Part 3 and 4

In part 3 and 4, David Banach talk about how Existentialist view happiness and how to have absolute freedom.

People seek happiness in many different ways, some from clothes and some from food. However, Existentialist believes that true happiness is found internally not from an external source:"...one must lose the promise if external value, but they find a more real happiness, one that cannot be taken away by the external forces beyond their control." One must not depend on materials to be truly happy. External values can always be taken away therefore we will not be truly happy. However, I feel that all humans are materialistic but just on different level with different things. Is wanting an external always bad? Does food count as an external source?

One of the line from the lecture that really struck me was: “Our lives is a series of meaningless actions culminating in death, with no possibility of external justification." Basically this quote talks about how life is meaningless because we are all going to die. I totally disagree with this statement. In an lifetime one can change so much. If Obama thought that life would be meaningless and that there is no point of life would he be able to become the first black president? Why do we need happiness if we are all just going to die? Can one be happy when all that’s on its mind is death?

In order to have absolute freedom one must think of everyone as equal. Existentialist believes that when one is controlling another then the person is not really free. When one makes someone its slave then the person itself turns into an object. But can we really see everyone as equal? Can we look at the person next to us and say that we are exactly the same?

Overall, I feel that the way the Banach view life very different than the way i view it. I think this would help me look deeper into the question what is the meaning of life.

To Amber:

One question that i really liked was "Why does freedom seem to make the human race happy?" i guess people nowadays just want to do whatever they please. However, if you think about what would really happen if everyone had the freedom to do whatever they please will it benefit people? All i can imagine if that the world would be in chao and it will be like the Survival of the fittest.

Is everyone's idea of freedom the same? i mean if you randomly ask people what is freedom will they all agree on one thing? what if someone said if drugs were legal it would give them freedom are we suppose to change that law just to make someone happy? How do we know what is "good freedom"and what is "bad freedom"?

Can we really make everyone happy?

To Corey:

agree with many things that you are say and i really like your question: "Can you not have choice but still be free?" However in my opinion there are difinely ways to explain both how essence precedes existence and existence precedes essence.

An example of how essence precedes existence is before a chair is made someone has already has a propose for the piece of wood the will make the chair.

An example of how existence precedes essence is how when a we are born we don't really know who we are until we are faced with many challenges and the influenced from the people around us.

i guess it can be seen in both ways but if you ask me i agree with you and think that I am the one who controls my life and the direction it goes.

Banach's Lacture Part 2

Most of the time i don't even know what i am doing.

Now that i look back into my past i realized that i have done many things that i can't even explain. Some say that there is a reason for everything but i disagree. I guess part of not knowing why i do certain things is a part of me. Would that be an example of absolute freedom? I mean i am being who i am... right?

One question that is constantly on my mind when i am reading Banach's writing is why do we need so much? Couldn't we just be happy with what we have? Banach is always trying to tell us to find the deeper meaning of things but why can we just be pleased with what we do understand. In my p.o.v. i think that we should just try to improve ourself as we live our lives in this world and to keep this simple. i mean why make things so complicated?

Banach is always talking about absolute freedom that is insides of us that we need to find but what about freedom on the outside? This remains me of a question written by Manley. It states: "If you aren't politically or physically free, can you still be mentally free?" In my opinion i feel that you can be mentally free even if you are not phyiscally free and even if you are mentally free you might not be physically free. For example, i feel like the that lives in the U.S. are the ones that has the most political and physically free yet i still hear about people being paranoid in the U.S. which is what consider not mentally free.

In conclusion, I feel that is doesn't matter is we are "absolute individuals" or not, just be happy and live your life.

HW 2 - Comments 1

julielin said...

Amber I really liked how you connected the piece that David Banach wrote to real life examples. This is my favorite sentence: "Even though we are standing so close, it seems that we are standing miles and miles away." I totally agree with it. i reminds me a lot about school. Even though we see the people in school almost everyday for the past few year i don't even know more than half of our classmates. However sometimes i wonder can we really survive without anymore's help and support? Can you really be "absolute individuals"? One last question i have is do we want to be an absolute individual?

julielin said...

i agree that no one can really feel how we feel on the inside but others are the one that makes us feel this way. For example, when someone dies you feel really sad but they are the ones that makes you feel sad. so if you are an absolute individual will you care about others? Will you even have any feelings? How would you feel if you did?

Anyway if you cover your true feelings is it because care about the people around you and don't want them to see you cry and be sad? could you really consider yourself as an "absolute individual?

i hope this is not to confusing to read...

#1

um... i agree that we are individuals but we do have friends to be there to support us. I think to be an "absolute individuals we have to be completely away from society as if you dont not even exist. 

Arrg i have no idea what to write...

Whenever i read the sentence "trapped within our own mines" all i think about is someone that is crazy. what i picture in my mind is someone sitting on the streets and other people just staring at them. Its kinda scary in some way...

now that i think about it the questions in my head is why do people think about this? what benefits does it bring? whats the point of this? Does it really matter?