Freud says, "Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separated individuals" (49).
If Freud is right, and that the community, for its betterment must prevent individuality, than how can one be an existentialist in a society as Freud describes it? Existentialism provides that each individual must define his own meaning or his own life. What if this in conflict with what society believes? What if one finds meaning through being a killer, murderer or a rapist? How far can existentialism really be extended in society? Existentialists agree that God does not exist. What right does one man have to tell another that his meaning is wrong? There is no deity that preached that his meaning is wrong. Each individual's new meaning is just as legitimate to another's no matter how objectionable it is. Existentialism legitimizes almost anything. In my opinion there is almost no way that an existentialist society could exist. People wouldn't be immoral, they would be amoral; they would have no morality. Moral relativity has to be absolute in existentialism and anything and everything would have to be tolerated. Society requires a certain code of conduct. Life cannot exist without some sort of rules and morality.
One could argue that if a number of existentialist atheists agreed to live by a certain code of morality, they could live in a state of order and stable society. But, whats to keep a person that has no final judgement to fear from breaking any rules he or she wants to break? They will only get punished if they get caught. One could also argue that religious people break rules just the same. That is undeniably true. But, if a religious person is religious in "practice" and not just "in name", then he would feel guilty for breaking an established code of morality. His religion serves somewhat as a check to his actions and controls his morality. Existentialists do not have this check.
Society and Atheism/Existentialism cannot coexist. Our society comfortably exists due to the sameness rather than the diversity of religion. It is wrong to kill, steal, abuse, rape, etc...Every major religion preaches this. However, atheism and existentialism preach nothing. They preach that an individual may find a meaning in whichever way he finds right. Although our society tries to become increasingly acceptable to all perspectives and all people, how relative can morality become? Where can one draw the line? If an existentialist believes in killing for his meaning than how can he be punished? In his conscience he is saving himself. He is achieving meaning. In modern society can we really have total freedom of belief?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Existentialism
Existentialism has been the central topic in Civilization and its Discontents in the reading up to now. This philosophy re-imagines society as we know it. Existentialism involves finding meaning in life without religion. Freud has discussed varying ways that man can find meaning in a world without a God. he suggests that it may be through science, love, and accomplishments. He says, "...every man find out for himself in what particular fashion can he be saved..." (34). By saved, Freud does not necessarily mean reaching salvation by some kind of deity. He means achieving some sort of meaning and giving purpose to one's life. In existentialism, God is assumed not to exist. Thus, the purpose of life is dramatically changed. The goal of life is not to reach salvation by following and established morality in a religion. Instead, the individual determines his own "saving grace". The individual's "saving grace" is in something he admires or something that fits his temperament and disposition well. This something becomes his new religion.
As our society becomes more and more secular, it seems to me that this has happened in a way. People have found ways to substitute religion. One example is sports. Its seems to me that in recent times with the rise of ESPN and organized sports that Americans have become increasingly religious about sports. We build huge stadiums that resemble cathedrals for the baseball and football gods. We celebrate their glory in the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup. We even build shrines for these gods and call it the Hall of Fame. Cooperstown has become the new Mecca that we go on pilgrimages to. In a way when a player makes it to the big leagues, we speak about it as if this a salvation in itself. However, this is not the only way our society has found existential meaning.
Another mode of religion is pop culture. Celebrities are worshiped as another set of gods. Rock stars also reach god-like status. It seems like anyone will do whatever they can to get on TV these days. Whether it be singing horribly on American trials during the first cuts, eating bugs on Fear Factor, being an antagonist on the Real World and even going on the Maury show and embarrassing yourself. American Idol has become a means of reaching this god-like status. Contestants compete for their chance to become famous; their chance to reach salvation.
In addition, many find meaning through their careers. They let their job or career goals dominate every aspect of their life. Being successful or getting into Medical School becomes their salvation. This accomplishment gives the individual a higher goal and a seemingly more profound meaning in their life. This may seem more dignified than the others, but still is not much different. It is a substitution for a deity.
These are just my observations and they may or may not be of much value. I am no sociologist or psychologist. I am just some freshman. Many of these people may still be in fact be very religious. There is nothing inherently wrong with being atheistic either. Is our society more secular because more people have become atheistic existentialists or does this secularizing stem from our increasing goal of separation of church and state? I wonder what Sigmund would say.
As our society becomes more and more secular, it seems to me that this has happened in a way. People have found ways to substitute religion. One example is sports. Its seems to me that in recent times with the rise of ESPN and organized sports that Americans have become increasingly religious about sports. We build huge stadiums that resemble cathedrals for the baseball and football gods. We celebrate their glory in the Super Bowl and the Stanley Cup. We even build shrines for these gods and call it the Hall of Fame. Cooperstown has become the new Mecca that we go on pilgrimages to. In a way when a player makes it to the big leagues, we speak about it as if this a salvation in itself. However, this is not the only way our society has found existential meaning.
Another mode of religion is pop culture. Celebrities are worshiped as another set of gods. Rock stars also reach god-like status. It seems like anyone will do whatever they can to get on TV these days. Whether it be singing horribly on American trials during the first cuts, eating bugs on Fear Factor, being an antagonist on the Real World and even going on the Maury show and embarrassing yourself. American Idol has become a means of reaching this god-like status. Contestants compete for their chance to become famous; their chance to reach salvation.
In addition, many find meaning through their careers. They let their job or career goals dominate every aspect of their life. Being successful or getting into Medical School becomes their salvation. This accomplishment gives the individual a higher goal and a seemingly more profound meaning in their life. This may seem more dignified than the others, but still is not much different. It is a substitution for a deity.
These are just my observations and they may or may not be of much value. I am no sociologist or psychologist. I am just some freshman. Many of these people may still be in fact be very religious. There is nothing inherently wrong with being atheistic either. Is our society more secular because more people have become atheistic existentialists or does this secularizing stem from our increasing goal of separation of church and state? I wonder what Sigmund would say.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Life Cycle
It is interesting to look at how the author characterizes life.
She says, "...when you bear a child from your own body, you give your life to that child, the firstborn. Your life is no longer with you, it is no longer yours, it is with the child. That is why we do not really die: we simply pass on our life, the life that was for a while in us, and are left behind" (76).
I thought of the five bodies, of their massive, solid presence in the burned-down hall. Their ghosts have not departed, I thought, and will not depart. Their ghosts are sitting tight, in possession (104).
She seems to view life as a circle. People are born; life is passed from the parents to the child. Then that child grows up and becomes a parent. This way she claims that no one really dies and life is just passed on to others. When she says the five young people had their ghosts or spirits "trapped in them", she affirms this. These young people were killed before they could reproduce. The 'life cycle" was interrupted in a way. They "died." They could not pass on their life to their potential children.
She says, "...when you bear a child from your own body, you give your life to that child, the firstborn. Your life is no longer with you, it is no longer yours, it is with the child. That is why we do not really die: we simply pass on our life, the life that was for a while in us, and are left behind" (76).
I thought of the five bodies, of their massive, solid presence in the burned-down hall. Their ghosts have not departed, I thought, and will not depart. Their ghosts are sitting tight, in possession (104).
She seems to view life as a circle. People are born; life is passed from the parents to the child. Then that child grows up and becomes a parent. This way she claims that no one really dies and life is just passed on to others. When she says the five young people had their ghosts or spirits "trapped in them", she affirms this. These young people were killed before they could reproduce. The 'life cycle" was interrupted in a way. They "died." They could not pass on their life to their potential children.
Maternal Love
The narrator's desire for maternal love seems to play a large role in Age of Iron. Since her daughter has left her for America, she longs for the love she shared with her daughter. "I thought with envy and yearning of Florence in her room, asleep, surrounded by her sleeping children... Once I had everything..." (40).
When Florence is searching for her son, the narrator remarks, "Would Florence pause? No: amor matrice, a force that stopped for nothing" (94). "Amor matrice" means motherly love in Latin. She affirms the strength of motherly love.
When discussing her cancer, she uses a child as a metaphor to describe it saying, "I have a child inside that I cannot give birth to. Cannot because it will not be born. Because it cannot live outside me. So it is my prisoner or I am its prisoner" (82). It seems odd that even a malignant cancer is even a child to her. everything she thinks about is characterized from the point of view of a mother.
When speaking of the cruelty of the present generation, she says, "What kind of parents will they become who were thought that the time of there parents was over? ...They kick and beat a man because he drinks. They set people on fire and laugh while they burn to death. How will they treat their own children? What love will they be capable of" (50)? It is surprising that her thoughts on problems like the youth's unrest in South Africa seems to dwell on maternal love. She does not consider other consequence of the unrest such as what it means for the country. She just wonders if these children will make good parents.
'Behind closed eyes I saw my mother as she is when she appears to me..."Come to me!" I whispered. But she would not' (54-55). She longs for motherly love so much, that she has daydreams of when her mother used to take care of her.
When referring to the homeless man she takes care of she says, " How easy it is to love a child, how hard to love what a child turns into" (57). She seems to not like this man because he is an alcoholic and is lazy; he does nothing to help himself. Yet, she even takes care of him as if he were her child. Her lack of maternal love seems to dominate her emotions. She needs a way to compensate for that.
Throughout the novel so far, maternal love is an all encompassing philosophy from which the narrator views her external world in South Africa. She seems to miss this love since her daughter has left. She tries to compensate for this love by taking in the homeless man. She thinks that what she lacks is part of the problems of South Africa. People are cruel to each other and lack love for one another. The narrator even uses it to characterize her cancer. Clearly this woman is old and dying and lonely. She wants to be happy before she dies and is seeking to give and recieve love.
When Florence is searching for her son, the narrator remarks, "Would Florence pause? No: amor matrice, a force that stopped for nothing" (94). "Amor matrice" means motherly love in Latin. She affirms the strength of motherly love.
When discussing her cancer, she uses a child as a metaphor to describe it saying, "I have a child inside that I cannot give birth to. Cannot because it will not be born. Because it cannot live outside me. So it is my prisoner or I am its prisoner" (82). It seems odd that even a malignant cancer is even a child to her. everything she thinks about is characterized from the point of view of a mother.
When speaking of the cruelty of the present generation, she says, "What kind of parents will they become who were thought that the time of there parents was over? ...They kick and beat a man because he drinks. They set people on fire and laugh while they burn to death. How will they treat their own children? What love will they be capable of" (50)? It is surprising that her thoughts on problems like the youth's unrest in South Africa seems to dwell on maternal love. She does not consider other consequence of the unrest such as what it means for the country. She just wonders if these children will make good parents.
'Behind closed eyes I saw my mother as she is when she appears to me..."Come to me!" I whispered. But she would not' (54-55). She longs for motherly love so much, that she has daydreams of when her mother used to take care of her.
When referring to the homeless man she takes care of she says, " How easy it is to love a child, how hard to love what a child turns into" (57). She seems to not like this man because he is an alcoholic and is lazy; he does nothing to help himself. Yet, she even takes care of him as if he were her child. Her lack of maternal love seems to dominate her emotions. She needs a way to compensate for that.
Throughout the novel so far, maternal love is an all encompassing philosophy from which the narrator views her external world in South Africa. She seems to miss this love since her daughter has left. She tries to compensate for this love by taking in the homeless man. She thinks that what she lacks is part of the problems of South Africa. People are cruel to each other and lack love for one another. The narrator even uses it to characterize her cancer. Clearly this woman is old and dying and lonely. She wants to be happy before she dies and is seeking to give and recieve love.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Problem with T.V.
"...I get up and switch on the television...This is the door I open to let the world flood in, and this is the world that comes to me" (27).
I agree with the narrator in that the television can be a portal to the world for some. However, should we let it? Is everything that we see on t.v. true? I have to disagree that what you actually see is "the world." In my opinion what I see on NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc... is not the world. What I see is businesses trying to make money and spoon feeding me outrageous and exaggerated images and language to catch my attention. Its too easy. I don't even have to think because they do it for me. If you get caught up in it, the debates, analysis, and helicopters hovering over Britney and Paris-not the city- seem to be important; you feel "in the know." But, if you distance yourself from the media, then you realize how trivial it all is. Instead of having someone shove an opinion down my throat, I'd like to be able to go out into the world and experience it first hand. I want to see the world. I don't want to see it through a t.v. screen and someone else's eyes.
I agree with the narrator in that the television can be a portal to the world for some. However, should we let it? Is everything that we see on t.v. true? I have to disagree that what you actually see is "the world." In my opinion what I see on NBC, MSNBC, ABC, etc... is not the world. What I see is businesses trying to make money and spoon feeding me outrageous and exaggerated images and language to catch my attention. Its too easy. I don't even have to think because they do it for me. If you get caught up in it, the debates, analysis, and helicopters hovering over Britney and Paris-not the city- seem to be important; you feel "in the know." But, if you distance yourself from the media, then you realize how trivial it all is. Instead of having someone shove an opinion down my throat, I'd like to be able to go out into the world and experience it first hand. I want to see the world. I don't want to see it through a t.v. screen and someone else's eyes.
Heaven?
"I imagine heaven as a hotel lobby with a high ceiling and the Art of Fugue coming softly over the public address system...A place to which you bring nothing but an abstract kind of clothing and the memories inside you, the memories that make you" (25).
"Perhaps that is what the afterlife will be like: not a lobby with armchairs and music, but a great crowded bus on its way from nowhere to nowhere. Standing room only: on one's feet forever, crushed against strangers" (30).
Throughout the first thirty pages of Age of Iron, the narrator seems to contemplate what heaven would be like. She is dying of cancer and realizes she may be there soon. Her ideas on what heaven would be like seem to evolve over time. I feel that as I have grown and matured, my notion of heaven has also changed.
When I was younger I never really thought about the afterlife. I always assumed that it would be absolutely wonderful. I also always assumed that it existed. I never ventured too far from my everyday life in my thoughts. My life centered on the Yankees, the Islanders, my family and my friends. I just accepted the childish idea that heaven is this place in the clouds with angels that "good" people enjoyed when they passed on. I was never challenged to think differently.
However, as I grew older, I started to think outside of my comfort zone. I wondered about heaven. I wondered: What would it be like? Who would be there? Do people that aren't christian go to heaven? Where is heaven? How bad do you have to be to go to hell? Are the people in heaven fun? Do only holy, serious people get into heaven? (If this is the case, I'd have to agree with Billy Joel. "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints!" Maybe I should go to hell.) In all this confusion, I just wanted to understand what heaven actually was.
As I got older and found some answers, I came to the understanding or maybe misunderstanding I have now. In my opinion it does exist. Admission is relative. It depends when and where you lived. I also think the "requirements" are different for each person. According to the old cliche, "to more that is given more is expected." However, I still don't understand how everyone could all get a long. How can you not get bored being in the same place all the time? Is the food good? Do we have bodies or do we float around? Until I get there I guess I'll just have to use my imagination.
"Perhaps that is what the afterlife will be like: not a lobby with armchairs and music, but a great crowded bus on its way from nowhere to nowhere. Standing room only: on one's feet forever, crushed against strangers" (30).
Throughout the first thirty pages of Age of Iron, the narrator seems to contemplate what heaven would be like. She is dying of cancer and realizes she may be there soon. Her ideas on what heaven would be like seem to evolve over time. I feel that as I have grown and matured, my notion of heaven has also changed.
When I was younger I never really thought about the afterlife. I always assumed that it would be absolutely wonderful. I also always assumed that it existed. I never ventured too far from my everyday life in my thoughts. My life centered on the Yankees, the Islanders, my family and my friends. I just accepted the childish idea that heaven is this place in the clouds with angels that "good" people enjoyed when they passed on. I was never challenged to think differently.
However, as I grew older, I started to think outside of my comfort zone. I wondered about heaven. I wondered: What would it be like? Who would be there? Do people that aren't christian go to heaven? Where is heaven? How bad do you have to be to go to hell? Are the people in heaven fun? Do only holy, serious people get into heaven? (If this is the case, I'd have to agree with Billy Joel. "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints!" Maybe I should go to hell.) In all this confusion, I just wanted to understand what heaven actually was.
As I got older and found some answers, I came to the understanding or maybe misunderstanding I have now. In my opinion it does exist. Admission is relative. It depends when and where you lived. I also think the "requirements" are different for each person. According to the old cliche, "to more that is given more is expected." However, I still don't understand how everyone could all get a long. How can you not get bored being in the same place all the time? Is the food good? Do we have bodies or do we float around? Until I get there I guess I'll just have to use my imagination.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Taking On The Big Boys
Today I attended a discussion on Taking On The Big Boys, by Ellen Brovo, for One Book One Campus. We discussed Chapter 6, Nine To Five: Not Just A Movie -The Right To Organize. We discussed the importance of unions as it pertains to women. Women often benefit much by joining a union because they encounter such a disparity in wages between them and the male employees in their businesses. They need to organize and stand up for themselves as a group in the workforce. Unfortunately though, not many women or even men use unions. I thought this concept of inequality and not being able to organize might parallels some of Du Bois' ideas regarding the plight of African American men in his time.
Blacks in Du Bois' time faced several issues in supporting themselves. Like women, they endured unfair working conditions. I think that the greedy businessmen who discriminate against women today are similar to the landlords who ruled over their tenants. "...Landlords as a class have not yet come to realize that it is a good business investment to raise the standard of living among labor by slow and judicious methods; that a Negro laborer who demands three rooms and fifty cents a day would give more efficient work and leave a larger profit than a discouraged toiler herding his family in one room and working for thirty cents" (115). I agree that if a person is happier and lives a more secure lifestyle he is more likely to be more productive. Maybe if African Americans had organized in this time period to get better working conditions, they could have won some for themselves. The south was very dependent on agriculture in this time. The black tenants were responsible for a lot of the "dirty work" that the white men did not want to do. If many black people had stopped working, the South would have been in a stranglehold. The South could not live long without cotton or any other crop it produced. Landlords would have had to grudgingly accept a lot of the tenants' demands.
Blacks in Du Bois' time faced several issues in supporting themselves. Like women, they endured unfair working conditions. I think that the greedy businessmen who discriminate against women today are similar to the landlords who ruled over their tenants. "...Landlords as a class have not yet come to realize that it is a good business investment to raise the standard of living among labor by slow and judicious methods; that a Negro laborer who demands three rooms and fifty cents a day would give more efficient work and leave a larger profit than a discouraged toiler herding his family in one room and working for thirty cents" (115). I agree that if a person is happier and lives a more secure lifestyle he is more likely to be more productive. Maybe if African Americans had organized in this time period to get better working conditions, they could have won some for themselves. The south was very dependent on agriculture in this time. The black tenants were responsible for a lot of the "dirty work" that the white men did not want to do. If many black people had stopped working, the South would have been in a stranglehold. The South could not live long without cotton or any other crop it produced. Landlords would have had to grudgingly accept a lot of the tenants' demands.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Du Bois and Advancing African American Culture
Acccording to Marx, "[Man] becomes an apendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him (164).
"...no secure civillization can be built in the South with the Negro as an ignorant, turbulent proletariat" (Du Bois 87).
Du Bois's discussion of African American education during his time period connects with this quote from Marx. Du Bois desdescribes how the education limits blacks becasue it trains them practically for their trade. It does not train them to be scholars. These people become parts of a machine. "It was not enough that the teachers should be trained in technical normal methods; they must also, so far as possible, be broad-minded, cultured men and women..." (81). Although being a teacher requires much more education than being a factory worker, there still is the same problem. These students are not taught to reach higher and to expand their minds. They are just being taught to earn an income. In a way, they are machines because they "pump out" students with educations which society needs. It is similar to someone working in a shoe factory who makes shoes for society because there is a demand for them. Du Bois would like to see an education that would produce scholars that can advance African American culture as a whole and prove whites wrong.
One editorial by a white person said, "The experiment that has been made to give the colored students classical training has not been satisfactory. Even though many were able to pursue the course, most of them did so in a parrot like way, learning what was taught, but not seeming to appropriate the truth and imort of their instructon..." (83). It was believed that blacks were a less advanced people and they cannot reason. A parot does not think when it speaks. It just repeats whatever humans say to it. Whites believed blacks could not think and could not expand their horizons in education. They could just be taught the tools to support themselves.
"...no secure civillization can be built in the South with the Negro as an ignorant, turbulent proletariat" (Du Bois 87).
Du Bois's discussion of African American education during his time period connects with this quote from Marx. Du Bois desdescribes how the education limits blacks becasue it trains them practically for their trade. It does not train them to be scholars. These people become parts of a machine. "It was not enough that the teachers should be trained in technical normal methods; they must also, so far as possible, be broad-minded, cultured men and women..." (81). Although being a teacher requires much more education than being a factory worker, there still is the same problem. These students are not taught to reach higher and to expand their minds. They are just being taught to earn an income. In a way, they are machines because they "pump out" students with educations which society needs. It is similar to someone working in a shoe factory who makes shoes for society because there is a demand for them. Du Bois would like to see an education that would produce scholars that can advance African American culture as a whole and prove whites wrong.
One editorial by a white person said, "The experiment that has been made to give the colored students classical training has not been satisfactory. Even though many were able to pursue the course, most of them did so in a parrot like way, learning what was taught, but not seeming to appropriate the truth and imort of their instructon..." (83). It was believed that blacks were a less advanced people and they cannot reason. A parot does not think when it speaks. It just repeats whatever humans say to it. Whites believed blacks could not think and could not expand their horizons in education. They could just be taught the tools to support themselves.
Georgia = England
"How strange that Georgia, the world-heralded refuge of poor debtors, should bind her own to sloth and misfortune as ruthlessly as ever England did" (105)!
James Edward Oglethorpe, an English philanthropist, originally established Georgia as a safe haven for debtors. He had compassion for the many people in England who had gone bankrupt and then were thrown in prison. These people could not make money in prison to repay their debts. Often they remained in prison for long periods of time. Usually a husband would be thrown in prison and his wife and children would have to go to work to help him pay off the family's debt. Children would be taken out of school and forced to work in factories for very low wages. Oglethorpe reasoned that these people could pay off their debt by providing England with a new trading partner and resources from the Americas. They could create a colony called Georgia in the Americas. In addition, the people could start off with a fresh new life.
Du Bois finds it ironic that black tenant farmers are being treated by Southern society much the same way England treated its citizens. Black tenant farmers were imprisoned in a cruel cycle of poverty. They were always in debt and never made enough money to pay back their debt because of the low price of cotton. Whites charged incredibly high prices to rent mules and rent substandard property. Du Bois thinks it odd that a state once created to help the debtor now exists to drive him further into debt.
James Edward Oglethorpe, an English philanthropist, originally established Georgia as a safe haven for debtors. He had compassion for the many people in England who had gone bankrupt and then were thrown in prison. These people could not make money in prison to repay their debts. Often they remained in prison for long periods of time. Usually a husband would be thrown in prison and his wife and children would have to go to work to help him pay off the family's debt. Children would be taken out of school and forced to work in factories for very low wages. Oglethorpe reasoned that these people could pay off their debt by providing England with a new trading partner and resources from the Americas. They could create a colony called Georgia in the Americas. In addition, the people could start off with a fresh new life.
Du Bois finds it ironic that black tenant farmers are being treated by Southern society much the same way England treated its citizens. Black tenant farmers were imprisoned in a cruel cycle of poverty. They were always in debt and never made enough money to pay back their debt because of the low price of cotton. Whites charged incredibly high prices to rent mules and rent substandard property. Du Bois thinks it odd that a state once created to help the debtor now exists to drive him further into debt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)