. I feel that as we go deeper and deeper in to this topic I am becoming more and more nonchalant towards life and this idea of us mattering. And these assignments feel a bit redundant.
Bernard says "Everything is the same, even if it’s different.” which can be true depending on point of view. In my life I like to believe that what I do matters that who I meet and what I say matter. I want to feel like there is a point to life. I also feel that we can be easily manipulated.
Like Dawn, one minute she was the shining face of Huckabees and then one small 5 minute talk and she drastically revamped her life. Which was odd. Is that all it takes for us to completely change our lifestyle?
I feel that if you question life to much you become paranoid and you believe anything. I think that when it comes to life that it is best to just roll with the punches and that is exactly what all the people in the movie were not doing.
Bernard was looking too hard at his life to the point where he thought that something meaningless was meaningful. But that brought him to meet his other which ended up being great thing for him. Which brings me back to how somethings are meaningless and somethings are. But everything is connected.
At the end of the day everything does matter, the little things the big things and everything in between. I just think that there is no reason to go crazy about one thing in particular. Spread everything out in an even matter and let thing coincidences come and go as they please and see where they end up.
But of course that theory also poses the question of predetermination. Is all we do part of something that has already happened? And if the answer is yes then that poses the question of do we matter?
Then we end up back at square one. And I give up. Everything matters and don't think about it my philosophy.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Post- 3 To Be or Not To Be
I don't think that there is such a thing as complete happiness. I think that happiness exists but for everyone to have it seems a little far fetched. I bet that that sounds a litte confusing so i'll explain. Something that makes me happy might not make someone else happy and vice versa. So therefor we would forever be stuck in a never ending circle of people being unhappy.
I do believe that achieveing happiness is possible. There is no doubt in my mind that becoming happy is not achievable. I think that being happy can be defined differently in 1,000,000 different ways. I think that these ideas that Bancah suggest can be a little narrow minded.
For example when he says that human happiness comes from within. I believe that that is possible but I don't think that that is the only thing that one should rely on to be happy. I don't think that there is anything wrong with achieveing happiness fromt things outside onself. If in the end you are happy (without endangering others) then that is all that matters.
I can not stress how tired I am of this question, "Are we free?" For the umteenth time, no. Freedom, can also be defined in many different ways. I don't want to be extreme. In a way we are free, we are not confined to cages and shuned from the outside world. But in Banach's POV we kind of are.
Human life follows a cycle, we are born, we go to school, we raise hell, more school, start a family, we die. More or less that is what will happen to most people. So from that point are we free? If we all do the same thing how does that make us free?
I do believe that achieveing happiness is possible. There is no doubt in my mind that becoming happy is not achievable. I think that being happy can be defined differently in 1,000,000 different ways. I think that these ideas that Bancah suggest can be a little narrow minded.
For example when he says that human happiness comes from within. I believe that that is possible but I don't think that that is the only thing that one should rely on to be happy. I don't think that there is anything wrong with achieveing happiness fromt things outside onself. If in the end you are happy (without endangering others) then that is all that matters.
I can not stress how tired I am of this question, "Are we free?" For the umteenth time, no. Freedom, can also be defined in many different ways. I don't want to be extreme. In a way we are free, we are not confined to cages and shuned from the outside world. But in Banach's POV we kind of are.
Human life follows a cycle, we are born, we go to school, we raise hell, more school, start a family, we die. More or less that is what will happen to most people. So from that point are we free? If we all do the same thing how does that make us free?
Comments 2
Steph F:
I like how you start off your post with a question because right from the start the reader is both thinking about what your paper is about and thinking about their own feelings.
I was a bit confused when you said that you didn't agree with Banach's point about how we are born and then we make our nature. Because when you state what you do believe in the ideas sounds the same to me.
I like how you talk about how we change our personalities depending on who we are with. I can agree with that but I don't think that we do it on purpose I think it is something that just happens.
I don't think that it means that we are fake I think it means that we know how to moderate ourselves. This idea can be connected to respect as well.
I agree heavily with your point about how many of his ideas can be topics for debate as well.
Oh yeah, I enjoyed this post. It really made me think about what I was reading and how it can connect and be used for greater discussion.
For Richard D:
This post is really interesting, the opening line is really great, "Living in this world there are so many unsolved answers." because it connects to what the lecture is about and it makes me think.
I like that you agree and then you explain why you agree. I think that for this point I also agree with what Banach is saying. That we are born and then we basically control what comes after that.
Do you think that makes all humans identical in a way? Because we all have on belief, do you think that makes us individuals or do we stand alone?
I agree when you say that we are not free. I think that there are many things that go against us being free. Banach tries desprately to prove that we are free but in fact we are not. But somehow it all connects to us being individuals who make our own nature.
This post was really interesting, it made me think of things that I had not realized when I was reading the lecture.
I like how you start off your post with a question because right from the start the reader is both thinking about what your paper is about and thinking about their own feelings.
I was a bit confused when you said that you didn't agree with Banach's point about how we are born and then we make our nature. Because when you state what you do believe in the ideas sounds the same to me.
I like how you talk about how we change our personalities depending on who we are with. I can agree with that but I don't think that we do it on purpose I think it is something that just happens.
I don't think that it means that we are fake I think it means that we know how to moderate ourselves. This idea can be connected to respect as well.
I agree heavily with your point about how many of his ideas can be topics for debate as well.
Oh yeah, I enjoyed this post. It really made me think about what I was reading and how it can connect and be used for greater discussion.
For Richard D:
This post is really interesting, the opening line is really great, "Living in this world there are so many unsolved answers." because it connects to what the lecture is about and it makes me think.
I like that you agree and then you explain why you agree. I think that for this point I also agree with what Banach is saying. That we are born and then we basically control what comes after that.
Do you think that makes all humans identical in a way? Because we all have on belief, do you think that makes us individuals or do we stand alone?
I agree when you say that we are not free. I think that there are many things that go against us being free. Banach tries desprately to prove that we are free but in fact we are not. But somehow it all connects to us being individuals who make our own nature.
This post was really interesting, it made me think of things that I had not realized when I was reading the lecture.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Hw 3- Just How Long Is This Lecture?
This guy Banach is trying so hard to get his point across in my opinion. He is hammering this idea that we are individuals in to our heads.
I have to be honest I don't think I care. But for the sake of homework I'll ponder it... Okay so Banach (by the way if you want to know how to say his name: http://www.pronouncenames.com/pronounce/banach ) Anyway, Banach begins to talk about how because we are human beings we have the power to make ourselves in to anything that we want. It gets a bit fuzzy for me here we he says "we exist and then we create our nature, our essence, who we are." But what about people that choose to exist and create the same things? Lets say that you have freedom as Banach suggests, and with that freedom you choose to become identical, choose to become something of a replica of something else? Then are you still separate from them?
I think its nice how Banach is so sure of his thoughts, there is not one hint of uncertainty. But I don't think that we are free. We are and will always be limited, there are always going to be rules and authority. I don't think that "complete happiness" exist either because there are different things that make people happy and one thing that makes you happy may cause unhappiness in someone else.
I like the question "Can we share emotions?" I would like to think so. If we were to believe that I would think that it makes us feel better, that it makes us feel as if we are not alone and I believe that that is what matters. Feelings are everything, they are the motors to out minds and our bodies. If we don't feel something we don't believe that its real. Being connects to someone else's feelings, to me I think that that helps to add depth to things being real.
I feel that with Banach's ideas, we can never really know whats real and what is not. If he believes that we see everything as we want to see it then no one really knows what they are looking at.
And I'd like to think I know what I'm seeing out my own two eyes.
I have to be honest I don't think I care. But for the sake of homework I'll ponder it... Okay so Banach (by the way if you want to know how to say his name: http://www.pronouncenames.com/pronounce/banach ) Anyway, Banach begins to talk about how because we are human beings we have the power to make ourselves in to anything that we want. It gets a bit fuzzy for me here we he says "we exist and then we create our nature, our essence, who we are." But what about people that choose to exist and create the same things? Lets say that you have freedom as Banach suggests, and with that freedom you choose to become identical, choose to become something of a replica of something else? Then are you still separate from them?
I think its nice how Banach is so sure of his thoughts, there is not one hint of uncertainty. But I don't think that we are free. We are and will always be limited, there are always going to be rules and authority. I don't think that "complete happiness" exist either because there are different things that make people happy and one thing that makes you happy may cause unhappiness in someone else.
I like the question "Can we share emotions?" I would like to think so. If we were to believe that I would think that it makes us feel better, that it makes us feel as if we are not alone and I believe that that is what matters. Feelings are everything, they are the motors to out minds and our bodies. If we don't feel something we don't believe that its real. Being connects to someone else's feelings, to me I think that that helps to add depth to things being real.
I feel that with Banach's ideas, we can never really know whats real and what is not. If he believes that we see everything as we want to see it then no one really knows what they are looking at.
And I'd like to think I know what I'm seeing out my own two eyes.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Hw 2- Comments 1
To Stephanie F:
I like how you gave quotes from the reading to show that you were actually giving thought to what you were reading and not just staring blankly at the text.
I also agree with the point that you make about or feelings making us indivduals. Also the point you made about how you can never truly know what anyone else is feeling.
I like that you agree with the text and then state why by giving an example. Its cool how you included how that being an individual comes from what you make of it and not the other way around.
This was a good post, looking forward to reading more.
To Richard D:
I think its really cool how you start off explaining what you believe in and how it connects to Banach's ideas.
I agree with you when you say that your viewes and belifs make a difference when it comes to the ideas that Banach is expressing. WHy do you think there are so many sides to Banach's belifs? Why?
Is this something new or has the idea of being individuals (mentally) been brough up to you before. I think that it it interesing how you say that Banach seems to talk like there is an illusion.
I find myself thinking that when Bancah says we have "absolute freedom" he means that we are completely free, in the sense that we are also alone. What do you think?
I think you post is interesting. You bring up some great thoughs.
I like how you gave quotes from the reading to show that you were actually giving thought to what you were reading and not just staring blankly at the text.
I also agree with the point that you make about or feelings making us indivduals. Also the point you made about how you can never truly know what anyone else is feeling.
I like that you agree with the text and then state why by giving an example. Its cool how you included how that being an individual comes from what you make of it and not the other way around.
This was a good post, looking forward to reading more.
To Richard D:
I think its really cool how you start off explaining what you believe in and how it connects to Banach's ideas.
I agree with you when you say that your viewes and belifs make a difference when it comes to the ideas that Banach is expressing. WHy do you think there are so many sides to Banach's belifs? Why?
Is this something new or has the idea of being individuals (mentally) been brough up to you before. I think that it it interesing how you say that Banach seems to talk like there is an illusion.
I find myself thinking that when Bancah says we have "absolute freedom" he means that we are completely free, in the sense that we are also alone. What do you think?
I think you post is interesting. You bring up some great thoughs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
