The article about Christian perversions was interesting. I used to think people used to believe in god because it gave them hope that if they were good they would get rewarded. But I found it odd that people see punishment as a reason too believe. It could possibly because they don’t trust themselves or they are messed up. You can sort of see this in the relationship with his uncle. His uncle who bought him and beat him obviously didn’t really love him or at least know how to show it. I'm assuming the only attention Hamsun got from his uncle was from beatings. Hamsun must have liked the beatings in some way because at least an adult would acknowledge his existence, the way the guy in hunger wants god to punish him thus recognizing him and also showing the existence of god, which would give him a sense of order. I think Hamsun must have loved his uncle more than his real father, because at least his uncle acknowledged him. I find it interesting the way they say giving is pride, because it makes you feel good. I agree people give to clarify their conscience, not really to help the people in need. But there are always the people that don’t need to be heroic as long as some one else is helping they aren’t bothered by the fact that they aren’t taking action as long as those in need are okay. There are good and bad qualities to both. What I find very interesting are Hamsun’s political views. He has eccentric views that are contradictory not politically responsible and don’t seem to be backed up by anything. There’s some pride and humility in this I think. Pride because he’s projecting this eccentric image for attention or to be content with his own uniqueness or something. Also he could show humility because he knows he’s not in power and no one will agree they won’t follow him, so he chooses to believe something for no social cause only himself. He could also think this because he wants to be punished by society. He could also want to be further out cast which would give him a higher sense of individualism and identity, he clearly didn’t really like people and probably found more content in the development and realization of himself. The guy in hunger also outcasts himself on purpose, but is still starving for something with in him self, that’s why he’s starving himself.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
hunger pastige
below is a mini pastige of hunger where the protaganist stumbles upon a family feeding ducks
As I was walking aimlessly on a Sunday I saw a family sitting on bench by the pond feeding the ducks bits of bread. The ducks quarreled viciously over the crumbs of soggy bread, fiercely competing for it as if they never would again, but they lingered by the family always expecting more, never full. And the family chucking breadcrumbs were filled with content seeing the cluster of ducks wrestle each other for a scrap of bread. Why is such struggle fascinating? A deep fear brewed inside me, a fear that I might one day be like the ducks, no I couldn’t do such a thing. But whilst their pugnacious nature scared be I could sense a trace of envy with in my self. The slimmest possibility of bread, gave them a reason to move. When they failed they tried again, they did not fear defeat, when won the crumb they fought for another piece endlessly. They swam excitedly put their entire existence into fighting for the bread. They were eternally focused an enthralled, in their quest with a sole cause. I suspect god gave them this wild drive but could this madness come from with in? This possibility startled me I felt my self, running maddly away from these feasting ducks. The sight seemed to consume my entire being and I submitted to this strange madness there seemed to be nothing I could do but run.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
hungry on purpose
I’m really not sure what to make of the hunger artist, but I think he is symbolic of human dilemmas. The hunger artist seems foolish and a little pretentious and absurd. His hunger is by choice and it’s a stupid choice why would anyone want to do that to themselves? He is only starving out of pride and ego; he just wants people to admire him. But he does exercise a great deal of self discipline and percervierence he is in complete control of his life, and is finding passion in his suffering even though it has no point, even though it is bad for him even when people care less about him. He’s a lot of things. What I think is wrong is the perception he’s stupid or crazy because he’s suffering by choice and for no real reason. We all do things for no real reason and we all suffer to fulfill a purpose that doesn’t exist or that is shallow, for him its just more obvious because he’s fighting against his nature. The fact that the hunger artist loses popularity and is replaced by a dumb ravenous panther says a lot about people. The people want to see a panther that gets fed with out working and is and likes his cage because its easier, they don’t wan to see a guy whose suffering at his own will and the only thing keeping him in his cage is himself. It shows our desire for conformity because its more convenient than going your own way, and they don’t want to take responsibility for who they are. It isn’t bad to be the panther though.
There are obvious similarities between hunger and the hunger artist like the fact that they’re both starving. The protagonist in hunger is starving because he’s proud and doesn’t want charity; he fails to recognize that it is his pride making him hungry and could get over it by taking control over his own life. But the hunger artist is doing it for other reasons. He does want people to admire him for his discipline so he has pride like the guy in hunger. But even when people don’t admire his act he still goes for it so he is also doing it to test himself and he finds passion in his struggle. He is aware and displaying his control over his life he knows he is responsible for putting himself in his own cage. The guy in hunger is aware that he’s mad and that he’s starving and in trouble but he doesn’t take responsibility for it or exercise control. He thinks of himself as separate from his madness and often says he feels alienated from himself, and blames his madness for his actions. But actually his madness is a part of who he is, and that’s not entirely his fault but he should take responsibility and not let his insane side dominate him. But how do we define sane how do we know if the sane way is really the better way? We don’t know for sure but we do know that the way we go is the way we alone chose.
I honestly didn’t get the point of the end how he said he didn’t like the taste of food and he would have eaten ravenously like everyone else I don’t really get what that’s supposed to say that he decided not to do what everyone else did but he wishes he was normal? Maybe its supposed to be kind of obscure like the author doesn’t encourage us to be either the panther or the hunger artist but rather reflect on ourselves. Or maybe I just don’t get it. I think we are just meant to explore the ideas of this essay and try to understand them rather than form an argument from them.
There are obvious similarities between hunger and the hunger artist like the fact that they’re both starving. The protagonist in hunger is starving because he’s proud and doesn’t want charity; he fails to recognize that it is his pride making him hungry and could get over it by taking control over his own life. But the hunger artist is doing it for other reasons. He does want people to admire him for his discipline so he has pride like the guy in hunger. But even when people don’t admire his act he still goes for it so he is also doing it to test himself and he finds passion in his struggle. He is aware and displaying his control over his life he knows he is responsible for putting himself in his own cage. The guy in hunger is aware that he’s mad and that he’s starving and in trouble but he doesn’t take responsibility for it or exercise control. He thinks of himself as separate from his madness and often says he feels alienated from himself, and blames his madness for his actions. But actually his madness is a part of who he is, and that’s not entirely his fault but he should take responsibility and not let his insane side dominate him. But how do we define sane how do we know if the sane way is really the better way? We don’t know for sure but we do know that the way we go is the way we alone chose.
I honestly didn’t get the point of the end how he said he didn’t like the taste of food and he would have eaten ravenously like everyone else I don’t really get what that’s supposed to say that he decided not to do what everyone else did but he wishes he was normal? Maybe its supposed to be kind of obscure like the author doesn’t encourage us to be either the panther or the hunger artist but rather reflect on ourselves. Or maybe I just don’t get it. I think we are just meant to explore the ideas of this essay and try to understand them rather than form an argument from them.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
technology and hunger
The article from bbc discussed how the internet distracts us from work and home life but it is the fault of the people using it not the internet it self. they describe it as away to keep us busy with benign and fluffy things so we can temporarely ignore the problems of our real lives. If we continue to become obsessed with these distractions we will never confront our issues. This relates to hunger in many ways . the main character is constantly distracting him self with benign things like a flies on his paper the way an obsessed gamer or facebooker would today. According to this article he does this to cope with his loneliness hunger and madness with out actually confronting it, its his little escape. He gets excited over the most bizarre and tiny things showing that he has no real joy in his real life. But how exactly do we define whats real to us and whats fluff. If we engage in these so called distractions so often don’t they become part of our real life? If so you could just interpret them as away to find joy in your every day life and which is the goal. If that’s true then, when the man in hunger plays a stupid joke on a police officer and laughs histericaly isn’t he just choosing to be happy in his suffering and madness, or is he just choosing to be happy despite his madness and suffering. The man in hunger is very interesting because he is aware of his madness but he doesn’t necesaryily try to take responsibility of his madness. In his awareness he is also worried of what other people think of him. This is a tricky part of exhistentailism how can we be conscious of ourselves with out feeling self conscious? its just too hard this is why we need to be absurd this is why we need distractions.
Monday, January 10, 2011
exhistentialism and hunger
Hunger and existentialism
What I think is most striking about hunger is the main characters both absurd and individualistic qualities. He is overly proud he constantly is concerned about what people around him think. When he speaks of his writing he speaks of it as a noble deed and he thinks his work is earth shattering. He is absurd but he also had some individualistic qualities. He is aware of the fact that he is mad he often knows when he does foolish things that he is foolish, and while his dedication to writing is foolish and absurd its also quite individualistic that he follows that path despite discouragement from his hunger. He also gives away money, which can be interpreted as absurd and individualistic. He is proud enough to maintain his morals and when he gives money to people he seems to think very highly of himself like he’s making a real difference, which is absurd. But also with the ridiculousness of giving away money when you are fighting to survive, how it is indifferent to common sense shows he’s individualistic because despite his hunger he is still giving. He has fought against his nature. Morals are complicated when it comes to existentialism. There is a great deal of pride tied in with doing good when you do good you feel as though you’ve made a difference which is absurd. Also if you’re moral because your religion tells you to that’s not individualistic. But also morals take a great deal of consciousness and effort, which are put into control and fulfill your morals so it could go both ways. Existentialists believe that we have control over who we are our choices define us. But how do we distinguish between survival choices and happiness choices. Say a poor day worker is unhappy at a job they hate with a horrible boss they are barely making rent, do you tell that person that they chose poverty and it was their choice to work at the lousy job. Well technically it was their choice for the job but what were their options if they wanted to survive? Surely the decision to not starve to death more instinct based, less of a choice based on individuality, than the choice of which high paying career you want to pursue. I also don’t quite understand how the existentialists say how we must be conscious of how our actions effect the people around us and what would happen if others followed us, whilst at the same time ask us to be individuals. What if some one wanted to be a musician and decided to pursue it as a career despite the discouragement of a society or the poverty that might accompany it? The existentialists would like this individualistic act. But if the rest of society were to follow suit the community would fall apart, should this aspiring musician not pursue his career? But the same could be applied to any career should we not pursue careers at all? The man who says, “everyone will not do it,” is not lying in self-excuse he speaks the truth. The existentialists say that humans have no purpose in life that purpose and importance is absurd. Then why should we be so concerned if people follow us? They want us to be independent but then why do they bring society into the decision? I highly appreciate the exhistentialists support for individualism, but I think they scold humanity so much that they discourage us from finding and trusting our individualism. If you really want to be an exhistenstialist and live by your own doing don’t listen to the existentialists philosophers.
What I think is most striking about hunger is the main characters both absurd and individualistic qualities. He is overly proud he constantly is concerned about what people around him think. When he speaks of his writing he speaks of it as a noble deed and he thinks his work is earth shattering. He is absurd but he also had some individualistic qualities. He is aware of the fact that he is mad he often knows when he does foolish things that he is foolish, and while his dedication to writing is foolish and absurd its also quite individualistic that he follows that path despite discouragement from his hunger. He also gives away money, which can be interpreted as absurd and individualistic. He is proud enough to maintain his morals and when he gives money to people he seems to think very highly of himself like he’s making a real difference, which is absurd. But also with the ridiculousness of giving away money when you are fighting to survive, how it is indifferent to common sense shows he’s individualistic because despite his hunger he is still giving. He has fought against his nature. Morals are complicated when it comes to existentialism. There is a great deal of pride tied in with doing good when you do good you feel as though you’ve made a difference which is absurd. Also if you’re moral because your religion tells you to that’s not individualistic. But also morals take a great deal of consciousness and effort, which are put into control and fulfill your morals so it could go both ways. Existentialists believe that we have control over who we are our choices define us. But how do we distinguish between survival choices and happiness choices. Say a poor day worker is unhappy at a job they hate with a horrible boss they are barely making rent, do you tell that person that they chose poverty and it was their choice to work at the lousy job. Well technically it was their choice for the job but what were their options if they wanted to survive? Surely the decision to not starve to death more instinct based, less of a choice based on individuality, than the choice of which high paying career you want to pursue. I also don’t quite understand how the existentialists say how we must be conscious of how our actions effect the people around us and what would happen if others followed us, whilst at the same time ask us to be individuals. What if some one wanted to be a musician and decided to pursue it as a career despite the discouragement of a society or the poverty that might accompany it? The existentialists would like this individualistic act. But if the rest of society were to follow suit the community would fall apart, should this aspiring musician not pursue his career? But the same could be applied to any career should we not pursue careers at all? The man who says, “everyone will not do it,” is not lying in self-excuse he speaks the truth. The existentialists say that humans have no purpose in life that purpose and importance is absurd. Then why should we be so concerned if people follow us? They want us to be independent but then why do they bring society into the decision? I highly appreciate the exhistentialists support for individualism, but I think they scold humanity so much that they discourage us from finding and trusting our individualism. If you really want to be an exhistenstialist and live by your own doing don’t listen to the existentialists philosophers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)