Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

Does Kurtz Need to Be More Than an Idea?

Although Kurtz eventually becomes a corporeal character in Heart of Darkness, I think that Kurtz as just an idea is equally if not more powerful than the man himself. In the case of Marlow, the idea of Kurtz gave him a purpose in life, it allowed him to take advantage of an otherwise dismal situation, and it set him apart from the rest of the men who pursued a physical goal, ivory.

While the other men were consumed by their greed and their desire for ivory, Marlow became enticed by the idea of Kurtz, not what Kurtz was after. While the other men languished, Marlow stayed on his toes and more of an observer than an active participant.

Marlow's lesson applies to the real world as well. Searching for an idea, whether obtainable or unobtainable gives one's life purpose; often the corporeal form of the idea proves to be disappointing and cannot live up to the idea. Regardless of whether or not a physical or real thing can be acheived by pursuing an idea, the purpose that the idea gives is what makes the idea valuable.

Existentialist Post Marxism?

When reading through and considering the ideas imposed by Althusser I found myself drawing numerous connections to the lessons we received in existentialist thought weeks ago. Both seem to put society at a point of dominance over citizens, imposing restrictions and regulations on individuals. Additionally, both insist that society causes a lack of true freedom among people. However, the two differ at a very significant point. While existentialism offers the path to freedom through expression of ones true individuality, Althusser implies that the ideologies that control us are inherent in human society and have been with us forever, and thus we are not capable of breaking free. Would this be considered a hindrance to us, or something that should scare us? If we want true freedom is there anything we can do to find it? Or does that even matter? Maybe just some stuff to think about I guess.

Cow

The cow was wandering freely in the grass

It did not know what to do

It ate a lot of food and had a large mass

 

A car drove in to the grass with a man eating a bass

His car was old but his bass was new

The cow was wandering freely in the grass

 

The cow saw the car but just stayed in the grass

All the while softy yelling moo

It ate a lot of food and had a large mass

 

The way the driver hit the cow was very crass

All the while the man was reading about how to make stew

The cow was wandering freely in the grass

 

The car eventually stopped because it ran out of gas

The cow’s life on earth consisted of moments very few

It ate a lot of food and had a large mass

 

All the while the cow was being watched by a lass

The man did not know what to do

It ate a lot of food and had a large mass

The cow was wandering freely in the grass

Shakespeare's Social Construct

The focus of class discussions thus far has been somewhat paradoxical. While we claim to disprove of the concept of love as solely social construct, we now listen to the poets preaching the power of "true love" from the haunting realm of antiquity. As a class, we have been asked to comprehend existentialism and apply it with skepticism to the the workings of contemporary society, yet what can we make of these poems, namely sonnets, and their dogma of "love?"

Has Shakespeare, Spenser, Sidney diluted our culture into one in constant pursuit of an abstract idea born in fourteen lines supported by an iambic pentameter? Modern society exemplified by pop culture cannot seem to fathom a fulfilled life without a romanticized version of love, so should we attribute this to Renaissance writers who all just happen to write about the blinding passion of love? I have trouble reconciling the two ideas, considering these poets seem to predate outward existential philosophers. Maybe the sonneteers are the ancestral version of today's barrage of love-focused media that reinforces the social construct. Or maybe love is a concept entirely separate and cannot be defined in terms of existentialism. 

I cannot make a firm assertion regarding the relationship between the sonneteers and existentialists, yet I think it is a paradigm that we must address from both sides of the aisle. Either the poems about love fit perfectly into the existentialist social mold, or they transcend the theory. What do you think?

 

London Is Drowning

One of my all time favorite songs is London Calling by The Clash. From their 1979 album by the same name, this song is basically a criticism of society using a portrayal of apocalyptic London. The title is a reference to the BBC during WWII, which would identify itself as "This is London calling.." when broadcasting into occupied countries. While some people may think this song is just an angry rant, I personally think the lyrics are incredibly poetic.

According to Perrine, poetry is an experience and should make you feel something. This song definately makes me feel as though I am in the midst of all the chaos of some kind of crisis or apocalypse. These repeated lines I think are really effective in portraying the kind of societal meltdown that is occuring:

                            The ice age is coming, the sun is zooming in
                            Meltdown expected, the wheat is growin' thin
                            A nuclear error, but I have no fear
'                           Cause London is drowning, and I, I live by the river

We have a very clear picture of what is happening; the world is in shambles and the end is near. When I listen to this song, I can clearly feel the desperation and hopelessness of the situation, and I can feel the anger expressed. If this isn't what Perrine was referring to by "experiencing a poem" then I don't know what is.

Also, the whole song is just an extended metaphor that uses more specific ones to illustrate the point.  For example "London calling to the imitation zone/forget it brother, you can go it alone," (the "imitation zone" being everywhere that is not England or London), is just a metaphor for how when things get tough, people tend to abandon those around them, another criticism of society and human nature. You can picture people (or in this case London) calling out for help, but people just turning them away and saying "sorry, you're on your own." The entire song, of course, uses war and apocalypse as a metaphor for events taking place that Joe Strummer and the rest of the band felt were concerning. This use of language and metaphor is a major part of what makes "London Calling" so poetic.

The opening line "London calling to the faraway towns/now war is declared and battle come down" adds to the dark and ominous tone of the song and the poetry within the lyrics. When I hear this line, I picture "battle" as some kind of black cloud that is sweeping through the countryside and descending onto the world. This dark imagery and tone definitely increases the poetic value, in my opinion at least. A lot of The Clash's other music is upbeat and more fun, and "London Calling" being darker and more serious is what I think sets it apart and makes it more poetic. This song is really trying to say something, and for a 3.5 minute song, it packs a lot of power.

Just as a side note, I also noticed a lot of existentialism in this song. In the line "A nuclear error, but I have no fear/ 'causeLondon is drowning, and I live by the river"  we have everything that is going wrong, but the speaker just throws up his hands and decides he may just as well get it over with: if "London is drowning" and he lives by the river, then  he is going to die, and there's really nothing to be done about it. Also the line "London Calling to the zombies of death/ Quit holding out and draw another breath" deals with idea that death is inevitable, so people should just accept it. Plus the zombie metaphor is awesome.

 

 

Even More Existentialism?

Maybe I'm reading too far into everything that we've discussed this far in class, but The Awakening definitely is giving off some existential vibes. To me, the basic concept of existentialism is a citizen of a society becoming an individual primarily based upon them breaking free from the societal constructs that have been imposed upon them and doing the things that they truly want to do. The novel primarily focuses on Edna's struggle with her emotions and reactions when dealing with her considerations of marital infidelity. Although she recognizes that her surrounding society greatly looks down upon the ideas that she is formulating, Edna finds great satisfaction in her secret love, feeling joy and new freedom after she has expressed it. Through loving who she wants, Edna is able to break free from the societal norms and explore new uncharted paths. However, inevitably the pressure of society is too much for her and she is forced to take her own life. With an existentialist mindset, Ednas' struggle seems to be based primarily on her desire for individuality within a stifling societal construct. Had she been able to find an escape from the ideas harshly imposed upon her, she would have no doubt relished in the freedom that it would have allotted her, and thus not been led to death.

The Answer

Suicide was a really… well, a weird way to end this novel.  I did not expect that to be the end when I  tarted reading.  In the end Edna really embraces her inner existential feminism view of her life.  She knew that he was going to leave her husband and her children behind; she was really only thinking about herself.  She did not care what people would think of her.  In killing herself she finally had the relief that she needed since she was not happy with her life.  She was exhausted not only mentally, but  hysically.  She just kept swimming and even though she was tired, she had the stamina to keep going so she could finally let go to life.  Yes, that last sentence was weird but it is what happened to her.  For Edna suicide was really the only way to “fix” what was wrong with her life.

Matthew is no Meursault

This is a bit late to be posting about Trust, but here goes.

One of the questions on the viewing guide for Trust was, "Is Matthew an existentialist?"  My answer, in a word: no.  Existentialism demands the acceptance of one's life.  Meursault certainly does this.  Whether refusing an offer to move to Paris or contemplating his inevitable death, Meursault rarely thinks what could have been, and so is content.  Matthew, however, thinks entirely differently.  Where Meursault is happy, Matthew is depressed.  He carries a hand grenade with him at all times, in case his despair ever becomes too much.  The grenade is not an idle threat, either, as he proves at the end of the film.  In addition, Matthew subscribes to common morality.  He despises the gas station attendent who attempts to rape Maria.  He thinks Maria's mother is immoral and sadistic for treating her daughter so poorly.  Overall, Matthew absolutely is not an existentialist.

Bohemian Rhapsody is Existentialist

Okay, this sounds a bit far fetched, but after thinking about the bits of pop culture that most remind me of Mersault's epiphanies about the purpose of life, if any, I ended up, once again, at the mercy of the ever-incredible Freddy Mercury. Here are they lyrics:

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see
I'm just a poor boy, I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
Little high, little low
Any way the wind blows, doesn't really matter to me, to me

Mama, just killed a man
Put a gun against his head
Pulled my trigger, now he's dead
Mama, life had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away
Mama, ooo
Didn't mean to make you cry
If I'm not back again this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on, as if nothing really matters

Too late, my time has come
Sends shivers down my spine
Body's aching all the time
[From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/q/queen-lyrics/bohemian-rhapsody-lyrics.html ]
Goodbye everybody - I've got to go
Gotta leave you all behind and face the truth
Mama, ooo - (any way the wind blows)
I don't want to die
I sometimes wish I'd never been born at all

I see a little silhouetto of a man
Scaramouch, scaramouch will you do the fandango
Thunderbolt and lightning - very very frightening me
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo, Gallileo,
Gallileo Figaro - magnifico

I'm just a poor boy, nobody loves me
He's just a poor boy from a poor family
Spare him his life from this monstrosity
Easy come easy go - will you let me go
Bismillah! No - we will not let you go - let him go
Bismillah! We will not let you go - let him go
Bismillah! We will not let you go - let me go
Will not let you go - let me go (never)
Never let you go - let me go
Never let me go - ooo
No, no, no, no, no, no, no -
Oh mama mia, mama mia, mama mia let me go
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me
for me
for me

So you think you can stop me and spit in my eye
So you think you can love me and leave me to die
Oh baby - can't do this to me baby
Just gotta get out - just gotta get right outta here

Ooh yeah, ooh yeah
Nothing really matters
Anyone can see
Nothing really matters
Nothing really matters to me

Any way the wind blows...

At the beginning of the song, he is questioning the purpose and the reality of his life. Who is he to deserve sympathy for his crime? He decides that he doesn't need pity, because in the end nothing matters to him. By returning to the idea "any way the wind blows" he is creating a special emphasis on this point.

He then goes on to sing to his mother about how he murdered a presumably innocent man. While Maman was dead when Mersault killed the Arab, the ties here are unignorable. The difference, I think, is that while Mersault seemed wholistically apathetic about his crime and its consequences, Freddie feels remorse, and seems to be taking his sentence like a martyr. It's all a bit dramatic, yes, but then if it wasn't, it wouldn't be Queen.

This song does beg the question, "how would Maman react if she were alive to witness Mersault's crime?" And I believe, she would be equally devastated, and Mersault, too would have to console her, ask her not to cry and beg her to return to her life without him as if nothing mattered. Had Maman not died in the beginning of the novel, perhaps Mersault would not have come to the epiphany at the end of his life that made him so comfortable with his impending death. Perhaps life would not have mattered at all to him, just as Freddie's doesn't seem to matter.

The song progresses through Freddie's shock and anger over his sentence, and eventually ends with the idea that life is as random as the wind, and whichever way this wind blows, nothing matters to him. It's hard to determine to what extent life mattered to Mersault in the end, however, I think both of these stories demonstrate a general apathy towards the parts of life that don't matter in the scheme of death.

Bottom line: Queen is awesome!

Numb

It's hard to determine who is explicitly an existentialist. To me, calling yourself an existentialist is like calling yourself a Hipster: you're not if you saying. Someone else has to acknowledge you first before you can acknowledge yourself. Meursault certainly has a nonchalant attitude toward traditional emotions. Death causes no fallt in Meursault's life when his mother dies. He does not cry and the tears of others actual annoy him. He feels no need to marry Marie or anyone because they are happy how they are: fooling around. Maybe this doesn't make Meursault an existentialist but it does make him different than a typical person. That difference is what sets him apart because no one understands him. The lawyers and judges and chaplains don't understand how someone can go through life with so little emotional attachment to everyone and everything. In the end, this alienation is what causes Meursault to be 'cast out' of society by his execution.

Existentialism in a Classic Cult

The first time I was introduced to the movie Harold and Maude, I was completely intrigued.

7 years later, when I read about Existentialism in AP College English, I maintained the same feeling. I put two and two together, and I realized that Existentialism was a prime component of the film released in 1971 that has since become a cult classic and my personal favorite movie.

The simple but strange story revolves around an outcaste couple: Harold, a 20 something year old man obsessed with death and attending strange funerals, and his 79 year old companion named Maude, an eccentric with extreme love for life.

Harold is, put simply, odd. He drives a hearse, stages his own gorey suicides, and attends funerals of complete strangers for mere amusement. He is misunderstood by his mother and she attempts, with utter failure, to set him up on blind dates while striving to ignore his existence. Harold’s life is fairly sombre until he finds Maude at a funeral he has crashed for his entertainment. When Harold sees her at his next crashed funeral, Maude introduces herself which begins their friendship.

Two opposite views of life are simultaneously presented in the film: the dark and the beautiful.  

Harold’s weird obsession with death and funerals are linked to his feeling that he has no part in the world and feels no connection to anyone around him; true existentialism. Maude, therefore, takes the opportunity to help reverse Harold’s obsession of destruction by showing him that nature is beautiful and that with vitality, life can be incredibly fulfilling.

The film is, as previously described, very existentialist. Harold is constantly reminded by Maude that life is meaningless. She explains that he must enjoy it while he can but reminds him to never never trick himself into thinking that he has absolute ownership of anything because he has, frankly, no ownership at all.

Maude’s patchy history (her recollections of being involved in protests and a glance of an Auschwitz ID number tattooed on her arm) allows Harold to see that he accepts his past and his future, he can create a meaningful life.

Marie

While many people argue that Marie is sort of a hindrance to Meursault, I give her credit for staying with Meursault as long as she did. Marie brings up the ideas of love and marriage to Meursault on several occasions. Each time Meursault responds with indifference saying that it doesn't really matter, which for him is true but for Marie, it is not. Meursault disregards the idea of love and marriage as social inventions with not real meaning, which must have been difficult for Marie to understand and accept. One can tell that she holds these values in high esteem because she continues to ask Meursault about them, but after Meursault's indifferent response, she takes a second, and then seems to shake it off and move on. If she were bent on the social values she would have felt broken down by the fact the Meursault didn’t "love" her. Instead she seems to linger on the topic but she does get over it, which adds a dimension to Marie that I think many people are missing. She doesn't understand why Meursault rejects these concepts but she comes to accept him for who he is, which is an honorable concept even if she isn't an "existentialist."

What Matters to You?

As I was filling out some applications last night, I was confronted with a question that simply asked "What matters to you, and why?" It reminded me how a question did not have to be complexly worried to require a thoughtful and thorough answer. That question immediately made me think of Existentialism and the meaning I had chosen to create in my own life.

I wonder what Camus or Sartre would think if I told them that my answer was simply 'happiness.' When I read works in Philosophy, authors treated happiness as a divine goal towards which people strive. It is not something we can find everyday. But I disagree. Even when I feel sick or exhausted or like everything is going against me, if someone were to ask me if I were happy, I would not hesitate to say yes. For me, happiness is appreciation for the opportunities one has been given, and satisfaction with what he or she has been able to make of them. Lately, I have been able to find happiness in the hard work I have been doing, the family and friends I have around me, and the way I can find myself through swimming and dance. These are the things that create meaning in my life. And while Existentialists may argue that I am wrong for deriving meaning from socially-constructed facades, I would say that I am deriving meaning from happiness.

I do not yet know what I want to do with my future. I have no idea where I will end up working, or even where I will go to college yet. I have not specifically decided what I want to do with my life. In fact, the only thing I know for sure is that no matter what, I want to be happy doing it. Personal success is important, yes, but it is just like any of the other constructions I am deriving happiness from now. They might change, and they probably will. The meaning I have found for my life is what makes this college application process so important to me. I do not want to go to a place that necessarily has the most prestige; I want to attend a college that is the best fit for me. I want a college that challenges me, provides me with answers to my curiosity, and has smart people with open minds and hearts because those are some of the things that make me happy.

I wonder how Meursault would answer that college application question.

Meursault's Existentialism

    Meursault exemplifies existentialist principles when he rejects social norms. An example of his repudiation of society’s values is his indifference to the job promotion in Paris. After Meursault’s seeming indifference to what his boss thought was something Meursault should have been excited about, the boss says that Meursault lacks ambition. What is interesting is that Meursault says on page 41 that he had “lots” of ambition when he was a student but “[he] learned very quickly that none of it really mattered.” It brings up the question: what changed in Meursault’s life that caused this drastic change in belief? But, even in ignorance of the answer to the preceding question one can gather that Meursault has surmised the fallacy in the values that others hold in high esteem.

    However, he does not understand why "nothing matters" until the end of the novel when he has an epiphany. On page 121 he says “I had lived my life one way and I could just as well have lived it another. I had done this and I hadn’t done that.” Meursault essentially says, whatever one does in life does not really matter. On the next page when he thinks about how Maman had taken a fiancé before she died, Meursault says, “And I felt ready to live it all again too.” He no longer dreads his execution. Instead, he simply lives life, realizing that nothing else in life matters because the meaning of live can be found in life itself. In the end, Meursault is content with his fate because lived life, and there was nothing more he needed to do.

What A Lovely Day For Existentialism

I think Existentialism is a lovely concept! I can only Imagine how much happier and fulfilled I would feel if I didn't spend time thinking of "what if's" working toward my next goal -- if only I had time to enjoy the present. Sadly, senior year is the death of Existentialism. All we will be doing for the next eight months is looking toward the future. Unlike our friendly neighbourhood Existentialist, Meursault, I don't have time to stare out the window ponder my days away. As much as I would like to, I don't think I'm meant to. Our society does not permit such activities. We are all constantly on the move, in search of something, working for some sort of end. I think this type of philosophy is more of a theory & less of a practice, because in the end, how well did it work out for Meursault?

Superiority complex

I hate existentialism. It is selfish. And we aren't as individual as we all like to think we are. Sorry if im bashing anyone.

But existentialism has an implied superiority to it. I don't think any young Iraqi or Afghani whose seen his country destroyed is going to turn to existentialism as a way of finding meaning. My point being that an existential mind is a luxury. It is for individuals that can sit around all day and contemplate the "why's and what for's" of life. Look at Camus. He was a French man in colonized Algeria, a first class citizen. Why is it that he, and the white man in general, has pioneered existentialism? Its because were privileged and we can think about more than just getting by. The subjugation of "inferior" races has allowed us this comfort to contemplate things that less priviledged people dont contemplate.

World War II

World War II, which ravaged Europe throughout the early 1940's, was a trigger for mass disillusionment and existentialist thought- one prominent example being the Stranger. The book was originally published in 1942, in the middle of the war. The setting of the book seems to fit vaguely into this time period, yet, oddly, the war is never mentioned.
 Camus, surrounded by war and destruction, was able to incubate his unique and seemingly bleak worldview. His character Meursault only fully realizes this same worldview when he is about to be executed. In the end, these epiphanies are the same- both men discover the absurdity of life when they are faced with the simple fact of death.
Most people aren't too eager to accept existentialism, because they are so involved in life. It takes takes death to fully understand what life is actually about.

Accepting Existentialism

I really don't believe in existentialism.  This seems like a simple thing to say, but here is the proof. Let's begin with Sisyphus.  Why is he happy? It seems to be that he has accepted his fate of pushing the rock up the mountain forever. He accepts it because it will happen and there is nothing that he can do about it.  This doesn't make him better than his fate or stronger that the stone.  It just makes him a man who accepts his life even if he hates it.  It is impossible for me to believe that he can enjoy his life of futile labor.  Where is the purpose?  Where is his joy? Next is Meursault.  Meursault isn't happy.  He is a unique individual it seems beyond society but that doesn't make him happy.  He doesn't believe in love or in the sacredness of marriage.  What makes him happy? I would like to understand this concept, but I don't actually understand.  From my perspective, the world that society has created makes happiness possible and it is not dependant on realizing that there is a world created by society, it is based on individual acceptance and appreciation. 

Pleasantly Surprised

I don't know about anybody else, but when I read the first chapter of The Stranger, I was dreading the chapters to come. I strongly disliked Meursault as a character, had no idea what the book was going to be about, and didn't really want to read it at all. Even a few chapters in, I found myself being drawn into the story. Although Meursault frustrated me as a character, he also intrigued me. I had never really read a book with a character that acted quite like he did, and frankly, it intrigued me. I began to especially like the book after the in class discussions of existentialism and how it is portrayed through Camus' writing. I love thinking "outside of the box", I guess you can call it, and existentialism requires you to do just that. Its real trippy mane. But yesin all seriousness, I really enjoyed reading The Stranger and especially enjoyed the class conversations that we had. Cheers

Existential threats

Existentialism is dangerous. Yes, we should question our surroundings and actions. And like Mr. Heidkamp said, maybe some of us are unsatisfied with what were given in this world. But happiness comes from having a sense of meaning or purpose, and without the predefined lines of god, religion, morality and etc, you will find an emptiness. There is a void in our universal existence that we need filled. Why? Because humanity has one common fear; finding ourselves purposeless. So I ask, where can you find a meaning in life more powerful than what we already have?

Camus' Characters in a Matrix

So in class a couple days ago, we watched clips of the Matrix and a character (I don't remember his name) made the point that people weren't ready to face the fact that they were living in a computer program. We then talked about how this denial is similar to people's denial of extistantialism and that the systems, such as love and family, do not exist

While reading Part II in the Stranger, I noticed that the some scenes illustrated this point perfectly. For example, the young clerk had a negative response to Meursault's denial of faith because the young clerk believed that "all men believed in God, even those who turn their backs on him. That was his belief, and if he were ever to doubt it, his life would be meaningless (pg 69)." Just like the people in the Matrix, the young clerk refused to deny the system of faith. 

Meursault's trial itself also illustrates this point. Meursault is being condemned not because of killing a man, but because he does not act the way society wants him to. All of the testimonies given against Meursault focues on his seemingly detached emotional state, how Meursault did not cry during Maman's funeral, how he spent the day with Marie the day after his mother's funeral, and how he accepted a cigarrette over his mother's casket. People turned away from Meursault's explanation that he and his mother did not expect anything from each other (pg. 88). This fact demonstrates how the system of family holds no meaning for Meursault, and also how quickly others are condemning him for that. 

I know this is kind of irrelevant, but I had a couple of questions: Why does Marie keep on smiling during her visit with Meursault (pg 4)? And why does Meursault pay so much attention to the robot woman and the reporter during the trial? 

 

Self-Realization in the Stranger

On the second to last page, Meursault reaches a heightened state of consciousness/self-realization about the world. He credits this realization to his sudden outburst on the chaplain because it had rid him of all hope. He has become aware on the "gentle indifference of the world" and finds happiness. While reading this, I could not help point out that this is very familiar to Sisyphus and Camus' idea of obtaining happiness in the world. The idea of death and acceptance of death has made Meursault feel freer in his life than ever before, just like Maman felt before she died. My only question about this realization is that does it take a huge moment in one's life, like Maman and Meursault, to come to a realization about the world and become free, as Existentialists would put it? Both Maman and Meursault had to be close to death to finally come to this acceptance and for Meursault, he had to get into an argument with a religious minister. If existentialism is supposed to help individuals become freer, why does it take such a huge event, and even so long, for them to have this acceptance?

Does Media Create Social Constructions?

I saw these trailers for a film called "Branded" and thought that they had a lot to do with what Mr. Heidkamp talked about in class. Specifically the social constructions imposed on us by the media. 

  

 

If you guys take a quick look at these trailers, you will notice how they are a bit exaggerated. However I believe that they provide an important reminder of how much influence advertisements can have on us in this day and age. Another example is that before launching the first Ipad, every Apple advertisement kept saying it is "only 500 dollars." The most interesting thing is that our society never had a similar product to compare with for a better price, therefore by saying "only," they automatically trick people into thinking the Ipad is a bargain. That's my rant on advertisement, sorry if you guys find it melodramatic or repetitive. 

Good night and a great week to all.

The Real Meursault

I dunno if Part Two has provided anyone else with this same feeling, but I feel like I finally understand Meursault! The big moment for me was on page 65 when he said "...my nature was such that my physical needs often get in the way of my feelings." This creates such a strange character because as people, most of us don't think or operate this way. We will often do our homework well into the night despite our exhaustion because we know that is the right thing to do. Physical sensations and needs don't dominate our decision making process. He isn't influenced by all of the social constructions that we talked about in class, he is "radically subjective", in my opinion. Meursault says that he didn't show much emotion the day Maman was buried because he was "tired and sleepy, so much so that I wasn't really aware of what was going on." It's as if he doesn't understand the gravity of the situations he's in, not that he is indifferent to them. To him, the trial isn't a situation, and after a while, neither is being placed in jail.

 

I love this book. I'm getting excited about it. I really like Meursault.

Existentialist Pep Talk

I was enjoying my break from homework, finishing a movie, when I noticed that what was being said was exactly like what we talked about today in class with Sisyphus. This speech was a teenager's pep talk to his glum friend.

I stopped believing in god when I realized it was just dog backwards. Well, when you think about it, g-o-d, d-o-g. It’s like an anagram, but a backwards one. After that, I just stopped worrying about stuff. You only get one go round, I reckon. When you’re dead, you’re dead. So you can spend your time thinking about how things haven’t gone perfect, or, you can just get on with it, have a laugh and that. That’s what I do. I’m pretty happy.

As soon as he stated his reason for not believing in god, I thought that it made sense in the context of religion being a social construct. His entire opinion is existentialist, I think, because he is basically saying you should not try and live up to an abstract, unattainable idea of "perfect," but instead should live the way you can, and make that enough for you to be happy. In class, we talked about how Sisyphus managed to forget his old life and be content with his new situation, knowing that the rock would never make it over the hill.

I realized afterwards that this idea seems to be present in most pep talks. The idea that you only get one chance and you shouldn't dwell on failures is rooted in existentialism, because you need to stay in the present and create meaning, rather than reaching for a socially constructed meaning that will ultimately end in failure.

(movie: The Inbetweeners Movie)

Does it Matter if there is Meaning in Life?

I take the answer to this question to be no. Why should there be? To quote Dave Lizewski from the movie Kick-Ass "like most people my age, I just existed". That's exactly how I feel. I could explain scientifically why I exist, but philosophically, I have no idea. I find it rather annoying to ponder the meaning of life. All of the systems that are "revealed for what they are" through existentialism are valid in a sense; if you believe in them, subscribe to them, live and breathe them, then they are just as valid as any other meaning. It's not the system that has inherent meaning, it's that fact that you believe in the system that gives it meaning. A rejection of systems and finding the true absurdity of life is just another thing to believe in and, at the end of the day, if you can truly say that you believe that life is absurd, then good for you. But a perfectly valid third alternative is not to think anything at all about it. I find myself too busy with school and college applications to care about whether or not life has meaning. If it does, whopdeedo, I still have a bunch of college apps to finish; if it doesn't, I still have a bunch of college apps to finish. Either way, I continue to live whether or not there is any meaning in life. To reject the belief in systems is not the same as escaping them; whatever you believe, there is no escape from the systems that define our society.

Harry Potter Is An Existentialist

I was really fascinated with our discussion today in class about how that if we just say "screw you" to the universe we can own our fates and maybe be happy when society says we should be miserable, like Sisyphus. I like the idea that if a person can accept their fate for what it is, they can forget everything else they are supposed to feel. Not to be cheesy and cliche, but what this really reminded me of was Harry Potter. In the last book, after all of his struggle with evil wizards and Voldemort, he realizes that he has to die for the wizarding world to be saved. Once he accepts his fate, death loses its hold over him and there's a happy ending (the fact that he comes back to life is irrelevant.) The same thing happened to Sisyphus; once he accepted his fate, the gods lost their power over him. As far as real life, I also think that Sisyphus sets a good example. Any situation is really what you make of it, and by not having huge expectations, one is more likely to have their expectations met; ie, instead of Sisyphus dwelling on what he was missing out on and wishing to go back to the human world, he found satisfaction in his life as it was, which I think is an important lesson for people to learn. Not that people shouldn't try to better themselves or their situations, but if someone is damned for eternity by the gods, it's probably a good idea to get used to it asap.

Meursault an Existentialist?

On the one hand, Meursault seems like the prime example of an existentialist. He thinks marriage does not matter, is not religious, and has no ambition in the work place. He seems to be rejecting social norms and carving his own fate.

Yet Meursault drastically fails at existentialism in one crucial point: He cares about what others think of him. When his lawyer angrily leaves after Meursault can only honestly say that he would rather his mother had not had died, Meursault says, "I felt the urge to reassure him that I was like everybody else, just like everybody else" (66). Meursault may not be "normal," but he wants others to think he is. During his trial, Meursault says that "for the first time in years I had the stupid urge to cry, because I could feel how much all those people hated me" (90).   Meursault does not strive to be an individaul and defy others' opinions. He cares whether he is hated.

I believe Meursault would rather fit in, but he cannot. He says himself, "my nature was such that my physical needs often got in the way of my feelings" (65). He seems to be a slave to his physical condition. He shot a man because it was too hot for him to think straight. Meursault is not a radical individual who seeks to define himself. He merely goes with the flow, reacts to his own emotions, and becomes upset when he realizes others condemn him for being atypical. 

Unattainable Sucess

 What is success? For most, it seams to be an unreachable entity: to become rich, to become famous, to change the world. Maybe this is because what success is is a vague concept with no soluble definition. Many strive for this unfathomable ambition that does not have true meaning nor substance. While reading Camus' essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus," his brief acknowledgement to the absurdity of human notion of prosperity and triumph prompted me to think more deeply about society and success.

"If this myth is tragic, this is because its hero is conscious. Where would his torture be, indeed, if at every step the hope of succeeding upheld him? The workman of today works everyday in his life at the same tasks, and his fate is no less absurd. But it is tragic at the rare moments when it becomes conscious." (Camus, 17)

Social institutions have instilled an unattainable definition of what it means to be successful, causing constant disappointment as humans are constantly comparing themselves to icons of wealth like Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and various others. The subsequent pain and suffering following realization and consciousness that most, it not all, humans cannot embody such "success," is detrimental to both the individual and society. If people could disregard societal stipulations and look inward, creating an authentic definition of success, a more rational and content population would emerge. By living in constant comparison and overt competition with others, there is always bound to be a "winner" and "loser," a subject and object. However, if humans can make a personal effort to become empowered and set goals for themselves, happiness would stem from success and mitigate a problem that has plague society for millennia. 

murder

While reading the final pages of part one, of the Stranger, I had a feeling that something bigger was going to happen in the book than the prior 50 pages. When Raymond and Meursault walked upon the Arabs the second time, I for sure thought that something was going to happen, but to my disliking, nothing happened then. However, when Meursault walked upon the Arab alone, I did not have the same feeling that something big was going to happen. Again, to the exact opposite of what I thought, Meursault murdered the Arab point blank for no apparent reason. All I could do was ask why? But nothing in the book, so far, answers that question. This frustrated me until I realized that I wasn't going to find out "Why?” i think that Camus is trying to establish that Meursault doesn't even know why he killed him. MAYBE, Camus is trying to show us that people will do outrageous and absurd actions, just to find a meaning in life and find their true identity.