Hon 203 Kassie Markovich

Dr. Berg

12/05/11

I Am What I Feel: We Are, What I Feel.

Part 1

There’s something in the idea of defining ourselves by what we feel. According to Marcel Proust in Remembrance of Things Past, “This new sensation having the effect which love has of filling me with a precious essence; or rather this essence was not in me, it was me. I had ceased now to feel mediocre, contingent mortal.” In our conscious state, feeling and thoughts intertwine and the latter provides meaning for the former. Because our mind is influenced by so many external factors that are all created by other fallible humans, we have to wonder what perceptions we can trust. Proust’s answer to this question in Remembrance of Things Past is the subconscious memory. He notes that the confusion caused by this random and unpredictable sensation prevents our mind from skewing the meaning of that moment when he writes, “What an abyss of uncertainty, whenever the mind feels overtaken by itself; when it, the seeker, is at the same time the dark region through which it must go seeking and were all its equipment will avail it nothing.” The mind has taken over the mind and we can’t know why some memories choose to come back to life to speak with us, but we can look at the significance of separating feeling from the mind’s interpretation of feeling.

Before being able to know what feelings are pure, we should try to understand the human’s natural state. Nietzsche in The Genealogy of Morals says that it’s the man who’s never had to defend his existence, but has simply been allowed to fulfill his purpose to exist: “The well-born simply felt themselves to be the “happy”; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness.” The “well-born” are the ones in society who don’t have to question their purpose or existence because they’re seen as the standard. It’s when you have to defend who you are that bitterness, worry, and confusion become internalized. This brings us back to our original question: what is a pure emotion? If it correlates with Nietzsche’s view of human nature using happiness as a way to measure how true we are to ourselves, then any emotion that is negative isn’t natural. It can’t be natural because our purpose is to live. The disturbance in negative emotions comes from a feeling present in all things that can never be completely destroyed. That feeling is hope. Negative emotions wouldn’t be so disturbing to us. They wouldn’t even be negative if that will to live wasn’t present in every one of them. The negative ideas, ideas related to death and inactivity are a creation of our mind and sensations.

If this disturbance is a result of those who have to defend their purpose of existing, then being able to live undisturbed in our natural state is our real destiny. Anybody who’s lived even a short period on this earth knows that to completely escape the more negative reality is nearly impossible. Though some groups are forced to defend their existence more than others, most have felt this insecurity at some point. If it’s as common as this paper is making it seem, then it is important to look at how humans have reacted to this condition throughout history.

According to Simone De Beauvoir, a way humans express their insecurity is through social division. She writes in The Second Sex, “It is the existence of other men that tears each man out of his immanence and enables him to fulfill the truth of his being, to complete himself through transcendence, through escape toward some objective, through enterprise.” The man doesn’t realize his immanence until he’s compared to other men. This first shake in confidence is when people begin to create the imaginary divides so they have something to conquer and stand apart from in superiority: Conquer because they’ve symbolically overcome their insecurity; stand apart from so they can attempt to return to a world where they remain the standard. The problem is one can’t return home from a journey as if the journey never happened. These domineering attempts to fight against their new reality are fruitless because they miss the heart of the problem. De Beauvoir writes, “The more the male becomes individualized and lays claim to his individuality, the more certainly he will recognize also in his companion an individual and free being.” The person can reestablish his center when he accepts that not only he, but also every individual is necessary.

A reason this seems to continually fail is because as we’ve seen in Nietzsche’s undisturbed yet happy human complex and De Beauvoir’s disturbed and suffering human complex, individuals are affected deeply by direct experiences. Though one group may conquer another group, the conquered still feel pain the same way the former do. This causes a circular exchange of hate, furthering the social divide.

The Redstockings are an example of how two insecure groups fail to see each other as individuals, but rather further their division from each other. They state in the Redstocking Manifesto, “In fighting for our liberation we will always take the side of women against their oppressors. We will not ask what is "revolutionary" or "reformist," only what is good for women.” The Redstockings, a feminist group who fought the noble cause of elevating women’s social status, overlook the needs of humans for the class needs of women when they wrote they would always defend women over oppressive men. This seems logical but they openly admit their intent is for class liberation and not human equality. Regarding women as a class just as the men have done only circulates the problem based on a need to feel secure.

. Those who are hurt or made to feel inadequate internalize their pain to make sense of their problems. The irony is they spend their life trying to go back to their natural state of happiness, but because they spend so much time in their own mind worrying about false comparisons, their fear leaves them a fragment of whom they were when life had just begun.

Dickinson finds another solution to conquer our insecurity in poem 657 when she writes, “I dwell in Possibility- A fairer house than Prose.” The contrast she shows between possibility and prose could well represent the former solution and new one she presents. There’s comfort in thinking one’s life is laid out like in a story. Reality quickly teaches us that there’s so much we don’t know. For Nietzsche and De Beauvoir’s men, the fear of not being god-like drove them to commit abusive acts so they could hide from their new reality. Dickinson says, embrace it! Possibility is a fairer house than prose because one’s future isn’t laid out predestined and limited. Accepting your uncertainty is your chance to create your destiny in any way you can imagine. If our center is so easily shaken that everyone has at some point experienced this uncomfortable sensation, then maybe it’s for the sole purpose of realizing there is so much more in life to be explored. The key is, you’re in control. When Dickinson continues, “ The spreading wide of my narrow Hands to gather Paradise” she acknowledged her own godlessness by referencing her ‘narrow’ hands, but also her confidence in her ability to bring her dreams to life. In this solution we have to accept we’re not gods, but acknowledging our humanity means that our growth is never ending. There isn’t a laid out plan or predestined greatness inside of us. Instead we find waiting an endless amount of Possibility.

Acknowledging Dickinson’s point about accepting our humanity, Blake might suggest we not forget that the one who created the lamb also created the tiger. This suggests to paradoxical features of our nature. In his poem, The Tyger, he writes, “ In what distant deeps or skies Burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wings dare he aspire? What the hand dare seize the fire?” The tiger is active and full of fire like Nietzsche’s ideal human. This pure fire that comes from an undisturbed soul brimming with self-confidence helps us to fearlessly explore everything we are. Though, according to Blake we aren’t just tigers. In his poem The Lamb he writes, “He is meek and his is mild, He became a little child: I a child and thou a lamb, We are called by his name.” Comparing a lamb to a child, both are often seen as meek and mild. Before a world of comparisons built on insecurity, a world of hierarchy created out of fear, the child has no reason limit his love to others because nothing threatens his purpose in life. This freedom is disposed on lamb and child because they are taken care of and free to follow wherever their impulses lead them, truly experiencing the fortunes of the Nietzsche’s aristocracy. Naturally, they would express their inner joy in positive emotions.

Comparing the two solutions presented, we can see that one recognizes the greatness in all individuals and the other struggles to see the greatness in itself. The Existentialist Sartre extends Dickinson’s argument in his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, when he writes, “ I am creating a certain image of man of my own choosing. In choosing myself, I choose man.” By this statement Sartre, like Dickinson, is saying we create ourselves. He also takes a step back and realizes that if he creates himself, then the entire human race forms its own identity as well. If this is true, then we are all pioneers in creating human identity. Sartre recognizes the insecurity we inevitably feel when he says that one’s influence forms another’s image of himself. Accepting this responsibility towards creating an entire race’s identity limits our choices or ‘possibilities’ to only what we would be okay with an entire race choosing as well. One could disregard this responsibility, but if he does that then he also eliminates the solution of free choice altogether because he can’t hide from the fact that his decisions influence others. His disregard for other human beings will in turn limit his own freedom because they will perform his inconsideration back onto him and others in humanity. What Sartre is warning against is the very circular pattern of hate we previously described when individuals only focus on themselves to create their humanity and disregard others. The world he’s encouraging is the child’s perfect world where we are both the lion and the lamb. This natural state of happiness that comes from being oneself without fear of abuse promotes positive feelings towards others that in turn preserves their freedom.

Establishing our purpose to live, and then live for the other’s needs because they are our own, Darwin further extends our responsibility through the idea of natural selection in The Origin of Species: “ But man can and does select the variations given to him by nature, and thus accumulate them in any desired manner.” Whether the theory of evolution is real or not, Darwin presents an interesting concept by introducing the idea of reproduction to social responsibility. Following Sartre’s argument, the values chosen to impress on our families, in some cultures the most intimate of social circles, affect not only our temporal reality, but also the future carried out by our sons and daughters. Though Darwin introduces a scientific concept on how species were formed to fit their environment, the idea can extend to how we raise our children to fit their environment.

Through Nietzsche, Dickinson, Sartre, and Darwin, we can see that our responsibility to humanity extends all the way from ourselves to the future. Humanity, that of our own and others, should always be a concern when we realize that all of our decisions affect our happiness and the happiness of others. Noticing the constant feeling of hope to live another moment in all emotions, we have to acknowledge that we were to meant live. For what, is yet to be determined. But how, is to preserve the freedom of ourselves through a selfless love and concern and others so that our environment remains positive and inviting to whatever possibilities we may create.

Part 2

What the humanities sequence has done most for me is encouraged me to look for paradoxes in my daily experiences. What’s been the most interesting part of this sequence is the varied amount of theories and outlooks I’ve been exposed to and have taken the time to understand. A lot of these texts contradict each other and yet there are times where I can’t quite deny the logic of either of them. For example, when our class learned about Existentialism, I loved the idea that we are all part of a human race that influences each other and is responsible for our future. On the other hand, reading articles like White Privilege and The Redstockings Manifesto helped me realize that dividing into classes are just as important for identity formation if it’s where you feel most comfortable. I’m not sure how you can separate the two. Are divisions manmade or natural? Should we fight against them because they hurt the development of our humanity, or are they at times a natural part of our humanity? I have no clue. What I do know is that both truths can coexist. This is the most valuable lesson I’ve learned. When there are two ideas that both make sense but oppose each other, then there’s room for further exploration. It could very well be that the missing link just hasn’t been discovered yet. This class has given me the idea that maybe all things are connected. All ideas, forms of life, values, everything is connected to everything else. If two opposing truths can exist in the same universe then this is very possible, and I find that exciting. It reminds me of when I used to paint in realism. When you spend hours staring a picture you find the patterns that run through and connect the different parts of the scene together. You have to look for it, but everything is connected it nature. I don’t see why this couldn’t extend to ideas as well. Finding these connections and figuring out how things relate, in my opinion, is the starting point of understanding our reality.

One of the pieces we’ve read that affected me the most is De Beauvoir’s, The Second Sex. I never understood that the origins of male domination had been a giant mind game. It makes sense! People who are insecure have no business being in relationships because how can your intentions be pure if you can’t even see the good in yourself? I used to think that men and women were pretty equal in today’s modern world, but after reading that chapter I’ve started to see manifestations of insecurity everywhere. It’s in music when artists rap about their identity being based on women and cars. Apparently, a woman is the equivalent to a shiny object that is used to show your social status. I don’t hear a lot of objection to this though. I think it’s because media portrays hip-hop as flashy and attractive. For example, the latest Akon music video has dozens of women hanging on one guy who’s flashing his money and everybody couldn’t look happier. It looks a lot like the patriarchal society that De Beauvoir described where the men use their economic superiority to purchase the women as another object to live in his house. The only difference is I doubt the women were smiling so much. Even in that artificial example, there’s no way happiness could last more than that two minutes and thirty seconds because that is probably around the time the girls are remembering they have an identity.

I don’t think this is a man problem, but a problem for the conquerors. It’s not necessarily a blessing to be born into the ‘privileged’ class because there’s little to build your character. With the illusion that you’re the standard, you become blind to any type of development. For the groups that aren’t born into the aristocratic state, it may be more productive to realize the opportunities that come with challenges. For this to happen, one would need to be critically aware of the world around them. Tying back to my thesis in the first part of the paper, being able to think critically is why a humanities education is so important. We can’t make the best decisions for ourselves and others if we don’t understand why we think the way we do, and why the world acts the way it does. Everybody wants a world filled with peace and love but how many people understand the traps that cause us to at times accept ideas filled with hate? It’s a lot like the aristocratic class Nietzsche talked about. When we’re so removed from understanding the invisible lines that separate us from other humans, we’re able to regard them as not quiet as human. This is why understanding humanity is so important. Like I said earlier, we need to understand how we all connect to each other. Once we’re able to look at everyone as if they are a member of our family, we won’t be able to be desensitized to their needs. When we can move beyond the made up lines of division and work together as human race, we can develop ourselves to become so much more. Though, it seems for the last few thousand years we’ve been stuck as step one.

It’s mentioned several times during this sequence that what we learned in those classes won’t help us prepare for a certain career but will prepare us for every career. I think this is true depending on your priorities. If someone genuinely isn’t interested in the welfare of others or the future of society, I think that person could be perfectly content living a life that’s become a stereotypical part of American culture. The idea is to work hard enough so you can have a comfortable life. The problem with comfort is the same problem with privilege. It can leave us unaware of lives of everyone outside of our immediate circle. Most people don’t have that nine to five middle class lifestyle. That immediate circle is much more immediate than we realize. And when I think about taking a step back, I realize that everything America promotes about materialism is a waste of time. Not only does it not matter, it becomes even less significant when I realize all of the problems that surround those who aren’t so privileged. And finally, I realize that the greatest damage is done when I don’t take the time look around me and try to understand the thing I see.

This society’s importance put on comfort is what has led to ignorance of every aristocracy we’ve studied this semester. We’re absolutely no different from them. Our country still persists with racism, classism, sexism, homophobia etc. There are so many lines and divisions you can draw in our society and yet solving these problems isn’t the message that I’m getting every day. Maybe, the comfort is meant to desensitize me. It’s the easiest way to forget about someone’s else’s problem when you’ve been told that you deserve to be safe and warm at all times.

If materialism is what shapes the decisions we make in our lives then I have to think about what it could be replacing. When I mentioned earlier that humanities prepares us for everything in life, I think that’s true for those who put cultural development as their main priority. In contrast to a world that’s captured your mind because you’re to busy chasing a dollar, there’s a world where everyone is trying to be the lion and the lamb. It could be about what really makes us happy. It seems just as selfish, but when your focused on what you human instead of what makes you lethargic and inactive, I think you’ll create a world that will embody the active hope and livelihood that present in all of us. If we could work to preserve this for each other, we could create a world that truly is a human experience. We could move beyond where we’ve been stagnant for thousands of years: fear of the other.

For me, humanities are about learning to understand why we make the choices is do. Once we understand that, it’s about understanding how our humanity connects to others. Once we can value that, it’s about learning how to move forward together to truly grow as a person, and a Sartre would suggest, as a people. It doesn’t fit our culture, but our culture shows what we value. I believe that people really do value others more than comfort but their senses have been dulled from seeing what’s truly out there. It not only takes critical awareness, but forcing yourself to have experiences that make you understand the experiences of others. I think that’s a full humanities education, but it begins with trying to understand.