Who Is This Guy???

I wouldn't say that "The Stranger" by Albert Camus is a bad book because I do enjoy reading it. However, the main character Meursault frustrates me. His lack of emotion, and the attitude he has towards what is happening in his life makes me wonder what made/ makes him act this way? Does he really have no feelings, or is he just afraid to express them? After spending a sunday at home, Meursault says " One more sunday was over, that Maman was buried now, that I was going back to work, and that, really, nothing had changed" so nonchalantly. He doesn't care that he just had to bury his mother, that he's alone, or that he has a life that seems so insignificant. If he doesn't care about these things that would seem significant to an average person, what does he care about? Trying to understand what he is really feeling is the frustrating part because I truly don't know.

I think I feel so strongly about this because I am an emotional person, the total opposite of Meursault. Maybe I let too many things affect me, but thats something I feel comfortable admitting. The fact that he doesn't care about anything is what gets me. I would care if my mom died, even though I'm still young, I do care/worry about being lonely. He shows that he likes the girl from his job Marie, but he doesn't really do anything about it. He doesn't care that they had sex and she left, that she didn't really want to be around him. He doesn't seem to care that he has no one to bond with and is truly alone, when I'm only 16 and already thinking about it.

Even though Meursault is portrayed as an emotionless person, it seems as if a lot of people aspire to be like him in some way. Lately, I've been hearing people say "I don't care what people say about me", or " I don't let stuff like that get to me". Even my best friend brushes things off just by saying "It's like that sometimes". When people say this, it makes me wonder why don't they want to care? it seems liek they would rather not have certain emotions rather than being able to care/feel everything. I think that people want to be this way because they think they would be less likely to get hurt. There's a smaller chance that they would feel disappointment, sadness, anger, embarrassment, or betrayal, if they put up this imaginary "wall" that Meursault does in "The Strangers".

Banach 3

A question posed by David Banach was what is human happiness. As i grow older, I noticed that I am questoning the meaning or the word 'happiness' more and more. When I was younger, the smallest things would satisfy me or make me happy. However, over the years more and more is needed to make me happy. A peice of candy, or a day out playing in the park wont make me as happy as a day out with my friends or some new clothes and shoes (now that I'm 17).

After reading Bancah's lecture, and his definition of human happiness, I am starting to rethink what hapiness actually means to me. Banach mentions that "there are no external values that we can live up to" which is something that I wonder about. Banach is saying that no external things can make us happy, that it all comes from within. He does have a point, that material things shouldn't bring us happiness, but for a lot of people it does. If Banach definition of happines was so correct, then why do I get so happy when I get something new, or when I am spending time with my friends.

As I continue to read Banach's lecture, I feel like he is continuing go to the extreme with his beliefs, and his ideas of the right way to live. When he says "loss of our external sources of values are the necessary price of a greater value and happiness that comes from within ourselves”, I feel like he is exaggerating. It's hard for me to picture a person with absolutely nothing taht they consider valuable in their lives. Without close people in your life, material things,sports, or whatever makes a person happy, what is left? What is this happiness supposed to be based off of? Even though this sounds shallow, this is what our society is based off of. If these material things were taken away from most people in our society, I think that there will be no happiness. I owuld even say taht some of these people would be miserable.

As I read part 3 of Banach's lecture (which focused on human happiness), I feltmore confused and fustrated than with the previous parts of his lecture. I think that he is exaggerating with his beliefs to try to get people to see things the way he does. While doing this I feel that he is going in circles, and often contridicting himself. Banach's views on happiness, have caused me to question my own view of happiness. Before this lecture I felt so sure about everything. However now, I'm more confused than ever.

HW 2- Comments 1

To Neville:
Hey Neville!! I liked how u started your post off with a scenario that
almost anyone could relate to. It made your post easier to read, and it
also made the David Banach response more relatable to everyday life.

From what I got from your post, it seemed like you were in the middle
with your viewpoints. YOu believed that Banach was right about "no
matter how much we try, we can only see someone from the outside" when
it came to the train scenario. However, in everyday life you thought
that he was wrong, that you could get to know who someone really was.

I totally agree with your views about BAnach's ideas. I agree that there
are certain cases where u may not know everything about a person just by
looking at them, but I don't think it's impossible to get to know
someone on a deeper level.

I think it would be interesting if you spoke more about why you
disagreed with Banach. It would have been cool if you gave more examples
of how it doesn't work, like somemore real life examples like the train
example.

Your post made me think about meeting new people in general. If by
looking at someone you can't tell what they're feeling or who they
really are, what makes us interested in someone. What makes us WANT to
get to know someone. Also how do we know that we're getting to know that
real person, or who they are posing to be?

This was a great first post Neville!!!! Keep up the good work =]


To Dinorah:
In your post I appreciated the light tone you had. As I wad sreading I
could tell that as you were writing many questions and thoughts were
comming to mind.

In your post you did agree with Banach's ideas of absolute
individuality, and believed that being an absolute individual meant
being alone. However, you disagreed with "other people only see us from
the outside objectively" because you have had experiences that goes
agaisnt his theroy.

I noticed that your post and Neville's post was similar. You both agreed
with Banach about not being able to really know someone, but only on
certain circumstances. YOu both thought it was possible to relate to
people on a deeper level because you may have something in common. You
may see something about yourself reflected in them. I thought that that
was interesting too.

Dinorah I thought that your post was so good, and well thought out that
I couldn't really find anything that you needed to elaborate on.
However, as I was reading it was hard for me to follow sometimes. I
think it would have been helpful if you organized it into 2 sides. How
you agree, and how you disagree. (Maybe it was just me tho =])

In one of your paragraphs you talked about how society gives us
"definitions" for our emotions. This made me think about my feelings. Is
what I'm feeling really what society says it is. Or for example am I
feeling sad just because that is how society described it?

Dinorah this was one of the best posts I read. Keep up the good
work!!!=]

David Banach Response

In the beginning of David Banach's lecture, he keeps mentioning that we "are absolute individuals". He believes that being an absolute individual means being "trapped within ourselves", only being able to know who we truly are. He thinks that we are unable to relate to anyone else, or show feelings because we never truly certain. I t seems like he is saying that we are the only ones that we can truly know.


I agree with Banach somewhat. I agree that an absolute individual really knows themselves, but i don't think that it makes us unable to relate or feel with other people. It may make it harder, but i don't think that it's absolutely impossible. Hes right when he says that people can't know how a person really feels just by looking at them, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Spending enough time with a person can lead to being able to relate to them on a deeper level. He says " we only feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears" which is true. However, if we get comfortable with people and let them into who we really are, they can possibly feel our pains, pleasures, hopes, and fears. Knowing about our selves, and being comfortable with ourselves first is what being and absolute individual is. If we know our selves best, we can let other people in so they can feel what we feel... that is MY idea of an absolute individual.