Binta,
I liked how you directly argue with Banach's ideas about people being absolute individuals and I definitely agree with you...I don't think there's any way we could possibly avoid being impacted or influenced by other people!
Despite whether "existence precedes essence" or not, how can you not be affected by how you were raised or what you experience as a kid? As a baby, or even as say an 6-year-old, do you really have the ability to 'choose' who you are, what to believe, and how to interpret your surroundings? A traumatic occurrence as a baby can subconsciously follow someone for the rest of their life, and of course who we are raised by has a huge effect on us.
Like you said, even if we decide to go against what we learn as children we still have to had been influenced by some other external thing to have made that decision. If you never had the opportunity to see that another view even existed, how would it be possible to rebel?
I thought your talking about about the "first human being" was really interesting. If religion is taken out of the picture, the first human must have had parents. But how can the 'first' anything have parents? wouldn't the parents have had to be there first? Anyway, I guess that's kind of an unrelated topic but what I'm getting at is that it's hard to imagine anyone being completely individual. If you kept someone in an isolated room from the time they were born and kept them fed and healthy somehow without any direct connection with another creature, what kind of thoughts would they have?
To sum up, I really enjoyed your post -- it really got me thinking further. :)
Monday, September 28, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
HOMEWORK #3
Banach states that we all have a "freedom of synthesis" -- we cannot choose our experiences or our characteristics, but we can interpret them however we want to, we can make of them what we wish. Technically, sure, you can interpret anything in the world in any way you'd like. Who can contest an interpretation?
But how much does this relate to living, in reality? Say something tragic happens to you, or someone you love -- do you truly have the "freedom" to interpret the situation in a positive way? Or, even if you have the "freedom" to, is anyone emotionally able to? How much sway can you actually exert over your feelings? Or are these questions irrelevant, as Banach advises us to "BE AUTHENTIC"?
How can one even know what is authentic (or, if you like, "AUTHENTIC")? Even if we are "absolute individuals," it's clear that there are cultural, societal, and moral rules we're expected to follow. Is the decision to follow them distinctly un-authentic? Can we really "always rebel against [the outside world's] influence"? Is the decision to not act upon my emotions un-authentic, even if the results would be disastrous? Can I get angry and punch you in the face in the name of authenticity?
Is being authentic more about accepting your own emotions for what they are internally, or about how you portray yourself externally?
People are complex beings. We can feel so many emotions at the same time; we can feel one thing and then another in a matter of seconds, and each can be genuine in its own right. Our feelings, opinions, and perceptions are apt to change over time, sometimes without any notice at all. How does our authenticity pertain to to our fluidity, when it's impossible to act upon multiple emotions at once?
Banach talks about how "we all play roles, [...] letting other people determine what we are instead of deciding, ourselves, what we will be." I know that I play roles of my own every day, trying to meet expectations, whether they're real or not, in attempts to please others or maybe just my own self. There's no way for me to deny that. But I can't pass up this chance to argue a little with Banach's phrasing again. :) Are we "letting" other people tell us who to be? By his logic, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, considering we can't as "absolute individuals" know what other people want us to be.
As I see it, we impose most of these expectations on ourselves. I feel like it's mostly self-created. We think we understand what other people want from us and what will get them to accept us, and we scramble desperately to satisfy, pulling on one skin and then another; engaging in fake relationships and interactions because we're afraid to expose ourselves. I feel like this relates to the concept of being an "absolute individual" directly, too -- are we literally unable to see beyond subjectivity, or are we unable to just because we're scared of sharing our real selves with other people?
But in the end, wouldn't we really rather just be honest with one another?
Or is that maybe just me?
I know I get tired of putting on a front or keeping my mouth shut when I have something to say, tired of protecting myself from fears of rejection that only come from my own insecurity. Sometimes I just don't want to bother, and I have to wonder:
Wouldn't it be easier to just open up?
---
"And then it came to me then. That we were wonderful traveling companions but in the end no more than lonely lumps of metal in their own separate orbits. From far off they look like beautiful shooting stars, but in reality they're nothing more than prisons, where each of us is locked up alone, going nowhere. When the orbits of these two satellites of ours happened to cross paths, we could be together. Maybe even open our hearts to each other. But that was only for the briefest moment. In the next instant we'd be in absolute solitude. Until we burned up and became nothing."
-- Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart
But how much does this relate to living, in reality? Say something tragic happens to you, or someone you love -- do you truly have the "freedom" to interpret the situation in a positive way? Or, even if you have the "freedom" to, is anyone emotionally able to? How much sway can you actually exert over your feelings? Or are these questions irrelevant, as Banach advises us to "BE AUTHENTIC"?
How can one even know what is authentic (or, if you like, "AUTHENTIC")? Even if we are "absolute individuals," it's clear that there are cultural, societal, and moral rules we're expected to follow. Is the decision to follow them distinctly un-authentic? Can we really "always rebel against [the outside world's] influence"? Is the decision to not act upon my emotions un-authentic, even if the results would be disastrous? Can I get angry and punch you in the face in the name of authenticity?
Is being authentic more about accepting your own emotions for what they are internally, or about how you portray yourself externally?
People are complex beings. We can feel so many emotions at the same time; we can feel one thing and then another in a matter of seconds, and each can be genuine in its own right. Our feelings, opinions, and perceptions are apt to change over time, sometimes without any notice at all. How does our authenticity pertain to to our fluidity, when it's impossible to act upon multiple emotions at once?
Banach talks about how "we all play roles, [...] letting other people determine what we are instead of deciding, ourselves, what we will be." I know that I play roles of my own every day, trying to meet expectations, whether they're real or not, in attempts to please others or maybe just my own self. There's no way for me to deny that. But I can't pass up this chance to argue a little with Banach's phrasing again. :) Are we "letting" other people tell us who to be? By his logic, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, considering we can't as "absolute individuals" know what other people want us to be.
As I see it, we impose most of these expectations on ourselves. I feel like it's mostly self-created. We think we understand what other people want from us and what will get them to accept us, and we scramble desperately to satisfy, pulling on one skin and then another; engaging in fake relationships and interactions because we're afraid to expose ourselves. I feel like this relates to the concept of being an "absolute individual" directly, too -- are we literally unable to see beyond subjectivity, or are we unable to just because we're scared of sharing our real selves with other people?
But in the end, wouldn't we really rather just be honest with one another?
Or is that maybe just me?
I know I get tired of putting on a front or keeping my mouth shut when I have something to say, tired of protecting myself from fears of rejection that only come from my own insecurity. Sometimes I just don't want to bother, and I have to wonder:
Wouldn't it be easier to just open up?
---
"And then it came to me then. That we were wonderful traveling companions but in the end no more than lonely lumps of metal in their own separate orbits. From far off they look like beautiful shooting stars, but in reality they're nothing more than prisons, where each of us is locked up alone, going nowhere. When the orbits of these two satellites of ours happened to cross paths, we could be together. Maybe even open our hearts to each other. But that was only for the briefest moment. In the next instant we'd be in absolute solitude. Until we burned up and became nothing."
-- Haruki Murakami, Sputnik Sweetheart
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
HOMEWORK #2: Comment
Hey Binta --
Your post here is so interesting. I love how you connected the ideas you're talking about to your state of mind directly at the time you were writing it.
The points you bring up about what we're willing to show about ourselves to other people, I can really relate to that. It reminds me of a thought I was having while reading the lecture - are we actually "absolute individuals" who cannot fully understand each other because we can't see beyond subjectivity or are we only unable to fully understand each other because we are afraid to expose ourselves to the people around us or believe that they won't understand (self fulfilling prophecy kind of thing)?
Your talking about people "hiding things about themselves" and questioning whether doing so is two-faced or not also connects to the later parts of the lecture...playing roles and making excuses and whether those roles and excuses are actually 'real'.
I especially like how you discuss the feeling of really loving somebody else and wondering what that could mean if we can't really connect to somebody else. I guess that's something no one will ever really be able to figure out. Even not thinking about it in an existential way, it's clear that it's impossible to have the entirety of someone else's mind spelled out to you. Maybe that's part of what it's all about -- the total vulnerability of loving someone when you can never know exactly what they're thinking or how they feel and or if their feelings will change.
I hope this actually made some sense, haha. :)
- Amanda
Your post here is so interesting. I love how you connected the ideas you're talking about to your state of mind directly at the time you were writing it.
The points you bring up about what we're willing to show about ourselves to other people, I can really relate to that. It reminds me of a thought I was having while reading the lecture - are we actually "absolute individuals" who cannot fully understand each other because we can't see beyond subjectivity or are we only unable to fully understand each other because we are afraid to expose ourselves to the people around us or believe that they won't understand (self fulfilling prophecy kind of thing)?
Your talking about people "hiding things about themselves" and questioning whether doing so is two-faced or not also connects to the later parts of the lecture...playing roles and making excuses and whether those roles and excuses are actually 'real'.
I especially like how you discuss the feeling of really loving somebody else and wondering what that could mean if we can't really connect to somebody else. I guess that's something no one will ever really be able to figure out. Even not thinking about it in an existential way, it's clear that it's impossible to have the entirety of someone else's mind spelled out to you. Maybe that's part of what it's all about -- the total vulnerability of loving someone when you can never know exactly what they're thinking or how they feel and or if their feelings will change.
I hope this actually made some sense, haha. :)
- Amanda
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
HOMEWORK #1
Sometimes, I feel completely lost --
It's like my brain is out of focus. Nothing around me seems to make sense. Everyday events are incomprehensible. I see other people and can't seem to even feel that understanding that I, too, am a human being. Utter alienation. Everything is blurry, scattered; though somehow, pain still resonates.
In this way, I guess I can relate to Banach's metaphor of being "trapped in a dark room with no windows" -- temporarily, being utterly cut off from others. But he endlessly repeats, "each of us is trapped in our own mind"-- "imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us". As I see it, when I feel incapable of connecting to others, it has to do with detaching from my own self. If I'm not willing to tap into into my own emotions and thoughts, how can I possibly even begin to understand someone else?
Can we truly understand ourselves, at any given time? He never seems to address this, focusing only on the fact that he believes we can't truly understand others. Most of the time, I can't control my own thought processes. I can't choose what to feel at a certain moment or in a certain situation. Sometimes I make no sense to myself; I surprise myself; I say or do things I didn't mean to -- "imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us," Banach says, but what of when I am imperceptible to myself?
And when I am imperceptible to myself? Most of the time, it takes a connection with someone else to help me try to understand me!
Is it impossible for me to fully know another person, to fully feel what they feel? Of course -- as I said, I have enough trouble with my own mind. But can anyone possibly contest that beautiful feeling of sympathy? The kind where you can feel it in not only your mind, but in your heart, in your bones, in your skin? The kind of bond that is so earnest it's almost tangible? Whether it's "true" or not, "real" or not -- is there anything more worth living for than that feeling? Isn't it maybe what we're all searching for every day of our lives? Aren't we all yearning for some kind of belonging?
How can someone explain away empathy so great that it's overwhelming?
"No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in anyone else's mind," Banach states. If we are all "absolute individuals" as he apparently thinks we are, how can he make these generalizations about humankind, if he believes we can't truly know anyone else? "When you think of it, the only thing we ever perceive immediately and directly is ourselves," he says. "You," "you," "you," ad nauseam.
When "you" think of it -- so Mr. Banach here is somehow so enlightened that he has access to the thoughts and perceptions that "you" have? Sure, I'm guilty of "we"s and "you"s, too, in what I'm writing right here. But I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything, to portray what I'm saying as ultimate truth (just to try to get my own thoughts sorted out) -- I'm not the one with any authority.
He has some very interesting things to say. But to tell me what I think and what I see when he's expounded on about how it's not possible?
Well, I'd say it's kind of hypocritical. :)
It's like my brain is out of focus. Nothing around me seems to make sense. Everyday events are incomprehensible. I see other people and can't seem to even feel that understanding that I, too, am a human being. Utter alienation. Everything is blurry, scattered; though somehow, pain still resonates.
In this way, I guess I can relate to Banach's metaphor of being "trapped in a dark room with no windows" -- temporarily, being utterly cut off from others. But he endlessly repeats, "each of us is trapped in our own mind"-- "imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us". As I see it, when I feel incapable of connecting to others, it has to do with detaching from my own self. If I'm not willing to tap into into my own emotions and thoughts, how can I possibly even begin to understand someone else?
Can we truly understand ourselves, at any given time? He never seems to address this, focusing only on the fact that he believes we can't truly understand others. Most of the time, I can't control my own thought processes. I can't choose what to feel at a certain moment or in a certain situation. Sometimes I make no sense to myself; I surprise myself; I say or do things I didn't mean to -- "imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us," Banach says, but what of when I am imperceptible to myself?
And when I am imperceptible to myself? Most of the time, it takes a connection with someone else to help me try to understand me!
Is it impossible for me to fully know another person, to fully feel what they feel? Of course -- as I said, I have enough trouble with my own mind. But can anyone possibly contest that beautiful feeling of sympathy? The kind where you can feel it in not only your mind, but in your heart, in your bones, in your skin? The kind of bond that is so earnest it's almost tangible? Whether it's "true" or not, "real" or not -- is there anything more worth living for than that feeling? Isn't it maybe what we're all searching for every day of our lives? Aren't we all yearning for some kind of belonging?
How can someone explain away empathy so great that it's overwhelming?
"No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in anyone else's mind," Banach states. If we are all "absolute individuals" as he apparently thinks we are, how can he make these generalizations about humankind, if he believes we can't truly know anyone else? "When you think of it, the only thing we ever perceive immediately and directly is ourselves," he says. "You," "you," "you," ad nauseam.
When "you" think of it -- so Mr. Banach here is somehow so enlightened that he has access to the thoughts and perceptions that "you" have? Sure, I'm guilty of "we"s and "you"s, too, in what I'm writing right here. But I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything, to portray what I'm saying as ultimate truth (just to try to get my own thoughts sorted out) -- I'm not the one with any authority.
He has some very interesting things to say. But to tell me what I think and what I see when he's expounded on about how it's not possible?
Well, I'd say it's kind of hypocritical. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)