So I guess that really the only thing that I can talk about for this blog is Albert Camus'  The Stranger. Now, I have to admit, I did not fully understand this book as much as the others. Anyway, here goes. Final blog commencing now.

It is stated that Mersault's most existential and triumphant part of the novel is the ending, right before he is executed.  He basically decides to face his execution and whatever else society throws at him because nothing truly matters. He's not acting like that to be a martyr or anything; to him, the existentialist, he lived and now he is going to die. There's no meaning, hidden or otherwise, no plot twists, no surprise endings. He's gonna die and that's pretty much it. This is his triumphant moment because he still sticks to his ideals and does not give in to what society thinks he should be.

I can't really think of much to connect this to the modern world. The only thing that comes to mind is the constant joke surrounding an "existential crisis." I say that it is a joke because kids say "Oh I just had an existential crisis...what does my life mean...hahaha." But, an existential crisis is a real thing, defined as when an individual questions their life and whether it has any meaning at all. I personally am not an existentialist. I believe that my life has some sort of meaning, but I just don't know what that is as of yet. This greatly contrasts from Mersault's views, but he would never shame me. My beliefs don't affect him and mine don't affect his. Mersault and his fellow existentialists can go on believing that their lives are what they are and that they end, and I can go on searching for my "meaning," whatever it may be.

Since we just finished reading Dr. Faustus, I started to think about what I would "sell" my soul for. It's a tricky question to answer without sounding either like a completely selfish or completely stupid person. So, I'm not going to care what people think and come out and give my opinion because this is my blog and I do what I want on it. Rant over. Proceed.

So Faustus gave up his soul to Lucifer for knowledge and this is a very common motif throughout literature. There are always characters that want to know everything. I personally would not give up my soul for all the knowledge in the world because I would probably go insane (well, more than Sarah already has).

I feel that the only thing I would give my soul up for would be to save myself. It is conditional, though. If I knew that once I was saved by a demon or something and I was coming back to live in a world that is a living hell, I probably would not sell my soul. If I knew that once I came back that I would be okay and then could do some good in the world, I would consider selling my soul more.

Many people in today's world would sell their souls for money and power. The thing about giving up your soul for that stuff is that those things have an end. Someone will eventually have more money and you and someone will eventually have more power than you.

I think that this is one of the main themes from Dr. Faustus: material things have an end and giving up something as precious as your soul for them is just, well, pretty stupid. The work does not condone the selling of your soul, but it says that if you do sell your soul, make it worth something.

On Middle Eastern Culture

So I know I have already discussed culture. But, I didn't really get to delve into the Middle Eastern Culture as much as I wanted to. So, obviously, this post will relate to A Thousand Splendid Suns, specifically question 24 from the Socratic Seminar.

As stated previously, my parents lived in Saudi Arabia for three years (1987-1990). This is right before the Desert Storm operation took place, and coinciding with the novel between the time that Jalil dies, the Soviets invade Afghanistan, and then sign a treaty to leave Afghanistan in peace. I've obviously heard countless stories about the Middle East, and my opinion about it is and was that it was just another place in the world with people that were different from me. That is a key point though: they were and still are people, no matter what a few radicals have done.

In today's world, opinions about anything are usually formed by what is seen in the media. For example, if someone sees on the news that terrorists from Iraq brutally murdered hundreds of people, many viewers will immediately jump to the conclusion that all people from the Middle East or people that are Muslim are terrorists.  My opinion was only further strengthened by this novel because it proved the point that most people in the so-called evil Middle East are innocent.

Mariam and Laila were just two people that wanted to live their lives as happily and as safely as possible. They did whatever they could to make this a reality. They fought the minority that ruined their lives. I believe that these are great people because of this, and they are just people, just from a different place than me.

I would like to discuss question 21 in The Awakening Socratic Seminar questions. I am supposed to either support or refute the statement "Edna has never loved her husband." I believe that Edna felt a form of love toward her husband, if only because he was the father of her children. She also felt a bit of love for him when they were first married and first knew each other. But, it never progressed past "puppy love," if you will. She never felt true love for the man she called her husband. She also never would be able to become her own person if she still believed that she loved him.

This can be related to today's world with young marriages. Many young adults straight out of college get married because they think that they are with "the one" and that this person is the thing that will complete their lives. Most of these marriages end in divorce or are just unhappy. It is the fact that some people believe that they have to be with another person to be complete that strengthens Edna's actions.

Edna knew that to be her true self she needed to be apart from the man she never truly loved. It was the only way that she could be free. The people that marry without much thought obviously do not realize this and cannot be their own person. Now, I'm not negating love, but it is a shame (and shames the idea of self actualization that Edna represents) that people would degrade themselves so far as to believe that a person they don't truly love will complete them.

So the article titled "The Challenge of Cultural Realism" makes the main point all cultures have different morals and values, and that because of this, there can be no "true" morality.  This continues to be explained throughout the article until, it the last few paragraphs, it throws the twist in that even if you had a choice in your culture, you'd choose your own because it's familiar and that we have to live with open minds. Well, then.

I've heard stories from my parents that have experienced "culture shock" firsthand.  They lived in Saudi Arabia between 87 and 90.  In this 3rd world country, public executions were very popular and were used to teach lessons.  It was perfectly normal for a husband to stone his wife or throw acid in her face.  Thieves had their hands cut off daily. Decapitation by sword was entertainment.  My parents' friends that actually witnessed executions recall that the Saudis would force the Westerners to the front of the crowd so they would learn a lesson.

This is similar to the tribal cultures in Things Fall Apart, in which Ikemefuma was killed because he was a sacrifice to the Mbaino tribe when a Umofian girl was killed.  This was the norm of this culture.

This is in stark contrast to Western culture, like in the U.S.  We believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone no matter what they've done.  The death penalty is hotly contested.

So what do I think this all means?  I agree with Ruth Benedict, in that there is no truth in morality. Who are we to judge others? How do we know which culture is right: the Westerners, the Africans, or the Middle Easterners? The point is we can't possibly know.  The only thing we can do is what Benedict stated: keep an open mind and don't tell anybody else they're wrong just because they believe in something else.

Since I was absent for the Socratic Seminar on Hamlet, I have decided to write about question 16, "Is Hamlet's intellect a source of strength or weakness in his character?"
 
I believe that Hamlet's intellect is both a strength and a weakness in his character. I see his intellect as a strength because this shows that he is able to think rationally and make clear decisions.  It also shows that he is educated.  Finally, his intellect is something that makes me believe that he is a person that is able to clearly see others and can understand them to help them. These are qualities that a strong leader would need.
 
I believe that Hamlet's intellect is a weakness because in his intellectual processes of accomplishing things, he spends so much time thinking and not acting.  He is too busy weighing consequences and planning his every move to actually act.  By the time he finishes his calculated plan to avenge his father's death and expose his corrupted uncle, several people have died and it is too late for his plan to go into action.

I think these ideas could relate to today's world because the nations of this world are all trying to put the "perfect" person in power so their country can be the best that it possibly can be.  I don't believe that there are perfect people to put in power, but I do believe that they would need a good amount of intellect.  They need to be able to think things through and make decisions so as to best benefit their nation.  But, unlike Hamlet, they would have to be able to curb their intellect, so to speak so they can act accordingly and at the appropriate times.

Fate

 

Throughout the ages, fate is a common theme.  It is seen all over - in books, movies, video games - and usually there is one main question that fate is boiled down to: do you have the ability to control your fate? This is the main question explored in Shakespeare's Oedipus the King. In more recent times, this is also the main question explored in the film Run, Lola, Run.



This question is explored in Oedipus in the fact that Oedipus is trying to escape the fate that has been set before him: he will kill his father and marry his mother. He consistently tries to escape this fate, but inevitably fails because of the intervention of the gods.  His fate leads to his downfall: his knowledge leads to blindness and exile.

It is the opposite in the case of Lola. She sees her fate and stares it in the face. She knows that if she and her boyfriend Manni don't scrounge up $100K by noon, they will be killed. So, instead of trying to run from her fate like Oedipus, she tries to change it. In a manner of ways, she tries to get the money without having to break the law. In a series of events, she is able to decide at the end of each scenario of time if this was an acceptable way for her life to go. She is obviously not satisfied by some since she dies in one. She eventually gets it right, though, and was able to change her fate for the better.

Although fate is a common theme for fictional things like books and movies, it can still apply to today's world. Many people believe in fate, usually to a varying degree.  There are people that believe that fate is uncontrollable but there also are people that believe fate doesn't really exist (like me).  The people that strongly believe in fate would say that fate, even if it is chaotic, controls everything. Anything that happens has an effect on something else and that cannot be changed. On the other hand, people like me might say that things like chain reactions are possible, but since there is no fate, everything just happens and there's no cosmic being or whatever in control of the universe.

So, to link all of this pile of words about fate together, it could be said that on the spectrum of belief of fate to nonbelief, Lola and Oedipus are pretty much huge believers. Then there's me floating over on the extreme other end.  Depending on your beliefs, you could think that fate is controllable or it isn't.  It really depends on circumstance.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!! :]