Comment on Blog Partners #2

Maggie:

Hey Maggiey (xD),

I liked how you started talking about how we choose what we think then end up talking about stereotypes.

I thought the major points in your post was about how things need to appear, and us as well but more importantly the things needed to exist before we can come up with the essence. Then you talk about how we get to choose how we live but then we are also affected by the outside influences. o.O

I can agree with what you quoted from Mara's about how we are the ones to choose to do this thing but somehow we ended up blaming on the action or others. Like if I did something that happened the way I don't want, I would blame it on others. (lol, serious I do blame on others xD).

I thought you could have develop the last paragraph more because when I finished reading it, I thought it was like a cliffhanger <(o.o)>. And then your second to last paragraph, when it said, "ean tto", not sure what it is but I thought it was "mean to".

I do think I am influence by the outside but I don't really think I can become an absolute individual even if I am alone. It would be a blank mind that I would have even though Banach is saying that we should sort of have that. What I mean is that I don't think I would be able to think anything because even with the mental tv images it would still be outside influences. But right now, I don't really think about anything when people say anything, just think that that's their opinions, so accept their opinion like that. (Hmm, not sure what I'm saying but I think that's it xD).

Always love to read your posts (even though it is only 2 right now). But in the future too, ^-^ I would love to read more of your posts and your wonderful examples with it. (>'o'<)

Vincent:

I like how you starte with "where in life do we find our existence" and the "invisible strings" was a good metaphor.
You are saying that we have no freedom. That we are controlled by others as well in how we live our life. I agree with what you are saying that we are controlled by other forces but I think we still have freedom in the small tiny matters.
I can see how Banach has been repeating a lot of his points and some of them that are general points that can be put as lies.
I think you could have explain about identifying ourselves since we all have natural essence in us because I didn't really understand that. I think you should elaborate on the "all points of freedom" are restricted and why does our freedom is not the question to be asking about? Why can't we ask about freedom?
Vincent you could have written a lot more than you think you could. So stop being lazy and go write more. Develop your ideas more and hope you get your good typing hands back. See you on your next post~

HW 3 Blog Post #2 Banach's Lecture Continued

Essence precedes Existence
Essence precedes "bad faith"?
We avoid "bad faith" because we want to be seen as "good" people?
But does that make the bad people, bad people just because their morals and thinking are different from the people who thinks that they are "good"?
I'm confuse how morals fit to the human kind or what is "good" and what is "bad".

I asked myself a lot of the times, people who do crimes does the crimes because they had reasons, right? Or maybe not, such as mental problems or agressive personality. As for the reasons, if it is because their thinking is different from the others, why must we think of them as bad? If I think it is bad to kill someone but they think they should kill that victim because that victim is worse (in morals?) than the killer, what would you think? Or maybe that the killer killed the victim because of different reasons? Do we have the right to tell someone something when we didn't experience it ourselves but watched others did it and put that as our "bad" event/experience for our knowledge, telling us we shouldn't do that?

I don't know... Banach says that we are attempting to "deceive ourselves and act as if we weren't free" but there are so many types of people, is he saying all of them are deceiving themselves. But he also asks, "What does this freedom consist of?" Does that mean he's deceiving himself with his thinking of freedom? If a person says they are good and never does anything that is considered "bad", then are they deceiving themselves, telling themselves, they cannot be a bad person. Are they forcing in their mind (even though they don't know they are doing that) that they don't want to be a bad person. Is that there freedom? A person that wants to be a good person and not a bad person but in such a way that that person tells himself/herself that its against the moral (not all 100% moral).
However, didn't we created this morals? So, does that mean, like what Banach said, we are deceiving ourselves but also because of these morals we've created, we have to take "responsibility" by following it. "The secret of human flourishing and of moral action lies in avoiding bad faith" so we are creating these "bad faiths" in order for us to avoid it. Ironic or weird isn't it?

Banach says we can control what we can view on the objects but there are also forces that make us against what we can do. So does that mean we have control such as when we want to kill someone but also that there are some forces/reasons are pushing them against their will, to make them commit a crime? Most of the crime, I believe there was are reasons behind it but it might not that we can control or know what's the reason. Our desires, our troubles, our passion to do something pushes us to the edge of the cliff but are we able to control those feelings when it is very strong? I think yes, but also maybe, because even if we keep up a front, the feelings inside us bubbles up, wanting to let it go. Like an explosion that we cannot keep it in for long or else we'll break.

Succumbing to our inner self without fighting it, is that freedom or is fighting with our inner self, making the inner self loses freedom? Or do our mind produces different opinions to give the being a chance to choose which decision to go forth with? Then what would it mean with the other opinions, would someone else takes it, someone in somewhere? Is the decision that we really choose what we really think? The freedom to think and choose, are we influence by ourself because we think that that is right or is it influence by the expectations the others have that we think we see?

If we say that everybody has freedom then what they think freedom is... is it base on one view? or....

Essence produces more essence produces more bad faith produces more questions and what happens in the end?
The Answers?

Comments on Mr. Choi and Yazmin

Mr. Choi:

Hey Mr. Choi,
I liked how you talk about how if we want to achieve absolute individualism that we need to seclude ourselves from the world and interact with no one.

You're talking about about what absolute individualism, and connecting to what Banach say that we are all alone in this world. However, we cannot really do that because we have to learn from others, adapting their ideas as well. However, however, you also say that by just being within ourselves, not interacting with other, we can see, "observe" the world and not thinking about what others think.

I can see how your idea connects to how we think of ourselves, that we have to adapt to others' ideas and knowledge for us to learn further more, like in class, we have to participate. Then we think about it and puts that information inside our head to fill up the space of knowledge. And that we have to "interpret" as what we think, making that our opinions, or like you said, trying to understand them.

I think you can expand with the first paragraph, how there are no "absolute individualism" and how we learn from others can help us also make our own individuality.

Your post made me think about how in my own life, to learn, I need to look at others to know what I need to do to do this or that. But also in a way, as I have these knowledge and experiences in my head, I can make my own opinions that don't have to be same as others. We can make our individual, that we don't necessary have to be the same as others. However, I wonder, if we don't interact with others, I don't think there would be room for all of us human to be placed separately in this earth that we cannot meet with another person no matter how much we travel. *laughs*

Your ideas on the isolation was really good, and I agree with you on the whole. It was great reading your post. Hope to read your next one!~
^-^~

Yazmin:

I like how you started out of thinking whether you are talking to your friend and that "you are DEAD WRONG" about having the same feelings as the other person. Also about the truly alone if we build a wall was a great imagery talking about Banach's statements.

I think I can understand that the arguments you are trying to build is that there is no absolute individualism and that we are possibly alone, in our own world and that the others can't feel what you feel completely because situations can be the same but there has to be something different that makes the feelings different.

I think that how everybody's feelings are different even though they said, "I understand what you are going through" that sort of conversation because even though we are human, we share different experiences, not necessarily that much difference but that we are able to sometimes get what others are talking about but a percentage of it, we cannot actually be 100% the same with others. Like your example with your friend, friends confront each other with their feelings to want to share/ or to be able to share the same feelings but are unable to completely. Also whether or not we are really here, or talking to someone, are we here just to talk to someone, to learn about things or like what you said in the last paragraph, whether we can experience the same thing as others. Whether we are just by ourselves, that we will fade away to our own seclusion, and forget the others?.....

I think you develop more on the absolute individualism or how you can have individualism even if you are interacting with others. Or whether have a wall, separating yourselves from others but still walking among them can achieve individualism.

This help me thought about, do we even need to be an absolute individual. Is there a point to it? whether we find our own individuality? If we isolate ourselves, what can we learn, because we are stuck in one place, we cannot observe as well as we can. And then starts to have imaginations that thinking that might be the answer, even though it might not be if it is objectively then what would they do? Because they would have no one to talk to. (Ah, I'm getting confuse~~...)

Reading your post made me laugh and I can agree with what your ideas are. Thanks for posting, hope to look forward to your next post!~
^-^~

HW #1 ASSIGNMENT: Response to Part I of Banach Lecture

What do you think Banach means when he says we are "absolute individuals?" Do you agree with him, why or why not? Evidence?

I think Banach means when he says we are "absolute individuals" is that we are extremely ourselves, without the influence of others or listening to others experience and putting it as "might" be our own experience if we do go through that experience. We tell each other that we are ourselves but actually we have to learn from others, reading books and etc. that help give us knowledge. Maybe an "absolute individual" is almost like a baby that doesn't know anything but having his five senses to help him explore before listening or knowing what this is called or not. Or maybe a surrounding just you, only you on this Earth, without any other humans that are there to talk to you, giving you all these ideas but rather having yourself to go and find those ideas.

I am in the middle of agreeing him and disagreeing with him. He started saying that "each of us is alone in the world" and that is sort of correct because we have to learn the knowledge ourselves in the beginning but as we grow up, we have to start learning from others. We might be alone when learning it but a lot of the times, we have others that are here learning together like school and learning from the teachers. Then he says that "Only we feel our pains, our pleasures, our hopes, and our fears immediately, subjectively, from the inside." It's true that we only feel the pain and all the feelings ourselves but that is because there are different types/kinds of pains, pleasures, hopes and fears. Its true also that even if we tell to the others, they might not be able to feel the same but at least they know about it and interpret in their brain how the feelings/experiences might actually happens. This part of the paragraph, I thought it was interesting because if we listen to others experience, we are being sucked in and filled their experience in a slot in our brain that doesn't have it. This affect our "absolute individualism" because we are not ourselves, the individuality that we suppose to have if we are to fill in with other people knowledge and influence and experiences will be gone.

For example, because of all the trends in this world and that people, in their brain says "You should get this, this is popular" or in other lines or wanting to get the product affects who you really are. Of course, you don't have to be totally different from everyone because that is rather crazy, but that is what I think Banach is talking about for "absolute individuals". By getting that product, there are others that have gotten it, but does that make you not who you really are? I say that is that is not true, that even if you get the same item or some same personality, you are still yourself. Just because people say you are copying the others, they have copy themselves as well because we are need the same things but just in different style that we like. That's why I disagree with Banach when he says, "No one else can feel what we feel, and we cannot feel what is going on in any one else's mind" because looking at it differently, such as the clothing and the needs, we do, can, feel what others are feeling if both of the opinions are the same. If it is about feelings, it can also be the same as well such as pain, though all the situations are different, it can still be the same.

Again when Banach was say was in the last paragraph, "Thus, to be an absolute individual is to be trapped within ourselves, unable to perceive or contact anything but the images on our mental tv screen, and to be imperceptible ourselves to anyone outside of us"; I agree that to be an absolute individual is to be within ourselves, and unable to perceive or contact anything because being unable to contact with anything means pureness and to be within ourselves is to think more deeply about ourselves even though there are no one there to help them. However I do not understand how an absolute individual would have a television there to tell that individual about the images on the tv screen. If there are images in the tv screen that means he/she will learn about the outside world; what I mean that outside of themselves, outside of the "dark room", the space they are in to think about within themselves and the absolute individual.

So whether I can agree with Banach is still confusing because a lot of what he saying is right but right to the point that the individual have to be in one view (not too sure about the word). Since we human have thoughts and we have to interact in people in some place, some time, not even if we want to because we have to that makes me unable to decide if I agree with what Banach is saying. But if we actually do have absolute individual possible then it would be rare and surprising that also makes me laugh because of the pureness and that absolute individual would give out, maybe not how Banach say but something along his lines.