Albert Camus uses the narrative of the stranger to exemplify the nature of absurdism, or the idea that there is no meaning in life. As far as we have read, the main character, Meursault, lives a life without the socially normal emotions, purely living for the momentary satisfaction of personal needs. He knows what is appropriate and can observe the way things are, but leads a life in which he doesn't care to follow most of those things. His mother dies. So what? Her funeral is an inconvenience. His neighbor beats his dog. So what? It isn't his dog. His friend beats his girlfriend. So what? What matter to Camus is the fulfillment of his own desires, most of which do not involve deep personal interaction. Sure, he finds certain things beautiful and inappropriate and realizes the nature of his existence, but he does not differentiate right and wrong, and frankly just doesn't care. As far as he is concerned, the meaning of life is existence and pleasure.
How then, do I translate this to my own life? Well part of me realizes the nature of Meursault's way of life and partially relates to it. I go through life wondering why I apply to societal norms and attempt to better myself as a person. And why, if I don't agree with some of these ideas, should I revolt against them? What will my actions mean beyond this life? Beyond this life, what will I have? I think religion is an easy answer. "If you are good, you go to heaven. In heaven you will live an eternity of perfection and be rewarded until the end of time. If you are bad, you go to hell. In hell you will live an eternity of pain and suffering and be punished until the end of time." Under this belief, we can act towards a future. We can believe that what we do here on this Earth will have an effect later on, that whether we do "good" or "bad" will have a meaning. Without this belief, it is difficult to imagine that our actions have meanings. Even if we go down in human history and happen to be that small sect of the population actually remembered after death, what does that mean in the scheme of things? If humanity is but a blink in the life of a universe in which our whole planet is but a speck of dirt on the fabric of a whole time and space continuum, what does legacy, change, betterment mean? I find myself asking these questions under the belief that there is no life after death.
But even with the belief in life after death, we must ask ourselves, "is there still meaning?" It seems that the only meaning would be our own fate. Whether we live in joy or in suffering. Truthfully, I don't believe that life has any bigger meaning other than the pain or happiness that happens in this world. And if it is true that our beings, consciousnesses, souls, carry on to another life, then the meaning will still be pain or happiness.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Candide's Punishment
Candide's Punishment:
Well, there are lots of punishments Candide has to go through. The first of which was being kicked out of the Baron's house for kissing Cunégonde. I can't say I agree with this, but Candide broke the Baron's rules and was kicked out. And so started our story.
The punishment that I would like to talk about is the one he received when he deserted the army. He was given the option of death or beating. The beating was severe though it would have eventually resulted in death, therefore Candide was given two options, each of which were "equal worse". Do I agree with death for desertion? No.
It has been a common tradition that people who desert are killed or at least severely punished. They did not uphold the honor of their country, are utter cowards and deserve to die. But why should war be any different from other professions? We don't kill people who desert the medical or law professions. We don't discipline people who leave whatever occupation they hold when they change their mind. Why then should we have the right to kill those who leave one of the more stressful and dangerous professions in the world, that of a soldier?
I know nowadays we have stopped killing deserters. But it is still dishonorable and results in discipline. Is this practice right? I know giving up is looked down upon, but people should be given a fair chance to leave when the going gets hard without repercussions.
Well, there are lots of punishments Candide has to go through. The first of which was being kicked out of the Baron's house for kissing Cunégonde. I can't say I agree with this, but Candide broke the Baron's rules and was kicked out. And so started our story.
The punishment that I would like to talk about is the one he received when he deserted the army. He was given the option of death or beating. The beating was severe though it would have eventually resulted in death, therefore Candide was given two options, each of which were "equal worse". Do I agree with death for desertion? No.
It has been a common tradition that people who desert are killed or at least severely punished. They did not uphold the honor of their country, are utter cowards and deserve to die. But why should war be any different from other professions? We don't kill people who desert the medical or law professions. We don't discipline people who leave whatever occupation they hold when they change their mind. Why then should we have the right to kill those who leave one of the more stressful and dangerous professions in the world, that of a soldier?
I know nowadays we have stopped killing deserters. But it is still dishonorable and results in discipline. Is this practice right? I know giving up is looked down upon, but people should be given a fair chance to leave when the going gets hard without repercussions.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
How Do I Know What I Know?
Honestly, this is such a broad topic. Knowledge is the basis of everything. How do we know what to do without basing our actions on previous knowledge? We can take this question to so many levels. Eventually we would be questioning who we are and the nature of our existence.
For the purpose of this blog I would like to focus more on "How do we know that our knowledge is true and factual?" Think of something we have been told our whole lives that we take to be irrefutable facts. "The Earth is round". "The building blocks of matter are atoms". For the average person, these are phenomenons we cannot observe with our own senses. I don't know anyone who has been out in space and seen the Earth and were able to tell me they saw the roundness with their naked eyes. There isn't anyone who can shrink down to microscopic size and see the protons, neutrons and nuclei. But we take these statements to be universal truths because they have been proven again and again. There is ample evidence from numerous sources that say so. We as a society have reached these conclusions through experimentation and inference. We have even developed tools and technologies that allow us to virtually observe these phenomenon. And so we can agree, this is true, this I know, this is irrefutable.
But there comes a point at which we must consider grander conclusions. Statements that are no longer considered laws of the universe, but are just theory. Though we have accepted that atoms are building blocks of matter, we do not yet know what makes up an atom. There are several theories supported by results of ample experimentation, yet we have no concrete evidence that proves any at this point. In addition, we know, yes "the Earth is round", but we have yet to ascertain the nature of the bigger universe. Is space finite or infinite? Again, there are theories that are both supported by evidence from what we can observe. But many of these theories, though based on fact, are not themselves factual. There comes a point in which knowledge is not KNOWING but rather rationalizing with doubt.
And so for the purpose of differentiating factual knowledge versus theory, I would say the things that I KNOW to be true are statements supported by observation and public consensus. If I see pictures of the Earth in all its roundness and there is no argument among the majority of our community on this fact, I KNOW that this statement is true. But once there is debate among people and my conclusions are inferences rather than solid fact, I BELIEVE in something, rather than KNOW it. It is a fine line between these two which gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more we stray from strictly scientific and mathematical studies. Even in mathematics and the sciences it is hard to know when to draw this line. Oftentimes, I think ours is a subjective world. There is not much that i KNOW i know.
For the purpose of this blog I would like to focus more on "How do we know that our knowledge is true and factual?" Think of something we have been told our whole lives that we take to be irrefutable facts. "The Earth is round". "The building blocks of matter are atoms". For the average person, these are phenomenons we cannot observe with our own senses. I don't know anyone who has been out in space and seen the Earth and were able to tell me they saw the roundness with their naked eyes. There isn't anyone who can shrink down to microscopic size and see the protons, neutrons and nuclei. But we take these statements to be universal truths because they have been proven again and again. There is ample evidence from numerous sources that say so. We as a society have reached these conclusions through experimentation and inference. We have even developed tools and technologies that allow us to virtually observe these phenomenon. And so we can agree, this is true, this I know, this is irrefutable.
But there comes a point at which we must consider grander conclusions. Statements that are no longer considered laws of the universe, but are just theory. Though we have accepted that atoms are building blocks of matter, we do not yet know what makes up an atom. There are several theories supported by results of ample experimentation, yet we have no concrete evidence that proves any at this point. In addition, we know, yes "the Earth is round", but we have yet to ascertain the nature of the bigger universe. Is space finite or infinite? Again, there are theories that are both supported by evidence from what we can observe. But many of these theories, though based on fact, are not themselves factual. There comes a point in which knowledge is not KNOWING but rather rationalizing with doubt.
And so for the purpose of differentiating factual knowledge versus theory, I would say the things that I KNOW to be true are statements supported by observation and public consensus. If I see pictures of the Earth in all its roundness and there is no argument among the majority of our community on this fact, I KNOW that this statement is true. But once there is debate among people and my conclusions are inferences rather than solid fact, I BELIEVE in something, rather than KNOW it. It is a fine line between these two which gets fuzzier and fuzzier the more we stray from strictly scientific and mathematical studies. Even in mathematics and the sciences it is hard to know when to draw this line. Oftentimes, I think ours is a subjective world. There is not much that i KNOW i know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)