Day 16

I would like to begin this post by saying that the words “philosophical hero” sound like such a perfect thing. “Kierkegaard was Unamuno’s philosophical hero…” What!? It gives me such a warm feeling.  I’m sure if Kierkegaard was alive when Unamuno was, he would appreciate that. Unamuno would probably appreciate that too. They’ve got each other’s philosophical backs.

Moving on – Unamuno.

This reading came at an interesting time. I was thinking yesterday in class, when discussing Dostoevsky’s Underground Man that it’s easy to justify something. So even if it may seem like one would be acting through defiance and without all reason, one can create a reason for it, and make it seem advantageous.  Can turn the hand stabbed by the pencil into a statement against a materialistic society or something of the sort.

Thoughts lead to actions and these actions solidify our virtue, right?

Nope.

He is essentially asserting that we’re doing everything all wrong. And in a believable way!

We have this virtue. I will define this “virtue” to the best of my understanding as something that individuals inherently have within themselves, something of a moral compass, their character, essentially.  And then one acts. And then one thinks about their actions if one thinks at all. But actions should never be based off of some belief system or bank of thought.

Because those belief systems are illegitimate. Merely justifications for behavior that would happen regardless of whether or not those belief systems were even in place.

Follow your heart! That is so cheesy, but he makes it sound so good. At first it seems like acting in such a way would be the easy way out (as the saying goes). But it takes a lot of confidence to do. I use my justifications as a shield to protect me. 

Unamuno believes shields crack. And then I'm facing enemies with nothing. But, if I don't take a shield, then I wouldn't even have enemies to protect myself from. 

I don’t think he’s crazy. Am I going to adopt this view? Probably not, but it’s going to remain there for some time, in the back of my mind. 

Day 15

Dostoevsky’s Underground Man was hard for me to connect with on a personal level. I was tempted to push the red button, (so to speak write) for this post.

So the Underground Man says (conceptually) to the gentlefolk. You are all mistaken when making the claim that people act immorally because they don’t known their desires/wants/interests. Claiming that humans as a species are naturally inclined to treat one another morally and just, in accordance to rationality, preposterous! People rarely act in a way that will bring them the most advantage. Man derives the most pleasure out of going against reason to assert his individuality.

I bolded the above sentence because I felt it the strongest.

We do often act without reason

We often do desire what is knowingly harmful to us.

I do.

I am an individual.

What is this protagonist trying to tell me about this ridiculousness?

Boxes are uncomfortable, especially small ones. In class Doug’s initial response was pushing the red button, to spite the arrogant and wealthy businessman. He thought he was not so simple, and he was going to prove it. The “Fuck-It Factor”, stubbornness, pride.  Whatever, it’s all basically the same.

“In short, one may say anything about the history of the world – anything that might enter the most disordered imagination. The only thing one cannot say is that it is rational.”

But, The Underground Man lost me not too long after that. Or I lost him. Either way, I was on my own.

Why would desire be gone when choices are known?  And why would there only be one reasonable choice? Can two choices/courses of actions be equally desirable? Is desire that easily reducible? What if reason and desire go hand in hand(In some situations)? Is the Underground Man claiming that when one acts completely irrationally, it is exclusively because of the defiance of reason or the restrictions that the individual feels is placed upon her? That the, as it was called in class, “Fuck-It Factor” is the cause of courses of action that people view as “for no reason whatsoever.”

For no reason.

“He will devise destruction and chaos, will devise sufferings of all sorts, and will thereby have his own way.”

For all of immorality to be linked to this defiance factor …

Day 14

Today’s class discussion was relatively limited, but my thoughts on the thought experiment are as follows.

First Scenario:

Disappointment. The demon came at my "loneliest of loneliness," but after it told me that my life would be repeated over and over again, that would probably be the new low.

Second Scenario:

An enthusiasm to attempt to fill the missing chunks of life in a way that I believe would fill them. But I think that enthusiasm would wane, unfortunately.

I watched the movie Cloud Atlas recently. The ending was anticlimactic. “This is it?” were my thoughts. These “souls” were recycled and progressed through time repetitively, went through that many challenges, made that many sacrifices, and it was all for what?

My conclusion led me to the realization that maybe I should actively start looking for the missing pieces of my idealish life, but I’m failing. Maybe it's because I don't even know what that ideal life is. 

Second Thought Experiment thoughts:

There is nothing that I could do with my life that would make me want to watch ten years of it. Nothing. Not even snacks. Plus it’s hard just to accommodate that situation in my mind. It would take longer than ten years of life to watch it. I would be physically impossible for me to live ten years staring at a screen. So I will cushion this experiment. I will say inside this room, physical needs (e.g. sleep, hunger, thirst, etc.) are set on pause, while the ten year movie is on play.

I have a hard time getting through a movie of a fictional character’s life that is edited perfectly and action packed. My life to watch would be even worse. Torture of the mental  (and if not in the magic room) the physical kind.

But what if… the next ten years of one's life were to be watched, but not all at once? What if one can spread it across the rest of the remaining lifespan (assuming one would live to a as they say, “ripe old age”)? Maybe then, it would be tempting for me to live in a way that would ensure entertainment for my future self when forced to watch my life. Maybe I would even want to watch it. Especially when I’m older, because let’s be honest, what does the average elderly person do besides reminisce and watch television?

Let me do the math.  So right now I am 18 (but I’m going to go with 19 since my birthday is in less than two weeks). So I stop being recorded with an all-seeing-mind-reading recorder at age 29. Let’s say I live until I am 78(The average age one lives to be in the U.S. according to World Bank).  I have 49 years to spread that 10 year video.  That is give or take five hours a day if I did the math right and if I choose to spread it out evenly . Assuming I get that option. And I do, this is a thought-experiment.  It’s a bit more tempting to alter my lifestyle if I consider it in this light. Assuming that’s what the experiment was intending. If not, disregard the above paragraphs.

Side Notes:

  

Today’s discussion felt very similar to the day we discussed truth in the large circle.

Goodbye, Nietzsche. I would say that I will miss discussing your words in class, but I would be lying.

Day 13

While reading, I was shocked. There was a passage that I bracketed and wrote “wow” next to. The slave morality is something that I (whether I wanted to or not) could identify strongly with. Although not completely.

I think pity is a terrible attribute and do not regard it as a strength. Not because I think that individuals are below my pity, but because they are above it. To pity is to condescend.  Also, I dislike weakness in many cases and value competence. I want to be competent and I want to be around people who are competent. Not the people who say things like, “I’d look for a job, but the job market sucks so I probably won’t even get one. It’s just wasted effort” or those that can’t make up their mind because they’re trying to avoid offending people.

I am often weak and incompetent. But I try not to be.

Nietzsche claims that they are not mutually exclusive (or at least I interpreted him to claim that): “…and at times they occur directly alongside each other – even in the same human being, within a single soul”.  I was trying to find the neutral ground, or the in-between of the slave and master morality. Because I don’t think that someone can be just one. I thought of myself and although I identified with the slave morality, there were parts that I disagreed with, but could sympathize with in the master morality.

Someone said it’s all perspective. That makes sense to me. From outward appearance one may have both, but it matters what the individual considers herself to be in.  Joe’s example of Martin Luther King Jr. was interesting.  But if they are interchangeable depending on the situation then it seems to me that it takes away from the strength of the perspectives, but can also be used as insight into oneself. I am feeling this way because – I am being oppressed. I am feeling this way because – I am powerful.

Side note:

What is 27,943 divided by 19? Take time to figure this out using your own head, without the aid of electronics. If you have done it(or attempted it) then you understand how my mind has been feeling all week. But unlike this math problem, there is no solution. So I’m constantly holding pieces in place, subtracting chunks, and trying to find an answer.  My brain feels like it’s running on a treadmill, set on high: going nowhere and doing it quickly.

I love it though.

Even still, I’m excited for the weekend. I plan to go home after class and sleep. Preferably for a long time. 

Day 12

I think that it is completely arrogant to assume that there is no universal truth. I understand the concept of subjectivity. That everyone can be living inside their own world while in this one. That to the delusional man, the ball didn’t roll down the hill, it floated.

But, what goes beyond that?

Nietzsche says that, “There are many kinds of eyes. Even the sphinx has eyes – and consequently there are many kinds of ‘truths,’ and consequently there is no truth.”

But isn’t that vain? Arrogant to assume that everything must have something by which to see a universal truth with. Can this universal truth not just be? Why does it have to make itself known and be degraded as something that has to be experienced by (wo)man to be true

“...If seeing is believing, then believe that we have lost our eyes.” - Manchester Orchestra, I Can Barely Breathe

People are calling it a universal truth, but limiting it to earth.  Ridiculous.

Bubble land, truth bubble, whatever,  I don’t care.

I believe that while alive, people can have something (a way of living, an object, whatever) and live their life with the belief that it is true.  People can believe all they want; it won’t make it true outside of their own minds.

“How do we know that’s true, how do we know there’s an earth? How do we know we’re not in the 

matrix? How do you know?”

 “It’s true that nothing’s true.” Okay, maybe so.  But only, to the person who thinks he can see it.

Side Notes:

Today is the first day that I didn’t say anything in the large circle. I feel disappointed. In myself?  Maybe. In   the discussion? Maybe.

I am tired.

I believe I am tired.

All persons identical to Haley Sorg(at the time this post was written) are persons who believe themselves to   be tired.

Tell me how that is false.

Day 11

Nietzsche.

Usually, while reading the assigned reading material, I write my thoughts. While reading Nietzsche the only thing that I wrote in my notes was “what.” At least for the first round.  

Today’s class discussion was beneficial to my understanding.  In class by using the textbook excerpt as a lens to read the madman and discussing it in the full circle, I was able to understand it better. After class I reread the assigned material and used my understanding of the madman to understand the excerpts (slightly) better.  

It worked both ways.

There is a sculpture inside of Towers University Apartments on the Tempe Campus. It’s huge, yellow, and looks like a bent paper clip. I was standing near it with a friend. She asked, “what is this even supposed to be. It looks like a giant mutilated paper clip.” I told her that after taking a critical theory class, I could tell her what it was. So I did. I made something up about the creative process and how it represents one’s struggle to find the original passion during the fading enthusiasm of an idea near its expiration. She told me that makes a lot of sense, even though she knew I was BSing the whole thing.

It is that easy to turn nothing into everything.  I might be doing it while reading Nietzsche.

What does this mean for me?

It’s easy for me, when writing these reflections, to treat the class material somewhat flippantly.  I’ll try harder to make it personal, I take it personally.

I found Nietzsche’s view that consciousness was born out of the need for communication interesting:  “As the most endangered animal, he needed help and protection he needed his peers, he had to learn to express his distress and to make himself understood; and for all this he needed ‘consciousness’ first of all, he needed to ‘know’ himself what distressed him, he needed to ‘know’ how he felt, he needed to ‘know’ what he thought.”

I interpreted this to mean that Nietzsche was viewing it at a physical standpoint, probably because he said “endangered.”

But what if peers were not capable of alleviating your (di)stress, but were the cause of it? I believe that is what led me to become overly conscious. I already knew (or thought I knew) what I was. I did not need to prove it or know it in order to communicate it.

It seems to me that when people pass judgment upon someone, and find something about her that she had not noticed. Then she is put at a heightened consciousness and tries to find (or hopefully not find) what they(those who passed judgment) had found. Which ultimately leads her to reevaluate who she was to begin with.  

People have the power to provide anxiety, but they can never really take it away. Those are my thoughts right now.

Day 10

Today in class, “Clamence” was sᴓrenly mistaken about himself (See what I did there?).  He is in the aesthetic sphere, not the ethical or the religious. He lives possessing pure pride and cynicism which Kierkegaard claims is characteristic of the second stage in the aesthete.  Additionally, his actions are centered around himself. His position as judge-penitent is not to serve the people by giving his life to teaching them more about themselves, but to put him in a position that lets him feel superior to them.

The best way to distinguish between the lines of the spheres when deciding on the sphere is to look at role conflict.  Like the Abraham and Isaac example found in the assigned reading and class example.

I don’t know where I am though, so maybe it's nt.  It’s tempting, I’m tempted. The idea of spheres. I’m following the aesthetic. And the stages, I’ve been through them, but I don’t know if I’m in or have been in the ethical. I find the rationale behind transitioning from aesthetic to ethical lacking.

Kierkegaard claims that the third stage of the aesthetic sphere is characterized by despair. To rid oneself of that despair. The individual can either morph into the “crowd” and lose her sense of individuality or transition to the ethical sphere which has a universal moral code and put the group above herself. To me, that seems in a way to be losing identity as well(unless the group behaves unethically and she decides to deviate in order to live up to her moral code). I fail to see how it is any different (in relation to individuality) to melding with the group by remaining in the aesthetic.  The grounds seem shaky at the very least. 

I struggle ethically.

I don’t struggle to act ethically; I struggle to feel like I’m acting ethically, because I don’t aim for anything. It just kind of happens. Like, if I was one of those vending machines in pizza joints that you put quarters into to get different toys in return, then I would just be consistently popping out moral values. So when people compliment me on my character, I feel uncomfortable. 

Maybe that means I’m in the aesthetic sphere.

I know I'm not in the religious one. I’d like to believe that I’m not constantly sinning, adopting the religious sphere sounds so painful and god seems like a terribly cruel “subject”, but in my mind when I picture belief, god seems like a comforting/beautiful thing.  Living of love. It’s somewhere I’d like to be. I don’t know if I’ll ever get there.

That leap is pretty big.

Also, the sphere theory seems to rely heavily on Christianity. I don’t understand how it correlates with Kierkegaard’s stance on personal choice if the ethical and religious spheres already have set values.  Does that mean that one would always be in the aesthete in he chooses a different set of moral principles that don’t involve the group as the foremost concern? And Consequently never reach the religious sphere if Christianity is not the chosen religion?

Side Note:

I forget to mention it in a post, but during Friday’s discussion it made me wonder:  what if delusions were contagious? And each country/group of people saw the cup differently. Would it still be objectively a cup, even though nobody saw it as one? Or would there be no objective certainty about its identity? And if delusions were contagious, what would be the cure? Assuming there is one.

I bet there’s a book about it. There’s a book about everything.

I love Kierkegaard. He’s so crazy/cool. He seemed more (super)human than Camus because of the quotes from some of his journals. I’m inspired to read them in their entirety on my own time.  I love how he can take a stance like, “There’s no reason to believe this way, I just believe it. It’s completely irrational and that’s why I believe it.” And still be respected as a genius.

Day 9

About the person who has read all of Kierkegaard and still tries to create a subjective truth within the identity of the coffee mug.

What is the point of it?  If the person who says, “you are crazy,” that is definitely not so.” is the one who is “objectively” wrong. Because surely, the Kierkegaard expert would know.

No.

This is my teenage angst post.

I’m frustrated.  What is the point of struggling when it changes nothing. What is the point in working hard? Is it possible to find an internal satisfaction without looking to others validation? Their judgment.  I’m not appreciated on the level I should be. I hear that so often, I think that so often. But at what level of appreciation would be sufficient.  As an equal? Respect-worthy? People fight for equality, but struggle to be different. I don’t understand. I don’t understand. I don’t understand.  In class people claimed judgment is bad, “who has the right to judge?.” Some said nobody. But if it is so wrong, why does everyone need it to 

be happy.

So even if it happens. You reach that positive judgment from that person or group of people you’re seeking it from. For a moment you are happy, but what happens after that? Who do you need to be appreciated by now because I doubt it ends there. Yourself?  So what if Clamence is terrible, he did everyone a favor. But what if you’re simultaneously judging yourself while still seeking others' positive judgment.  Where is the escape in that? Did Clamence find it? No, he’s still there, even now, in Mexico City.  I know we've moved on from Camus, but I haven’t.

“I have just returned from a party of which I was the life and soul; wit poured from my lips, everyone laughed and admired me—but I went away—and the dash should be as long as the earth’s orbit———————and wanted to shoot myself.” – Kierkegaard

Day 8

Maybe my thoughts aren't sophisticated enough.

I don’t know if thoughts can even range on a scale of sophistication, but if they can then mine are in question. I thought that our first discussion today was relatively straight forward. Regardless, this is how I viewed Kierkegaard’s essay on choice:

Imagine those carnival games that take place in a rectangular box. One side of the box (the front-facing side) is made of glass and inside the box are evenly spaced wooden or metal pegs. The top of the box has an opening. One takes a ball or a circular chip and drops it in. Eventually that ball will reach the bottom of the box after moving to the left or right of each peg that it happens to hit on the way down, and will eventually land on some kind of marking.

Now imagine that you are the ball. You have just been dropped in this box and are about to start moving downward very quickly. As soon as you have been dropped and hit the first peg, you can go either left or right. However, when you hit that peg you have that moment, and that moment only to decide which way to go. If not, gravity will choose for you.  Something will happen whether you choose it to happen or not. Reflecting about which direction to go when you hit the first peg is useless because by then you have hit the third peg, and before you know it you have reached the bottom, not making any decision or choice on your own. Life and others, or in this case gravity, made them all for you.

So in a way, by spending too long in a state of reflection or indecision, you are no different than the ball that was released sans freedom.

I don’t know why the conversation shifted in a nature v nurture direction.   Because of "personality"? Like, “Then is there such a thing as personality? Or is it just the product of never ending choices?” … What?

I actually do have a lot of thoughts on this, but that’s another thing.  

But on the topic of personality…

Kierkegaard stated that by failing to act you lose yourself. Actually he says, "...because he has neglected to choose, which is equivalent to saying, because others have chosen for him, because he has lost his self."

Although, I believe that you lose yourself either way. Because by making that “either/or” decision, you have changed and are different and on the path to being different than you were when briefly contemplating that action.

Was he? Am I missing something? Was he also trying to talk about what makes people themselves? Besides their freedom to choose?

Side Notes:

I would like to hear/read more thoughts about “the group.” If you are reading this and have formed thoughts on it, please share. I would put mine up, but I've already put this post is getting long.

I loved the way class was set up today. I was happy to be able to discuss more than one topic. The 60 second writing stressed me out though.

“What do I write? How can I organize my thoughts in only a minute?  What if I write something then realize it’s crap and try and cram something intelligible on the piece of paper with the remaining sliver of time? “ 

Then discussion happens.

I lose myself. 

Day 7

One time I was on the patio of a restaurant. A little while after sitting down I noticed a chalkboard sign, it read, “Thanks for not putting the tables together.”  And I thought to myself, "that’s nice, I’m being thanked for something I wasn’t even previously conscious of doing." Then I wondered about all the other things I’m doing (or not doing) that people are grateful for. Thanks for: not jumping off the patio of the restaurant, not throwing food at other customers, not sticking straws up your nose, behaving in accordance to societal norms, etc. Then I pictured all those “thank you” as words, and they started surrounding me and moving towards the floor like reality was some kind of stop-motion film.  I was swimming in thanks. People are always swimming in thanks or in innocence the same way that Clamence claims in The Fall that they are swimming (metaphor permitting) in guilt. I think that is interesting.

I wish we would have talked more about freedom in class though.  I really loved the large paragraph of it.  “I used to spread it on my toast…” But the best part for me was the last sentence of that paragraph: “At the end of all freedom is too heavy to bear, especially when you’re down with a fever, or are distressed, or love nobody.”

Side Note:

There were some parts of The Fall that were difficult for me to understand. I had to google a lot of biblical references to fully understand what Clamence was trying to communicate and even then it was difficult. Not exclusively because of the references though.  But anyways, I now feel inspired to take a bible lit class.  

Since we are moving on to Kierkegaard I feel inclined to include some kind of Camus commentary in this post. I google imaged him. He looks cool. I realize a lot of people think this because someone stuck him on a Valentine’s day card. I don’t see any Sartre Valentines cards. It’s a funny one: 

Day 6(A)

So many things about Clamence.  What do I say? I rarely know what to say.  

My dad is a Sikh. He is also a very religious person. After Gurdwara he will bring home a translation of the chant. And asks me if he can read it to me, I usually say sure because in those situations what else can one say? (I don’t mean this literally, there is a lot more one can say.)  While reading it, his eyes light up and his voice changes inflection as he stresses different parts of the writing, eventually words become sentences – each getting its own period and capital letter. After reading it he’ll look back up at me to see my reaction, stick out his neck, point to the words and go, “Woah! Woah!” then clench and unclench his fists like he’s saying “Ta-Da!” then he’ll laugh in amazement. Like those written words lifted a veil in his mind and allowed him to see something that was already there. They do not do that for me. A lot of the time they don’t even make sense. But most of the time the words sound pretty enough that it makes it easy to pretend like they do  in fact make sense. So I just comment on what part I liked. And he’ll nod and say something like, “yeah, it’s powerful, isn't it.” He’ll hang onto it throughout the day and then bring it up later.

In a less exaggerated way, The Fall does that for me.

While reading the text I was able to recognize, if not always myself, then other people in Clamence’s speech. For today I will address his thoughts on dying friends and his seemingly virtuous acts.

In general, I think that the fact that there are no altruistic actions is a depressing thing.

However, we talked a lot about altruism in a nonprofit management class I took. And a girl in that class said something in a way that slightly altered my view on the subject (I paraphrase): “Yeah, so what? I don’t think it’s a bad thing that there are no selfless acts. I think the fact that humans feel the need or have the desire to fill a void within them while filling a void in someone or something else is a beautiful thing.”

Maybe it is.

For one like Clamence (before his fall), to see in her or himself a selfish hypocritical person and yet still continue to act in a seemingly unselfish way would be an amazing thing for the world. However, I do understand that for Clamence there were more variables such as power and image/judgment. That affected him and contributed to his “fall.” Why isn't it called The Rise.

-----

Side note:

This post in its entirety is significantly longer than what is actually posted, but I cut it off because the word count extended 900. Hence the “A” after Day 6. If it seems like it is unfinished, it is because in a way it is. If you happen to be reading this and would like to read the second half then comment and I will post it as part B.

Day 5

Today was the first day I felt bored at a point during the circle discussion.  I hope in the future we do not concern ourselves with starting a foundation to establish what we have established. I felt like the conversation was one of those wooden dolls that can be torn in half again and again until there’s a solid lump of a doll. Except there was no solid doll.

At the end of class Thad said/asked something along the lines of, “So you all have an idea of what to write in your blogs in response to today’s discussion(?/.) I don’t know. Do I? How many words am I at?

…

So the meaning of life.

The meaning of life is the cliché deep question. Maybe I should bring my black turtleneck shirt to class next time.

I wanted to talk about more. I felt like The Myth of Sisyphus excerpt we read had enough thoughts inside of it to fuel more than one question, even though it was focused on life. After rereading it (again) I still have questions. Please answer it in the comment question. What was Camus’s point when talking about the universe of an emotion, and about understanding feelings practically? And his comparison to understanding a man through his behavior. I’m not asking you to tell me what he said. I know what he wrote. I can practically recite it by now, I just don’t feel it. If you’re looking for it, it’s at the beginning of the new section on page 190. Is it just the simple concept – like I am feeling right now – how I know the passage, I know the words and what they mean, but I can’t feel it. So I can’t fully experience it? Or did I answer my question and I am experiencing it?

Maybe I'm a pyscho.

Qu'est Que C'est?

Day 4

I liked having a different question provided in discussion group than the ones listed as RRQ.  The quote one, that one was nice – to listen to and to answer.

I’m struggling with the alternatives. Ways to “live in response to the absurd.” Although I get the fully living one. While reading the Myth of Sisyphus excerpt again, I will focus on this and hope to find an answer/conclusion/new question.

I also don’t understand what Camus was trying to communicate to the reader about suicide though, about how it is contrary to the condemned man. When even with suicide, one is unable to reject or revolt against the absurd because while dying that is the last thought/feeling(?) that comes to mind and once dead it doesn’t matter. Completely irrelevant.  The world is gone. And the absurd isn’t. So even while trying to escape it, to give the absurd the middle finger, so to speak, one is no better or worse off, and neither is the absurd.

The following quote is relevant to the above paragraph: “…the absurd cannot be settled, It escapes suicide to the extent that it is simultaneously awareness and rejection of death. It is, at the extreme limit of the condemned man’s last thought.”

I also wonder if something, whatever it may be, were to come after human life for the individual. Something like heaven.  How would that change the meaningless feeling? I look forward to reading Kierkegaard.

For attending a catholic elementary school, I have a ridiculously small notion of what heaven is, or would be.

“If heaven was a pie, it would be cherry, so cool and sweet, heavy on the tongue. Just one bite would satisfy your hunger, and there would always be enough for everyone.” (Griggs).

But in all seriousness, what is the greatest thing that someone/something can offer in life or even the afterlife? And what is so great about it? To be worth everything.

Side notes:

- I like the tiered system. I’m still skeptical about Tier 3 being an honor. Oh! That was the great thing. I was trying to think of earlier in discussion circle. How Tier 2 would be an honor, besides having so much enthusiasm about the subject that one had to be put in Tier 2, people would still be telling others to stop talking. But Lauren stated it wonderfully by saying that those on Tier 2 have the power to shift or move the conversation.  

I also think that it has the potential to be an honor, but an internal one because it allows the mind to work to accommodate the parameters of discussion while still understanding the material in a satisfactory way.

- I may write too much in these posts…

- I was going to cite the quote from the textbook that I inserted, but I don't know what to cite it as. An anthology? But it's not an anthology it's just an essay in a textbook.

-  We get to start off class in discussion circle formation w00t w00t.

Works Cited

Griggs, Andy."If Heaven."This I got to see. RCA,2004.

Day 3

Today was more challenging for me than yesterday, but I had already thought that it would be. I read some of the day’s reflection questions before class started, and I felt like I was stuck on the guilt one. I’m still kind of stuck on it.

What was the meaning of guilt? Placing guilt on Mersault allowed the people in the courtroom to what? What was the point of attacking his character? Make him inhuman so they don’t have to understand him? He never felt remorse, “Monsieur Antichrist?” it’s kind of funny because neither side understood him. Not the prosecutor or his lawyer. There was a point though that he “realized he was guilty.” But only after noticing the attitudes of the people in the room who believed him to be.

How can someone or a group of people as insignificant or equal to Mersault decide if he was guilty? This reminds me of one of my favorite Killers songs. It’s called, “Don’t Shoot Me Santa.” It highlights the ridiculousness of Santa being able to judge character and distribute punishments or rewards accordingly.  But I definitely think that killing someone should have some sort of punishment or is a crime that should be accountable to someone/something. Oh, but it was so easy to identify with him in the second part. When he spoke of wanting to cry, I could feel his desperation. I wanted to say something too, but like him I wouldn’t know what to say. And his affection for Celeste in that moment was something I felt as well.

Anyways, class today was fun, but also frustrating. I felt like there were multiple ways to interpret the text to find Camus’s thesis. I don’t know if I chose the right one. If there is a right one.  We also discussed such big subjects that it was hard to find words or time to fill all of them. There are still 25 days of class left though. There is still hope. Or is there?

After posting the link to this blog and reading a few entries in others’ blogs. It has hit me (figuratively speaking) That my words I have posted and will continue to post on this website will be read. So I feel like a disclaimer of sorts is appropriate.

Disclaimer: I do not plan on making my posts consistent, the posting itself will be, of course. But I will most likely write whatever is on my mind. I may answer the questions without an introduction similar to the first post, explain my thought process in a chronological fashion, ride a train of thought and get distracted by the countryside, so on and so forth. Also, although a sophomore, in college, I, still have yet to learn how, to place a, comma correctly.

I appreciate your patience while reading my blog.

Class today was a lot of fun.  I enjoyed both the small group discussion and the full class one. I’m looking forward to tomorrow’s class. Or today’s class by the time I blog this.

Mersault really is like water, shaping himself to fit the molds of the people around him. I don’t dislike him. I don’t know what the best quality a person can have is, but Mersault doesn't judge negatively or positively. I hear people say that all the time, “don’t judge me.”  By the time they say that though, it’s usually too late. It’s actually always too late.  But yes, I don’t dislike him. He is much better off morally than some characters in the book. Yes, yes, he killed a person. That was wrong. I don’t deny that. I am happy there aren't a large amount of Mersaults walking around Phoenix in the summertime. “It’s the intention that counts.” I could throw a  rope across The Stranger right now and make a bridge of sorts with A Clockwork Orange, but they’re still different lands.

Does he have a choice? “Living in the moment,” fueled by comfort.” Everything just kind of happens to him. He lets everything just kind of happen.

Using myself as a gauge of normalcy, I ask myself, “Is Mersault ‘strange’?” What does he do/think that I don’t do/think.  How do we live differently?  When am I like Mersault? I am like him when... I go along with something because I have nothing better to do or when I don’t reflect or take time for introspection. Mersault mentioned that he doesn’t like questions. I could tell, because he never really asks himself them.  Is Mersault just naturally being? Is life easiest that way? Maybe in that way (the easy part) a life without passions would be nice, but overall, it sounds like a boring thing. I would die.  Literally. Living without caring is probably impossible. The End of Day 2 Blog Post.

RRQA Day 1

I think nearly everything counts as personal freedom. I think it’s different to feel free than to be free though. For me I usually feel most free and I consider the “free” feeling as a feeling of lightness or possibilities. I can do anything, think anything, be anything (or start doing, being, and thinking anything at least). But actual freedom is different. I think physical freedom is always present, but thinking and feeling freedom are something else entirely. Sometimes I can learn or think something and it will never go away, just sit there (if thoughts could sit) inside my mind and oppress my actions taking away the “free” feeling. I may still be free, but I no longer feel it. This is a concept that I thought Solomon was trying to convey in the introduction.

This past year I have been unable to watch T.V., play video games or read fiction without feeling a lasting guilt afterwards. My guilt over reading has changed recently however, since having taking an ENG 200 course and having Corri Wells as a professor. I now am reading through classic literature like it’s my job and I’m a workaholic. Anyways, I felt like I was literally running away from my mind and I could be spending my time doing more “meaningful” things. Not that I understand what meaningful is, but I am sure at this point in time, that losing my mind is not it.  I fear this is making me a boring person. I tell myself to lighten up. I imagine people I respect saying, “Haley, it is okay. Lighten Up.” Then for a moment I do, and feel guilty all over again. It’s not something I can just get rid of, although it would be nice if I could.  And it’s not like this feeling has made me a social anomaly. I still watch movies with friends. Sure, maybe I search for something significant while doing it and analyze it instead of feel it, but it’s an internal thing. I still have fun. I still tease my sisters, dance, sing my favorite songs and my not-so-favorite songs that I can’t get out of my head, climb trees, etc . I’m a normal person.

              

  When I was a sophomore in high school, I thought I was an “individual.” Then I read this t-shirt that said something along the lines of, “You’re unique, just like everyone else.” (T-Shirt of Unknown Origin). The shirt was covered with snowflake pictures. It was sassy. I interpreted it as, “No snow flake is exactly alike, but it’s still a snowflake. It was, to me, a get over yourself shirt – so I did—but I still come into acquaintance with people who are just so themselves that it makes me believe that there are unique people. I think it is confidence. Actually, I am doubtful confidence is the “unique” causal factor, but I have yet to meet an unconfident person who I view as unique. And whenever I imagine an “ordinary” person. I add confidence, and now they are an extraordinary person.

…..

 I just changed my mind. I imagined a unique insecure person. But the imagined person was lacking the positive connotation of the word “unique.”

 I don’t know.

 We’re all snowflakes.

 I could think about this all day. (RRQA Day 1 End)

Side note: I planned on writing about today’s class, but I also wanted to respond to the questions listed. As a shortened class commentary:

 I wondered why people chose to share what they did. Like in the introduction, Solomon wrote about how Sartre felt uncomfortable defining Existentialism because it wraps it up and ties the knot(or the not), but it is not something that can be wrapped up. I felt like we were acting in a similar way giving ourselves wrapping paper. This is why I dislike introductions. Hi. My name is Haley. My hobby is gardening.  That’s it.