When our class had the lesson on existentialism, it was a pretty big day for me. I found myself agreeing with so much that was being discussed, and it was exciting. This was the only true way to live, and I had been trying to put it into words since I returned for the school year. But there were also many things I disagreed with, namely love being deemed a social construct. I would love to embrace a fully existentialist mindset, but I feel too strongly about too many things to completely detach myself. If I was truly an existentialist, I probably would not be doing this blog post at all. I doubt Meursault would do this blog post.
Perhaps it will take me as long as it took Meursault to gain a fully cohesive perspective on life, instead of where I am now - "Nothing matters!!! (Except like getting okay grades and maintaining decent relationships and pursuing my interests!)" The clarity Meursault achieved in his grand realization before death is something I hope to experience, that crystal clear moment where everything makes sense. Until then, I will continue to ramble on about my contradictory thoughts and beliefs in last minute homework assignments.
I too was struggling to agree with Mr. Heidkamp's argument that love is a social construct and to me while I can understand existentialism, I don't understand what the point of living life is if I'm just living it to die some day. If nothing matters why would I want to waste away on this earth when I could potentially reach a higher level of fulfillment after death?
ReplyDeleteI think this raises an interesting question about existentialism. Although Meursault's finally realization seems to give him closure and purpose, I can't imagine many of us will ever attain such an acceptance of uncertainty, unfairness, and death. If this is the case is it still better to live an existentialist life, intentionally dissociated from society for no ultimate gain? Or is it better to conform and enjoy the simple pleasures of life, ignoring how shallow they may truly be?
ReplyDelete