While reading "No Exit" I found myself thinking about what my hell would be like quite a few times. After a lot of thinking time, I came to the conclusion that my hell would consist of close-minded people that always thought they were right when, in reality, they had it all wrong. I would also hate to be in a room with people who eat annoyingly, don't clean up after themselves or those that are uncontrollably lazy. After I thought about everything I would hate to deal with for the rest of eternity (I came up with a lot), I thought about the whole message that Sarte was proposing to those who read his play. "Hell is-- other people" is only possible if one is not living a "pour soi" life. He represented every other existential lifestyle in "No Exit" (en soi (Estelle), commitment (Inez) and bad faith (Garcin)), and that's how/why they were in hell together. If one of those people were living the pour soi way, 1) they probably wouldn't be in hell in the first place, 2) there would be some way to defeat the purpose of hell. So basically, if one chooses to live the pour soi lifestyle, hell will never unintentionally enter their life. This is simply because these people have the ability to chose any life they want to live, and I couldn't see why anyone would choose a life where hell is a possibility.
This being said, living the pour soi life is much more complicated than Sarte proposes it to be. Some situations don't leave much leeway to how one responds to it. Of course there is always a choice, but there might not always be a GOOD choice. In the case of picking the lesser of two evils, one can lead a fairly miserable life. But, if one is truly living the pour soi way, technically nothing should be able to bother them. This is where I have a problem with the philosophy. I don't believe that people should be so lenient that absolutely nothing bothers them. It's unnatural. Pet peeves, as petty as most are, are defining characteristics. They represent what someone stands for, what someone enjoys and what someone dislikes. If absolutely nothing bothered someone, they'd be living the life! But I wouldn't consider them an individual. Some things in life will bother you, it's basically inevitable. And if it's actually come to the point where nothing can get under your skin, congrats, but maybe rethink your true core values.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Classroom Report
Who would have thought that a class that requires deep contemplation would become my favorite? Not me, that's for sure. When I first signed up for Philosophy, I had simply heard that it was a pretty decent class to take because good books were read and there weren't many tests. This was the class that I was planning on sitting through for days, weeks, months, quarters and semesters. As it turned out, that's not the case in the slightest. Although we're still early in the year, Philosophy has already helped elongate my understanding of intellect's ideas as well as my own.
This has been made possible by discussions in class about the books that we're reading, etc. Analyzing has always been a difficult process for me, and I've found that the way we go over it in class by learning some of the history of the philosophy before the ideas themselves has really helped with my analytical skills. The only aspect I would change in the class is the amount of people that regularly participate. I understand that it can be extremely difficult to speak one's mind in front of a class of 30 strangers, but that's one of the main points of philosophical thinking. The more opinions and ideas that I come in contact with, the more I find myself learning. I love having to think more about the issues discussed in class, I can't imagine how awesome it'd be if everyone contributed their thoughts as well.
This has been made possible by discussions in class about the books that we're reading, etc. Analyzing has always been a difficult process for me, and I've found that the way we go over it in class by learning some of the history of the philosophy before the ideas themselves has really helped with my analytical skills. The only aspect I would change in the class is the amount of people that regularly participate. I understand that it can be extremely difficult to speak one's mind in front of a class of 30 strangers, but that's one of the main points of philosophical thinking. The more opinions and ideas that I come in contact with, the more I find myself learning. I love having to think more about the issues discussed in class, I can't imagine how awesome it'd be if everyone contributed their thoughts as well.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Presidential decisions
Albert Camus and Voltaire are really not that different in their beliefs. Although one believes that there is no meaning in life (Camus) and the other believes that the meaning is to "cultivate one's garden", both believe that hard work is what everyone should focus on.
Because of this belief, if I had to pick the presidential candidate that each would vote for, I'd argue that it would be Mitt Romney.
Voltaire would vote for Romney because his main point is that he will create more jobs in America. This will lead to a higher employment rate, something that Voltaire holds high in importance. Romney also wants to decrease welfare benefits, something that many argue decrease people's initiative to work. Voltaire's views suggest that he would be totally in favor of this happening. A reason that Voltaire would not be in favor of Obama is the fact that a lot of his campaign is based on the idea of hope. Throughout "Candide", he satirized optimism and claimed that it was hyped up and not necessary to fulfilling a successful life. Voltaire believes in actions rather than hope and welfare, making it clear to me that he'd be pro-Romney.
Although I would say that Camus wouldn't waste his time voting for the next president of America, if he had to chose one candidate, he'd vote for Romney as well. Camus believes that nobody really matters in the long run, making me believe that he could care less about the state of welfare in America. He would also agree with the increased funding to military services, just as Voltaire would. Romney is supporting increased funds, Obama is not for them. Although I couldn't see Camus supporting either candidate, I believe that he is more compatible with Romney.
Because of this belief, if I had to pick the presidential candidate that each would vote for, I'd argue that it would be Mitt Romney.
Voltaire would vote for Romney because his main point is that he will create more jobs in America. This will lead to a higher employment rate, something that Voltaire holds high in importance. Romney also wants to decrease welfare benefits, something that many argue decrease people's initiative to work. Voltaire's views suggest that he would be totally in favor of this happening. A reason that Voltaire would not be in favor of Obama is the fact that a lot of his campaign is based on the idea of hope. Throughout "Candide", he satirized optimism and claimed that it was hyped up and not necessary to fulfilling a successful life. Voltaire believes in actions rather than hope and welfare, making it clear to me that he'd be pro-Romney.
Although I would say that Camus wouldn't waste his time voting for the next president of America, if he had to chose one candidate, he'd vote for Romney as well. Camus believes that nobody really matters in the long run, making me believe that he could care less about the state of welfare in America. He would also agree with the increased funding to military services, just as Voltaire would. Romney is supporting increased funds, Obama is not for them. Although I couldn't see Camus supporting either candidate, I believe that he is more compatible with Romney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)