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".
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)