A review of the Bothersome Man

This is a review of a movie titled: The Bothersome Man. The movie begins with the main character, Andreas,waiting for a subway at a subway station with another couple, a woman and man are aggressively kissing, like get a room type of kissing, but it was passionless it was like they were just going through the motions for their eyes are open and they looked like their minds are elsewhere, Andreas commits suicide by jumping in front of a subway and some time later wakes up with a beard oblivious to where he is on a bus where he meets a man, the greeter, who was waiting at a gas station in the middle of nowhere. The man drives him to a city tells him he'll "get use to it", he is told he has a job as an accountant downtown and would begin to work the next day. He goes to work, is lost and confused, he meets his boss, starts his job and meet his coworkers. After he gets acclimated to his new job and apartment he goes out to a night club. While at a night club goes to the men restroom, finds a man who appears drunk on the floor beside a urinal with vomit on his shirt, he asks the guy if he's okay and then he hear this complaint of nothing has taste from the drinks to pussy from another guy in a toilet stalls in which he only see his shoes, he follows the guy and finds that he lives in an underground apartment, where he hear the most elegant music. He goes back to the drop off spot in the middle of nowhere, waits for the bus to drop off its next passenger, follows the bus whose track end in the middle of nowhere, it disappears, he eventually meets a woman name Anne Britt they start a relationship, move in together but something is missing there is no passion; everyone and everything are banal and bland from the food to even sex. He goes back to the city and starts an office affair with a coworker which he finds she too is banal for he is not her only suitor she casually mentions that she is in multiple relationships and is indifferent and not serious about theirs too for he had earlier told Ann Brit he was leaving her for someone else and Ann too was indifferent to him leaving her. He tries to commit suicide again it is the exact same scene that occurs at the beginning of the movie (same subway, couple kissing, etc.) but he cannot die, he is run over multiple times by the subway and is physically torn-up, he gets up and go back to his girlfriend's Ann home, he is all bloodied and injured and she looks at him indifferent and ask if he wants to go go-cart racing like nothing happened. He finally go to the stranger's apartment and force the stranger, Hugo, to open his door and show him where the music was coming from, Hugo shows him a little hole in the wall. He goes to work and ask his boss did he think this world was strange for where are the children? He goes back to Hugo's apartment with digging equipment starts digging, go back to work fine out he has been replaced by a guy who almost look identical to him, he's told by his boss that maybe he would be "happier" if he opened his own business He find his digging equipment was inadequate so gets a jackhammer because he's now obsessed to getting to where he hears this elegant music and begin to smell fresh pastries. For the first time in the movie you see the elderly they live in Hugo's apartment building, they begin to come to Hugo's apartment because they too smell the fresh pastries, then people on the street start stopping by Hugo's window, they hear the jackhammer, smell the pastries. Just as Andreas is about to breakthrough to the other side the enforcers grabs Andreas but not before he grabs some pastries and tastes them. He and Hugo are taken to the authorities they let Hugo go, but tell Andreas who is still sitting in the enforcers car that everyone is more or less happy then the authorities quickly meet and have the enforcers and the greeter take Andreas back to the gas station in the middle of nowhere, the enforcers throw him in the luggage or baggage area on the bus and it show the world goes on while he ends up in a frozen isolated place,but is this where he was prior to waking up in the beginning, is this frozen isolation where he grew the beard? Is this a Nietzschean reoccurrence of what he was oblivious to when he arrived at the gas station? Throughout the movie he tries to escape the absurd through suicide instead of facing it through confrontation, he tries to escape the banal world but in the end the world he is trying to escape goes on without him for there are scenes showing his love interest with other men, Hugo sweeping the street and his boss playing badminton. Is this movie a depiction of the afterlife? Andreas feels pain so it seems (he cut off his finger, which grew back, but he cries out in pain, he feels emotions (he cries at a movie, whereas others don't, is this something everyone feels when they first arrive but goes away after they "gets use to it"? What is the world on the other side of the wall? Is this an Absurd movie? I don't think so for the main character is trying to escape this world, he is not like Sisyphus who accepts his choices and takes responsibility for his choices including his punishment of pushing a rock for eternity. Should Andreas accepted his fate and became happy too? Or should he continue to try and escape his fate? Think about it. John D. Socrates a.k.a The African Sisyphus

Existential Angst

If the Mayan Calendar right then I only have 17 more days before the end of the world. Perhaps this thought led me to do something that I normally don't do, I read the obituaries in the today's newspaper. The reality of death sunk in, especially when you read about people being in hospice and enduring a prolonged sickness. I felt afraid of death, of the unknown and uncertainty behind the mysterious veil, what awaits us beyond this life? Death is inevitable , there's isn't a damn thing I can do to prevent it. The only logical reaction or solace to death is to ask, what was my existence like before I was born? I didn't exist before I was born so it was nothing, well when I die will it be different than before I was born? Will there be something after death, if there was nothing before life? Both are forms of non-existence so how can they be different, if they are the same thing? Non-existence is non-existence. As Epicurus is alleged of saying Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death aint here. And when it does come, we aint here."Non fui, sum, non ero, non curabo (I was not; I am; I will not be; I will not care)

Fairness is not a Fallacy

I recently read an article by Thomas Sowell titled, The Fairness Fallacy. In which he believes it is a fallacy to think life is fair and that we (especially African-Americans) need to get over thinking that it is. I am amazed at people like him who benefited from the very civil rights that he so often attacks (but that is another blog). Nevertheless, I will give him credit for one thing, he made me think. As a result, I asked myself; what is the meaning of Fairness, is Nature fair, and is it a fallacy to think it is Fair? I think that Nature, which is defined as a physical power causing all material phenomena (including life) is fair. What is fair? Fair (adjective) is defined as just, unbiased, equitable, in accordance with the rules. It is synonymous with fair-minded, unprejudiced, objective, disinterested, evenhanded; honest, straightforward, above-board, and upright. If I use the definition of fair as being something unbiased, can I say Nature is fair? In other words, is Nature disinterested or indifferent to our existence? I think Nature meets this criteria for it seems to align with the definition of something that is unbiased, equitable, in accordance with the rules (i.e. the laws of Nature). However, as a subjective being I am driven by desires and needs that are selfish and self-centered. When my subjective desires meet an objective Nature it feels unfair (and Absurd) because it does not meet up to my expectations. Yet, she (Nature) has always been honest in her indifference. For example, she lets you know that everything is impermanent, because she is constantly using her forces to change and recombine atoms into new functions. To give you an analogy, the dinosaur evolved approximately 300 million years ago, and it is hypothesized that a meteor or asteroid 6 1/2 miles in diameter collided with our planet 65 millions years ago, and this is believed to have caused the majority of the dinosaur's extinction (it is hypothesized that birds are the descendents of dinosaurs, see Morphed on National Geographic Wild) and yet, nature has not stop emerging life on this planet. I think we are one of many outcomes of a chain reaction in amino acids that emerged and adapted to the conditions on earth. Our DNA somehow became alive, evolved, and is still evolving, in other words, we are neither a special creation nor made in the image of an invisible disembodied non-physical being, we're just one among many. We happen to be born on a planet with the condition that is conducive for what we call life and Nature is indifferent to our existence, its only focus is how genes are passed on and does not care whether it is a strain of bacteria or a whale, it is disinterested in who does it but it is honest in its indifference and therefore meet the test of being fair, so I think life is fair and all I can do in my subjective self-interest is know that fairness is not a fallacy and live this life the best that I can. Think about it. The African Socrates

The Absurd

I have been studying existentialism, and I feel that what it means to me is that it is up to the individual to define the meaning of their own life via choice and take responsibility for those choices. In my research of existentialism, the author Albert Camus is often mention, as a result, I read The Stranger or the Outsider and The Plague. To get a better philosophical perspective of his thinking, I read the myth of Sisyphus over the Winter Solstice break and it is about the absurd (from reading his perspective he was critical of existentialism so I don't know why he's consider an existentialist). The Absurd is humanity's attempt to find meaning or to make sense of an indifferent universe. Albert Camus starts the book off with discussion on Absurdity and Suicide. Suicide is when the person agrees with the Absurd, that is, existence is truly meaningless and thus not worth living. Camus analyzes the absurd and the normal responses which he concludes is a leap of faith and suicide, for the leap of faith which he concludes Kierkegaard, Jaspers, Husserl, and even Kafka all took the leap because they still tried to find meaning in an indifferent universe. Yet Camus offers a third option of living with or facing the absurd through revolt (i.e. we should not accept any so-called answer or solution in our struggle), freedom (i.e. as Sartre stated we a force to be free), and passion or diversity (i.e. we should pursue a life of abundant and various experiences). He demonstrates absurd living using four examples Don Juanism or the Seducer, the Actor, the Conqueror, and the Artist. Camus shows how the Greek myth of Sisyphus is the absurd hero who was condemned by the gods to push the rock to the top of the hill just to see it role back down to role it up again. I think this means the innate drive of life is twofold that is, everything revolves around survival and passing on your genes to keep the game going. In other words, life keeps on evolving, the universe keeps on expanding because it does not have a meaning or a point it is trying to get to, the universe and the life within it is its own point! I know some feel that in order for life not to be absurd there must be a purpose beyond life itself, yet if you ask what is the point or purpose of whatever is beyond life itself that is heaven, hell, reincarnation, etc, would it really be a point or a purpose? Why this life; if the point is a life somewhere else? I think living this life to get somewhere else is really Absurd. Think about it....

Existentialism Part 3

Jean-Paul Sartre the French Philosopher who was the primary proponent of existentialism, coined the phrase we are condemned to be free, by which he means you are forced one way or another to make a choice. Freedom is defined as not under the control of another; at liberty or autonomous. However, with this freedom comes responsibility, which means liable to be called to account (to a person (including me) or for a thing. I am afraid of being responsible, because all of my life I have believed that there was an invisible force responsible or who at least would come to rescue me. Carry all your cares to Jesus he will bare them for you, therefore you don’t need to bare responsibility for who you are, we are told to deny who we are and identify with Jesus. Apostle Paul said everyday I decrease that he (that is Jesus) might increase. I am afraid but I am condemned to be free. I must choose and therefore take ownership of my existence. I am responsible for my health, happiness, and for what I become or will be. As far as I am concern unless proven otherwise god is indeed dead.

Existentialism Part 2

I decided to research more the philosophy of Existentialism. I downloaded a book entitled : Existentialism: A Very Short Introduction by Thomas Flynn. According to the description of the book: "One of the leading philosophical movements of the 20th century, existentialism has had more impact on literature and the arts than any other school of thought. Focusing on the leading figures of existentialism, including Sartre, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, de Beauvoir, Merleau-Ponty and Camus, Thomas Flynn offers a concise account of existentialism, explaining the key themes of individuality, free will, and personal responsibility, which marked the movement as a way of life, not just a way of thinking. Flynn sets the philosophy of existentialism in context, from the early phenomenologists, to its rise in the 40s and 50s, and the connections with National Socialism, Communism, and Feminism. He identifies the original definition of "existentialism", which tends to be obscured by misappropriation, and highlights how the philosophy is still relevant in our world today." After I listen to the audiobook in regard to free-will, individuality, and personal responsibility, I asked myself: how does determinism, which is the philosophy that everything or events has prior causes, throw a wrench in the theory of existentialism? I found an answer on ask philosophers.com. The answer was even if determinism was true, existentialism would not be affected because existentialism is about the choices you make in life, whether the events were determined or random, you still have a choice to make, and even if you refuse to make a choice then a choice is still made and if you will accept the responsibility for that choice. I have a choice whether it’s determined or not, and I am responsible for my choices and this is what Jean-Paul Sartre meant when he said we are force to be free. Think about it...

Existentialism

I have been researching a philosophical idea called existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophical theory emphasizing the existence of the individual as a free and self-determining agent. (The Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus) I like some features of existentialism but it is counter-intuitive to the theory of human evolution. Most evolutionist agree that we evolved in gregarious social groups in which if we did not cooperate we could have become extinct because we were not always top dog on this planet. Primates live in communities and it took cooperation and co-dependence for us to survive. Also I have been told that no man is an island we depend on others one way or another. The existentialism I agree with is I am responsible for my on life, my own happiness, and I cannot expect someone else or something else (I.e. a god(ess) to be responsible for me. Yet I live with other people and if I did my own thing; couldn't my action directly or indirectly effect others? However before I throw the baby out with the bath, I want to research this philosophical movement more. Think about it.

Black Socrates