mindfucked-life-blog - Tumblr blog

[mindfucked-life-blog]

What is Existentialism?

Existentialism is so many things. Existentialism is pure. It is dirty. It reminds you that you are alone but encourages you not to feel lonely. We are all alone together. It is raw. It’s the cold hard truth. The truth that you find within yourself, within the world around you, within your mind, within the earth, the stars, and the universe. Perhaps the greatest thing I took away from this course was the ability to think of myself, to value myself before other things, to love myself. to realize that yes, life is short. Yes, it doesn’t matter what i do and that is exactly why i should do whatever makes me happy. I began this semester in a tough relationship. I thought that i felt was love, i thought that what i was doing was what i was supposed to be doing, growing up and meeting a guy, staying with him, i had tunnel vision. i saw one future for myself. i didn’t see how it would be possible for me to be me and to live out all my dreams without that one person. I am in a much different place now and a huge push for me and a huge release to me was this course and its content. I know myself so much better, i know what i want. i know that life can be difficult but that it is a beautiful ride where you find yourself and connect to your self and others. The human mind is so complex. We feel love. We feel sorrow. Our mental feelings translate into physical feelings and vice versa. We are all so lovely in our own little ways. I have met and spoken to and heard from so many different people throughout this course and their thoughts have changed me, as much as if not more than the readings and course content itself. Thad was right when he said this course has a way of bringing in the right people. I feel so lucky and so happy to have been able to be a part of this experience. It was funny, raw, uncomfortable at times, thoughtful and every other possible emotion. I felt a sense of anguish at times. With regard to death, i hadn’t accepted it, hadn’t learned to live with it rather than living as if it were two separate occurrences. life and death. but they are so intertwined. you cannot have one without the other. that’s what makes life beautiful. if we lived forever there is no way we would appreciate it. i still struggle with the idea of death quite a bit but i find myself creeping closer and closer to the comfort that lies within it. its a sure thing. it’s hard to find something more reliable than it. we might as well make the most of our little infinities while they last.

[mindfucked-life-blog]

November 21st- Sartre on Freedom and Responsibility & Emotions

Sartre has a very unique and distinguishable philosophy when it comes to freedom and responsibility. His philosophy, unlike many other atheistic philosophers, holds a strong bond between community and individual responsibility. He says the way we act inexplicably changes the world around us. Every time you perform an action, you are endorsing it. Whether anyone sees you or not, whether you think its okay only for you to do it but not everyone else, or you think what you do doesn’t make a difference on the big picture, you are wrong (to Sartre). I agree with this point. This is like the ripple effect. One person does something, then another sees it and does it, someone sees them, etc. We have a responsibility to act how we want others to. It’s like the saying, “Treat others how you wish to be treated” back in grade school. If you want other people to act a certain way, then you need to lead by example. I agree with Sartre that we are connected with society and it is impossible to disconnect from it realistically. We are a part of it and what other people in our society do affects us and in turn what we do affects others in the society and society or humankind as a whole. We have a responsibility in this sense.

The next section on emotions was quite interesting as well. Sartre suggested that we are responsible for our emotions. While I agree with this, I do not think we can be blamed for our emotions, but only possibly for how we react to our emotions. Our emotions are physiological responses to stimuli. We cannot actively change our emotions before they occur. They’re automatic. We can condition ourselves to react differently to stimuli, condition if you will. But we cannot be held responsible for the immediate emotion we feel when faced with something. Whether it is fear, sadness, anger, or any other emotion, it is not something an agent can be held responsible for. They can only be held responsible for how they react and act on that emotion.

[mindfucked-life-blog]

November 14th- Heidegger

This week, we read various thoughts from Heidegger. The reading on death really made me think. One question the group asked was if we thought Heidegger's views on death were correct. I think I agree with some of them, but not all of them. For instance, I do not think we can really understand death until we die. Even then, what is there to understand? I think there is so much emphasis on death and dying especially in existentialism because when you die, it is like, "Ok so what was my purpose in life? What did it all mean? What is my legacy or my trail left behind?" I think we find various answers to these questions to comfort ourselves and make us feel like we are here for a reason but i cant help but think that maybe we are not. maybe no philosopher is able to find reason because there isn't one. Maybe this is why I am so attracted to Camus' writing. I don't think Heidegger can make so many conclusions on our understanding of death and what happens after and its meaning until he goes through it. Only those who die or those who have been in a very very close to death experience can really speak on this. I cannot. Our last subject of discussion also was very interesting to me and that was on philosophizing. I really enjoyed hearing the discussion on this. One person asked something like whether or not we thought Heidegger was correct in saying that people ascribe meaning to their lives because they are afraid. I 100% think this is true, especially in religion. I think religion is a good thing in many aspects like the lessons it teaches and some of the morals it upholds. What I do not agree with in many religions is the worshipping of a god or gods, the looking down on those who do not believe or do not follow the religion, and the afterlife aspect of it. We are not immortal. Once our earth bodies die, our souls will not live on in heaven or hell. I think this idea came about because people are afraid of death. I just cannot justify living my entire life in such a way to please a God in order to make it to the next life. Look around you. Live your best life now and do what makes you happy and makes you grow as a person. Because what happens if you die and there is no afterlife? Many people will say even if there is no afterlife and they know that, they would still rather live as if there were one. I don't think that is possible. If you don't believe in something, how can you go your whole life pretending you do? And why would you want to?

[mindfucked-life-blog]

Nov 7th - Dostoevsky & Unamuno

Notes from the Underground

“The best definition of man is--a creature that walks on two legs and is ungrateful.” -Dostoevsky

This reading is about the one advantage that is ignored when people list advantages. It is the advantage of doing things that would on the surface seem disadvantageous, but we do them just because we can. To go against the system. To go against what is rational simply because we can. Dostoevsky says that he is sick but refuses to go to the doctor to be treated simply out of spite. He knows he is only hurting himself, but he does it just to prove to the world that he has free will and can do things that are irrational and disadvantageous to himself. This may seem silly but to me it actually makes a lot of sense. I know I relate a lot of things to atheism and agnosticism. It makes me think of how I feel about religion. I think you can do something rational that is also disadvantageous. I do not believe in religion because I think it is irrational, but I also do not follow it just to show that you can go against the crowd. I know that it would be easier to believe in religion, that I would be at an advantage in life for many reasons if I did believe in it, but I put myself at that disadvantage out of spite I suppose. I don’t know that this is exactly what Dostoevsky means but I find it interesting even as a small tangent. We find pleasure and advantage in the fact that we CAN do irrational things, that we have the WILL to do them, the ability and choice. We could have everything advantageous int he world and still throw that all away just because of the pleasure we derive from going against it.

The Grand Inquisitor

This passage was a bit troubling, but very very interesting. I am confused by it though because of the fact the Dostoevsky, the author, is a Christian. It seems to me that he writes about Christ as somewhat of a fool and of The Grand Inquisitor as intriguing and smart. The Grand Inquisitor calls Jesus out on his mistake of not accepting Satan’s 3 Temptations. He tells Jesus that he has power because he is on Satan’s side. He also says his power does not make him happy. He is burdened with freedom and is responsible for keeping his people happy by allowing them to not have freedom. I wonder what Dostoevsky’s intentions are with this passage. Does he want us to be on the Grand Inquisitor’s side or Jesus’? At the end though, it is imagined that Jesus says nothing to him and kisses him and leaves and never returns. Maybe he feels sorry for him? Jesus certainly seems like too caring and loving of a person to kill the guy or something. So he just allows it to happen? The Grand Inquisitor basically tells him people no longer need him, that they go to church and the Pope is of more use tot hem than Jesus. I guess it just makes me wonder which would be better? Are those people really better off in a herd? Are they happier that way? Freedom and reason are quite a burden but to me it seems they are worth it. Maybe not to everyone. I think many people come to a point in their lives where they realize religion may not be rational and they realize that freedom may be a burden and then they are forced to choose which they would rather have.

[mindfucked-life-blog]

10/3 Kierkegaard

So for this class, we read Kierkegaard’s “Truth is Subjectivity” and “Existential Dialectic.” The reading that really struck me as interesting was “Existential Dialectic.” I thought it was really interesting to hear other people’s thoughts and views and interpretations of this reading. I really felt like it had a different and meaningful effect on everyone. Don’t get me wrong, i completely disagreed with a few people but that’s totally fine. This reading talked about three different spheres or phases if you will that you go through life in (or don’t get through all of them depending on the person). The first sphere is the aesthetic sphere, second is ethical, and finally the religious sphere. One point brought up that really sort of bothered me was by the TA of the class when he said and I quote, “It’s important not to stay stuck on psychological evidence against Kierkegaard, but to focus on the philosophical argument at hand.” I understand that it is a philosophy class so i respect that we should talk about the philo argument against him. but science is a big proponent in the arguments against him and against God and religion in general. so i don’t think there is anything wrong with rejecting his argument using psychological evidence. We go through psychological developmental stages. when we are young we think the world revolves around us and everyone is just there to please us. That’s natural. No one is born religious, knowing God’s “truth” and being truly faithful in religious phase. So people who say you can be born in the religious or ethical phase i think are wrong because those things are learned. Being ethical and learning about religion and faith are learned and taught behaviors. another thing that bothered me is that Kierkegaard says the religious phase is the highest phase and the best phase to be in. he belittles those in the aesthetic phase like “aw poor you i’m sorry you don’t know the truth and God’s word”. i hate that people always turn to religion for answers rather than finding the answers for themselves. i suppose thats why this argument bothers me so much is becasue when i think philosophically i am searching for answers on my own through my thoughts and what makes sense and religion just doesn’t to me. like how can you be so smart kierkegaard and know so much and then still be dumb enough to put your faith in something that isn’t guaranteed and give your life to this idea? that bugs me. it makes my brain and soul itch i don’t like it. icky.. just becasue you can’t find the answers to all the questions in your mind doesn’t mean you need to turn to religion for it. the unknown is okay and people don’t realize that like yes it scares the shit out of me that one day i am going to die and there will be nothing left of me and i will cease to exist and it was all for nothing but i refuse to turn to religion out of that despair and fear. Another few questions i have but don’t really have my own answers for are, “is it possible to be aware that you’re in the aesthetic sphere and aware of the other two spheres, but not want to move up?” “Can you be in two spheres at once?” like a transition between them ( not according to kierkegaard) and finally “Can you regress in these spheres?” Can you be in the religious sphere then backtrack to the ethical or aesthetic?

[mindfucked-life-blog]

Camus - “The Fall” & Kierkegaard - “On Becoming a Christian”

So this week we did the last ten pages of The Fall first. I may be biased, but I think this book is so deep and interesting. We talked about a lot of things this class, but I want to focus on the questions and parts that we didn’t get to in class. The next question we had for the class was “Would you rather be “free” (own actions, thoughts, choices) and alone? Or be a “slave” with an immediate connection/bond to a community (religion, society, etc.)?” I honestly don’t know which I would rather have. Right now, I’m probably roughly half and half. I am bound to certain communities, like my family, friends, and society as well. I am also free in that I at least try to create my own beliefs and not just believe what people tell me to believe. Jean-Baptiste was a slave to society and their beliefs until the day he was on the bridge. Then, he decided to end that slavery and be free. I would love to hear other people’s thoughts on these questions as well. The next question was “Do we all self-appoint ourselves to the role of judge-penitent in order to make ourselves feel superior to those around us?” I think we do. We judge ourselves for things we do. We regret things. We also judge people around us, sometimes for the same things we have done and judged ourselves for. Other times, we judge people for things we have not done and I think those judgments are even harder. We feel superior to people when we can say “Ya know, I’ve done shitty things, but not THAT THING. That makes them lower than me. I’m a better person than they are.” That leads to a feeling of power. Jean-Baptiste feeds off this feeling. He has an overwhelming need to be better than everyone else, before the bridge incident and after. Before the incident, he was a successful rich man who fought for the poor and helped the needy. He was a good person in society’s eyes. After, he needed to feel powerful by exposing people’s sins and then shitting on them. He saw himself as godly and above other people, physically and morally.

Kierkegaard’s “On Becoming a Christian”

One of the questions asked by this group was “Is there value to a ‘reasonless’ faith?” Kierkegaard says yes this is the only valuable faith because it is so strong. All you have is the belief in the faith. That takes guts and strength. My question is “Is it faith if you have reason for it?” If someone showed me hard proof and evidence for their religion being the ultimate truth, then I would believe it. I would have a reason to believe it though. I wouldn’t be taking a chance or even having “faith” if you ask me. I am just agreeing with the science behind the argument. I don’t think that is valuable or noble at all. Faith in and of itself is reasonless and that is what makes it “noble” to some people, and stupid to others.

[mindfucked-life-blog]

Albert Camus - Sisyphus & The Fall pg. 1-36

1. The Myth of Sisyphus

The myth of Sisyphus is so simple yet can be interpreted in so many different ways. I used to see it just as a metaphor for life. Like we have no say in we push our boulder each day and we have to find happiness in that. But recently i’ve been thinking that it isn’t like our lives at all. I think it is kind of silly. We don’t just roll a boulder up and down a hill all day with no relief and no alternatives. We have a say in our lives, at least somewhat. Sure, we have to go to school and work to make money and do a lot of repetitive things but I really feel like we don’t only do that like Sisyphus. We are able to go on vacations, stop pushing that boulder and relax sometimes. Sisyphus was condemned to that task for committing a crime. So I kind of say “Fuck you” to this idea of pushing the boulder every day. I take control of my life every day and do something different, try to see the world differently than many, take the path less traveled, as cliche as all that shit sounds.

2. The Fall Part 1

I just want to start off by saying I wish we had more conversation on this one. I was honestly quite bored with the discussion on this in class and didn’t live up to my expectations. I thought this book was amazing!!!!!!!! so it sucked that we stayed on just the topic of suicide the whole time because there was SO MUCH MORE to it. It’s about POWER, dignity, guilt, JUDGEMENT, confession, religion, the absurdity of life, and even more than that. I think a huge part of it is power though. The main character gets off when he is in control of others and is above others physically and intellectually. He wants to be the alpha male and thinks of himself and refers to himself even as God. This leads to his self-appointed “judge-penitent” status. He enjoys judging people so that he feels better about himself and his wrong-doings. I respect the fact that he can judge himself just as hard though. At the end of the day, I wonder if we judge ourselves more than other people judge us though. I think we judge our internal selves more but other people judge our external more and make assumptions and pre-judgements. My group is up next class so I’m super excited to dive into the book more thoroughly and do it a little bit more justice than I think the last session did.

[mindfucked-life-blog]

The Stranger by Albert Camus

Is Mersault a sociopath? Is he more grounded with more of an open mind than me? Should I just like not have feelings or passions or a conscience or meaning in my life? What kind of life is that? A life even worth living? I think if I had no subjective meaning in my life then I would have nothing to live for or work for or love and I honestly would probably be super depressed and kill myself. If you think about it though we all end up doing the same things whether it’s meaningful to us or not. All our day-to-day tasks and jobs and experiences become the story of our lives when we are old and when we die none of it even matters. Maybe our deaths affect some people deeply or just a little like 20 people but then those twenty people die some day too and you’re just a tiny tiny microscopic speck in the grand scheme of the universe. Mersault had a job and friends and a girlfriend and took trips and did all the normal things we all will probably do but he just saw more clearly that none of it mattered. I think for now I’d like to think differently, that what I do does matter and people will miss me when I’m gone and i’ll make a difference in the world but if i really think about it, which i will revisit this in the future when i’m old i’m sure, maybe i would like to think that my life doesn’t matter. while that may sound horrible and weird, i seriously think i would rather think my death will affect no one. no, i most likely won’t leave an amazing legacy like MLK Jr or Abe Lincoln or anyone of great importance in this country or on this planet (tbh they don’t matter either in the grand scheme of the universe either but that’s off topic). i think many times when people are dying they fear for 1. what will happen to them when they die. will they go to heaven, hell, be cremated, be put in the ground and eaten by insects and worms? who the fuck knows? and 2. how will their loved ones live without them and cope with their death? after reading the stranger by Camus, i think i’ll worry a little less about the second question because it probably doesn’t matter. the earth will still rotate around the sun, babies will be born, the moon will rotate around the earth, and life WILL GO ON. I still fear my own death unlike Mersault but I respect that he never went back on his beliefs about himself and the world even in his final hours. It takes strength to do that. RIP to Mersault, his mama, and the Arabic fellow (which btw he killed because he was hot and the sun made him do it not his instincts or fight or flight response dont @ me ((or do idc i ain’t scared)))

also, this was just too funny to not add