claireheavenly

[claireheavenly]

Existentialism

This past Tuesday, 11/27, was our very last class and this is my very last blog post! The first group asked “In what way is existentialism an attitude rather than a philosophy?” I think that existential views and ideas are a form of philosophy, but ones attitude on it can vary. One can have a positive view point or a negative view point on existentialist ideas. Existentialism is VERY subjective. Existentialism can be seen as ideals that one chooses to act upon or think on. However, existentialism is not something that you can convince someone else of. Each person has to experience the feeling or thought themselves. This could suggest that Existentialism is more of an attitude than a philosophy. The group then asked if we have ever found ourselves in an existential attitude. I have absolutely experienced being in an existential attitude. My first experience with anxiety was really the first time I thought deeply about death and then existentialism. I also find myself in an existential attitude when I am alone or trying to go to sleep. I think before I go to sleep I begin thinking of the subconscious, another aspect of the unknown and I feel a bit anxious about it. The group then asked what we grasp toward. I used to grasp toward logic and reason, but after a huge anxiety attack, I feel I now grasp more towards my family and my boyfriend and my friends. I now grasp toward feelings of love and happiness rather than reason on account of my existential attitudes. The next group had a skit with three boys, Chad, Steven, and Matthew. Chad lived his life smoking weed and roaming around and doing what he wanted. Steven studied hard at school and became a rich and successful doctor. He had a large house. Matthew was very religious and did missions work with his church. He was dedicated to God. He lived a simple life. The group asked us “Who lived the most meaningful life?” I do not think it is our place to say. I do not think that people should apply value to another persons life. I do not think that we as humans have the ability to really understand someone else life or experiences and we can not say what has value. If that person is happy with the way they lived their life then it is meaningful. Everyone’s life is meaningful no matter what they choose to do with it. At the end they asked the question “Is materialism a valid method to cope with angst?” I think that any coping mechanism is valid. It may not be the healthiest or the most healing, but then again it might be for that person. If materialism is their way of feeling good then they have the right to do that without judgement. I really enjoyed this class and am so happy to have had such an amazing group of people to discuss these texts with! Have a great winter break.

[claireheavenly]

Jean Paul Sartre/Simone de Beauvoir

During class on 11/20 we talked about Jean Paul Sartre’s work on “Bad Faith.” We talked about Transcendence, which my group defined as looking at consequences or the future or intent. We talked about Facticity, which my group defined as the present situation with no meaning behind it. Someone gave the example of sex being facticity and love being transcendent. Sartre believes that “bad faith seeks to affirm their [transcendency and facticity] identity while preserving their difference” (226). To avoid bad faith, the transcendent and facticity must be aligned. Focusing on one or the either is in bad faith. We talked about Sartre’s example of the homosexual and the critic and the group leading the discussion asked, “which of these two was in bad faith?” The homosexual hides his homosexuality or the facticity of it because of his focus on the transcendency or whats behind being labeled a homosexual. On the other hand, the critic is so focused on the homosexuals facticity of being a homosexual that he has no vision of the transcendency or what may be behind or a consequence of the homosexual man choosing to label himself or come out as such. This encouraged me to ask the question, “Can transcendency and facticity ever align? Is it possible to avoid bad faith? Can you focus on the present without having the future in mind and vice versa?” I do not think that one can ever be free of bad faith. The next groups reading was from Simone de Beauvoir’s “from the second sex.” They posed the question: “Does the risk of failure motivate us?” I think it does if one values knowledge/experience over success. Or perhaps the knowledge or experience is seen as a success so it is actually not a failure at all. I think experiencing failure may motivate us to try again, but is that just not the possibility of success motivating us rather than failure? They then asked us to “define a woman and if there are any differences between men and women other than physically and if there can be man without woman or vice versa.” The room was quiet for a while. To me, there is no difference that isn’t physical. Hormones are also physical. People like what they like and feel how they feel. I think man and woman are identities and physicality's. I think there is a large spectrum of both of these. Traits aren’t masculine or feminine they are just traits. Beauvoir says that women are seen as the other and that it should not be like that. She says that women are not unified. Someone mentioned that women, birth givers, are closer to death in that they must endure extreme pain and sometimes death to give birth and that as humans we want to be furthest from death and that is why feminine traits may be looked down upon or avoided. I thought that that was so interesting and even could help explain why men with feminine traits are looked down upon. This was a great discussion. I loved the controversy and tension.

[claireheavenly]

Jean Paul Sartre

Last Tuesday, 11/13, we talked about Jean Paul Sartre’s philosophy. He was a very important philosopher and used often in philosophy courses. The first group posed the question “do you believe man has an essence?” I absolutely believe man has an essence. I believe that every living thing has their own personal essence whether that be a soul or something else. Sartre suggests that essence dwells in the divine. I think that is lovely. I would agree that essence is otherworldly or perhaps divine. Next, they asked “does existence or essence come first?” I would say that essence comes first and even lasts after death. I also think that one exists in their essence even if they aren’t living. I think our essence is there before and after we die. My stepmothers father died and whenever she sees butterflies she thinks of and feels him and to me thats his essence continuing to exist. In class someone said that essence comes first and gave the example that you have to have the idea and purpose for a pencil before its created. This is an interesting idea. To me it suggests that essence needs a creator, but maybe the universe is the creator of our essence. Next they asked “Do you believe that your actions and choices have an affect of all of humanity?” I think the energy you put out into the world has an affect of everything. Your action can affect one person and then theirs can affect someone else and so on. Sartre suggest that we all bear responsibility for what happens in the world. I think his idea encourages people to be the best they can be so that each result is positive. The idea came up that if existence comes before essence than man is responsible for what he is as a result of their being no creator or no god to put the responsibility on. People are in control of who they are and what they do. They have complete choice. Next, the asked if you could ever chose for the worse. I do not think that people ever chose for the worse, in the moment at least. You chose what you feel is right for YOU. The next group talked about Sartre on emotion. I love talking about emotions. They asked us if we thought that we just feel emotion or if we choose it. I think that emotion just happens. Like when everything seems perfect about someone but you just can’t seem to feel romantic feelings for them. Or when someone is not the best but you just really love them! You can choose to be happy. Like if you just try to focus more on positivity. Someone brought up in class that choosing feelings are just coping mechanisms for the emotions that just come up. Like choosing to be happy about a not so happy situation is just a way to push away the sad feelings that come up on their own. I do not agree that emotions are choices we make. I think theres something deeper there. 

[claireheavenly]

Heidegger

This was a short class! Last Tuesday, 11/6, we talked about Heidegger again. I really like Heidegger. The first group talked about his work ‘On Death.’ They brought up the idea he poses, that we are always living in a state aimed towards death. Death is certain, but also indefinite. They had us discuss how this is possible. When and where we will die is indefinite. There are so many possibilities for this. However, the fact that we will die is certain. With this in mind, they asked: “Can you value death?” Someone in the class suggested that death is only a way to value life more. However, I think that death has value in the fact that it is unknown. Humans are often curious, attempting to best/figure out the unknown and I think the fact that death has (in a way) bested us and can not be figured out in life gives it a clear value. It is a new experience. An experience you (may or may not) only feel once. We don’t even know if we will feel it! Thats how wild and intriguing death is. Theres value in the unknown. Theres potential in the unknown. Next we discussed how dying is always your own, but we often try to make it a public experience. Heidegger also describes being as our own. The neighbor tries to convince the dying person that they will escape death. We try to distance ourselves from death, maybe from fear of the unknown or things that you do not understand. Heidegger suggests that it is inauthentic to not be focused on your own being. Heidegger loves to say that it isn’t a bad or good thing to be inauthentic or authentic. However, his language suggests being authentic is more desirable. He suggests that making death public is inauthentic, and in my opinion it seems like he gives that bad connotations. The neighbor is a comfort in my opinion. I see nothing wrong with trying to feel better whether it is inauthentic or authentic. I think that if being comforted about escaping death helps someone then why not? Who cares if you’re being inauthentic or authentic? I also believe that the neighbor comforting the dying man is a comfort to both parties. Later, the group asked if Angst requires courage. I would say that experiencing angst and anxiety absolutely requires courage. It takes courage to look deeply into oneself and to make a choice about ones being and ones path. It takes courage to trust yourself to make the right choice out of the almost infinite amount of choices in the world. I love Heidegger’s view on anxiety. It seems very positive to me. Anxiety helps you learn to accept death and make choices. IT creates an “indifferent calm as to the ‘fact’ that one dies” (144). Acceptance allows you to really live. The next group posed the question “Why are there things rather than nothing?” from Heidegger’s work. They had us write our own definitions for it, it what it means to us. I thought it meant, “What’s the point? Why is this mosquito here biting me rather than not?” Heidegger suggests that this comes up often in thoughts, when happy, sad, and bored. I truly realized that I do ask this question a lot, but in different ways and for different reasons. Their exercise was a good learning tool and I really enjoyed it! Thanks for reading. 

[claireheavenly]

Miguel de Unamuno/Heidegger

Last Tuesday, 10/30, the first group spoke on our reading by Miguel de Unamuno. They posed the question: “Do we believe people create philosophies based on how they act or do they act based on their philosophies?” They asked people to go on different sides of the room based on which answer they agreed with more. I chose the side that agreed that people act based on their philosophies, which had very little people. People on the other side suggested that it’s human nature to explain our actions and that when you act it helps birth ideas. I would disagree. I think that one can experience thinks without directly acting. I think this experience dictates our philosophies and then we act. For example, a child sees his father hurting his mother and sees her crying. In that moment he is experiencing a situation without acting and this, in turn, can create his philosophy. Perhaps now he decides to believe that spousal abuse or physical violence is bad and will act according to this philosophy by avoiding violent conflict. On page 157 the author seems to agree more with the other side, suggesting that people explain their actions. Next, we talked about if a western society influenced by Christianity influences our morals towards more of Christian morals. I think that some morals are intrinsic and some are shaped by the society you’re in and the beliefs around you. Similarly we talked about if choices should be made off of passion and commitment or reason and rationality. Again, I do not believe that there is a clear answer to this question. We use some of each and should use some of each. My group went this week too! We talked about Heidegger’s ‘Being and Time.’ For our skit we played a video we made, offering real life examples of what Heidegger calls the ‘inauthentic’ and the ‘authentic’ Da-sein. It was so fun making the video, but I don’t know if it really helped everyone understand what the inauthentic and the authentic were. Maybe if the sound had been louder and we talked slower it would have been easier to understand. My group worked so hard and I think each and every person did a great job on their respective parts. We had to do a decent amount of explaining and did not get to all of our questions. We had the class talk in groups about each of our questions. I think this helped them get to thinking a bit more and maybe even helped those that didn’t read. I wish that more people that don’t usually talk talked more, but some did which was good! I was so nervous to go up there, but it wasn’t even bad and was a lot of fun. We talked a lot about the inauthentic and the authentic and anxiety/angst in class. People kept seeing the inauthentic as a bad thing, which I blame on Heidegger’s word choice. Each person in my group had a great understanding of his work. We did a lot of outside research. I loved when people offered personal experience that coincided with Heidegger’s ideas. Thats honestly my favorite part about philosophy, when you can relate or see it around you in real life. Thanks for reading. 

[claireheavenly]

Dostoevsky

On Tuesday 23/18 we discussed the work of Dostoevsky. The first group began with a skit about revolt. A guy in the group came in late (and Thad hates that) and then Thad told him to leave and the guy started yelling at Thad aka revolting. It was kind of scary haha. After, we were split into groups and discussed what words we associated with revolt. The first thing that came to my mind was resentment because usually revolt happens after a lot of things happen and not just one thing. Another group mentioned thinking as relating to revolt and I thought that was very interesting. The next theme they brought up was the “Suffering.” They posed the question: “How does suffering prove that man has free will?” My response to that would be that suffering doesn’t prove free will, but the choosing suffering when one has other options proves free will. On page 45 Dostoevsky talks about this and that free will can be proved even in the stupidest choices. On the topic of free will, the group leaders asked why humans like to believe in free will. In my opinion, human actions do not prove or support the idea that humans value free will. The fact that humans are willing to give up a decent amount of freedom to participate in organized society shows that freedom and freewill are not exceptionally high in value. Others mentioned that you will always have free will because you can choose to continue to live or you can choose to kill yourself, but this idea suggests that there is never a time when you don’t have free will. With this in mind, if you always have free will and there is no chance of you losing it in life then why would it be valued so highly? I think people like to think they value free will and control, but their actions say otherwise. The next theme was choice. Dostoevsky suggested that with no choice boredom would reign. People do things that are advantageous and can use science as justification for choice. We have free will because we can be irrational in choice and act out of spite. The next group continued the conversation on Dostoevsky. They had us get into groups and each of us write a sentence for a story with only the previous line for reference. I think they were equating this to the way the bible was written. The asked the question: “Does God have an obligation to his believers/people to establish truth of existence?” In my opinion, a CARING God, guided by benevolence, should. Why would God create thought and questioning to have people throw it all away for the sake of blind faith? They then asked the group if people struggled with believing in a God because of lack of proof or clarity. I absolutely struggle with believing in a Christian God because of this, but I do believe in a higher loving power. They then asked the question “What would make you believe in a God.” This is a very hard question because can we always trust our senses? Are things that happen just coincidence? It would have to be something MAJOR. Like God opening up the skies and poking his head through and saying “Hi, I’m God.” God and religion are an answer to the unknown. Religion can control people, create community, give people a path, etc. Religion gives society what it needs at the time. Religion is evolving and will always be on a spectrum. 

Thanks for reading.

[claireheavenly]

Nietzsche

During our class on 10/16 the first group talked about power and master morality vs. slave morality. We talked about how to label someone as powerful we have to first define what power is. If one defines having a lot of food as power then farmers could be considered powerful. It one defines strength as power then the strongest people would be considered the most powerful. Nietzsche argues that what is good is what heightens power with in humans. In my opinion this idea pushes the idea that power does not have to be a public or social experience, but can happen in the individual. One can experience power when they overcome their own issues. Nietzsche gives an analogy for his master morality vs. slave morality, using lambs and birds of prey. The birds eat the lambs and the lambs end up hating the birds, while the birds don’t have any issue with the birds. This analogy caused a lot of arguing and discussion in class. It was a wild time and really interesting hearing the different interpretations of this analogy. Some people equated it to people of color vs. white people which I think caused a lot of tension because it did not exactly work in that sense. The presenters did a skit relating to this. They gave people cards, telling them not to talk in a very rude way. Their intention was to allow others that don’t talk so often to talk. Their other group member was in the crowd and stood up to them when no one else did. This goes hand in hand with how the lambs didn’t like what the birds were doing, but the in the birds eyes its necessary to eat them so it is a good thing. Like to the presenters it was necessary to let others speak so it is a good thing. To me, this means that good can be defined by what is necessary. For example, Killing someone to protect yourself is a good thing. Another example is how Nazi’s believed that it was necessary and therefore good to kill off all “impure” people for the sake of Germany. The question then arises: Does the end justify the means? To have power, one has to reframe their position in the world and humans are always trying to gain power. However, people are willing to push down their instincts, like their search for power, to be a part of society and this creates bad conscious. The next group asked: are certain choices absolutely evil or good? is there any intrinsic good? Are there levels of evilness? Some people argued that the most evil someone can be is doing bad/hurtful things for no purpose. The next question was “what purpose does consciousness serve? Consciousness allows for communication and social experiences. Humans need consciousness to gain help from others. We talked about how there could potentially be levels of consciousness and if we actually know if animals and such don’t have consciousness like humans. However, human consciousness is measurable by our successes and creations. An interesting idea was that consciousness is only for the herd. Once you speak it is not yours anymore and you accept the judgement of others. I can absolutely see this because every time I say something in class my heart beats so hard and I feel scared because now my idea is shared and it is in the hands of others to accept of hate it. Communication filters out your individuality. The last thing we discuss what if eternal recurrence is a blessing or a curse. I saw it as a blessing because I get to be with the people I love over and over again. When thinking about eternal recurrence we have to think “am I living a life that I would want to live over and over?” I think this idea could inspire people to live life to the fullest. 

[claireheavenly]

Nietzsche

This past Tuesday (10/2), the first group had a an interactive skit! I liked getting up and going outside. It was a nice change from what we have done in the past classes. Also, the fact that they had us talk with people that we had not met before was really fun and a nice way to hear different ideas from people that may not speak so much in class. The first group talked a lot about consciousness. Nietzsche claimed that consciousness has “herd” quality. This seems to be because, in Nietzsche’s opinion, consciousness leads to communication and communication is necessary for survival. Humans needed help from other humans. Consciousness developed solely for the purpose of communication. Some people in class pointed out that consciousness and communication helps move the human race forward. It gives people purpose or goals. This group asked the question: “Do you act according to your consciousness?” I believe that we always act according to our conscious. I think we act because of our thoughts and don’t act because of our thoughts, which in someway is still acting. Even when we don’t act because we fear judgement that is still our consciousness offering its ideas. I liked and agreed with the idea that humans need goals and that as time goes on its harder for the human race to find goals, creating a complacent and sad society. God being dead is a chance for people to find a new God, to find a new goal. He claims that “we” (humans) have killed God and I would agree that in a way humans have devalued God in society. Humans struggle to be better or advance or we will decay. Maintaining a God and not moving forward, but staying stagnant in our way of life and our ideas will eventually cause decay, according to that idea. The next group also had us be more active in class, by also discussing ideas in groups. Someone in class had the idea that people love to remove themselves from nature because they don’t want to be seen as “beasts.” I think that is very true and a sad thing as well, to feel disconnected from nature.This group posed the question: “What is the relationship between nature and morality?” In my opinion nature and morality will always be connected. I think that anything on earth is natural. Any advancement is natural and all morality is natural. Why is hunting with a spear more natural than with a gun? I feel like anything our minds and hands create is natural. Is progression not natural? I guess it depends on your definition of nature This ties into Nietzsche’s idea that “there are many kinds of ‘truths’, and consequently there is no truth” (95). Truth is subjective because we have our own methods of rationality. I do not believe that anything can be truly objective. I feel like we can come close to objectivity by agreement between a majority, but I do not believe that this is true objectivity. This was a fun class. I especially loved the interactive and small discussion portion.

[claireheavenly]

Kierkegaard

This past Tuesday class felt a little dead. It seems like when we talk about religion things get a little personal, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just interesting. The first group posed the question, “Is organized religion a good or bad thing?” We heard a variety of opnions. Some people that it was better to have instruction while others thought it should be a more personal realtionship with God. I agreed more with the idea that the structure functions more as an introduction to God that can become a personal relationship. I thought that that was such a wonderful way of putting it. This same group asked if those that do not “feel God” or are not religious feel as if they are missing out. Most people felt as if they weren’t missing out because it was their decision not to participate in the first place. In my experience, growing up surrounded by extremely devout modernized christians, I would always see people crying and praying and singing to God. I would be crying to, but because I wanted to feel what they were feeling, but I didn’t. This helped me come to the conclusion that when it comes to spirituality or a relationship with God one can’t just copy what they see other people doing, but they have to find it for themselves in a way that works for them. Another idea that was brought up was that religion makes the supernatural seem “real” because a large amount of people agree/believe in it so theres more weight in that idea. Others claimed that repeatability and experience makes it real or not real. This goes hand in hand with the idea that a ton of different subjective truths that agree can become an objective truth. Many posed the question “can there really be any objective truth?” and I would say there can be. I think that focusing so much on subjectiveness of life can blind some to the fact that humans are truly connected and that objective truths are real and important. I believe that organized religion is an objective means to a subjective end. I think that in the case of religion a personal relationship with God or whatever that religion believes in is important for personal happiness and healing. Kierkegaard wonderfully explained that God (in the Christian sense) is a SUBJECT and not an object, therefore one would need a subjective relationship with him. In the next discussion we talked about Kierkegaard’s ideas concerning the 3 spheres of living. There is a religious sphere, an ethical sphere, and an aesthetic sphere. In short terms, in the religious sphere you live for God, in the ethical sphere you live for others, and in the aesthetic sphere you live for yourself. There is nothing wrong with which sphere one falls into and there’s no reason to move from one sphere to another. Kierkegaard finds his peace/purpose/passion within the religious sphere. The religious sphere is the one that helps people deal with existential dread in Kierkegaards mind. I personally don’t like categorizing people so rigidly. In fact, I think its impossible to categorize people so rigidly because human beings are on a spectrum in all aspects. I think this discussion was interesting and I love Kierkegaard! I am not particularly religious, but I think that his writing is so interesting. 

Thanks for reading!

[claireheavenly]

The Fall/Kierkegaard

On Tuesday 9/18 Group 5 lead a discussion the second part of The Fall by Camus. We discussed if truth matters. In my opinion truth does not really matter if the affects of not knowing the truth doesn’t affect someone negatively. If someone told you a nice happy story and it made you happy, but it was false. Is knowing the truth really worth that bit of happiness you received? It isn’t in my opinion. I feel like people put so much weight on “truth” and I feel it is not something that is so important because of how subjective everyone’s life experience is. Next, we talked about if people wear masks. It seemed that we all agreed that people wear masks. I thought it was very interesting how wearing a mask could be seen as either good or bad. It could be good because it helps you communicate/relate to other humans or it can be used to get what you want. However, it could be seen as a bad thing because some may use them to hide their true selves. For example, some people that feel transgender try to push the mask that they aren’t for fear of judgement instead of expressing how they truly feel. I think in regard to wearing a mask, what matters is if it makes you feel happy or good. Sometimes masks are used to avoid judgement, like in the case i mentioned before. Someone does not fit their “role” in society and felt the need to hide it. I love how this theme can be seen in Camus’ works. I loved how we tied it back to the Stranger. I think making connections like that is so interesting and really helps solidify an understanding of these philosophical ideas. Group six talked about anxiety. I loved how Kierkegaard kind of turned anxiety into something empowering. He made it clear that it is a natural thing and that it can be educative in life. I hate how people feel so embarrassed or scared about issues like this when in reality its natural and happens to so many people. He describes anxiety as the fear of freedoms possibility. He claims that anxiety allows people to feel more deeply, which i think is beautiful and very interesting. He claims that Faith is what helps anxiety. I liked the idea that faith doesn't have to only be in relation to Christianity. Faith is just anything you believe in. It gives certainty to the uncertain. Like the people in our class that feels certain that there is nothing after death has faith in that and the people that believe in God have faith in that. I love the personal element to faith and truth, but I think judgement gets in the way of that a lot. I loved Kierkegaard’s piece. It was such an interesting new point of view. I think the discussion was very good, I liked that it got a little too personal and uncomfortable with regard to peoples beliefs haha. Thanks for reading!

[claireheavenly]

The Myth of Sisyphus/The Fall

On Tuesday 9/11, we spoke a lot about suicide. Some came to the conclusion that those that commit suicide just can not handle the world or come to the conclusion that life is not worth living. If life is worth living is such an interesting concept because can we even apply worth to life? We know nothing but living so how can we define its worth? A beautiful quote from Camus Myth of Sisyphus piece discusses how there is no sun without shadow and that one needs to learn to embrace the night. To me, this means to make a choice. Make a choice to be happy. Another question that came up is “should you care why someone killed themselves?” It was surprising to me that a lot of people said no or that it doesn’t matter why they did it. I think it is important to know why so that we can help others going through that kind of pain. I think leaving others to suffer because its “none of my business” is what is truly absurd. It seems so selfish to let others hurt at times when you can help and knowing why someone else committed suicide has the potential to do that. Knowing why someone would want to die could inspire others to be kinder. Someone brought it up in class that thinking about existentialism is the pain so what’s the point of thinking about it. That really was such a great point. I think others tried to be deep asking negatively “oh is ignorance bliss then?” Why does that have such a negative connotation? What’s wrong with that? The judgement of others is so severe and unnecessary (which connects back a lot to The Stranger). If something makes someone else happy (without harming someone else of course) who is to say that its bad? If even acknowledging the existentialism hurts someone then let them live in a way that relieves that pain without judgement. In the fall we talked a lot about if intent matters, do the ends justify the means? In my opinion this, again, ties to judgement. Is it okay for someone to do a good deed if their intentions are selfish? In the fall the man realizes that he only acts like a good person for the praise of others. I feel as if this is not the biggest issue. If it makes hum happy and it makes the people he’s doing the good deed for happy then whats the problem? If the action has a good effect then why is someone else’s motive an issue? I believe this only if the person continues to act in a good manner even if their intentions are bad. If they use their actions to get into a position and then change their behavior to facilitate things that aren't so positive then i think this does not apply. Overall, This was a fun discussion. I think that we all need to be aware when others want to speak and if we are speaking too much. I think we should all try to be aware of everyone in the room and help facilitate a balanced and interesting discussion with all kinds of different opinions!

[claireheavenly]

The Stranger

Hi! I've never written on a blog before, but here I go. This is for my Existentialism class.

The class discussion (9/4/18) on the Stranger was so fun! I absolutely loved hearing so many diverse and interesting opinions, beliefs, and thoughts. However, I do wish that the discussion was more rooted in the text and I wish that more people got the chance to share their thoughts rather than a few that take over the discussion. Maybe my group will try to come up with something to remedy this, we'll see! I loved how the first group incorporated ideas from the text into their skit. It definitely helped the class think of the book in a more personal and modern way. I wish we could have discussed the book as a whole rather than split it into two sections because I think that affected the discussion a great deal. It was so interesting to me to hear the positive vs the negative views on the main character. I am so glad that everyone in the class was so respectful to each other. I loved how there was disagreement, but never argument. Judgement was such an interesting piece of the book and our conversation. I believe that judgement is what really killed Meursault. The people did not appreciate his different view on life and made him some sort of enemy. They feared what they could not understand. To me it seems as if Camus has a negative opinion on judgment. However, what I can't seem to figure out is what he suggests is the negative result of judgement, does it affect only the individual or society as a whole? While some may see Meursault as "floating" through life without any motivation or care. I see it more as non attachment. He lives in each moment as he pleases and while sometimes he gets a bit embarrassed and worried about what others think, in the end he does what he wants/feels. He is thirsty so he drinks. He lives his life the way he wants. We discussed a great deal about what is "wrong" with him or how he wasn't "normal." Is anyone truly normal? He lives his life how he pleases. While he absolutely should be judged by a court for killing/harming someone his day to day nonviolent behavior should not have been the condemning factor. The way someone expresses emotion/feels emotion is not up for judgement from other people. Perhaps Meursault wasn't emotional about his mothers death because he was so sure in his belief. At the end of the book Meursault talks about how his mother began a new life, essentially, and that he was ready for a new life too. Meursault did not need the priest or religion because he was already secure. I love that. I read this book in high school and had a similar socratic seminar about it, but the second reading definitely made me dive a little bit deeper. Its amazing how reading something twice can do that. Everyone was so amazing and confident and class was such a fun experience. I am excited to read Camus' "The Fall" and I hope the next class goes just as well as the first! Thanks for reading!