FREEWRITING ESSAYS EDITED AND DONE!
FW/Text Q#8: What does this book say about existentialism? How does that compare to your own view of “why we are here” ?
But wait… Do we even matter? is a thought that passes through our minds quite often. Our moment of self-reflection, searching for the meaning for our existence. The dictionary defines existentialism as an individual’s experience filled with isolation in a hostile universe where a human being attempts to find true self and the meaning of life through free will, choice, and personal responsibility. Does existentialism exist when survival is top priority? One Day in the Life of Denisovich not only shows political side to the story but also how a human mind works when in tough times, and through religion.
Do the characters even have the time to stop and ponder about their existence? Why they are living, for what do they live for, as all they can think about is survival for now. Like art, existentialism can be the same, is formed in the absence of work. You got free time? Well there you go, time to think. Siberia, where the weather is severe, and escape is futile. Prisoners, can only think about a way to get out, preferably alive, no matter what conditions they are in, " Scrape through today somehow and hope for tomorrow." (82) That, in other words, could be their definition for existentialism, to live. To determine their own way through acting or thinking, is existentialism. They could be dead, but they aren't, they strive to live. Some rely on their family, some on pure will, and some, on God.
Existentialism is about being a saint without God; just like being your own hero, without the support of religion or society. Shukov says, “"Jesus Christ wanted you to sit in prison and so you are sitting here for his sake. but for whose sake am I here?" (164)” as a rhetorical question as no one else but himself can answer to that. But, to deliberately explain the meaning or purpose in life, experience, subjectivity and perspectives are important- YOU are creating your own meaning (or lack thereof) in life based upon your ideas of the world.
Comparing this to my own view, it’s very much different. All I desire is to live a life full of happiness. If I said that I’ve never thought about surviving, I’d be lying. I can to some extent understand existentialism in a harsh environment. Physically, and mentally. For Shukhov, for any prisoner there, every decision you make could make another day, or it could mean death. The same could apply to us, but not on an extreme level. Making mistakes in our society in contrast to making mistakes during the Stalin era wouldn’t cost you your life. So, why are we here? I believe that there is no “why” to existence- we have no nothing beyond what we decide to give the purpose and meaning. However, I believe that each person can alter their existence, they can decide what they want to do, and what the purpose should be.
The focus of existential philosophy is to scrutinize a person in the world, rather than the world itself. Everyone searches for a system of thought which will provide an explanation to the existential question. Answers could be philosophical, religious, or political systems of thought, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich shows existentialism in different ways, through different people and by many narrative perspectives. My understanding of existentialism is contradictory to those who are religious. Disagreeable to people with a logical head, like Shukov. In spite of not undergoing the arduous ordeal, it’s not like everyone else has had a good life. We all learn similar lessons through different ways; mistakes, looking at someone else, experiencing it, there are many ways. And so… what have you learnt today?
Work Cited Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. New York, N.Y.: New American Library, 2009. Print.
words (620)
Do the characters even have the time to stop and ponder about their existence? Why they are living, for what do they live for, as all they can think about is survival for now. Like art, existentialism can be the same, is formed in the absence of work. You got free time? Well there you go, time to think. Siberia, where the weather is severe, and escape is futile. Prisoners, can only think about a way to get out, preferably alive, no matter what conditions they are in, " Scrape through today somehow and hope for tomorrow." (82) That, in other words, could be their definition for existentialism, to live. To determine their own way through acting or thinking, is existentialism. They could be dead, but they aren't, they strive to live. Some rely on their family, some on pure will, and some, on God.
Existentialism is about being a saint without God; just like being your own hero, without the support of religion or society. Shukov says, “"Jesus Christ wanted you to sit in prison and so you are sitting here for his sake. but for whose sake am I here?" (164)” as a rhetorical question as no one else but himself can answer to that. But, to deliberately explain the meaning or purpose in life, experience, subjectivity and perspectives are important- YOU are creating your own meaning (or lack thereof) in life based upon your ideas of the world.
Comparing this to my own view, it’s very much different. All I desire is to live a life full of happiness. If I said that I’ve never thought about surviving, I’d be lying. I can to some extent understand existentialism in a harsh environment. Physically, and mentally. For Shukhov, for any prisoner there, every decision you make could make another day, or it could mean death. The same could apply to us, but not on an extreme level. Making mistakes in our society in contrast to making mistakes during the Stalin era wouldn’t cost you your life. So, why are we here? I believe that there is no “why” to existence- we have no nothing beyond what we decide to give the purpose and meaning. However, I believe that each person can alter their existence, they can decide what they want to do, and what the purpose should be.
The focus of existential philosophy is to scrutinize a person in the world, rather than the world itself. Everyone searches for a system of thought which will provide an explanation to the existential question. Answers could be philosophical, religious, or political systems of thought, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich shows existentialism in different ways, through different people and by many narrative perspectives. My understanding of existentialism is contradictory to those who are religious. Disagreeable to people with a logical head, like Shukov. In spite of not undergoing the arduous ordeal, it’s not like everyone else has had a good life. We all learn similar lessons through different ways; mistakes, looking at someone else, experiencing it, there are many ways. And so… what have you learnt today?
Work Cited Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. New York, N.Y.: New American Library, 2009. Print.
words (620)
Polonius: Good Father or Bad Father?
Polonius is a very fussy cranky old man whom you can tell do kinda care for his children even if it is in a vulgar way. Constantly sticking his nose in their problems and keeping an eye on them. His own imperious way of trying to protect and care for them might be a bit twisted, but it still is paternal love. He acts as a “good” father to Ophelia by not letting her reply to Hamlet because he was afraid she would get hurt if Hamlet was only playing her. Although, as a teenager, i’d say that he’s not a good father at all. Understanding does not seem to be an option for him, as he only sees himself and how his children could affect him. Like when he told Ophelia to “set your entreatments at a higher rate” (48) which I’d be totally offended by. Laertes, is also causing a big dent in his own and his father’s reputation. Polonius hoped that sending Laertes away could help him, especially if he paid someone to keep an eye on him. He also deliberately rambled on for a full page “advising” Laertes as to what he should heed before he goes back to Paris. “This above all: to thine own self to be true,” (44) which I thought was highly hypocritical because he himself was selling service to appeal to the King. Obviously he cannot leave his daughter alone, she gets so dependent on him that when Polonius was killed, she cracked. All she said was, “I shall obey, my lord.” (48) Because that was all she could do against a patriarchal society where women are always owned by men.
Hamlet & Ophelia: Is it Love?
It was probably once love. Was. Which I have very many evidence pieces for, when Hamlet said, “I did love you once” (142) and I can really understand why it isn’t now, first, Ophelia is too obedient towards her father, and she doesn’t have much trust in his Hamlet’s love for her. In Hamlet’s times of despair, she totally stonewalled him and didn’t contact him for months just because her father said so. Whom she, much to my chagrin, reports her love life to every day which is gross and stupid. There might have been a possibility of him still loving her but having to give up his love for the sake of revenge. Probably decided that when he went up to her balcony, stared at her, “raised a sigh so piteous and profound” (84) then left. Like a wordless parting. And I thought that must’ve been a hard thing to do for him. All the rude comments later towards her is contradictory to his earlier actions, but that was because he was clever and knew that there is always someone listening on their conversations because Ophelia is stupid and can be used easily. Heck, they were hiding behind a wall tapestry their fat bellies were probably contoured against the wall. I think of Ophelia as a severely weak-willed, meek woman. Easily breakable, very sensitive, and had a bad ending. In this bad ending, you can really see the extent of love Hamlet had for Ophelia when he says, “I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum.” (296) That is the best evidence I could find for my hypothesis. It was love.
Claudius: Good Ruler or Poor Ruler?
I think Claudius is an evil, cunning guy who strives for power. But, maybe in that sense, he’s not so bad in ruling a country at all. Every good king no matter how tyrannical would want a prosperous kingdom. He deliberately murdered his brother, the previous King successfully, and marry Gertrude posing as a kind sad ruler who listened to the court’s wishes of wanting him to marry Gertrude, “In equal scale weighing delight and dole- taken to wife.” (18) Claudius took over his brother’s throne in the midst of a political struggle between Fortinbras whose father was promised land in a drunken gamble with ex-king, He sent ambassadors to the uncle of Norway who “scarcely hears of this his nephew’s purpose” (20) in hopes of resolving the issue and everything be cool now. Not wanting to be taken as weak as well. It all sounds quite persuasive that maybe he was a good ruler, but in the end, when the resentful Laertes rushed in the castle looking for vengeance for his father’s death. Laertes brought an army of people who were more than willing to flip the throne, “young Laertes, in a riotous head, o’erbears your officers” (242) He is smart, manipulative at the time of the riot, he was able to calm everything down. Make his crown safe. “Calmly, good Laertes.” (244) and “ Let him demand his fill.”(244) because he knows that boisterous Laertes is at his high emotional state and could only be talked to rationally. I was just learning this in European History, but I think Claudius is a Machiavellian. Evil or not, it’s justifiable, as long as you have power and maintain powerful.