#phy304 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

it-d035n-t-m4tt3r · 6 years

Text

1/29/19

This past Tuesday I found myself riveted and gnarled and twisted up into a rag ready to be rung. I was so eager to contribute to the discussions this week that it had come to a point where I was letting out the faintest of sounds when I had become excited about a new assertion or point added to the discussion. I should really try more to let other people in the discussions speak because I know I can commandeer a discussion very quickly and I don’t want to do that. HOWEVER!! I think on today's agenda I wanted to talk about one outstanding thing from the discussion this week that had me either writhing in agreeance or confusion.

My writhing (so to speak) came during the discussion of Camus’ Sisyphus essay. Particularly, in the face of quantity over quality. After reading this a few times I loved how people were so keen on not withholding their ideas. Particularly in reference to longevity and it is something that I happen to agree with because of reasons outstanding. However, specific to the discussion I would like to further argue for a better identification with the “Bruno” archetype rather than the one of “Galileo”. For me I understand Camus’ reasoning behind valuing that specific archetype. He sees the opportunity to have a “quality” existence, as being one brought about by sheer numbers (longer life). With what I would dub as an Absurd Statistic. He asserts that living more equates to living more, which within itself expresses a form of Tautology that I don’t like. Just because you live longer does not guarantee you meaningfulness in existence. I would agree however that it does provide more chances. Nevertheless, assuming that one could live a meaningful life, predicated solely on the fact that they are living longer to me is something that nobody can possibly know except to those who have aged AND those who have contemplated suicide. BUT ONLY TOGETHER. The reason I say this is because Camus begins his essay by saying that

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest, whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories, comes afterward.”

Because suicide is the imperative philosophical question, predicated meaningfulness in an otherwise absurd world, only those that understand the importance of this question can really consider a full assessment of their life and act in the individual’s best self-interest.

To put this into an example lets use a woman walking into a restaurant. This woman walks into the restaurant and is hungry, so she sits down. She has now begun to ask herself what she wants to eat because she was already hungry. The waiter offers her a menu and says that everything off the menu is as normal, and should she refuse it, she will be brought the chefs special (I don’t know what’s in it, but apparently its special). So, she begins to look at the menu. She decides on a meal based off her personal preference, implicit before she even walked in the door. She had not so much as considered the option that wasn’t even on the menu, and made a decision because of her personal preference, and her instinct. This to me says that while she understands the food on the menu and the food she likes, she has no reasonable grounds to say that the Chef’s special was not going to be worth it. Her lack of considerations for something that was not normal means that she is unaware of all the possible outcomes that could fit within her appreciation for food.

With regards to Camus, one MUST consider the option of suicide, one MUST understand intimately its implications on just the self and only the self, before making the assessment on whether to peruse quality, or quantity. Before assessing intrinsic meaning.

Camus’ identifies with the “Galileo” archetype because and only because of his assessment of his life in the face of death. Does this prescribe meaning? Is this the only thing that can do that for me? How do I know? These are questions that I believe often become overruled by more present and concrete thoughts.

I would agree with Camus, that quantity has its benefit over quality, but should any existentialist turn our noses up at Bruno, only because the context of his death had no meaning in a meaningless world? Isn’t that to be expected from the meaninglessness of the universe? I think that although we see in Bruno, along some sort of malignant lines while juxtaposed to Galileo, a degree of meaningless, I find it hard to relate Galileo to someone like Merseault, who didn’t care about how the state perceived his actions. Who are we to say that someone like Bruno did not die in meaningfully? Who is to say that an ontological argument does not prescribe abject meaning to that particular individual?

They have both read the menu, but the only difference between these two, and between the dining woman, is that both Bruno and Galileo asked to hear the chefs special, and only one of them took it. I see no difference between living in absurdity and dying in it.

With that, I wanted to leave you all this week with a Painting and some thoughts.

This is a painting called “Wanderer, in a Sea of Fog”, and was done in oil on canvas by Caspar David Friedrich, a German artist of the era of romanticism. I see in this painting a similar sense of pause, likewise to that of Sisyphus’ pause at the top of his mountain. What is this mans struggle? What brought him here? What will he return to? To me this painting symbolizes that instantaneous breath of a quiet, “I’m here now, and I have forgotten why. All I am is existence, all I am is the present, before I sink bank down and try again”

UUUUUUGH I love this painting!!!!! (It was my phone wall paper for the better half of my senior year of High School)

Please feel free to comment or rebuttal. I think my constitution can handle it. If you agree let me know, if you don’t let me know even more. With that I bid you all adieu until Tuesday next!

~Put that in your pipe and smoke it~

#dead #quality #quantity #albert camus #sysiphus #phy304

0 notes

realtalk-princeton · 3 years

Note

would Dawn ‘22 mind hearing his course schedule? i’m a ‘24 planning to do exactly his/her/their major/certificates but i’m a bit overwhelmed with choosing courses.

Response from Dawn:

Hey! You can address me with they/them pronouns.

Glad to hear that you are interested in ece/physics/cos! The requirements indeed seem daunting, but there are actually a lot of overlaps between the majors and certificates. For example, I’m doing the applied physics concentration in ece major, so some physics courses can count toward both my major and the engineering physics certificate. Some cos courses can count toward my major as well.

An outline of my schedule: 1st year — BSE prereqs + ECE203; 2nd year — fall: ECE/COS206, 396, ECE308, COS 226; spring: COS 217, PHY208, ECE201, 300 MAT; 3rd year — fall: three ECE (very physics-oriented), PHY305; spring: ECE302, ECE/PHY456, PHY304; 4th year — fall: PHY301, one ECE

Now looking at my courses I’m probably taking more physics courses than required and still need to do one COS next semester. But the general idea is that it is definitely possible and I still took a decent number of fun/humanities classes. However, I would not recommend you doing the certificates just for getting the certificates. In my case I really want to take the courses so the certificates are natural things to do, but if I don’t enjoy the courses it would probably be very painful.

Feel free to post again if you have any specific questions! You can also drop your contact info if you want me to reach out to you.

0 notes