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?
To Jia Min
ReplyDeleteOn #2Banach's Lecture Continued
Great post Jia Min! I really enjoyed it because I found it very intriguing. You brought up an unusual argument that I have also been considering for the past month. Although you have very interesting questions I do not think there is an absolute answer for these, so any of your thoughts or arguments are completely valid to consideration as the truth. Your own truth. I also liked your tone. Throughout your post I was able to identify your sincerity and interest for this topic. Mentioning your main argument at the beginning of your post "Essence precedes Existence. Essence preceded "bad"faith"? was a great hook. Overall your post is very organized and clear. Great work!
I understand that there is no correct answer to what precedes what. Essence or Existence. Existence or Essence. Regardless of what comes first we have created this puzzle to begin with. Or it could have been dictated to us by a more powerful phenomenon. It is currently unknown. I think that in the end this comes down to doing the right thing in order to achieve something else. This is one of the ideas that drives people throughout their lives. In religion it would translate to: "Being a good neighbor so when I die I can go to heaven and live in eternal peace" And there are people who believe in this and it is absolutely valid. However, it is also valid to question this thinking. Is it possible that religion is "bad"? Is it possible that a criminal is the good man and the victim the bad man? What if their morals tell otherwise? And who has conveniently created these morals anyways? On your post you state that it is indeed possible.
"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?" Considering that we do not have the right to do so, but we are only protecting ourselves, then how could judging a criminal be considered justice? But the main concern that we all have regarding this if this will make us free. We have chosen to experiment with different situations in order to attain this feeling of freedom. And this is because we do not know the answer to "what freedom consists of?" Although in our inner island of subjectively things may be different, we do not reflect those aspects or ideals in our reality which causes us to feel trapped. So could freedom just depend on our perspective of life? Or could it actually be obtained after doing the right thing?
Part II
ReplyDeleteI share a similar point of view. As previously mentioned I have thought of a similar argument for the past month. What is right and wrong? How could live our lives in order to achieve happiness, freedom, or peace? These questions have been present in our lives for quite some time now. And so far we have not obtained an answer, and I honesty think we never will. However, we can find our own way of living, and it would be the right way of living for us. We simply have to be aware that this is not the truth and we have just created it in order to accept ourselves and our surroundings which would cause us to live as free individuals. But easier said that done. How could we find our own right way to live? We would need other people who are also finding this and our purposes/ideas would inevitable collapse creating something more general. Such as "If we are good to one another we will live in peace" Then the chain would start all over again.
Your post has made me reconsider my original thoughts on freedom. In my opinion I know that there is no right or wrong way to live life. But saying" just live it" would imply many different factors. We are simply not able to just live our lives. And not because we are incapable, but because we are not allowed. Discussing who is right and who is wrong then categorizing that person is merely a bad habit that has been present from generation to generation. Indeed we have no right to tell what is right and wrong because ultimately it would contradict someone Else's definition of it and lead to another question: "which on of us is right?" Recently I have been working on an experiment. So far it has been quite interesting but I know that I cannot identify it as the right way to live yet. This experiment consists of allowing people or situations be the way they are without making them wrong or right. If my friend confesses to me that she has stole 500 dollars to cover her medical bill, I would not support her nor judge her. If she were to ask for help then I would help her because there is nothing wrong about it. But there is also nothing right. I could have simply said no, I just did not feel like it.
Although I have always known that there is nothing true to believe I have never practiced it before. Because it simply does not go along with society's ideal.
In order to develop your thinking I invite you to consider practicing my experiment for a while. It is completely understandable if you do not wish to do so. I just think it will lead you to come up with more ideas regarding this topic. I am aware that you want answers, so you can provide them to yourself based on your own experience.
As for your writing, although it is very organized and clear there are some minor grammar mistakes on your post. I recommend you to simply reread your post once you are done. I personally do not care about these because I understand what you are trying to communicate. I am just pointing them out for you.
I want to thank you for writing such interesting post. I would like to share more ideas about it with you. Your work has made me think more about my own life and my current actions. I really appreciate it. I am looking forward on reading your next post!