Thursday Reminisce

Okay, so I had already written my blog for last week when the reading for Thursday was posted, but the rules say we can blog about what was discussed in class on Thursday! I really enjoyed Dr. Bear. She knows her English and her Greek!!! (:
“For we of the road do not admit in conversation that there is another side at all.” This passage is marked off in bold on my text. When talked about how the story is very allegorical. We also touched on how it could be assumed that the writer is making reference to some biblical principles. This passage, if taken in a biblical perspective, could relate to unbelievers in the sense that many people who are head strong about there not being a God will typically not admit in a conversation that they have wondered at the thought of there actually being a Divine Creator. Sadly, some believers will not admit in conversation to believing in the spiritual realm (in demons and satan). Let me state here, satan and demons are very much so real and they desire to attach both believers and keep non-believers from hearing the truth. We as believers though have to be willing to know what the truth is so that we can “admit in conversation” the truth. “What I [Jesus] tell you in the dark say in the light, and what you hear whispered proclaim on the housetop.” We ought to be speaking the truth boldly, no lying or cowering back from it. I am going to stop here because I could keep going with this topic.
Dr. Bear did a great job and I enjoyed her teaching on Thursday!

Ps - Callie George

-The Other Side-

Thanks guys so much who worked me into the audition schedule yesterday and letting me embarrass myself completely with my terrible acing skills. Ah well I guess it's good to be able to laugh at yourself every once in awhile.

   I read The Other Side of the Hedge the other day and this maybe be way off but it kind of reminded me of Pilgrims Progress. That story was in my mind the whole time I was reading this one. It was similar in the way that both characters are on this journey to heaven. Both encounter characters that struggle with staying on the path and could be a discouragement to him. Both journeys are long and painful but are completed with the hope of something better at the end.Is this the story of our lives??

Commented on Tori's:)

02/16/2012

I would just like to say that I am personally very excited abut class tomorrow! I really enjoyed this reading.
There is one thing that really stands out to me. It might not be on track with what was meant to come across, but I really liked it. When the writer is setting up the story, he tells about his brother. He says his brother "wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others." He goes on to say that he had traveled "more wisely" and about the monotony of the highway. He even points out the cracks in the road that he has seen over and over.

The only thing I could think of when I read this was the two sides of a local church. On one side you have the church member that is always at church. They have their same seat they sit in every week and they talk to the same people. They like to know what songs will be sung and what will be preached. They like being comfortable in their predictable lives.
Then you have the other side that wants to break away from this cycle of going through the motions and simply "doing church". They want to, as the reading said, focus their "breath on singing, and [their] strength on helping others".

Thoughts?

"We won't be satisfied with anything ordinary, we won't be satisfied at all."


commented on Anna's "Drawn to the Hedge"

Casting stones

So let me say first of all, being out of class stinks. And being sick stinks. Being out keeps me from gleaning from the observations in the classroom and hearing different perspectives on our reading. With that being said, I want to give my two cents about some of the things I saw in No Exit.

One of the more obvious things to mention is Inez, Garcin, and Estelle. These people are eternally doomed to be in the same room as one another. They all are trying to hide the reason each is in the room, but they eventually fess up.What I think is interesting about this situation is that even after death, pride and arrogance are still among these folks. They even look for mirrors in the room to get away from each other's constant stare of judgement. I think Sarte intended them to be this way to help illustrate his straight-forward approach in philosophy. It boils down to the fact that they had to face the truth, and could no longer hide behind themselves or their wrong doings.

p.s. commented on Hope??? by NickHampton

Oh, I can burp my ABCs...A...B...C...

I'm sorry. I couldn't stop myself from quoting Hammy (Over the Hedge).

"Give me life, with its struggles and victories, with its failure and hatreds, with its deep moral meaning and its unknown goal!"

I admit that I certainly feel the tension of this story on a daily basis. I want rest, I want to give up, I want to cave under pressure and stress. But even in some of my weakest moments, I demand the struggles for the victories, I demand failure to feel defeated and loathe it, I want to uncover the meaning of it all, but to what end! Can I glory in this unknown goal? This story has such an ecclesiastical undertone from the Other Side's point of view. The toil of the Road People is vanity and meaningless to them. But for the narrator, so does the Other Side.

"It is the thought of that that makes us strive to excel, each in his own way, and gives us an impetus which is lacking with you."

But how on earth can this give him an impetus, momentum to move forward? How can we strive toward something we do not know of? Better yet, why? What is it about this goal that we seek? Is it that we hope to know the goal someday by achieving it? Is the giving up horrifying because we lose the goal?

Questions for questions, I've got some questions...

COMMENTED ON ANNA'S

Hope???

I began to think about some of the things we talked about in class about No Exit, and one thing really stuck out to me when i reread the story. There is a line on page 10 when Inez is talking about being afraid and she says, "What would be the use? There was some point in being afraid before, while one still had hope." If we are to look at the play without using our Christian views, what would they have had hope in, even if they were alive?

Without a Christian belief, there would be no hope, the only thing they could have had hope in was the fact that they were not yet dead. So, whether or not we are supposed to look at No Exit with our Christian views, I see no way that we could get by without them.

P.S. I posted on Danielle's...

When Living Becomes Life

As childish as it may seem, when I read this passage, the first thing I was reminded of was The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia. At the very end of the book, long story short, everyone pretty much dies. Then, they are all together walking in a place a lot like what was described. They later come to find out that they all did actually die and where they are now is heaven. Another long story short, the way heaven is described is unbelievable.

I thought of this because the major undertone I got from the reading was that life as God intended it is so much greater than anything we could ever imagine. God had it right from the beginning, we were to live in the garden in perfect fellowship with Him. Now when we live our lives, all too often we try to find happiness in meaning in life apart from God. And the truth of it is that we may find bits of it here and there, but never anything close to what God intended. God intended to have perfect fellowship with us, He designed us for that end, so for us to truly find happiness and meaning in life, it can only happen through seeking that fellowship with God, through seeking life as God intended it.

To make this relevant to the reading, I would say that the man represents the ideals of our society today, of striving to reach a goal we know nothing about. The man was absolutely convinced that he had it all figured out and was on the way to somewhere important when in reality, he was missing what mattered, and even more so what was real, the whole time. He lived to reach the end he thought would matter, all the while missing out on experiencing life as it was intended.

p.s. i commented on Tori's

No Exit. O.O

No Exit.
I really enjoyed reading No Exit, I think that how completely twisted it was made it sort of intriguing.

I liked how each character played into the other ones weaknesses and they’re all so twisted in different ways it just makes for one big hot mess. I guess I just want to talk about how the different people relate to one another.

Garcin treated his wife horribly, and he did it for the sake of breaking her down. Inez did the same thing with her lover and with her cousin. Then there’s Estelle who has an insuppressible need to be wanted for the sake of being wanted, which is cruel because she strings along men with the intent to fulfill her own selfish need to feel like she’s desirable. I look at her cruelty and apply it to the others, like when Estelle is seeing Peter dancing with Olga she says “He belonged to me”, and I think that’s how all three of them viewed other people. As belonging that they could easily toy with and toss away and I think that’s the horror of their cruelty that they have no concern for life outside of themselves. I think that’s ultimately why they are in hell. Maybe that’s why hell, for them, is other people. They had no concern for toying with other people and that’s what they have to face for eternity: not just other people but other people who are just like them.

But what’s weird to me is that even though, in my opinion, they are so terrible to people they all are dependent on validation from other people. Estelle needs for Garcin to validate her physically, as a woman. She needs him to want her and to have his companionship in order to feel validated. At first Garcin needs Estelle to validate him in the sense he needed her to confirm that he wasn’t a coward, and then he needed the same thing from Inez. And Inez is probably the biggest mess of all because first off I feel like she needs to inflict pain on other people because cruelty is her identity, but she also seems to need to prey on impressionable women and kind of woo them into loving her in order to be satisfied. Like with Estelle, she acts like she has to have her and I think that is because of her need to draw her in… kind of like a spider and a fly.

Drawn to the Hedge

“ A little puff of air revived me. It seemed to come from the hedge; and, when I opened my eyes, there was a glint of light through the tangle of boughs and the dead leaves.” (The Other Side of the Hedge sections three and four).

What good lines! These lines are rich in meaning and set a foundation for the rest of the story. First off, the narrator lays down too tired to go on. He prays that he might give up. Remember however that in other parts of the story he is very adamant about how he must continue on the road and persevere, but there is something inside of him that is maybe telling him something different. Maybe he actually does want to quit despite what he says.

Also, it seems that he is drawn towards the other side of the hedge despite himself, “In my weak morbid state, I longed to force my way in, and see what was on the other side” (Section four). The “puff of air,” gave him a taste of the other side and he couldn’t resist. The narrator went into the hedge despite the seemingly taboo views of the hedge. He made sure no one was watching, “For we of the road do not admit in conversation that there is another side at all.” He seems to belong to “those of the road.” That leads you to think that maybe he isn’t as trustworthy as you might think. Something is going on here. I could go on and on, but it would be beyond the scope of the blog. Here’s my ending statement: excellent read, and it just gets better the closer you look at it.

P.S. I commented on Will's "The Other Side"

The Never Ending Race

Despite the fact that this allegory had many religious undertones, I couldn't help but also look at from the perspective of society in general whether or not it involved our faith. I pictured something along the lines of a businessman, maybe an insurance salesman (think Mr. Incredible), sitting behind a cubicle and writing up proposals or whatever, always striving to Earn the next promotion or raise. We all know this scenario that Hollywood often portrays as a numb, empty existence and a father who forgets his son's soccer game. However Hollywoodified this scene is, there is a lot of truth to it. Often, we go through with the monotony of life , living solely for survival and advancement, climbing that ladder and running the race with no finish line, that we forget to just stop aiming for our selfish goals. As Christians, what are we striving so desperately for if this world is only our temporary home? Sometimes I think God is watching us from Heaven screaming, "Why do you care so much about trivial accomplishments?! Don't you know that eternity with Me is your ultimate goal?"

P.s. commented on Danielle's

Drip...Drip...Drip

I've been reading many different posts about how my fellow honors students were surprised at how mild hell had been in No Exit. While this was my initial reaction to the reading, I began to realize that this hell could actually be much more torturous than what it seemed at first. Before I begin, I must first say that there is no way we as humans can comprehend how terrible hell could possibly be. Now that we have that out of the way, we can begin.

Drip...Drip...Drip

The hell in No Exit was not the physically painful place with the torture racks and demons running about a cave that seems to have flames com up from nowhere. It was a much more sinister place, a locked room with a few sofas. While it seemed at first that Garcin would be by himself, he was soon joined by Inez, then Estelle.

Drip...Drip...Drip

Ever heard of Chinese water torture? If not, let me sum it up. Chinese water torture is simply placing someone, tied, in a chair and slowly dripping water on their foreheads. There is no physical torture, it's all mental. at first, you don't mind the drops of water. After a while, the drops begin to feel like pebbles, then rocks. After a couple of hours, it feels like someone is dropping hammers on your head. Depending on the person, at about 3 hours it feels like hand grenades raining down on you. People can only handle so much.

Drip...Drip...Drip

This was the hell that Sartre was going for: that slow, agonizing mental anguish that beats out physical torture. People have been known to go insane from it. That's why the characters were so irritating to each other. After so long, they would be fed up with each other, then it would only get worse.

Drip...Drip...Drip

~~Cody Martin

PS- Commented on Tori's The Never Ending Race

Hell is other people?

      "No Exit" intrigued me, left me going, "Uh... Interesting".  Hell is other people?

      Although, I fully disagree with the author's hell, it was a very interesting picture. After all other people can very well seem like hellish torturers. I got chills thinking about be locked inside a room forever with two people who knew my flaws, and knew how to use that against me. It does seem like a hellish picture, forever never having rest, constantly having those people jabbing at you.  What was the author's meaning here?
   Was he trying to make a point? All three of the characters were cowards or disrespected human life. I mean a mother drowned her own baby! They also all did it for their selfish selves, either to protect themselves or empower themselves.  To me, I felt the author was trying to say, respect other humans no matter who or what they are.

P.S. Commented on Kelsey's post

Huis Clos

What troubled me most about No Exit was what put them in hell, and why are they together?

If we are assuming that hell is the result of their wrong actions, but we take God out of the equation, what is the standard of justice?

If Sartre was an existentialist, it makes me think that they are put together for the purpose of dealing with their life and their past. They need to take responsibility for their actions and break free of their inauthentic existences. They need to face their true selves--and though there are no physical mirrors, the people they are put with reflect their authentic self. We see this hinted at with Estelle and Inez in a physical sense and we also see it with Garcin and Inez as they identify with each over their cruelty.

I think they are to stay there because they chose it for themselves. They chose to live inauthentically in their life on earth and as a result chose their own hell. In their death they will eternally choose their punishment and never be able to leave.

Commented on Tori's.

This is the first time in a while that I have read a narrative allegory, and I loved it. The line that hit me the most was, "Every achievement is worthless unless it is a link in the chain of development." This was thought-provoking for me personally because it made me contemplate what I really thought was an achievement. We cannot take any earthly thing with us to Heaven, so all achievements must only be worth something if they further the Kingdom. If they do not further the Kingdom, then their worth is lost in the span of eternity. If we cannot take these achievements with us, then there is no real worth in them because all things in this life will be wiped away to make way for the new Kingdom. For once, I think I actually understood some of the deeper meaning on the first read through.

P.S. Commented on Lane's

Alive and Moving

"Somebody crowd me with love, somebody force me to care,
somebody let me come through, I'll always be there,
as frightened as you, to help us survive, being alive!"
-Stephen Sondheim, Being Alive from Company

Maybe this upcoming opera has got me in a really musical mood (as if I'm ever NOT) but as I read E.M. Forester's The Other Side of the Hedge the above song, Being Alive instantly came to mind. Though my details on the plot of the musical are sketchy, it's basically a dramedy about a man named Bobby who has troubles committing to adult relationships and finds himself, on his 35th birthday, confronted with everything in life he tries to avoid. Hilarious and heartbreaking situations follow, and Being Alive is the big closing number. Bobby originally starts the song misanthropic, reflecting his initial sentiments, and finishes with this final verse and chorus realizing the value of everyday life.

It's really quite a beautful song, and The Other Side of the Hedge is a beautiful poem, with connections to the song. Hedge examines the value of life and human existence from a more progressional standpoint, showing the protagonist jogging in the beginning along with many others before finally falling in the hedge. Within, she finds a sect of humanity that does not move but simply stands in place and does nothing. They simply stand around containing great amounts of potential but not using it at all, because that is supposedly the better way to live. Of course, that is not really living at all, and the heroine cries out "Give me life, with its struggles and victories, with its failures and hatreds, with its deep moral meaning and its unknown goal!" Suddenly, the El Dorado chapters in Candide have new meaning and weight. Suddenly, Candide's escape from the perfect city of peace becomes not a selfish endeavour but the result of a deep and longing desire for something more than just comfort and inactivity. There is no life in El Dorado, true life is outside the hedge! I'm beginning that this distinction between apathy and action, between peace and tribulation, ultimately between stale life and true life is the ground upon which modernity makes its stand, and I look forward to seeing what Bonhoeffer and Faulkner do with this tension.

Thanks for reading, please feel free to comment as you wish. I commented on Josh Goldman's Apparently, the Hedge IS Greener On the Other Side.

Second-Guessing

The first thing I thought about the rescuer in "Over the Hedge" was, "that's gotta be his brother." Don't ask me why I thought that, I just did. Once that thought had crossed my mind though, I immediately put it out of my head, sure that I was wrong. Of course, I wasn't wrong.

This is something I do often, guessing something about a book, movie, or tv show at the very beginning. Normally, I either forget the thought I had or I decide I MUST be wrong. Most of the time it's because I'm hoping I'm wrong. The rest of the time though, it's because I'm sure my guess is too obvious and the real thing has to be more complicated. It makes me think of tests I've taken in the past where I've second-guessed myself and changed an answer, only to find out I was right in the first place.

I think I do this with God too often. I'll be sure He's telling me to do something and then second guess myself. I've been doing this for years with a calling to the mission field. He called me when I was 14, and I chose to answer that call. After a few months though, I decided that there was no way He wanted me to go out of the country for missions. Now though, I'm sure He does. Within recent years, I've been trying to not second-guess what God is calling me to do, but it's hard. Maybe it's time for me to stop second-guessing what I decipher about books, television, and movies and just try to accept what I've thought.

On a completely different note, I got a chance to spend the evening with Dr. Bear who is speaking tomorrow in Honors and I'm very excited about seeing her teach tomorrow. I have a feeling she will do great tomorrow, and this is something I WON'T second-guess!

Until next time,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Autumn's post

Apparently, the Hedge IS Greener on the Other Side

While reading through "The Other Side of the Hedge", especially through the first scene with the race, I couldn't help but relate it to the conformity experienced by society today. Since we were children, we have been preparing for success. Kindergarten ready's society for elementary school. Elementary school readies us for middle school. Middle school prepares us for High School. High School is all about getting ready for college, and once we are in college, we are told that we are preparing for success in the workplace. A huge portion of our lives are spent preparing for success and we make success in the business world our main priority. We are in a "race" for success and that is what I imagine the first scene of this story being. However, death finds everyone. Everyone, no matter how successful, will die. Success cannot help anyone escape death. So I think that the image the writer is trying to portray is that people run a huge race that has no end, then once they are exhausted they die. The man was passed by many once he could go no more.

Another thing that I took note of was that the narrator was sorry for his brother because "He had wasted his breath on singing, and his strength on helping others." However, is that the mindset that we should have. Should we be so caught up in our race for success that we forget to cherish the little things like singing or helping out the less fortunate? I think as servants of Christ, we should all be more like the brother, who serves instead of losing himself in his success.

p.s. commented on Autumns "Let Me Outta Here"

Let Me Outta Here!

So I find it suspiciously interesting that the week we celebrate love and friendship the Honors class is reading two stories dealing with death, just saying.
I just finished reading “The Other Side of the Hedge” and I find it interesting that while it is vaguely similar to “No Exit”, it’s also rather different, like two sides of the same coin. Judging by these two works, death is an ending. Not a reward or specific punishment depending on the life lived, just an ending where everyone sort of ends up eventually. Apparently death is also quite boring. I think the authors are maybe trying to say that there is no relief in death, for neither the good people nor the bad people. Death just… is. That kind of purposeless existence is awful. In both cases, the main character(s) try to escape back into life only to be barred from doing so. Clearly, they don’t want to be there. How terrible must it be if a life full of strife, toil, and unhappiness is better than death.


P.S.: i commented on Will's "The Other Side"

Call It Fate

Reading "No Exit" really got me questioning the idea of fate. There was a reason why it was specifically them. They were broguht together for a purpose. So many people say that fate is nonexistent. I completely disagree with them. Now I do not believe that we are predestined, but I do believe that things happen for a reason. There are moments that the decision we make at that point in time completely changes our lives. Imagine if we had chosen one path over another in a particular point in time. It could have altered everything that we know.
I kept picturing the "Saw" series while I read this story. In the second movie of the series, all of the people keep questioning why they are there in the first place. One of the main characters, Amanda says that they are all in there for a reason. They all begin to start questioning why everyone is in there much like what Garcin, Inez, and Estelle do in the play. None of the characters are in there by chance. There is a reason why Satan or Jigsaw from "Saw" put all of them in there together. They all committed horrific acts and needed to be punished. Jigsaw put the characters in their own idea of Hell while these characters from "No Exit" are actually in Hell. Though I wish that the Hell in "No Exit" had been worse. I feel like Garcin, Inez, and Estelle needed a greater punishment.
P.S. I commented on His Beloved's post, "Call Me Crazy, but..."

the path less traveled

The Other Side of the Hedge definitely got me thinking. Initially, I was paralleling the road with the Christian walk, but as I continued to read my perception of the allegory changed a bit. I’m still not sure to what Forster was referring, but I think there could be Christian parallels. The journey along the road is what so many do in this world. It’s a constant race, trying to outdistance others and reach the end. No one really knows what is at the end; they just use elusive concepts to describe it: fame, fortune, achievement, success. What is this, really? They do not know, no one does, because those who are said to have reached these things are still unhappy. They continue to run along the road, looking for more, or for happiness, or for love and acceptance. Then, one tires of the endlessness of the road, and wishes to know if there is another way? They go through the hedge, and find…Jesus? I could be stretching this allegory too far or taking it the wrong way, but just bear with me. Say one goes through the briars of the hedge and the cleansing water that washes off the dirt from the road. On the other side waits Jesus to show them this different way of life. The place doesn’t lead to anywhere, because the traveler is already one with God. No more striving needed. When walking the path, the man keeps trying to outdistance his companion, as we so often do with Jesus. We are impatient and eager to get somewhere else, so we try to run ahead of Him, when He wants to lead us by quiet waters, let us rest in green pastures, and guide us in the path of righteousness. (Psalm 23) We can’t see the end of the path; we don’t even know where we are going. But we have a guide beside us, one who can give us peace, who just wants us to trust Him. Of course, the Christian life isn’t all daisies and roses, but I think that’s why the running man and the man with the scythe are included. There is purpose in walking with God, but it’s not the American dream for which the rest of the world is striving. We can’t compare our progress with that of other Christians, because God is personal, and each person is at a different place in their relationship with Him. “It is my great happiness to help someone out of the moat, as I helped you. For our country fills up slowly, though it was meant for all mankind.” God desires all mankind to come to know and walk with him, but not all choose to see what’s on the “other side of the hedge.” It's definitely the path less traveled.
p.s. Rachel’s Blah Blah -Authentic Self

"Is this Transcendence?"

So I worked up a really nice thought as I was commenting on Will's blog and I just wanted to go into it a little more on my own. As I mentioned in my comment, this may be a little stretch, but it is food for thought before we go in and discuss "The Other Side of the Hedge."

Ok, we can gather from the reading (and from her pre-discussion questions) that the reading has some religious themes and, to me, it seems to be an allegory of the human condition.

As far as the allegory goes, the parallels I found were in the people of the road being a sort of busy body people who are going towards a goal that no one really knows about. He mentions right off that most of the people who pass him as he takes a break jeer at him, which makes me think that it is a cruel lonely existence. He remembers his brother and how he falls behind because he was more more worried about helping other people and used his breath to sing and such. It seems to survive in this existence you have to in an "every man for himself" kind of mentality.

Then, in some sort of enlightenment he realizes some curiosity for the other side and (after a bit of suffering) makes it to this "community of the moat." It is a place of happy people who aren't going anywhere seem as if they feel by being in this place they have indeed "arrived." I feel like this existence parallels with a sort of transcendence, which could be a sort of heaven but most likely the life of the enlightened. In fact, it is all tied together with the presence of his brother.

To me, it seems like strolling, or running, or whatever this "rat race" (as Will called it) of life is only done properly if one is individualist... and maybe even selfish. And there is no assurance that the toil even has a profitable end. However I feel like the author finds the real gain in being one of the people of the moat.

I donno, I may have posed for even more questions... it'll be interesting to talk about what do you guys think?

Which Side of the Hedge Are You On?

As I was reading through this excerpt I could not help but pick out numerous points and say that's Christianity or that's the world. We live in this world where we have set these goals and standards for ourselves. We refuse to stop and look around at what we could do to make our lives easier. The narrator was running down this road and the only thing on his mind was running his race. It kind of makes me think of an anti-Paul. Paul says that he has run the race with diligence. He has fought the good fight. What race his this man ran though? His race was only to do what he wanted to do. He only wanted to push his agenda. I think as Christians we need to take a look at what race we are running. Are we running a race that brings glory to God or are we running a race that will only bring glory to ourselves.

This is just one of the first thoughts that popped into my head while I was reading this. I would write more but I don't want to be that guy who's blog is like 5 pages long.

P.S. I commented on Will's post

Call me crazy, but....

No Exit seemed to me a weird way of portraying Hell. It was a place of suffering for eternity, however, the characters were concerned with the outward appearances while in hell. I'm pretty sure the appearances of the ones who are there are not what is the worst thing to worry about in hell. Its eternal burning! Maybe i began to develop this view of this story because with almost everything I read I have to look at it by what I know the reality of christian beliefs. Even if I know that the story being read is not from a christian view, I can't help but to see it that way. After taking this fault I have under consideration I was able to better read the story and see it in a non-christian view (not that christian is bad, ofcourse) but sometimes it hinders the meaning of the story or my opinion of the story. Okay, so I just went off on a tangent, but while sitting in class on tuesday, all I could think about what how the idea of hell portrayed in the story was not the real hell.
 p.s I commented on Jamie's post "Random thoughts on No Exit"

Random thoughts on "No Exit"

Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I felt that "No Exit" was a bit silly. In my opinion, it made hell out to be an unpleasant place, but not necessarily horrific. Sure, the characters were stuck in a state where they felt bad about themselves, but I don't really equate that to burning for eternity. To me, it seemed the equivalent of making someone who loves the outdoors sit through a power points for eternity.

Then, however, I stopped taking the story so literally and began thinking of it as a picture of suffering here on earth. So often, the things we hate most in other people are the things we hate the most about ourselves. Being forced to face who we really are can be torturous.

p.s. Commented on Joy's "Unfulfilling Confirmation VS The Only Fulfilling Confirmation"

The Other Side

Be sure to read "The Other Side of the Hedge" for Honors tomorrow! Dr. Bear will be speaking with us about it.

***(((Spoiler alert! Go read it before you start reading here!)))***

Before the discussion begins flowing tomorrow, I wanted to speak a little about it here. This allegory really opened my mind for the day. It reflects the human condition we've created for ourselves. I saw the revisitation of the Apollonian problem very clearly. We humans work diligently toward goals we've created for ourselves. We have convinced ourselves that we are working toward a climactic finish line. We do not know the reward nor the time it will take to get there, and we strive still.

I am not sure whether or not E. M. Forster was a Christian, but it conjures the Christian message still. There is peace that God is gifting us through His Son, but we continue working for our own salvation. Although the road we are on does not return to Him through our own workings, it did start with Him, and it's been an attempted progression back to that glory since the departure from the Garden.

Of course, it could more easily be paralleled as an allegory of the desire to "transcend" some social construction and the rat race we participate in. It will be interesting to see how class goes tomorrow.

PS - Commented on Rachel's "Blah Blah- Authentic Self"

Blah Blah- Authentic Self.

I highly encourage EVERYONE to spend the time to read No Exit. It is really interesting.

As I contemplated the true/authentic self (Will Drake was talking about something) I began to think about it in a sort of word picture. These people (Estelle, Inez, Garcin) are all extremely dependent on other people and their relationships to define themselves. I believe the existentialist would affirm free standing identity. Thus, I began to imagine a set of dominos, all lined up next to each other. (I I I I I I I I I) Their identity is found in and of themselves and discovering the depth of their own character, and yet their fall, or their movement can effect others, but that movement does not define them. However, the hell characters seemed to be dependent upon that human interaction to give meaning to their existence. More a house of cards, which if one fails the whole thing tumbles downwards. They forfeited their opportunity to pursue the individual self in an effort to be apart of something collective and at the core of it to understand themselves as part and influencer in that collective- Thus their punishment seems fitting to spend eternity collectively unable to find themselves apart from each other. Three selfish people depending upon others for meaning and existence being punished FOREVER (forever) with each other unable to them discover that significance which none of them attained in life.

I commented on Joy's Unfulfilling Confirmation

Unfulfilling Confirmation VS The Only Fulfilling Confirmation

So while we were in class today discussing “No Exit” it came up that in the story, skit, whatever you want to call it, there lies the undertone and blatant reality that each character in some way or another is wanting someone else to fulfill them. They want affirmation, validation and all that. Each one of the characters was waiting to hear the confirmation they desired from one person or another. I started thinking again how this ties into a believers life. Waiting for the confirmation of others to fulfill us will lead down a “deserted road”/empty fulfillment… Only Christ can fulfill us in the way we truly desire. People, no matter how close they are to us, will still hurt us and let us down. Their confirmation will never be truly enough… Do not get me wrong, it is good to be affirmed by friends, but think about it, we can receive affirmation one day and still seek it from those same people the next. Why do we seek their affirmation when the only that can truly fulfill us is Jesus Christ’s? We are to seek Him and His will for our lives. Seek His seal of approval (which come through being sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ).
I also liked when Dr. Abernathy said, if you need a mirror or someone to confirm you, you don’t know who you are. It takes me back to the verse in James 1:23 - “For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.” This verse is rather self-explanatory so I will just leave it at that for whoever reads this to think upon. How often do we hear the word of God but then after hearing it stop there? We feel His leading but turn a deaf heart, ear, mind, or body of service to Him?.

Ps - Lane

Poetry as the Essence of the Soul and my Shallow Mind

After slogging my way through Heidegger, a feat which I never thought I could do, I think I have finally reached what is referred to my upperclassmen friends as "the Honors Experience.". I am tired, drained, and in mental anguish. So this is enlightenment. I am still not sure if I agree with this, but what I do know is that this is tough. Heidegger is either a genius or a fool.

Last Semester Dr. Mitchell made a comment that poetry is the essence of the soul. At the time I did not agree with this. If the soul was harmoniously chaotic as the Romantics believed, then how could something so rigid and structured, albeit smooth and flowing, be what our souls really say? I wasn't sure what to think, but I was pretty sure that the statement was false, that poetry was not the essence of the soul.

Five months later, I still don't know what to think. In What are Poets For? Heidegger states that we, as physical beings, cannot completely interpret elegies and sonnets. This, Heidegger says, is because Poetry is from the soul, that we cannot understand it. Translating from the language of Being to spoken dialogue is going to lose implications from the original writing.

That being said. Heidegger told me that my thinking was very shallow, and that I'm too materialistic. How did he do this? He said I can't completely understand metaphysics.

He's right.

~Cody Martin

P.S. I commented on Hunter's My Brain Hurts

02/08/2012

I love this idea of what would things be like if one detail of my parents' lives was different and how would that effect me. We talked about this for a while in class yesterday and to be honest, it's something I think about quite a lot. We always think about why did this happen to me and if something had just been different things would be better. But in reality if things like that were to change, then we would not be the person we are today. That could be something so simple as not being quite as mature or wise, or it could be something huge like you never even being born. Several stories were mentioned that have instances of this like Lord of the Rings, Hamlet, or Esther. Dr. Olsen pointed out that none of these stories leave it at the sorrowful pitty-party that we like to throw for ourselves. There is a flip side to all of that. No one likes to deal with uncomfortable and life altering situations, but the question isn't why this had to happen to you, it should be what are you going to do no that you are there.
This is so cool to me because even though this isn't a "Bible" class, this is still a Biblical principle taught in other works. I just think it's cool how much the Bible has an influence on the world and the world doesn't even know it.

Commented on Tori's post

Hot & Cold

I am completely aware that Heidegger wants to avoid religion altogether, but I have decided I am going to take what I like from the reading and put it into lessons I have been learning on top of all of his ranting. So, to you Heidegger: frankly, my dear, I would quote a line from Gone with the Wind.

Due to my recent obsession with my intercultural studies class, the whole notion of who I will be when I finally get to India has gone wild. So far we have read two books on cross-cultural interactions. One is about how to get yourself out of your own cultural conditioning in order to respect and respond to others’; the other book is about understanding how the cultures are different based on regions (hot and cold climate behaviors, if you will).

To give you my bullet point Abernathy quotes from my notes on Tuesday’s class:
-- “He doesn’t want us to think like Descartes with “I think, therefore I am” because that says that what we think is all there is.”
-- “He wants us to think in terms of care, not compassion, but engagement.”
-- “There is a tension of who/what/how you are, of whether you would/would not do if you were/were not these things.”
The question I wrote to myself at the end of the class was, “You are a part of the scheme, but would ou still be you without the scheme?”

I know I am a far miss on all of this, but I started thinking about Sarah Lanier’s Foreign to Familiar as a result. In chapter seven, Lanier discusses a Korean friend who came to America who learned to culturally change who she was in each crowd. When she was around Westerners (Americans) she was that version of her; when Koreans were around, she switched back to that cultural condition. Lanier applauds this because she bridged the culture gap between Americans and Koreans in their work environment. While the Korean woman never became a Westerner herself, she ultimately learned how to relate to us. All of that is fine and wonderful, and I applaud the woman for bridging that gap, but I cannot help but wonder who her authentic self is in the midst of all this culture. If the concept of self is a social construction, then who really is this Korean woman underneath that social construction of dual roles?

I know the intended meaning behind the first bullet point statement, but I took it a different direction. If I think, and therefore I am, and I measure my existence by what I think and what I know, then Heidegger is right. That sort of thinking is wrong. What I think is not at all applicable in India a vast majority of the time.

As far as the second bullet and thinking in terms of engagement, there are multiple meanings for that word. But to be engaged in something is for it to have your attention and for your attention to be held there. When I get to India, my immediate response is not going to be care in terms of compassion. My initial reaction must be care in terms of engagement. To maintain my essent, I must understand the hows and whys of the Indians I encounter based on their own social constructions. I must maintain my essent outside of my cultural conditioning. It goes beyond being a bridge, it goes into being authentic, decentered self regardless of cultural conditioning or cultural placement.

COMMENTED ON BENJAMMIN'S

My Brain Hurts

This reading is quite possibly some of the most heavy stuff I've ever had to wade through in my life, and I'm not entirely sure that if I make it to the other side, I will have even learned anything worthwhile. I mean, don't get me wrong, the discussions in class have been absolutely riveting, and reading the other blog posts has shed some light on Heidegger as well, but that's all its done. I find the things we discuss interesting, but I don't feel like they make much of a difference in the long run and I would think that Heidegger would agree. I mean, as we discussed on Tuesday, we'll never be as good of a philosopher as the common man because he isn't consciously breaking things down like we are. I feel as if Abernathy was really on to something when she said that we should all just walk around and sing. At least, the best way to live out Heidegger's philosophy is just to Be--To interact with our surroundings as they are, and as we are, and then to leave it at that.

With all of that being said, I would like to briefly discuss something that Hunter and I mentioned in class. Hunter said the phrase "what you do defines who you are", and I replied with "who you are defines what you do", and someone else added in "I think it's the way that you do it that matters", which was a nice observation, but in this context we'll ignore it.

Heidegger would have a problem with Hunter's statement because he is being defined by his function, instead of his inherent Hunter-ness. I.E. a hammer is defined by its ability to strike other objects rather than by it's inherent hammer-ness.  I, and Heidegger (I think), would disagree with this conclusion, because the inherent Hunter-ness or Hammer-ness is essential in defining an essent.

Thus, I issued my statement which essentially means that my actions are defined by my inherent Ben-ness. I.E. Because of its inherent hammer-ness, the hammer is used to bludgeon things. I do certain things because of something innate in me, not because of my environment, my upbringing or any other circumstances. Regardless of when/where/how I was raised, I would still be Ben because I have that inherent Ben-ness.  (I'm not going to make the Born This Way reference this time, I promise.)

However, this is also only part of the picture, because we can't feasibly take all of those variables out of the picture. So the only conclusion I've been able to come to is that who we are defines what we do, but what we do also defines who we are. While we make choices based on who we are, who we are has been heavily influenced by things we have experienced, chosen or witnessed in the past. Therefore who we are is essentially fluid, and can be morphed over time. However, we still have that inherent us-ness that will always be present.

I feel like I just talked in circles.

tl, dr : My brain hurts.

So what did we learn today? Nothing? That's what I thought. Tune in next week when I might actually know something about Heidegger!

P.S. I commented on Kaylie's blog "This title has nothing to do with my blog."

What if, what if, what if...

On Tuesday we touched on the authentic self and the inauthentic self and whether or not a person would still have the same Being if they were born in a different time or place. What if instead of being raised in an American Christian home, they were born in China and taught that Christianity was illegal? What if that was all they knew? Would the Being inside them long for the void left by the absence of God in their life to be filled, or would they even notice that something was missing? I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that Heidegger believes that they would feel something missing and search for something spiritual even if it wasn't THE God they needed.

I apologize for the short blog, I accidentally deleted it the first time... :(

Being and Venture...A Flower Maybe?

I am desperately trying to wrap my mind around the relation of all the terms. If “swimming around in the head” was a witty phrase I was confident in, I think this case would serve an appropriate use. Now let’s get down to business-- notice my disclaimer: everything I’m about to say is probably wrong, so don’t take my word for it. Maybe, if I’m lucky, a small glimmer of truth will be found in my struggle.

From my understanding, the Being of being is not God, as some might automatically think, it is rather a center, of sorts. Being is the abstract part of beings that is central to them. Venture is similar to what people call the essence of life or destiny. It is described as a flinging, a daring. Accordingly, when you are being you are venturing. This is the relation between venturing and being. Venture draws being into itself. Life (destiny) draws life (existence) into itself. Picture it as a flower with petals. The petals are the circles that represent being, whereas the venture is the center part of the flower, drawing all of its petals to the center. Unfortunately that’s all I can say right now. I’m working out some more in my mind but I couldn’t possibly explain it in writing. Maybe I’ll save it for the paper or for the next blog. Yay! Goodnight all!

P.S. I commented on Alternate Heidegger, Megan's Post

The difference between me and my dog

In his “What are poets for?”, Heidegger explains the fundamental differences between the man and “other beings”

First, Heideggar makes a distinction which us in the 21^st century know very well - The idea that man has a will, whereas plants and animals do not.

But, Heideggar does bring up some very new and interesting points as well. Whereas plants and animals are simply “in” nature, man is “with” nature. Man places himself over nature and objectifies everything. There is nothing that man does not categorize, or name as an object including “the open.” However, It does not seem that Heidegger views this characteristic of man as superior. He talks of how man’s nature with much negative language, for instance he speaks of man “forcing everything under its dominion.” Moreover, he speaks of how out of man’s nature, arises great problems. For, man’s self-assertion makes it where he is constantly aware of the possibility of he himself becoming simply an object like everything else around him.

“He himself and his things are thereby exposed to the growing danger of turning into mere material and into a function of objectification”

I do understand that Heideggar is presenting a tension between the self consciousness of man and the problems that this creates. But on a different note, I am confused as to why Heideggar is writing this particular selection. It seems to be written like a lecture, but a lecture for what? What is he reacting to/ against? Also, he is providing a lengthy analysis of poetry from a few select authors, is he doing this to “teach” the poetry, or is he simply using the poetry and the ideas that it evokes as a platform/ vector for the viewpoint that he is presenting? A little bit of background would bring a lot of clarity.

I commented on Ajackson's "Jabberwocky"

This title has nothing to do with my post.

Okay let me just start with this… I find it borderline irritating to have to question my own existence. It’s incredibly weird first off, but it’s sort of creepy. The reason it is creepy because having to question reality makes me think of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies that I watched very recently and it’s a little frightening. With that said I’d like to move on from that and just share what I found interesting about Tuesdays class, because Lord knows I couldn’t explain it. I guess it was interesting to think about if I didn’t exist but had a twin that did whether or not there would be something missing. That led to discussing that there would be a missing authenticity of you because you are not interchangeable parts. I think that this whole idea of an authentic self is sort of a more intelligent and maybe eloquent way of saying that every person is unique. We’re taught that from the moment we’re born, and that’s essentially what the authentic self is. So really I’ve just been thinking about it and it’s just got my wheels turning, pardon the cliché, concerning the authentic self.
I feel like this is more of a ramble but Heidegger is the most confusing thing I’ve read in my entire life.
P.S commented on Kelsey Parish’s post

10:04

In our reading for tomorrow Heidegger writes: “The divine radiance has become extinguished in the world’s history.”So if I am understanding this correctly, God has just left us all of fend for ourselves and the God that we Christians believe in is just a default that doesn’t actually exist. Then he goes on to say that because no god exists except for some default that works for every nation, a time in which what humans base our lives on (our ground) is about to fail us. This is horrifying to me. I feels like stories of Zombie Appocolypes and the end of the world are consuming society today, and sometimes when I think too hard about all of these theories, I honestly become afraid. What if Jesus’ second coming is actually closer than anyone believes? What if, like maybe people think, the world will soon come to an end? The thought baffles me, so I try not to think about it. The words that Heidegger writes are even more frightening, because he speaks of a destruction of the world without the salvation and hope we Christians find in Christ. If this were true I would be totally freaking out right now, but fortunately I know that I will be saved by God when the end of the world comes. However, I cry for all of those who will not be saved. I really hope that I will die before God comes again, or that he takes me before I have to witness the suffering of all those who didn’t believe in God.

-Susan

P.S. I commented on Kelsey Parish's blog

Is something something or is it really nothing?

In reading Heidegger's question of why there are essents rather than nothing and thinking about the question we were asked in class of why is there chalk instead of no chalk, I was strangely reminded of DesCartes'. When we were asked this question in class, the discussion that came up was more or less of whether or not we can say with absolute certainty that there is, in fact, chalk. In DesCartes' first meditation, he talks about how that which he accepts as the highest truth and certainty, he gathers from his senses. He then goes on to say how he is inherently driven to doubt those observations because his senses have led him wrong before. In the same way, as we strive to simplify, we look to assert with absolute certainty that there is chalk. "I can see the chalk on the table. I can touch it and feel it. Without a doubt, that piece of chalk exists."

However, I think DesCartes' would agree with Heidegger when he pursues the "essence of the essent." He asks what exactly makes the essent an essent rather than nothing. We say that the chalk does exist because we can see it and touch it and seemingly confirm the fact that it is there. I would assert then, that according to Descartes' and Heidegger, the only absolute truth in this situation is the fact that we perceive the chalk to be existent, but because of perception itself, that becomes subjective in nature. It is safe to say that each and every person looking at the chalk has a unique perception of it, and if that is true, then the chalk cannot actually have a concrete form, e.g. concrete existence. Unless I am just completely off the mark, I think this is a crucial idea present in Heidegger's writing. An essent is an essent rather than nothing because it is percieved as such, but at the same time, that fact does not guarantee any absolute existence.

Hope that makes sense. Sorry for totally rambling.

p.s. I commented on Jabberwocky

I Am Me

I had two concepts that really jumped out at me during our discussion. The first was about my existence. I know I exist. I find it hard to question my existence. I know that I am a living, breathing human being. I have four parents, three siblings, tons of friends, and all of my amazing pets. I am nineteen. I live in Alabama. I exist! I cannot picture myself not being who I am because I have had nineteen years to understand who I am. I am me. It is impossible to picture if I had not existed because I know that I am still here. There is no point in trying to picture a life that never existed when I know that I do exist.
The second thing I dwelled upon was the idea of defining myself through my actions. When I was younger, I did not care how I acted at all. I got into a lot of fights and said a lot of mean things.. It did not really hit me that my actions were saying that I was an overly aggressive person to people until this young boy said that he remembered seeing me yell one time and he was terrified of me. I did a turn around and started trying to mentor the younger children of my community. They started seeing me in a completely different light. I learned that sometimes our actions tend to define us even if that is not who we truly are. I was not a very aggressive person but my temper said otherwise. The actions of the other person swinging first were not seen. Instead my actions of punching the girl in the face were seen. We really need to come to an understanding that our actions can paint a completely different picture of ourselves.

P.S. I commented on Joy's post.

Back into the Maelstrom

I feel like Heidegger has flung us into a maelstrom of confusion. Who are we and how are we here and how do we know we are here? All of these seem like questions that are swirling around in the circle of the vortex…doing nothing but destroying things (like sanity). The only conclusion I have drawn is by comparing Heidegger to Descartes (which may be a major breach of philosophical ethics, but hey- this is postmodernism- what are rules?). It seems like Heidegger is saying that your existence comes from genetics and your being/personality comes from social construction. Therefore, to find the authentic self you have to break down the social construction in which you are immersed. The preconceived notions of reality and labels given by culture have to be stripped away. Then, from the foundation of Being, from the edge of the abyss of nothingness, you can begin to rebuild on the true nature of who you know yourself to be. In this way, the authentic self is realized. The only way the self can be realized is through the parameters of language, because that is the only way we have of measuring reality. So, those are my thoughts, and I’m aware that I still sound a bit confused. Oh! I think I just saw the wicked witch of the west fly by on her broomstick! We are not in Kansas anymore, Toto! (random comment, please excuse me- we are in a maelstrom/tornado)
P.S. Joy This Defines vs That Defines

Dunkelheit

"This is why the poet in the time of the world's night utters the holy. This is why, in Hölderlin's language, the world's night is the holy night."

Heidegger here is stating the need for a poet in the times of destitution. They break away from the objective molds of human logic and trace spiritual matters in their true form. The poet, then, flourishes from the decay and loss of the world.

This is a definite possibility. The idea of divinity found when at the darkest of times is found in poems, as he mentions, but also in songs of worship. "O Holy Night" gives the line "Long lay the world in sin and error pinning." As the song progresses, Christ comes back and redeems. In Scripture, too, Romans 5:20 speaks of grace abounding even more when sin increases.

The poet serves as a beacon of hope by becoming an intercession for the people when they've become numbed by the growing cake of mundaneness they have built from hyper-analyzation.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Autumn's Jabberwocky

First Exposure

Last Thursday was my first exposure to Martin Heidegger. I had heard of Aristotle, Sartre and Nietzsche- all of whom worked in the realm of metaphysics- but not Heidegger. Generally, I like to know something of the people I read, so I did some digging around for biographical facts concerning the philosopher.

In 1889, Martin was born in Messkirch, Germany. His interest in philosophy was fostered in his youth, while he was preparing for the Catholic priesthood. In 1919, he parted with Catholicism and began lecturing on phenomenology at the University of Freiburg, where he met and married one of his students, Thea Elfride Petri.

Heidegger was elected rector of the university in 1933, and in the same year, he joined Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ (or "Nazi") Party. It was during World War II that he gave the lectures found in his Introduction to Metaphysics, which included "The Fundamental Question of Metaphysics."

After the war, he was barred from teaching in Germany, due to his association with the Nazis. For the rest of his life, he wrote books on the essence of being and criticized modern philosophy for losing sight of of the fundamental question: "Why are there essents rather than nothings?" He died in May 1976 and was buried in his hometown.

Hopefully, I have given the bloggers some biographical perspective that allows them to see the work and philosophy of Heidegger in another view, other than our 21^st century one, which often ignores historical context, and our evangelical Christian one, which often fails to wrestle with philosophers on their own terms.

Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

Source(s) Used:  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Center for Ethics and Entrepreneurship.

Commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's "Baffled."

Alternate Heidegger

Heidegger talks about the Authentic Self, which he believes is unique to every person. In class, Abernathy tried to explain how that worked. She used the example of having never been born, but someone else was born in our place that was like us in every way, but not us at the same time. The first thought that popped into my head was, Alternate Universe.

A lot of television shows I enjoy incorporate alternate universes into their storylines. Doctor Who is a prime example of this. In one episode the Doctor and his companions end up falling into an alternate universe where they find people they know, but they aren’t exactly the same. It seems that alternate universes, while maybe not exactly what Heidegger was talking about, fit into the schema he was trying to present.

I could be wrong about all of this, I’ve been stuck in bed all day with a bad back and I feel like I’m going a little crazy. But at the same time, I think I might be on to something.

Until next time

~Meghan

P.S. – I commented on Jamie’s post, Baffled

Jabberwocky

So I’ve been reading my Heidegger stuff and working on my paper when I was suddenly like, “Oh my goodness this doesn’t make a lick of sense!” (Okay, maybe not suddenly, but you get the idea.) I felt like the Tootsie Pop boy I drew in my cartoon. I couldn’t figure out much of what Heidegger was saying and was frustrated, but then I had a thought. What if that was how Herr Heidegger wanted his listeners to respond? I don’t mean he wanted us to get upset and have our brains overload, but he simply sough to make us think. Heidegger is standing in a room full of students, or colleagues, or whatever and he tosses an infinite question “Why are there essents rather than nothing” in the midst of them. The effect was probably the same as it was in our class-- it got our minds turning. Heidegger twists and turns and gets us all tangled up trying to discover meaning in his philosophy and whatnot, but really he has fulfilled the very definition he gave to philosophy. It is not in the nature of philosophy to give answers which would simplify and therefore lose the meaning. It is the nature of philosophy to question and make things much more difficult. Mission accomplished Herr Heidegger.


P.S.: i commented on Mallory Searcy's post

Sitting by Dr. Talmage has made Heidegger bearable. At least in class. Wading in the reading is another thing.

The thing that bothers me about this stuff is that my brain wants to categorize it as religion. I know he says he's trying to steer away from religion, but it's almost as if he's really trying to go above religion. At least in my opinion, you can't go above religion- you just find more religion.

To speak of our "being" is not a new thing to speak of- he's right that the poets know about it. But is it also possible that everyone knows about it. It is in fact, the thing everyone can grasp rather than the parts. After all, I will never be smart enough to understand the Essent of iphone- not all of its wires and lights and metal. but i do understand its being. In fact, I am apart of the process that gives it being. I can't tell you what an iphone IS but I can tell you why it is. I can tell you its purpose and it's not possible for me to think of all its fine machinery and text someone at the same time.

And though I think Heidegger is right in that he understands this idea of purpose, I think he corners himself when he attempts to do this without religion. Existentialism, as far as I am understanding it, seems to be the most depressing system of beliefs I know. It seems that once you have outlined Being, will, purpose and even a "turning" back to the light, if you ignore religion you are left to yourself to find out how and what this means. That is where I see Heidegger stop, right before the every day man would turn to God. He sees a complicated and wonderful humanity and insists than neither Science nor God will give him a "why".

Maybe I don't understand this stuff at all. If someone else does, please explain it?

I commented on Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

Pienso que entiendo... o quisas Heideggar habla una lingua diferente.

The thought that we have a paper on Mr. H almost makes me cry... the fact that it's only like two pages makes it a little better. Okay... first of all- Dr. M posed the question: "Why do we need to know this stuff?" Also, H's question of "Why are there essence instead of nothing?" is a hard one for me because it seems rather post modern and Rachel know's what I think about post modernism... As Dr. Olsen would say "Maybe we can't understand it because there is nothing to understand.'

I am in no way saying that this is meaningless information. This is a step towards truth. It is good stuff... (I think) I just don't know that any of us are getting it though. Further more, when one comes to a conclusion we tend to answer with "Maybe... or... that's a good way to put it..." but so far... we are continuing to voice our opinions and be a confused mess when in reality the only way to sort everything out is to state what we know. What bits of truth have we gleaned from this reading? The hammer and nail analogy was a good one. I am not sure I can give the explanation justice as Dr. Abernathy, but in essence it is that we are not aware of every detail of an action or an object. We see a chair, not shaped wood covered in fabric.

What other truths do we know from the reading? Post them as comments so that we can help each other get organized, know why, and... hopefully write a coherent paper!

Commented on Joy's

Baffled

Honestly, I'm almost clueless when it comes to Heidegger. I just don't get it. And then, after the discussion in class yesterday, I'm even more confused. So, who are we, really? Are we who we are because it is instilled in us from the moment we come into existence, or are we only what our society makes us? If I had been born in Africa, and raised in an orphanage, personality wise, would I be anything like the person I am today? Be it right or wrong, the only conclusion I can make goes back to God. He created me. Everything about me, including my personality. Not only that, he placed me in the exact environment he wanted me in. Having me born in Africa wasn't part of His plan.

P.S. Commented on Joy's "This Defines vs. That Defines"

Things that stuck out to Me

I want to go back to the discussion about "Thrown/Flung" into a particular space. In class on tuesday we talked about the existence of a twin if the other twin was never born. For example, Joy and her sister Judy. Would Judy's existence be known by someone if they did not know Judy had existence. I called this the "Joy-Judy Twin Scenario." If I was not born to my parents but my sister was would my existence even be missed? This goes hand in hand with "Dais Sein"-- Being There. I would say no because if i was never there than how can I be missed? I was never THERE so that is not possible.
    Another thing that caught my attention in reading Heideger (dont know if i spelled that right) was the idea that who you are defines what you do. Or is it what you do defines who you are? At first I found this concept to be confusing. If what i do defines who I am then is that not the same as who you are defines what you do? I thought about this for awhile and began to gain understanding. Just as Joy wrote in her blog, If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then your actions will portray that. Would it not? The same is true for a person who one saw going for a run. They would assume that person who was running is a runner. So, yes, i agree that this is true.

p.s i commented on Joy's post

WHYdegger (see what I did there?)

"We fall in line, we live the lie. (Give up, give up, and feed the machine.
It grows inside, nowhere to hide. (Wake up, wake up, and kill the machine."
-Red, Feed the Machine

For one thing, in my honest opinion, metaphysics is really interesting and exciting to study, particularly when it comes to Martin Heidegger. The question of why there are essents rather than nothing may seem like a ridiculous question at first, but the more and more you look into it, the deeper it becomes. Soon, you're dealing with Platonism, Existentialism, and all different sort of ideas. By the end of the first chapter, you're dropped on the front lines of a war between machinerey and the sukis that you didn't even know existed. Yes, it is extremely confusing, but I believe that, for those who are willing and keep an open mind (dangerous as that may be) will find some very worthy material. What's funny is that, at the end of class yesterday, I believe it was Dr. Talmage who posed the question: "Why are we studying this? Why should we care about metaphysics at all? How can this stuff really apply to our lives?" Thankfully, that is the perfect question to ask.

It is extremely important that essays like the ones we have read are studied because, well, look what happens when they aren't! Look at the members of this world that don't care about poetry, that don't care about the deeper questions in life, that will never leave the front door of their own mind. They go through life pursuing the next big thing, chasing dreams and money and whatever comes to mind, and only look at the here and now of this life as to how it benefits them directly at that time. You know who these people are, and you know that we as a society and a culture are largely disinterested with anything that does not involve personal success, world peace, or simplicity. That's why things like poetry, philosophy, and the humanities in general have fallen by the wayside, and look at the kind of people this culture creates as a result. For anyone who remembers Nietzsche's predictions about the Last Man, who no longer cares about asking questions and finding meaning in life, who would simply crash his life on the rocks because it's how he feels at the time, look him in the eyes and tell him he's wrong.

This is exactly what Heidegger warned about in the end of this chapter-the machine men. He sees industrialization not just in the physical world but in the metaphysical world, i.e. mankind as a whole. In our search for individuality and freedom we are in fact enslaving ourselves to trends, science, intelligence, and anything other that which truly frees us-the question of what it means to be. Despite the fact that Heidegger says to keep religion out metaphysics, no theologian can deny that a life simply lived looking at his shoes and hands without asking questions in a life that is dead. One must be alive in the Spirit, which one must be aware that there is more to life than just the day and awake to the fact this life in which we live will enslave us if we let it, and we as Christians cannot allow ourselves to let that happen. We can no longer accept apathy nor can we keep looking towards statistics and science as what defines us as people nor can we let ourselves be defined by Descartes. "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" Why do we care rather than not?

If you actually made it through all of that, you have my humble thanks. Feel free to comment as you please with questions or corrections. I commented on Joy Vigneulle's This Defines VS That Defines.

This Defines VS That Defines

“Who you are defines what you do” and “what you do defines who you are”… These two points were both presented in honors class today and I have thought about them off and on throughout the day… I believe who we are ought to define what we do. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then you ought to live your life differently then someone who does not follow Jesus Christ. If you are a white collar worker here in the states you will work different, talk different, and live different than a poor peasant in Haiti. It is who you are that dictates how you act and respond to things. However, what you do can also define you. Like Rachel was saying if you ride a bike then people will consider you to be a bike rider. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ then people will call you a Christian. If you like reading you are considered a book worm. We have all heard the saying actions speak louder than words. So saying you’re a believer is great, but if you do not live your life as a follower of Jesus Christ things will not line up, in which case what you do will define you more than who you say you are because the two are not lining up (in other words you are a hypocrite). So let what you do line up with who you say you are.

PS - Jamie

PS -