Last week we read Sartre, Camus, and the lecture by Banach. When reading these, the authors may have presented ideas or arguments that you agree with or disagree with. In looking at these works, I want you to respond to two ideas presented in the collective texts.
1. Summarize what is presented.
2. Once you have presented the information, respond. This can be you agreeing or disagreeing.
3. Explain what you are responding to and why you are responding to it. Elaborate on your ideas so it is apparent to those observing your post what you are writing about.
4. Feel free to jump in and comment on the assertions of your peers.
All of these pieces were difficult to read and interpret, but held such deep meaning and thought provoking ideas. After discussing these in class, I was able to grasp a better understanding of the goals the authors had when writing these works. In addition, the “Existentialism” powerpoint slide (describing the questions existentialists have) assisted with this understanding, and even incorporated in the following presented ideas.Two of these ideas stuck out to me in the collective texts: the ultimate goal of life and the ability to act freely.
ReplyDeleteAll three texts addressed these ideas in some way. First, the goal of man. Camus focuses on this idea the most out of the other pieces. He uses the Myth of Sisyphus to parallel the battle of man, and how it is the journey that fulfills a man’s life. I, along with other classmates, was drawn towards the second to last sentence of this piece. Camus states, “The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart.” It is what you do between the beginning and the end that makes a difference in your life, and Camus implied that this is the goal of man.
I strongly agree with this message, and that is the base reason why I am responding to it. Everyone dies, but not everyone lives. A key component to living is making the most of what time you have on this earth, and to many others (including me) is to being happy. Happiness of the mind is another detail addressed in the texts. Banach analyzes this concept deeply throughout “The Ethics of Absolute Freedom”. No matter what goes on during this time of life, a person can change the situation around in favor of themselves. Banach quotes, “We can make a world of ourselves, a universe of our own experience, in which we can and must find ourselves happy.” He suggests that the goal in life is to make yourself happy, while also looking out for the good of mankind, another goal in life addressed by Sartre. Sartre in his “Existentialism” piece explains how “existentialism’s first move is to make every man aware of what he is” and that he is “responsible for all of men”. In summary, the goal of life is to look out for others while making yourself happy, accomplishing everything you can while you are here.
The second idea about the ability to act freely impacted me greatly. Specifically the quote from Banach: “Even if I were a puppet, my body and its actions completely controlled by some malevolent master, what I am, my mind's eye would still be free and untouched...they can do what they want to my body...but they can never touch or control the real me.” I mentioned this quote in class because it is truly an intriguing thought. Life is going to throw you situations you have no control over, making you believe you have no control, no freedom. However, your attitude allows you to have freedom. Your mind holds the only control, and nobody will ever be able to take that away. In the Myth of Sisyphus, the Gods put him through pushing the boulder, an action he could not control and could not get out of. Sisyphus decided to not let this get to his mind, as “his fate belongs to him” and he developed joy and happiness.
These ideas are outstanding philosophical movements. After reading them, it caused me to dig deeper into the meaning of life and make a change in my choices and attitude. These three pieces develop the ideas of life goals and personal freedom, two ideas that are necessary for the sanity and existence of mankind.
The first topic I want to talk about is the idea spoken in Banach’s lecture concerning the fact that we as humans are in a constant psychological conflict between having too much freedom, yet never having enough. He brings up Sartre’s idea of Existentialism by saying that man has to make that choice himself; are you going to give yourself freedom, or let the loneliness inside of your head eat away? Banach begins his lecture by simply stating that we are all alone in our own little world: “Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside. Other people only see us from the outside, objectively, and, hard as we may try, we can only see them from the outside. No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in anyone else's mind.” Later, he talks about the fact that although we are alone, we have the opportunity to do what we will with that loneliness.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what Banach is saying, and I feel that Camus and Sartre would too. It is true that we are all alone; we are only able to rely on our senses to give us a “sense” of other human beings. Unless we come from a superhero or vampire filled world, we will never really be able to read other people’s thoughts. But although we are trapped, we don’t have to think of it that way. Banach talks about the fact that the most important phrase to live by is “BE AUTHENTIC”. You as a human are able to be anything you want; you can be a baker, a doctor, a musician, anything. You can also be a parent, a friend, and a loved one. Although we are trapped, there is so much freedom to what we can do that a lot of times people don’t know what to do; so they conform. Connecting this to the Doll Face video we watched the other day, the girl desperately wanted to be other people, when she really should have been herself and done what she wanted to do. This subject also relates to Camus’ lecture in the thought that Sisyphus chose his freedom; he was all alone, set to be eternally punished. But he did not let that get to him, and instead lived authentically how he wanted to live.
The second point I want to talk about is the idea of choosing happiness. Although this briefly connects to the first point of freedom, I believe that there is a difference between choosing to do something, and being happy to do it. In Sartre's “Existentialism” piece, there is a quote that says ‘In the end, feeling is what counts. I ought to choose whichever pushes me in one direction.’ The idea of existentialism can be taken many different ways, but this certain point says that it should be taken in the direction of your happiness.
I could not agree more with this point concerning happiness and the way a person lives their life. If you have the freedom to make decisions, why not make ones that make your short time on Earth great? If you feel that something is pulling you in one direction, there is no reason you should not take it. Although Sisyphus is under a spell, I believe he still applies to this argument. He chooses to make his eternity happy; if rolling a rock up a hill can create contempt within himself and approval from the Gods, why wouldn’t he do it? I adore the examples that Banach added, one being “How the Grinch Stole Christmas." The grinch truly thought that if he took all of the gifts from Whoville, he would be cured of his anger; when all along he was the one to cure himself! By finding your own happiness, you cure yourself within. This point connects to all three lectures and truly applies to how everyone should live.
I definitely agree with the way you presented to concept of happiness and choice that there are different levels of happiness that is unique to all.
DeleteOne of the ideas presented by Sartre in his piece “Existentialism” was that man is responsible for the rest mankind. In other words, people should act with the best of intentions of all, not just themselves. I agree with this concept; it reminds me of the famous and often quoted “be the change you wish to see in the world”. Both of these encourage individuals to think of the bigger picture, and it allows the individual to examine the world they live in on a larger scale. I felt particularly attracted to this idea because I feel strongly that each person impacts every other person they’ve had an interaction with, and in that sense, we are all responsible for each other. Also, on a larger scale, we are responsible for standing up for what we believe in, no matter what that is.
ReplyDeleteAnother idea presented that I agree with is from Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus”. He writes “If this myth is tragic, that is because the hero is conscious... The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and this fate is no less absurd”. The myth he is referencing is Sisyphus continually pushing a rock up a mountain, just to watch it fall back down into the plain, just for him to go get it and push it back up. I believe there are people who can go through life without ever wanting to strive for more, and they wake up, go to work, come home, and go to bed. Camus is saying this is only tragic if the individual knows better, or wants more. Sisyphus’ journey can easily parallel our own, if we aren’t careful. I feel as though Camus was not only commenting on Sisyphus, but also on our own society, even today. He is calling the way we blindly go through life and our daily actions as absurd as pushing a rock up a mountain just to watch it fall again. What is the point? Why bother? These are some of the questions existentialists encourage us to think about, and the three pieces we read in class to a wonderful job of getting gears spinning in our heads.
An idea presented in Banach’s lecture is that every human has freedom in their “island of subjectivity.” He explains this saying that there are two versions of oneself, the version that is trapped inside your mind, viewing everything from a mental TV screen, and the other which is viewed on the TV screen and interacts with the world and is affected by outside forces. He explains that even though the version of you that interacts with the world may be manipulated and controlled, the example he used was of a puppet on strings, you still have the freedom of your inner self and its mental TV screen. The freedom of humans is in the ability to control our thoughts and opinions, we are free to view a situation however we like, no one can control that. And for the average, everyday person, this is true. However, this does not take into account people with mental disabilities. I addressed this in our in-class discussion but I would like to further elaborate myself. To begin, I was diagnosed with high-functioning autism and obsessive-compulsive disorder at a young age. It is something that I have struggled with my entire life and in the case of the OCD, I take medicine for. The problem with OCD is that I cannot control my thoughts. My inner self does not have the freedom to control what appears on my mental TV screen, I am at the mercy of my disorder. While the average person may be able to dismiss a thought and control their emotions, one statement or idea may be repeated through my mind until it finds a new fixation. So how then am I free? How is anyone with a mental disability free? By Banach’s views people with physical disabilities may be limited by their movement capabilities, but be free in their thoughts and opinions. People with certain mental disabilities do not have this luxury. If I cannot control what I think or view on my mental TV screen, does this mean I am not human? By Banach’s definition it would. I do not agree with Banach’s assertion. We cannot talk about humans as a whole without addressing the differences within them. No two people are the same, so it is hard to make an assumption about humans in general without finding someone to disprove it. Thus, this is why I disagree with Banach and his idea of human freedom.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if we take out the flaws in his ideas of human freedom, his interpretation of the Myth of Sisyphus and human happiness I wholeheartedly agree with. In his essay, Banach describes human happiness as being able to have any view on any situation. In the case of Sisyphus who was condemned by the gods to eternally rolling a rock up a hill for it only to fall back down again, one might be confused how such a person could be happy. Banach goes on to explain that it is the freedom to detest and hate the current state of his life that bring Sisyphus happiness. The gods may be able to control everything else about his life, but they cannot control his thoughts or opinions. I can very much relate to this. My friends do not like how much I complain and I’ll admit I’m very much a pessimist. Whenever I have a lot of work assigned to me, or am asked to do a task I do not want to do, you can be sure that you will hear about it.
(continued) I will do the work all the same, but it brings me some amount of pleasure, however small, to be able to complain and voice my thoughts on the situation. I am not free to not go to school (well I am but between the government and my mother I am rather forced to be there every day), but I am free to complain about going there every day or hate the place. People always say, “aren’t you more miserable constantly thinking of how much you dislike what you are doing?” and I wonder how they can go about life withOUT thinking about it. In the case of Sisyphus it would be like saying, “just don’t think about what you’re doing.” Now that may be a nice idea, but how reasonable is it that Sisyphus, in his suffering, will not at some point think about his situation at least once in the rest of eternity? Rather than letting the gods control his thoughts in the sense that he is always trying to keep something out of his mind, he will choose the freedom to think what he wants even if those thoughts are negative, and that freedom brings him the happiness in life. Do I like writing essays for class or doing a lot of homework? No, I do not. I do not have the freedom to choose to do them, they are assigned to me and it is expected that I complete them. But I do have the freedom to complain, and that restoration of freedom is what makes the tasks less of a burden and brings me happiness.
DeleteI’m so happy that you acknowledged this flaw in the human freedom aspect of existentialism! Upon reading the quote “our absolute individuality isolates our real self from the determining influences of the outside world;we can always rebel against its influence. . .” from Banach’s The Ethics of Absolute Freedom, I immediately disagreed with his assertion. The mental illness that I initially connected this with was depression. With a disease like that, it’s so hard to fight it and “just be happy” like society tells you to be. It’s interesting because when someone brings up the fact that they have a mental illness, people immediately reject its validity and proceed to say things like “just be happy”, “just don’t be anxious” or “just don’t think about it”. It’s interesting how people truly don’t believe how demanding it can be, both physically and mentally. An individual with a mental illness truly doesn’t have all of the freedom that someone without it does because their thoughts and actions are completely dictated by their disease and “rebelling against it” isn’t always an option. An individual no longer has the freedom to control what appears on what Banach refers to as their “mental tv screen”, and like you said, they are left “at the mercy of [their] disorder”. I would love to see what Banach and Sartre would say about the freedom of an individual with a mental illness and how existentialism would apply to this. I would also love to explicate this topic further, but you honestly took the words right out of my mouth! Also, I really loved that you shared your own personal story as well as how you supported your assertions, so thank you for sharing and giving us your insight on this topic!
DeleteDavid Camus, in his lecture on Sartre and existentialism, presents the idea of absolute freedom and how, in reality, it is not absolute. In this analysis, Camus reveals two important pieces of information. The first being that mankind does not act for himself, but for society as a whole, the second being that an individual is never totally free from the influence of others.
ReplyDeleteCamus explains that “in choosing our own human nature, according to Sartre, we choose human nature for all humans.” This statement immediately presents a paradox to the idea of individuality, as the declaration seems to promote unification. When the account is broken apart, however, Camus explains how the feelings of others influence that way that we act. Camus is not saying that someone who is free wishes to impose their views on others, but more so that they must act in a way that takes others’ feelings into effect. A simple way to view this is to think of the lesson that is taught in many kindergarten classes: treat others the way that you want to be treated.
While it may seem oversimplified, Camus’ purpose is to show how society would function without religion. I believe that Camus holds a more atheistic view of existentialism, and by sharing his intellect on the way humans interact with each other, he neglects the need for a list of Commandments to have kindness in the world. Camus says, “Thus, I must choose in the same way I would want others to choose,” further backing his argument. Camus does not want everyone to do the same thing, but rather believes that everyone naturally functions for the good of others. Ultimately, I accept what Camus is saying, however, there are some outliers in his ideas. Criminals, being part of society, do not function in this manner. They rob, steal, and harm others; all things that humankind would not like done to them. Perhaps Camus does not view them as “humans” though. While they are made of flesh and blood, they do not operate in the same way that normal humans do, whether the reason is a mental disorder or the way that they were raised. While there may be some technical issues with this theory, Camus poses a great question: Would humanity act in the same way if higher beings (Testaments of Gods, Governmental laws, etc.) did not explicitly exclaim their rules?
Camus’ second point poses theories on how others influence the way that we think. Camus explains, “Our actions, though free, are constrained by our situation in a community.” Our actions, as Camus discusses, must take others into account. If we acted solely for ourselves without regard for others, we would be pessimistic, selfish beings. I interpreted this as saying that the responsibilities in our lives hold us back, but if they did not exist, our lives would not have a purpose. Living for yourself is not living. I wholeheartedly agree with Camus analysis, as I believe that you can never be truly “free” without disrupting the way the society works together. Camus ultimately states that if humanity acted solely for their needs, then society would cease to exist.
In the first piece by Sartre, it focused on the idea of existentialism and that every man is responsible for his actions as well as others. At first, I thought this was crazy and almost rude to assume that everyone is the same based on one situation. Thinking more about it, I realized that I, personally, have been impacted by the people I meet or speak too. In that case, I agree that we are responsible for ourselves and others. It seems all of society is like this; we always envy someone and try to be more like them, or we really dislike someone and try to be the complete opposite of them. I feel as if people do not think about their actions or words affecting others as much as they should. We all, as a society, should be conscious of what we’re actually saying and what our actions really mean.
ReplyDeleteThe second piece by Camus focused on the “Myth of Sisyphus” and the meaning of a man’s life. All of Sisyphus’ life, he pushed a rock up a hill only to continually watch it fall back down and push it back up. To most people, this seems like a very sad life to live. Camus describes how we can’t really view it as a sad story because it was all Sisyphus ever known. He did not strive for anything more or have an ultimate goal for his life. This can also reflect on society, relating to those people who just “settle” for what is given to them. The difference is that they know what they’re missing and how much more potential they have, unlike Sisyphus. I agree with this idea completely because if someone knows how much more they could be benefitting in their life, but just do not strive for it, they will not be living to their full potential.
Both pieces were equally mind boggling and yet so truthful to our world today. This shows how much of a roll existentialism plays in our everyday lives.
All three pieces spoke of complex ideas, and each were difficult to comprehend alone, but once discussing the ideas I was able to get a better feel for the meaning behind each piece. The idea that resonated the most with me, was from the Sartre piece. Sartre presents the idea that we give power to the things in our life. He writes “I myself choose the meaning they have”. He says that people may see certain things as signs, but they can be interpreted differently depending on who you are. The idea of giving power to things goes back to the situation with his mother. He writes “In other words, the feeling is formed by the acts one performs; so, I cannot refer to it in order to act upon it”. He becomes stuck in a vicious cycle of emotions and actions relying on each other to exist. These ideas just scratch the surface of the idea of existentialism. I agree with these ideas, especially the idea that you give meaning to the things in your life. I believe that you have an option on how to view the things that are handed to you. It's almost like saying “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade”. While you may be faced with something difficult, you get to determine how it will affect you, and how to handle it. You may also see something as a sign of some sort and take that as guidance. When people do this, they are choosing how to interpret the sign and what it means. Subconsciously they already know what they want it to mean, and are using this as an outward tool to confirm their thoughts. On the idea of the emotions and actions being a vicious cycle, the more I think about the more I agree with it. I picture it like dating. When people start hanging out with someone and talking to them, they will start to develop feelings for that person. In order to show those feelings and give them meaning, people will do something for each other. They may ask them out or buy them something to show their affection. And then the cycle begins again, by sharing gratitude or any other sort of emotion. The emotion is solidified by the action, which is given meaning to by the emotion.
ReplyDeleteThe Camus piece was a much easy piece to get through, but it did have a deeper meaning than I was expecting, and the thoughts and ideas that came out during discussion were very intriguing. Camus promotes the idea that Sisyphus is happy during his walk down the hill. He views this as the only time Sisyphus has to reflect on his life and collect himself. I agree with this statement because I think that this is the only time he has a break. He worked so hard to try to get the rock to the top of the hill, just for it to fall back down, and now he has to climb to the bottom and start all over again. Most people would be mad about this and give up, but this relates back to Sartre's idea of giving things meaning. Sisyphus took this as a time to think. He may have planned out what he was going to do differently the next time, even though he knew he was going to fail, or he may have just let his mind wander. This was the time where he got to let his mind be free. In life, as someone approaches an obstacle they may become excited to tackle it. They want to figure out how to defeat it, so they become happy picturing themselves winning. They may want, or need, redemption for their past failures so they work hard as they prepare for their next shot. The return to the rock is a person's period to prep and think about the challenge that faces them. Sisyphus may get excited and let his mind wander. He may go to a happy place as he plunges into this task again. But the walk down the hill is the only true time that he has to find joy in his life and hold onto it.
While rereading Banach’s lecture, I couldn’t help but think of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, and I revisited the question that Maddy had in class about the mentally ill. Although I believe that many mental disorders are serious problems, and deserve to be treated medically, I also believe that other disorders may be mistaken as an uncommon form of individuality. In Ken Kesey’s novel, many of the characters are subjected to the horrors of a mental institution simply because they do not conform to the dregs of society. For example, one character is gay, another is shy and has a stutter, and another is considered too wild. Using Sartre's definition of humanity, I view people with certain mental illnesses as more free than others, because images of society are blocked from their ‘mental TV screens’. They are unable to function as they are ‘supposed’ to in society because they cannot view the world through anyone’s eyes but their own. In this way, some who have a mental illness possess much more individuality than those who don’t have a mental illness. However, for concretely diagnosable and treatable mental disorders, I agree with Maddy in that Sartre’s definition of humanity does not apply.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the existentialist view of human happiness, I agree that there is a form of happiness inside of ourselves, independent of our external surroundings. The physical things that happen to us in our everyday lives are almost completely irrelevant to our happiness. It is our outlook on these events that determines happiness. In this way, man is responsible not only for his actions, but he is responsible for the way other’s actions affect him.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn David Banach’s The Ethics of Absolute Freedom, Banach presents a philosophical concept that Sartre refers to as “la mauvaise foi” or “bad faith”. Bad faith is an existential idea that alludes to an individual’s tendency to create excuses for oneself in an attempt to avoid acknowledging one’s own freedom.
ReplyDeleteBanach explains that as humans, “we attempt to deceive ourselves and act as if we weren’t free, as if we were really determined by our nature, our body, or the expectations of other people”. An abundance of people force themselves into believing that they do not have any options left, no ability to divert away from their current situation. However, I believe there’s always another option present and if an individual truly wants to make a change, they’ll find it. Individuals tend to make excuses to reject their own freedom as a result of fear of failure, embarrassment, responsibility, change, and many other reasons. They reject the wide array of options they have to make a change in their life and be who they truly want to be because it's the easier choice to make. This same idea can be seen in Albert Camus’ The Myth of Sisyphus. In this story, Sisyphus is condemned to roll a rock to the top of a mountain, from which the stone would fall back down and he would have to roll it back up the mountain again. This story reveals the allegory that we do not get to pick every obstacle that is thrown our way, however, we do get to choose how we perceive it. In a similar situation to sisyphus’, a lot of people would make excuses for why they can’t be happy by blaming their external situations, justifying their lack of happiness with the fact that they don’t have enough money, etc. However, it's all about how you perceive the situation that is dealt to you. In this case, an individual with bad faith would associate himself/herself with a predetermined role that doesn’t allow happiness because of the lack something they feel they need to achieve happiness, thus, giving himself/herself an excuse to avoid being happy. Excuses allow people to avoid blaming themselves as well as the realization of their freedom. In the aforementioned example, it’s easier for one to justify their actions through blaming their circumstances rather than their own self and their choice to not pursue happiness. He further goes on to say that we incessantly tend to play a predetermined role delegated to us by society instead of creating an identity for ourselves that we want aspire towards. This assertion that Banach makes throughout pages three and four reminded me of Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. Throughout an extensive duration of the invisible man’s life, he allowed himself to be defined and confined by society’s predetermined expectations of himself instead of creating his own essence. He takes this path because in the society he lives in, it would be the easier way to achieve success and wealth, however, the repercussions of taking this path was his inability to create his own identity. I completely agree with the the existential concept of bad faith because it’s a universal action that humans incessantly do in an attempt to escape their own freedom.
Albert Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus discusses the topic of happiness in relation to Sisyphus. In this myth, Sisyphus is condemned to roll a rock to the peak of a mountain, from which the stone would fall back down and he would have to incessantly repeat this process for eternity. Upon reading this article, I was very confused on the assertions made: how could Sisyphus possibly be happy when he is condemned to do something that is so horrendous? However, after some reflection, I think I understand; it’s all about perspective.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSomething that I struggle with is my hostile, pessimistic perception on just about everything. I always tend to see the bad in every situation, completely omitting the good. However, this article really made me wonder if everything is truly as bad as I make it out to be. I connected Sisyphus’ condemnation to incessantly roll a rock up a mountain with the fact that we don’t get to pick the life that we get. No one gets to pick what their skin color is, or who their biological family is, however, the one thing that we as humans do have control over is how we perceive the lives that we are given. An example of this is not being able to afford something you really want. An individual can choose to be angry at the world for not being able to afford that iphone they really want or the new shoes that just released that they can’t afford, or they can choose to channel that desire into something productive, such as getting a new job or saving up to get what they want. This same idea can be applied to existentialism. In The Ethics of Absolute Freedom, Banach states that by obtaining one's value from within oneself, one finds “a more real happiness, one that cannot be taken away by the external forces beyond their control”. Our current society incessantly tells you that you have to meet certain ludicrous requirements to actually mean something, such as being pretty, skinny, rich, and intelligent just to have some sort of value in the world. It is very hard to meet those absurd aforementioned goals because they take pieces and parts away from who you are and sometimes, you just do not have the ability to meet them. However, by finding happiness within yourself, you will never have to incessantly aspire to act or speak a certain way because you are content solely by just being yourself. I agree with this assertion made because I believe the most pure and genuine form of happiness, as cliche as it may be, comes from loving yourself the way that you are.
DeleteThe two biggest ideas I saw in these texts are that we are all responsible for much more than just ourselves, and that when we are allowed to create our own destinies, no matter good or bad, we can be happy. In the Myth of Sisyphus as written and analyzed by Albert Camus, the main character Sisyphus has disobeyed the Greek Gods on more than one occasion, and is now being forced to return to Hades after deliberately avoiding all calls for him to come back. Upon his return, Sisyphus is brought to a rock, which he will have to roll up a hill, and watch roll back down until the end of time. One of the main points that Camus covers in elaborating on the facts in this text is that the reader must be able to imagine Sisyphus happy, even though he is being forced to endlessly strive to complete a futile task. While in those circumstances may seem impossible for someone to be happy, by looking further into this text, we can find the answer. Throughout his life, Sisyphus has always made his own choices, which eventually led him to this predicament. However, I think that the point is that he was able to make his own destiny, even if it lead to a futile existence. I think that most people believe happiness requires a certain set of circumstances; such as having a successful career, meeting his or her soulmate, having all of their life’s dream and wishes fulfilled. Camus argues that that is not the case, and that being in control of your circumstances, to whatever end that may lead, is what constitutes happiness; to be able to look back on life and know that every path that lead you here, wherever that may be, was of your own choosing. We choose to make our own circumstances and our own happiness, wherever we may be.
ReplyDeleteWhile this first idea may be positive, that happiness can be found in all circumstances for all people, Sartre proposed another idea, that we are not only responsible for ourselves, but for all other human beings as well. The example of this that Sartre used was the decision that a young man faced in the midst of war, to either stay with his mother, who had already lost a son in battle, or to go to the front and fight. Sartre argued that every single decision a person makes reflects what he or she believes everyone should do and how they should act. So, in the aforementioned example, the son would show his belief in family by staying with his mother, or his belief in country by going to war. That is a lot of responsibility to place on one individual’s shoulders, an amount that I don’t think anyone can truly handle. An example that I have to illustrate the impossibility of this responsibility is that of the trolley problem, first proposed by Philippa Foot. An experiment in ethics, this problem has many variations, but the premise is this: a trolley car is come down the track toward a junction switch, which you are in control of. Of the two tracks, standing in one is the person you love most, and the other five people you do not know. The idea is that the choice is left to you who should be hit by the oncoming trolley car, or, whose life matters more. The problem is that there is no right answer, as with the Sartre idea. If everyone is watching you and will replicate what you do, there is no way out, no right choice.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Myth of Sisyphus,” Camus writes that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy” while he painstakingly rolls this huge rock up a hill only to have it fall down everyday. I love this because it really talks about perspective, which has come up a lot in my life, recently. Sisyphus is condemned by the gods, and it doesn’t look like he’s getting out of situation anytime soon; he must be getting stronger, so his job will only get easier as time goes on and I think that is something that can be applied to most tasks and situations. Well, perhaps, life doesn’t necessarily get easier as far as the workload or pressure, but it becomes easier to deal with. I can directly relate to this: I have really bad anxiety, which is unfortunately unmedicated. Some of you who are in my class may know this from the way I speak (which is very awkward and clunky) and how I sometimes say things that are not relevant to the conversation, which are things I wouldn’t normally say, but anxiety takes over and I can’t help from voicing those thoughts. I apologize for any inconvenience that causes in class discussions. Anyway, I have a friend who also has anxiety and, I assume, to the level of severity as mine. We each have completely perspectives on how our minds work: they have the more pessimistic side, and that’s absolutely okay, while I am much more optimistic about mine, which I guess is kind of an anomaly for something so socially and mentally crippling. Their anxiety takes over their mind, haunting them everyday and it’s something they dwell on 24/7 and it’s a huge hindrance to their life. Mine is also present in pretty much every situation I’m in, as well, but I see it as something I can’t control, so I might as well make the best of it and learn how to cope with it. I guess we both see it as something we can’t control, but I happen to be the more optimistic of the two, and this isn’t a bad thing: they have a right to view it as they see fit, and we both have the same cognitive approach to similar situations, but the emotions and connotations are much different. Honestly, I’m kind of glad I have anxiety (I know that sounds bad, maybe especially to other people have mental illnesses, but hear me out). Yes, it is a MAJOR pain in my butt, I hate it, and it SUCKS, but without it, I wouldn’t be the person I am. It makes me much more aware of my surroundings and think more outwardly. I’m an introvert, and I think without anxiety, I would probably spend almost all of my time contemplating life and other events inside my head, but it forces me to pay attention to the outer world. It hasn’t gotten better as far as severity goes, but I’ve learned how to deal with it, so in a sense, it *has* gotten better. I think a positive perspective is important in this case, because it aids in the coping process so much. My friend is not having a very good time with their anxiety and I think it’s because of their negative perspective on it. I hope it improves and they get better.
ReplyDeleteAnother point I really like is Sartre’s idea that man is responsible for society as a whole, and not just himself. And I really like how this relates to Camus’s piece. If everyone were to have a negative view on life and act in a way that would not benefit society, we would have chaos. I agree with Mady that it’s not accurate to judge society as a whole since each person is their own individual, but I think there comes a certain point where people can control *some* things and I agree with it more on the side of interpersonal relationships. I think it is fairly easy for people to be kind to one another, with a few exceptions. For example, there is a couple who regularly comes into my work and his wife explained to me that, because of a recent stroke, he has become snide and rude. *But*, and I think this is similar with other cases, he has someone there with him who can help him and explain to others why he acts the way he does. In most other situations in life, I think it is an achievable goal to look at the positives and model that behavior, which others will see and replicate.
I wish this indented the way I intended, but the system said I had too many characters.
DeleteThe three pieces, Sartre’s essay, Camus’ “Myth of Sisyphus”, and Banach’s lecture, all touch upon the idea of existentialism. A profound idea presented by Sartre is that “man is anguish”, in that one man is responsible not only for himself but feels a “deep responsibility” in humanity. According to Sartre, every decision you make is a reflection on the rest of humankind and that is what makes it such a burden. I absolutely agree with this statement because any decision can have some change in the world, no matter the level of that change. Many of our athletic coaches tell their athletes that the behavior you present yourself in is a reflection of your school. In the same way, every man is a part of the entirety of mankind and any choice leads to changes in humanity. Many times, the burden that is carried with making a decision can also be referred to the eyes of God watching over humankind. People think that pleasing God by doing the “right” actions guarantees them the chance of going to heaven. For example, many pray constantly to God to grant their wishes and free them of worries, but in reality it is them who has to take the burden of making decisions themselves.
ReplyDeleteAnother overlaying concept in Banach’s lecture is the idea of absolute freedom. According to Banach, absolute freedom is not really absolute because individualism can still be affected by others. Individualism is meant to be based on you very own choices, however others still can have an influence over you. I absolutely agree with this statement because even when someone is determined to make their own choice, it comes down to what has the most influence over what you do. The “doll face” video we saw in class reminded me that society has a certain influence over us that we don’t realize ourselves. In some way, everyone yearns to be like something or someone either in the television or in real life. As Banach says, our “minds trapped in bodies” means that although our minds say to do one thing, our bodies as a human are influenced by other humans.
When reading these existentialist pieces, I found myself naturally wanting to disagree with a lot of the ideas being proposed. I think this is because trying to commit myself to believing one “true” thing about human nature is uncomfortable. I need more fluidity. Further, I think that the attempts to define how happiness is achieved are some of the more disagreeable points made in the pieces, particularly in the Camus piece. Camus writes, “All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him.” In the first sentence he is saying that Sisyphus’ happiness is within the small, withdrawn life he is condemned to be living, yet in the second is saying that his “fate” is in his own hands. This is strange to me, in that even if Sisyphus is able to achieve some sort of contentment or happiness in his life pushing the rock, wouldn’t he still rather do something else if given the chance? I understand the point he is making, that people have the power to make the most of their situations, but I also think that people will always strive for better, or would jump on the opportunity to be in a better situation. We see this all the time, with physically disabled people who participate in athletics, or with people born into poor families who work hard and make a better life for themselves.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, I do agree with Banach’s statement that, “The sentence of freedom is the necessity of pulling ourselves together at each moment out of the myriad different influences imposing themselves upon us from the environment, our community,and from our own bodies.” I think it’s extremely important to acknowledge that there are parts of our identities that we can change, and there are parts that we cannot, and that is our freedom. It’s hard for me to grasp the concept of absolute freedom entirely, because there are SO many influences on our decisions that even the things we do choose, like the clothes we wear, or the foods we eat, or the movies we watch, aren’t really and purely our own decisions. I think that in a way, these influences are good, because without having seen clothes that I like growing up, how would I know what I want to wear? I’m pretty sure humans aren’t born with an innate fashion sense. So, while outside influence play a role in oppressing our freedom, so do they play a role in enhancing it.
Banach, Sartre, and Camus all write about the power and role of man on Earth. When reading these writings I found powerful messages about choice and individualism. Each believe that when looking for answers in life, the real value of each choice is determined by the chooser. Sartre states that such choices have “value only because it is chosen.” Sartre also explains that even if God did not exist, moral values would still stay the same. This is because humans gave value in the idea of God and chose to take the laws of such a being into societal morals. Branach expands on this within his lecture by explaining how everything seen by man is not taken at face value, but rather perceived through the personal experiences and beliefs one holds. I agree with this idea, because moral values are an unshakably personal set of beliefs that can rarely be changed within a person. So, it really is in the hands of the individual to search for the “right” answers and actions in life and we as individuals must be accountable and responsible for every decision we make.
ReplyDeleteAdding on to the previous idea, these three men believe in the idea although we cannot choose our existence, we can choose our essence. As Camus tells the story of Sisyphus, it is described that even though Sisyphus is in an obvious amount of torture, he is still able to find relief and happiness in his toil. I strongly believe that we are masters of ourselves and that just as we choose our morals, we also choose our mindsets and actions. Sisyphus had a love for earth and chose to go against the gods in order to view it. With this knowledge, he pushes his rock knowing its worth, knowing that for him, it was a price he was willing to pay. To the average man, finding happiness in such a situation is absurd, however, when all external forces are taken out of such a situation, man is able to judge happiness for oneself. Banach speaks of this by saying “if we find ourselves isolated from the external value by our radical individuality, we can make a world of ourselves, a universe of our own experience, in which we can and must find ourselves happy.”
All three existentialists thoroughly express their ideas of individuality in morality and happiness. They all put great weight on the power of the individual and hope to inform others that the life of man this is controlled by, and can only be controlled by man himself.
After reading each of these existentialism pieces for class one of the ideas that stuck the most with me was the idea that our freedom is a freedom of synthesis. It is something we are given the tools to make, but only we have to power to use those tools as we wish. As Banach says, a freedom of synthesis “is the freedom to pull ourselves together into the type of coherent whole that we will ourselves to be.” And because, as Sartre would say, “man is free, man is freedom” we are able to choose the boundaries that we determine for ourselves. I agree that man’s freedom is one of synthesis because there are certain things in life that we cannot control, but we can make these things become something of our own free creation. In Banach’s lecture he mentions an example that Sartre gives comparing our freedom to an artist. The artist is unable to control the type of paints they have or the nature of what they will be painting, but they are ultimately the only person who can decide how the painting will look in the end by using the tools they had been given. Banach also states, “nothing outside of us can determine what we are and what we are good for; we must do it ourselves, from the inside,” meaning that individuals have the freedom to determine their own worth rather than the people they see or the situation they happen to find themselves in because, as mentioned before, we do not have the power to control everything, but we do have the freedom to make something of what we cannot control.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting point I took away from these articles and lectures was the secret of happiness according to an existentialist. In Banach’s lecture he mentions that the secret of happiness in an existentialist's mind is “to get ones value from within oneself.” I agree with this statement because the world will never be completely happy with a person; there will always be something that someone does not approve of. So, rather than depending on a world that picks out one’s imperfections and flaws, one should rely on themselves. When Camus writes about the Myth of Sisyphus he explains to the reader that Sisyphus has been imprisoned to a world where he must push a rock up a hill only to watch the rock fall down to the bottom once he reaches the top, forcing Sisyphus to repeat the process. When most individuals read this they are able to point out all of the reasons why Sisyphus should be unhappy and tortured, but then Camus says, “one must imagine Sisyphus happy.” After thinking about this for a while I came to understand that Sisyphus is happy because he has found the strength to see the value he has within himself to push the rock up that same hill time and time again, rather than relying on how the outside world views him to determine his own happiness.
In Sartre’s “Existentialism” piece he presents the audience with the idea that man is responsible for all of mankind. Sartre states, “When we say that every man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men.” People are unable to act without shaping mankind. I agree with Sartre’s idea because one decision made by someone could affect millions of people. The actions and words of those around you inspire and change you. Sartre argues that people who disguise their actions by saying “everyone doesn't act that way” have an uneasy conscious. I believe people who make this claim are just trying to make excuses for their actions because they believe that others will act different. In reality many people make similar decisions and use the same excuse. Sartre’s explanation shows that it is important that people take into account how their actions will affect those around them.
ReplyDeleteThrough his story about Sisyphus, Camus argues that man must find his own form of happiness. Sisyphus spends his life pushing a rock up a hill only to see it fall back down. Although many people would see this as a terrible way to live your live, Camus argues that Sisyphus could be happy because he is able to reflect on his life and he has a goal to work towards. I agree with Sisyphus because when you have something to work towards your life seems fulfilled even if you are unable to reach your goal. Sisyphus found his happiness through sacrifice and going against the gods because of his passion. If you make sacrifices for your passion you will find happiness even in your punishments. When people are given time to reflect they often look back on their life with happiness.
All three of the texts where very dense and complex, taking many reads for one to truly understand it. Sartre was the most philosophical and challenging, and Banach’s lecture attempted to unravel Sartre’s essay for the reader. Camus seemed to be the most straight forward, as its concepts were thoroughly engrained in examples and stories in order to help the reader with this difficult form of philosophy. There are two concepts between the texts that show the most thought provoking sides of Existentialism: the theory that existence precedes essence and the happiness of man in simple actions.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most complex and frustrating concepts of Existentialism is the notion of existence and essence. Sartre goes against the grain for typical existentialist ideas by stating that existence precedes essence. He explains this very thoroughly by stating that through simply existing, man’s freedom of choice and his responsibility for those choices will create his essence. Sartre’s concept is future explained by Banach as he states, “What is meant here by saying that existence precedes essence? It means that first of all, man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and, only afterwards, defines himself. ... Not only is man what he conceives himself to be, but he is also only what he wills himself to be after this thrust toward existence” (1). Only man himself has the power to shape and mold himself as he is independent and has his own free will and freedom. This concept overall shows the freedom of man, as he is only capable of controlling himself through his own point of view and therefore creating his ‘essence.’
In Camus’ piece, “The Myth of Sisyphus” he explains the ancient story of Sisyphus where a cocky, resourceful man plays the Gods his whole life but in the end is condemned to hell where he will push a rock up a hill only for it to come straight down for all of eternity. Camus’ most intriguing concept appears at the end of his piece and it states, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy” (2). Most people would assume that Sisyphus lives a life of endless torture but Camus explains there is happiness in his life. This can be explained because humans are people of action, and Sisyphus has been presented with a gift, a never ending, constant goal to work towards. This goal is unattainable so there is no disappoint or feelings of uselessness ever to be found when a man has no goal in life. Through this example Camus explains man’s need for action and consequently so the happiness he may find in it.
In the two essays, one by Sartre and the other written by Camus, and the lecture by Banach, the tenets of existentialism were interpreted and explicated for the sake of those ignorant of or addled by Existentialism.
ReplyDeleteIn all three, it becomes clear that the Existentialists believe that the nature of a man, his genius, his ethics, were not determined by an essence existing before the man entered the world, not determined by any set of rules governing the masses, but by the man himself.We are all alone in this world. "We sail within a vast sphere, ever drifting in uncertainty, driven from end to end," as Blaise Pascal wrote in his Pensees (Thoughts).
On the first page of his essay, Sartre informs the reader of his own responsibility for his existence, to find what he values as beneficial to himself, and therefore beneficial to all. This, in a way means a dismissal of simple explanations for existence a priori, such as God and pseudo-sciences. The existentialist mourns the death of God, in Sartre's eyes, for without God, man is left without that securing stability that God provides.Why must one be good without a reward? without the risk of eternal damnation? Yet,in this way Sartre shows that in the end such ideas of destination and God will always be interpreted by men with the aim of self gain. For Sartre, man must take responsibility for the burden of his existence. We instinctively know killing to be wrong, so we believe that Hell awaits him who would kill. In the end, Sartre writes that men can not adapt a divine scheme, his fellows, and their ethics to his will. No! Man must wrest his judgments out from the depths of his own innards. What may be justifiable to one, may go against the ethical code of an entire society, each believing themselves to be enacting the will of God. Following this train of thought Banach further demonstrates how individuals try to excuse themselves with claims that they are besieged by natural limitations that they are powerless to change. For existentialism, action is all. What would the name William Shakespeare mean, what would Alfred Hitchcock mean, if those two had committed nothing to paper, nothing to celluloid? The meaning of those names would parallel what they had committed: Nothing. Genius transcends the individual, for it is worth nothing until it is committed to the outside world. That which seethes in the mind, unknown to all except the possessor, is meaningless.
Camus' absurd hero, Sisyphus, like Kierkegaard's similarly absurd hero Abraham, takes such an unyielding faith in his seemingly unremarkable (though in Abraham's case,horrible)duty,that he in fact achieves a sort of contentment in knowing that he has something to achieve, to struggle towards. Banach justifies this happiness of Sisyphus with the story of Dorothy and her companions, and the inevitable despair at finding their Wizard a fraud. However, they discovered that all that they sought, a brain, a heart, and courage, all they had possessed themselves since the beginning. Sisyphus finds it in himself to be joyous at this menial duty, to work at his goal fastidiously, unyieldingly, ad infinitum. Camus identifies the tragedy of consciousness, and the enlightenment that eventually supersedes the despair.
Kierkegaard, in his Fear and Trembling,(non verbatim) wrote that a man who places his faith in the esoteric, is greater than the man who places his faith in that which is accessible to all. In this way does Kierkegaard justify his admiration of Abraham, his own absurd hero. I have always felt that a man, in this way, must find his own purpose and beliefs in life, be they accessible or not. Only in this way shall one be truly free: viz. awareness of this burdensome freedom.A damnation, or a liberation. It is not the duty the masses, neither of the laws of society, nor of the divine judgment of God to lead us to realization. It is the burdensome duty of the individual.
The ideology and concepts that make up existentialism are very deep and complex. Camus and Sartre do a very good job of describing the ideology and the goals of it and its followers. Banach then simplifies the arguments of the other two and morphs their arguments into an essay that is easily understandable to the common man. Existentialism is chiefly, according to Sartre, "When we say that every man chooses his own self, we mean that every one of us does likewise; but we also mean by that that in making this choice he also chooses all men." This is existentialism at its core, the world is but of men and men have the power to dictate its course.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Sartre's belief that every man must take responsibility for his actions. Life does not just pass by, it constantly asks questions and presents problems. The simple fact is that human behavior is like chemistry. Mix two chemicals together and they will react. People have to recognize that their actions can permanently effect another person's future.
Existentialism may have logic in terms of accepting responsibility, but I can not however support its side that denies the existence of God. God is very real and he calls people to take responsibility for their actions and their effects through what is called integrity. Existentialism as Camus and Banach clarified can be followed without denying the existence of God.
I do not fully support the belief of existentialism but I fully embrace its call for accountability and responsibility.
Sartre viewed the universe as an irrational, meaningless sphere. Existence was absurd and life had no sense, no purpose, no explanation. Death was the proverbially absurd icing on the cake, making life even more intolerable, more ridiculous. He felt "nauseated" by the vastness of this empty, pointless problem, and he tried for many hours for a meaningful solution. Sartre offered people an alternative: He prompted them to choose for themselves what their lifestyles would be, regardless of outside pressures. He encouraged them to ignore governmental threats and warnings and to place personal morality above social and political faithfulness. Most of all, he impressed upon them the need to obey their own feelings, not to conform and compromise themselves.
ReplyDeleteDavid Banach’s lecture directed the readers towards the idea that we are all trapped within our own minds and we can not feel what other people are experiencing. However that may mean that we are too wrapped up in our lives to care about any one else and improving relationships and this is not true for most people. Meeting people is all about trying to understand emotions and breaking that barrier that seperates you from the person you are trying to get to know better. I do think we are capable of not just looking at images and never understanding them, I believe that we are able to look at images and situations to find a deeper meaning. As stated in the passage, “Thus, to be an absolute individual is to be trapped within ourselves, unable to perceive or contact anything but the images on our mental tv screen, and to be imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us.” I do not understand the point he is trying to make through this statement because I do not believe that the only way to be an absolute individual is to close yourself off from the rest of the world but in order to understand someone else you need to talk to them. However I can understand his point about absolute individuality but isolating yourself from everyone else does not help matters. The only way to be an absolute individual is to hang around different people and see what makes you tick and gain interests and dislikes based off of that because although people may act alike there are no two personalities that are the same. We all think differently on the inside than how other’s perceive us.