Tuesdays With Morrie Essay Research Paper Life — страница 2

  • Просмотров 184
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 17
    Кб

having more money than someone else or more property. Morrie sees this as being a big problem in the country today. He feels that people should be themselves and have fun without looking at how much they own. To better understand Morrie’s philosophy I will compare and contrast it with some other philosophies. First, compare the philosophy of Karl Marx to Morries’. One point that Marx and Morrie would agree on would probably be what Marx calls historical determinism. Historical determinism according to Marx is how we respond to history in predictable ways. It’s how we have freewill to change and react to things (Stevenson p. 140). Morrie would support this theory and could use the example of not forgiving his friend. He had the freewill to choose wether to forgive and how he

reacted when his friend died and his chance to forgive him was gone. The next point Marx makes is that there is no individual human nature. Every action of every human potentially effects others (Stevenson p. 140). Morrie would agree by saying that what one person does can greatly effect other people. For example how the laughter of other people makes him feel good, but the sorrow other people have for him and his illness makes him feel bad. Lastly, Marx says that the largest impact on individuals is their work (Stevenson p. 140). Morrie would also greatly agree with this because of how he looks down upon the people who are caught up in material things. He talked a lot of how humans are caught up in work, and material things in general. Morrie and Marx would probably disagree on

a lot of things and the first one would be the first point in Marx’s theory. Marx says that economics is the key to all history and it’s the way we understand society and individuals. He goes on to say money and wealth affect us personally and that it’s our individual human nature. Morrie might agree that this is how society is but he would disagree that it’s the way society should be. As I stated in the paragraph before Morrie looked down upon those who thought money and material things proved who you were. The second philosophy I will compare to Morrie is Jean Paul Sarte. Sarte’s main point is called Aesthetic Extentialism, which has three parts. Morrie would agree with the first part which states that we value the individual. Every individual is a unique being that

has it’s own purpose in life ( Stevenson p. 170). Some of Morrie’s main points also state that a individual should be valued as being unique in it’s own way. Another point Sarte makes is that every individual chooses their own attitudes, purpose, values, and way of life (Stevenson p. 170). Morrie would also greatly agree with this statement. Morrie says that those people that choose to value the wrong things in life or choose to have a grumpy sad attitude are lost in this world. Morrie believes you should have a good attitude, pick a purpose in life to help others as well as yourself, and to always value nonmaterial things over material things. The part of the philosophy that Sarte and Morrie would disagree on would be on the topic where Sarte denies the existence of one

truth. Sarte says that multiple realities exist, life is absurd, and life doesn’t make any sense (Stevenson p.175). Morrie would disagree with this statement with out a doubt. The statement about life being absurd would really bother Morrie. Morrie says to always cherish life and live it to it’s fullest. Morrie would probably say Sarte was cherishing the wrong values and was not looking at life in a nonmaterial way. The last philosophy I will compare with Morrie is one of Simone DeBeavoir. DeBeavoir has five levels of humaness she uses to look at all types of people. Every individual fits into one of her five categories according to her. Morrie would agree with parts of each level and disagree with parts of the same level. So to better compare these two philosophies I will

look at each level and state which parts Morrie would agree with and which ones he would disagree with. The first level is calls subhuman, which DeBeavoir says is denial of humaness. The individual sees themselves as locked in and that they have little significance in their own life (Zink class notes). Morrie would agree that people are locked into their lives and have no freedom in some instances. He would also on the other hand somewhat disagree because he would encourage these people and try to teach them how to take control of their lives. The second level is called serious people, which is when people loose themselves in objectivity. These types of people believe there is logic behind everything, they never admit that they can posses a personal value, and they never question