Slaves to religion and a false notion of proof.

Unfortunately, upon our discussions on Monday, the topic of slavery veered into a course I had not expected or liked. It seemed that such a deep and meaningful topic did not get the debate it deserved. For instance, I had noticed many people kept coming back to the idea of being enslaved to material objects as well as physical limits to a person. However, within The Fall, it seemed that the type of enslavement Camus focused on was that of humans over humans. I am in complete understanding as to how people came to that conclusion (us being enslaved to technology) but I don’t see how it pertains directly to the novel. He states in the novel how we must choose a master and that things like betrothal are also enslavement. However, he never references us being enslaved by what is handed to us.

Either way, I wanted to touch base on whether or not the existentialist is enslaved to anything and whether or not I agree upon this notion of enslavement. To me, it seems that an existentialist wouldn’t subscribe to what it takes to be a slave. I also don’t know if an existentialist could be the master though. Maybe everyone is slightly enslaved to something, similar to how we all have idols, people we admire and/or envy. However, I, personally, don’t feel that I subscribe to this idea of being enslaved. Maybe it’s due to the fact that I live in my own content, little bubble. However, the decisions I make I take full responsibility for. I do not blame anyone except myself for the actions I take. I also do not have any regrets. Every experience is a growing experience and helps me become the person I wish to be.

So, although Camus says that, “For anyone who is alone, with-out God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful,” this only pertains to the people who fail at giving themselves meaning. For the meaning-filled individual, lonely days are not dreadful. Lonely days can be used for complete self-fulfillment because the person has no one else to worry about. However, not everyone thinks in this manner. Which explains why religion is so prominent everywhere, too many people seek to be enslaved. But there is always the question of how valid that religion is.

For instance, the question of God.

Many individuals spend their life seeking to prove the existence of God.

So then, let me ask: what do you mean by the word “prove”, what sort of “proof” must we obtain in order to “prove” there is a “God”?

If looked at scientifically, “to prove” is not in a scientist’s vocabulary. Scientists never “prove” anything, they seek to disprove. Therefore, this quest for God is meaningless because it can never be proved, in the scientific sense.

If looked at mathematically, a “proof” uses a logical, deductive method to come to a rational conclusion. Proofs can be long, complicated, and yet still be completely logical. “If A is B, and B is C, then A is C.” From everything that I have ever learned about Christianity, it is everything but logical. Even a Christian classmate admittedly stated on class on Monday that Christianity is illogical. So it’s impossible to use the mathematical meaning of the word “prove”/”proof”.

And so, when Kierkegaard states that, “and furthermore would live in constantly in suspenso[in suspense], that something terrible should suddenly happen that would demolish my little proof,” it seems to me that Christians should always live in suspenso because the “little proof” isn’t even valid proof (Solomon, 26).

So basically, in order to subscribe to Christianity, one must throw out all reason, all free-thinking abilities, and all rationality. That seems more like the ultimate enslavement right there.

Suicide.

On Monday, we delved into the topic of suicide. This can be a very touchy subject for everyone, but a topic that I, personally, could understand completely.

During class, Thad stated that we all probably know someone (or someone twice removed at least) that has committed suicide. He also mentioned that some of us have probably considered suicide. As I was nodding my head, my groupmate whispered to me, “why are you nodding!?” I turned to see her confused and worried face. I replied, “Because I have.” Her face turned to shock as she whispered something else that I didn’t quite catch.

 At a younger age (~12-14 years old), I came to the realization of this meaningless life. Up until that point, I hadn’t really thought of life, or its purposes, or why I am here. I was raised Roman Catholic but at no point did I ever believe in it. I would appease my mother by attending church but I never discussed my views with her because I know she would not approve (which she still does not). So, my realization came to me, on my own, without the knowledge of any of this literature regarding these matters. When I think about it, I find it quite fascinating how it all happened and why I am still here.

 

I remember spending countless nights in my locked room. I would put on music and rock myself under the sheets. If there was no meaning to the world and life, then what was the meaning of me? During those nights I would reach throughout my imagination, thinking of the ideal way to go. Did I want to lock my door, hang myself and wait for my body to be found by my parents? No, I didn’t want them to be the first witnesses. Did I want to fly off of a towering building? Maybe, the more people see, the more fun, but what if I survived? Well then, what about if I found a river and drowned myself, strapping my feet to heavy weights and rotting at the bottom of the bed. This one appealed to me the most because it could reflect the pointlessness of my life. One day here, the next, gone. Only a few would notice but after a while, they’d forget about me and my soulless existence.

So why didn’t I do it?

Instead, I decided to create my own purpose. I refused to live for anyone else. I was/am my own person. I determine my life.

So on a new note, due to the amount of discussion during class, there were a couple of topics I had wished to talk about but never got the chance. This idea of “illusions” and “reality” kept being thrown around and I wanted to touch base on an idea I realized during class. It seems to me that this “reality” that we all talk about, how some of us are in it and some aren’t, is really just an illusion in and of itself. One person’s reality is different from another’s. My reality is school, work, and family drama. Another’s could be the street life, learning to live with no money in their pocket. Either way, it is all still a reality, it just depends on who’s we are discussing. There are some realities that we may not be able to understand, and we consider that an illusion. I think that everything is just an illusion. How we perceive things can change on a daily basis. So what makes it more real one day versus the next?

Also, there was quite a big discussion on the basis that judgment is “natural”. That it’s natural to pass on judgment. It only seems this way because it has been so ingrained into our philosophies. It’s not in our genetic code to judge people. Judging is actually learned, not inherited. We learn, every day, how to pass judgment onto others but we never examine why. We never step back and think about the purpose and causes of these judgments and assumptions.

The Stranger...'s in our classroom.

Monday’s class brought many topics up for discussion of which left a great impact on me.

It occurred to me during the discussion that many people kept attempting to classify and mold Meursault into a character of which they themselves already hold an understanding. However, the reality of this book is that Meursault does not fit into the normal categories of which most classmates have an understanding of. They tried to assign him rationalities, feelings, and attitudes that were not present in the book. Some would try to say he had an “appreciation” towards everything while others said he was “dissatisfied”. However, the book is quite objective and straight forward, therefore, the readers tried to, however unsuccessfully, place themselves into Meursault’s shoes and give him their feelings. Although it’s understandable that we would think about our actions and feelings versus a character’s, it does not change the way the book is written or intended. Therefore, a reader must be able to disconnect themselves to some degree while reading if they do not relate.  I, personally, felt a deep connection and understanding with Meursault though. I believe the key to comprehending this book is to keep an open mind and take it for what it is.

Although this was not intended in the literal sense, I believe its reference was completely irrelevant to the discussion, no matter which meaning it was meant to be given. A classmate brought up “evolution” at some point during the discussion, of which many people expanded on and continued to debate about. Then, at another point, Neanderthals were also brought into the discussion. Being an Anthropology major, I found these subjects quite unnecessary during this debate.

For instance, evolution refers to natural selection, survival of the fittest, species surviving for generations resulting in new species and new characteristics. Not only that but features that were brought on by natural selection might not have occurred as a result of being advantageous but, rather, at random.

Neanderthals were merely another species in our linage. It’s difficult to say that we (Homo sapiens) are more successful than Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) because there is genetic evidence that some of us have Neanderthal DNA within our genome. Therefore, the argument that Meursault is either “more primitive” or “more advanced” is completely irrelevant to the novel. Meursault does not care about the past, as he has referenced in the book. He does not care about evolution or human history. Therefore, how this topic was brought up into the discussion completely baffles me.

During the discussion, I observed many differences between Meursault and us. Meursault is open-minded, he doesn’t cut his mind off to something because he does not approve; he doesn’t shut himself out because he might not like something. He listens to people, even if he doesn’t particularly care to. He can look at things objectively. While reading The Stranger, I felt that more people should try to be like him, be more objective and understanding. Yes, we all make our own decisions, but we also have to take responsibility for them. What happens in the past, stays in the past, cannot be changed. Meursault understands this and he doesn’t regret anything; which is why I can relate so well to him. I don’t dwell on the past, once it’s done and complete, I move on because I know there is no sense in beating myself up over spilled milk.

One last thing struck me on Monday. That is: the similarity to how Meursault was judged and the way the class judged him, which ties into my beginning points. The judges couldn’t understand why Meursault didn’t cry at his mom’s funeral and why he shot the man. He doesn’t fit into our societal norms which creates a sense of distress.