Period 7 Conversations About Literature
Any period may read or post to any period, but use this starting point for followups to class discussions.
Any period may read or post to any period, but use this starting point for followups to class discussions.
If were really able to discover the meaning of life would that just make our own lives meaningless? So in essence shouldn’t the meaning of life be just to live and be happy and not wonder what the meaning of life really is?
Kyle - May 18, 2009 at 8:42 pm |
I wouldn’t say so, as there are many aspects to the meaning of life. I think, as Cailin says above there somewhere, that we are supposed to find A meaning of life. Life is too expansive, too multifaceted to take just one thing and say “HOHO! I have the meaning of life…how empty I feel. /wrists”
If one wants to just lie back and let life pass them by and take things as they come waiting around to die, their only reading material being some holy text that gives an idea as to what the meaning of life may be, they will lead a rather boring life. We as humans are very curious creatures, we want to go out there and see the world. One who lives like this may go somewhere and their whole life may change because they saw some event or went to some country where something was happening that changed their whole idea on life. That is when they start questioning…why is this happening.
Why is there so much pain? Is it to balance out the life that is brought into this world every three seconds?
In that video that Nick showed a couple days ago an Indian Guru stated that the “meaning of life is happiness. Your purpose on this earth is to be happy. If you want to go out and make the world happy, if that will make you happy…guess what? You’re happy! ”
So what makes you happy? For me it is playing the violin and writing poetry. Mmk…so why should I go to school? That makes me unhappy because there is no music. Why must I learn about this world, what is its purpose?
Who knows? That is why IB English exists to try and find these meanings of life.
The question should not be: What is the meaning of life? It should be what are the meanings of life?
Eric von Jeffords - May 21, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
I’d just like to respond to one of your questions you asked that you probably didn’t even want answered. Sorry about this, then.
“Why must I learn about this world, what is its purpose?” Learning about this world allows one to get additional perspectives, get off of their own feet, and further explore the world, and find answers for themselves along the way. If everyone just bumbled around without learning, sharing their knowledge, and asking questions in the process, we’d still be back where we were way back when we still ate raw meat (if you get what I mean). Alright, not literally, maybe, but we would just be stuck in our own little worlds, taking care of our needs, never asking questions. The idea is to get us to ask questions; the result is we start thinking.
Fiona - May 21, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Yes, I didn’t want that answered, but in essence yes. If we did not learn the cultures of others we would be ignorant. That is the point of going to school so we will have the intelligence to relate to the other peoples of the world. If we lived in ignorance and did not have educations then we would get nothing done and live as hermits the rest of our lives.
Promote free education!
That is all.
Eric von Jeffords - May 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I think, that we are not necesarily looking for THE meaning of life, we are looking for A meaning of life, and with that, something that could possibly make our lives more meaningful. I agree with Kyle, one possible “meaning of life” is simply living and being happy. Something that relates to this, in the book that I’m reading, Sense and Sensibility, a major theme is the idea of coping with loss. It shows the different ways that the characters deal with death, break-ups, and their differences in social classes. The main character Elinor is very reseved and likes to keep things to herself. She likes to pretend that nothing is the matter, and make the people around her think that she is happy. This is her way of coping and helping those around her to cope as well. This also relates back to what we were talking about in class today. Are we really what other people see in us?
Annie - May 18, 2009 at 9:29 pm |
(Continuing a more off of the “meaning of life” thread, than the “what we really are…”) The ‘meaning of life’ inevitably has billions upon billions of answers and/or solutions (like 42), each one shaped to individually suit each person’s own mind. In that way, perhaps, there is no true meaning of life, other than to serve as a single note in the ongoing symphony of the universe, pleasing some creature somewhere for a moment with your sound (I could speak about that interpretation of life for a long time; ask me sometime, if you feel so inclined).
Let’s say Kyle feels that the meaning of life is just to be happy (maybe he doesn’t really, I’m just using what he wrote), and someone else may believe the meaning of life to be to reproduce and die and so forth, and yet another person may think that the meaning of life is to conquer all of the unknown (even if it’s not all by just them). With all these different individual meanings, it could be in the collective synthesis of them all that there ceases to be any meaning whatsoever.
Of course, that is all just hypothetical, and to each his own html and [i]bbcode[/i] test))
Fiona - May 18, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
((I apologize for the html/bbcode test at the bottom of that! …Html works, for those of you that want to emphasize things!))
Fiona - May 18, 2009 at 10:35 pm
I definately agree with Fiona in that this project’s purpose– or at least what I’ll be deriving from it– is to find A meaning of life. There are going to be different meanings depending on which book you choose as each author has a different message to convey.
Kyle, I wonder at your question that you end your post with “shouldn’t the meaning of life be just to live and be happy and not wonder what the meaning of life really is?” I’ll agree with Fiona in that a meaning of life is to be happy, but why does not wondering about the meaning of life equate to happiness? For me at least, it certainly does not.
On another note, and to link to my book, the Brothers Karamazov, happiness is painted as fairly unattainable. Each character is painted in a desperate situation. From the mother who was a girl confined by a terrible mistress and marries the father in the book just to escape and is miserable with his indiscretions until she finally dies, to each of the boys, who, in one way or another has a character trait that tends to ruin their happiness. From being shy and withdrawn, etc. It’s not so much that they aren’t content, just that the joy of life is not an expectation. And I think that’s a tone evident throughout Russian literature. The history of Russia is so dismal that the people have nothing like an American “everything will be better tomorrow” attitude. After hundreds of years of oppression, and horrible governmental style after horrible governmental style, the people lead very different lives from us. That means that Russians, to generalize, have to find very different meaning in their lives than maybe you or I. Which is why I find Russia so fascinating.
Cailin Rogers - May 18, 2009 at 10:43 pm |
So, I started thinking more about what Kyle said, “shouldn’t the meaning of life be just to live and be happy,” particularly in conjunction with the presentation we saw 6th period today, and concluded that this is probably one of the biggest truths. In the presentation, there was a clip of one of the gurus in India, who, when asked about the meaning of life, concluded that it was all about being happy.
On the basest level, happiness is an attainable, realistic, and understandable goal and concept. It also covers everything that we as humans have achieved; cars, electricity, microwave ovens. All of it was invented because someone thought it would make their life (or someone else’s life) easier, and therefore happier.
Now, of course, there’s the converse side of it all, ie. Communism, Hitler, Nuclear warfare. I don’t know who in the world thought all that up. But it most certainly seems that none of it has really served life happiness in any way. In another one of my deep philosophical car conversations, we (my dad and I) determined that perhaps the universe (used as a general term for whatever is pulling the strings) needs to throw new things at the world, see how they do, and life goes from there. In some cases, things go over well, in other cases, things don’t go well, and the universe says, “Hmm, maybe we should re-think that and try something different next time.”
I suppose that I’ve been stretching both of my comments in this thread more towards defining what life is and more about “the universe” than what the meaning of life is. Sorry about that? I don’t know, I always just find it a fascinating topic.
Ah, and another quick note, while I’m at it on…apologies; I realize I haven’t been tying my book in to these discussions terribly much, but I’m not really sure how to talk about my book yet, considering the content is a little…risque. Hopefully I’ll figure something out for Thursday.
Fiona - May 20, 2009 at 12:29 am |
My content is risque. Go for it. It’s literature.
Eric von Jeffords - May 21, 2009 at 7:54 pm |
*laughs* Indeed, literature is one of the few places everyone is more open, isn’t it?
Fiona - May 21, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Well, I’m going to deviate a little from this aspect of the meaning of life, as my book doesn’t necessarily deal with happiness in a way I can contextualize it in the conversation.
The other day we talked about sin. Does sin prevent one to live a full life, or is sin essential in living your life to the fullest? Everybody takes risks at some points, and some of these risks may essentially hurt another being (as Cailin pointed out, the essence of sin is the act that hurts another human or themselves). But is sin almost a necessity for us to grow as human beings? Or is sin a plight on human nature, and we should do our best to avoid it at all costs?
In my book, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dorians’ sins appear on the painting that Basil had created. He feels that he can monitor his sins and to make sure they never mar the painting. However, this “consciousness” of sin in fact stunts Dorian’s growth, and this avoidance of sin actually causes him to commit more sins (when Dorian is 38, the picture of him is almost unrecognizable), including destroying people’s careers, destroying women’s loves, and other men committing suicide.
Does this consciousness of sin cause the stunt of growth within a person, as he never truly learns from his mistakes? Should sins be avoided at all costs, or should we accept that to sin is part of human nature and that sometimes sins forces us to grow and better ourselves?
Vanessa - May 20, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
I believe that “sin” is a necessity to grow, in some ways. We need to make those mistakes so we can learn from them. Of course some do not learn from their mistakes, they just take them and move on and create more mistakes and then they live on the streets or become vice presidents and no one hears from them again.
Now, we must take into consideration things done in private i.e. sex, drugs, etc. Are these things “sinful” because they have the POTENTIAL for hurting someone? What if one stops doing those things, is it still a sin if some other person finds out about these acts later?
If I am playing the violin and I hurt someone because they believe themselves to be worthless and should have never picked up the violin does that make me a “sinner” because I am trying to be greater than they? If I accidentally step on someone’s fingers because I rise to the top and leave all those behind me in emotional distress, even though I didn’t mean to, am I still “sinning”?
There is a fine line between necessity and sin I feel. As a brighter person before me said: “Do not do what is right, do what is necessary.”
We should not avoid them. If we tried we would not be living and that is a sin in and of itself. As I said before the “sins” the dark and dangerous tempt us. Life is about risks! But we should be aware that when we are planning to play a prank on someone that could potentially hurt them that we are harming a fellow human life. Perhaps it is a bit extreme to call it sin, no?
Eric von Jeffords - May 21, 2009 at 7:14 pm |
“If I am playing the violin and I hurt someone because they believe themselves to be worthless and should have never picked up the violin does that make me a “sinner” because I am trying to be greater than they? If I accidentally step on someone’s fingers because I rise to the top and leave all those behind me in emotional distress, even though I didn’t mean to, am I still “sinning”?”
I don’t feel that is the case – I think it is rather the conscious action that is considered a sin. That which is unconscious cannot necessarily define a sin – as many times, when something is brought to that person’s attention, they often feel guilty for what they did unconsciously. But it probably depends on the type of unconscious hurt – would a racist joke be considered a sin, versus just trying to better yourself? On that point, I do not think that people feeling inferior to you because you have the will to better yourself as a person, musician, what have you, is considered a sin. However, this COULD be considered as selfishness at the same time.
Wow. Way too many tangents there.
Vanessa - May 21, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Actually thats a good point by kyle. saying we discovered the meaning of life, what would we do? we would just go and do what it tells us to do. and what? keep doing that forever? would the next generation forget? would we fight wars about it? who knows. would it be interesting?
anyway the meaning of life is alot like the afterlife (which is what my book’s about). they’re both big frightening subjects that no one has really thought about all the way through.
and in any case after reading all these conjectures on the afterlife, the only conclusion I can reach is what I want to do with my life before I die. And also a conclusion that the afterlife and the meaning of life are kind of overrated.
As far as the sin thing goes, i think that there is a basic morality found in most people, and that religion and the line between sin and good follows this morality at first until it gets grabbed up by society and turned into a shadow of what it was originally, like in the crucible.
and also eric i think von jeffords suits you.
Sandy Burch - May 22, 2009 at 12:03 am |
I like your connection with the afterlife, there : )
I’ve actually had a really deep, philosophical, late-night discussion with my friend about the meaning of life (well, we actually decided to tackle what “the meaning of life, the universe, and everything” was), and we actually came up with a good, solid, and satisfactory meaning. We sat there, nodded, were proud we had come up with it (though I can remember it wasn’t really what one would call “exciting”), fell asleep (it was 4 AM), and then couldn’t remember what we had decided when we woke up in the morning. I laugh at this, almost every time.
But anyways, it goes along with some of what you were asking, “what would we do?” Apparently, in our case anyways, you keep doing what you were already doing, and sooner or later forget. Maybe we all somewhere subconsciously know what the meaning is, and strive for it automatically, so it’s not so shocking as one would think, when it’s first revealed, and then it just recedes into the rest of your thoughts again.
Fiona - May 22, 2009 at 12:25 am |
I would argue that the meaning of life is interpratable for each person. In my novel I found it to be about fulfillment, passion, and as klye said happiness, and I would like to argue that if you did discover the meaning of life you would strive for that meaning in attempt to make your life meaningful. These themes are quite vague and can be attained, but when you find the passion and fulfillment it does not stop there, one must act on the passion and work to fulfill their life,to make themselves happy. The meaning of life is hidden within each person, of course all of this is arguable
Liz Kruse - May 22, 2009 at 12:42 am |
also that smiley face looks seriously insane and slightly demented just sayin
Liz Kruse - May 22, 2009 at 12:43 am |
It does. That’s why I put a space between the colon and the end-parenthesis : )
Fiona - May 22, 2009 at 10:59 pm |
From what I’ve learned from my own book, I found the meaning of life to be about finding inner self in life. In my book, the characters all portray themselves with a superficial mask that doesn’t show what else goes on in their lives. If Steinbeck didn’t take the time to describe what the characters did in their own personal lives, the characters would be projected as just boring people who lived mediocre lives. I think that you go through journey in life to find yourself because as you grow up, you change yourself to suit the situation that is presented towards you whether it is just business or a social event, you act differently in each case.
Sam Montayne - May 22, 2009 at 1:02 pm |
To organize my thoughts in a readable manner, I shall be using numbered points so that y’all have some idea of what I’m talking about.
1. Different meaning of life
It seems to me that not only are there different meanings of life for different people, but each individual has an eclectic mix of personal meanings of life. That’s the reason, Eric, that I think school is important. Especially when you go away to college, and even a lot in the IB program, you’re introduced to new meanings of life, and are able to find a way to incorporate a lot of those into your life as is.
That seems to me one of Dostoevsky’s main points in The Brothers Karamazov: new meanings, new thoughts, new systems need to be incorporated into an individual’s own philosophy on life, or one will continue to make the same mistakes they always have. He shows this pretty well through the father and the first two sons in his book. Those characters are constantly making the same sorts of mistakes, and never learn from the people around them.
2. Sin
I don’t think that sin has to be intentional. There’s a reason you say sorry when you mess up, even if you didn’t mean to– because you made a mistake, you sinned. I mean, negligent homicide is still punishable by law. You didn’t INTEND to kill someone, but they’re dead, and you’re responsible. Clearly, there is a lesser punishment there (and that’s found throughout lots of societies), which indicates that the action is LESS sinful, but it is a sin nevertheless.
Also, I do agree with Sandy that there’s a basic morality in most people, however I follow a more Hobbsian approach vs. Rousseau, as she seems to. While I’ll agree that society IS NOT by any stretch of the imagination a perfect or even in most ways, good entity, I think that society tames man’s nature. I’m not convinced that we’re intrinsically good. We may have a fundamental morality, but without the urgings of society, I think we’re more liable to follow selfish paths to attempt to attain happiness. To paraphrase one of Doestovesky’s characters, Ivan, “People are only moral with the threat of an afterlife. Without the conception of punishers for our actions, we choose to ignore our morality.” Society also provides punishment for “improper actions,” though sometimes those “improper actions” may be wrongly labelled.
3. Afterlife
Whoa, I guess I don’t think that any discussion or thought about the afterlife could be overrated. But I guess that’s a difference between our meanings of life, Sandy
It seems to me that people who think a lot about the afterlife and the meaning of life, and come to some strong conclusions, become the ideologues and theologians of their era. Look at Buddha, Christ, Muhammad, etc. These leaders found their meaning of life and their conception of the afterlife, and their strong conviction created religions so that people could follow in their footsteps.
And Dostoevsky would have us believe that without faith in an afterlife, people are generally immoral. His immoral characters in the Brothers Karamazov do not believe in God or an afterlife, whereas his more moral characters do.
Cailin Rogers - May 25, 2009 at 9:21 pm |
PS, that smiley face was supposed to be a tongue sticking out. Like this… : P
Cailin Rogers - May 25, 2009 at 9:22 pm |
“A few years back i discovered the meaning of life, but forgot to write it down”
I find we might all be slightly over analyzing the MEANING of life, when what we’re all trying to find is what fills our own void. My book’s take on this life of ours is that it is a void, a big void full of electrical power (at least that’s what their Buddhist take on it is). We are only able to really sense it with sight, smell, touch, taste, and sound. With those senses we discover the world around us. So therefore, what we perceive is actually imaginary. It also states that what we do is just to amuse ourselves in this void.
I think that what we are trying to discover is not the MEANING of life, but rather what all these concepts, ideas, morals, emotions,…et cetera…mean to us in life. If you try to break life down, you end up with a bunch of atoms reacting with each other, and if you build it up, you get an unexplored universe. Pretty far out, if you ask me.
Mark M - May 26, 2009 at 9:39 pm |
Aha! That quote pretty much exactly describes what I was saying somewhere in one of the threads up here: my friend and I were talking, decided on the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, then couldn’t remember when we woke up in the morning. But yes, I very much agree with you, that we’re analyzing the meaning aspect of life a little too much; when you go looking for the meaning, I think you might actually find it to be quite boring and dissatisfying (why else would we forget, right?), but trying to comprehend life, what we all really are — string theory, for instance, like your atom idea — you get to something really interesting, “far out,” as you said.
I also like the Buddhist take you’ve described here, “what we perceive is actually imaginary.” My dad and I were talking on a subject like this, talking about string theory, how everything is just vibrating strings when you go even finer than an atom or an electron or anything you could think of. And then what are those strings made of? I should go read up on string theory…but anyways. The idea that everything is imaginary is mind-blowing when you try to comprehend it, but the more you think on it, the more paradoxically it makes sense.
Fiona - May 27, 2009 at 10:34 pm |
well i dunno if we’re still supposed to be writing on this blog but i can’t just let cailin answer me and not answer her : )
by overrated i mean that people spend too much time thinking or pretending to think about them, and imagining them as something that will solve everything or at least make it look better.
frankly after all this what most amazes me is that for thousands of years no one has known anything, really KNOWN, about the afterlife or the meaning of life, and yet the world goes on, we still do everything we do, the sun rises, cars drive, you buy groceries, etc.
and also i dont know what you mean by hobbsian and rousseau, but at this point i might revert back to locke. : P : )
Sandy Burch - May 29, 2009 at 2:05 pm |