Nirvana

The conversation about niravana in class today was very interesting to me. Last semester I took a philosophy class called problems of good and evil in which we spent a large chunk of the time discussing Buddhism and I think it would be helpful to define what nirvana is because some people seemed confused as to the definition. Nirvana, as far as my understanding is, is a realm in which one is simply being, peacefully, but there is no happiness in it or no joy etc, happiness is an emotion which satisfies us only temporarily, so opposed to looking for that which makes us happy aka that which we desire and eventually recieve one is to look for peace and nuetrality. With nuetrality of course comes a lack of suffering

The Tragic Sense of Life

I googled The Tragic Sense of Life and not a whole lot of concrete information came up. I understand that it is a book written by Miguel De Unamuno, however it seems to cover a lot of topics, each of which could provide enough discussion and material for an entire semester of debate.

Here is what Wiki says about his philosophy so i assume it is applicable to the Tragic Sense of Life:
Unamuno's philosophy was not systematic, but rather a negation of all systems and an affirmation of faith "in itself." He developed intellectually under the influence of rationalism and positivsm, but during his youth he wrote articles that clearly show his sympathy for socialism and his great concern for the situation in which he found Spain at the time. The title of Unamuno's most famous work, Del Sentimiento Trágico de la Vida (The Tragic Sense of Life) An important concept for Unamuno was intrahistoria. He thought that history could best be understood by looking at the small histories of anonymous people, rather than by focusing on major events such as wars and political pacts.

Unamuno summarized his personal creed thus: "My religion is to seek for truth in life and for life in truth, even knowing that I shall not find them while I live."

It would seem as though he is making a connection between truth and tragedy to me? am i incorrect in assuming this?

boring

"Books arent boring, we are."
It is an interesting quote and I think it is a very valid point. However, if you know what type of books interest you more than others I think you should read those. The further truth to that statement is that people who think there is only one way to do things are boring. books and people need chemistry. Reading is a lot like dating. You need the book to inspire feeling and emotion in you, yeah you could find some level of that with most people, but why would you want to look for it if something doesnt satisfy you or capture you off that bat? and by off the bat in a long novel i mean within the first like two hundred pages. There are just certain authors or plot lines which certain people have better chemistry with. The more you read the more you enjoy books its like an addiction but you have got to start somewhere, and i think that should be somewhere where you are comfortable and somewhere you enjoy. Your not going to learn to enjoy something by repeatedly forcing yourself into it. If i had to read books like the BK all the time i would hate reading. It wouldnt be any form of an enjoyable outlet for me. I know its a great book and it has some really interesting messages but I prefer a book which has one main point instead of many, and one that inspires me to see things the way i would through my eyes than the way i would through my mind. if that makes any sense? I also think sometimes reading books like BK bugs me because the characters and the situations can sometimes get in the way of what the author is trying to say....they dont inspire as much feeling within me personallly. I need to expand on this but im crunched for time so it will have to wait.

Experiment

Another thing which I found interesting about class today was the point Professor made about the civil war book. He said that “the best” civil war book was written not by someone who lived it but by someone who did not. I know I am a literary amateur in comparison to Mr. Sexson, and I have not read either of the books, but I feel as though it is hard to say one work of literature is better than the other. Especially if literature is a person experience. I feel as though different novels or poems or whatever inspires different things in different individuals. The best known or the most highly praised books aren’t worth reading if they don’t give you the best experience? At least that’s my attitude towards it…but anyway I got off topic, back to the civil war book thing, just because the account which most interesting or the most is well known isn’t written by someone who participated in the war doesn’t mean it’s more accurate. I mean imagine the guy who wrote the book who actually participated in the war. Imagine his facial expressions while he writes the memories which probably have the power to bring men to tears. Just because he isn’t as eloquent or articulate doesn’t mean his account couldn’t be more interesting relative to someone else. The popular vote is usually overrated, I feel like famous literature can sometimes be like the New York Times Bestseller list, great books for sure but not necessarily the best or most interesting to everyone.
Not all books are great for all people. Hence genres, yes some books are a work of art but I mean look at Leonardo’s Mona Lisa, if you go to the Louvre there are dozens of people crowded around it taking pictures and getting super excited, and they focus so much on that they miss out on other works of art they might enjoy more. Reading should be like anything else, you can only allow people to tell you what to read and what you should enjoy to a certain point, you have to branch out try new things try new genres, different artists, needle in the haystack type of stuff even.

Experiences

Today’s class was very thought provoking; it stirred up many questions and ideas within my mind. Specifically the talks about experiencing something (such as travel which was the common example in class) and reading others accounts. Some argued that experiencing one was better and others argued that “living” the experience for yourself was better. I think that both are extremely ignorant and somewhat funny statements. Reading is a mental stimulation or high if you will, it allows your mind to travel to places no one has seen before. It allows you to picture things in a way so unique and relative to your own reality that it is impossible to be recreated. Traveling, or doing something which requires strenuous physical ability provides you with a PHYSICAL uncontrollable adrenaline rush, one which simply reading could never inspire. BOTH are amazing experiences and life is a balance of the two. To label one experience as better than the other seems bizarre to me. That is like saying that life is only mental or only physical. We, ourselves, are designed to be the embodiment of both.

Today’s class was very thought provoking; it stirred up many questions and ideas within my mind. Specifically the talks about experiencing something (such as travel which was the common example in class) and reading others accounts. Some argued that experiencing one was better and others argued that “living” the experience for yourself was better. I think that both are extremely ignorant and somewhat funny statements. Reading is a mental stimulation or high if you will, it allows your mind to travel to places no one has seen before. It allows you to picture things in a way so unique and relative to your own reality that it is impossible to be recreated. Traveling, or doing something which requires strenuous physical ability provides you with a PHYSICAL uncontrollable adrenaline rush, one which simply reading could never inspire. BOTH are amazing experiences and life is a balance of the two. To label one experience as better than the other seems bizarre to me. That is like saying that life is only mental or only physical. We, ourselves, are designed to be the embodiment of both.