so i am still reading "existentialism and human emotions" and i can't remember a book that has come at a more pertinent time than this one right now. having not studied existentialism or any continental philosophy formally, i had always been nervous about delving into any sartre with no guidance or accompanying lecture. i'm finding it to be an extremely easy read, however, and any questions i have i can just ask jason because he's studied a lot of sartre.

mostly, i have been finding myself reading, wide-eyed, in a book many of the things i have been mulling over in my head independently for the past month or so. i didn't realize my world view was (maybe) an existentialist one, but i have been so excited over what i have been reading.

in addition to the passage i quoted a few days ago, just today i read a passage that mirrored, almost exactly, something i had written to a friend of mine in the last week. the whole passage is too long to quote here, but let me give you just the part that excited me most:

"...a man is involved in life, leaves his impress on it, and outside of that there is nothing. to be sure, this may seem a harsh thought to someone whose life hasn't been a success. but, on the other hand, it prompts people to understand that reality alone is what counts, that dreams, expectations and hopes warrant no more than to define a man as a disappointed dream, as miscarried hopes, as vain expectations. in other words, to define himself negatively and not positively. however, when we say, "you are nothing else than your life," that does not imply that the artist will be judged solely on his works of art; a thousand other things will contribute toward summing him up. what we mean is that a man is nothing else than a series of undertakings, that he is the sum, the organization, the ensemble of the relationships which make up these undertakings."

"...because if we were to say [of characters we have written who are cowardly, weak, soft or bad], as zola did, that they are that way because of heredity, the workings of environment, society, because of biological or psychological determinism, people would be reassured. they would say "well, that's what we're like, no one can do anything about it." but when the existentialist writes about a coward, he says that this coward is responsible for his cowardice. he's not like that because he has a cowardly heart or lung or brain; he's not like that on account of his physiological make-up; but he's like that because he has made himself a coward by his acts. there's no such thing as a cowardly constitution; there are nervous conditions; there is poor blood, as the common people say, or strong constitutions. but the man whose blood is poor is not a coward on that account, for what makes cowardice is the act of renouncing or yielding. a constitution is not an act; the coward is defined on the basis of the acts he performs. people feel, in a vague sort of way, that this coward we're talking about is guilty of being a coward, and the thought frightens them. what people would like is that a coward or a hero be born that way."

i have been thinking about this for a few weeks now, and then reading it today!

well, it was very interesting. i have been thinking a lot about the above, and about character, and how, intimately, the two are involved. i haven't worked on it well enough yet to get something written out, but i would like to try soon.

also, i wish i could go back to that gas station in wyoming where i sent all those postcards out when i was driving out to iowa a year ago.