The Stanger

Meursault is an interesting character that cannot be defined using stereotypes. He is a true independent; he may have some friends but they are not a result of his longing for them. He lives life simply to live life. Regarding his bravery, he exemplifies the bravest and weakest of traits. He consistently shows no emotion, I personally think this is a characteristic of a weak individual. It is hard to justify someone who cannot express their emotions as being brave. On the other hand he faces all situations with a calm and cool demeanor. When faced with prison time he is accepting and introspective and while he does not show emotion on the outside he still sustains the ability to think on the inside.

In a modern world...

In a modern world, can one find sanctuary? If so where?
According to the short story Metamorphosis I think it is very difficult to find sanctuary. In the story we see Gregor find sanctuary in his room but as a result he is constantly by himself. The sanctuary that he is in, is only because he is different from everyone else; no one wants to have any kind of interaction with him. Because of this he leads a poor existence. To answer the question one can find sanctuary but in doing so they must give up much of their existence.

Big Question

Is humankind inherently good or evil?
Based off of personal experiences and encounters with all types of people I can confidently say that humankind is good. When I look at society as a whole I think it can be said that what we do is inherently good. The reason why people often cite humankind as being evil is because of specific individuals. When we focus on one person like Hitler then it is easy to classify all humans as being evil but we must look at the good that humankind brings about also. Overall I would say that the good humankind does out performs the evils that occasionally take place.

My independent study book over the summer was The Tempest by William Shakespeare. In relation to my big question I think it still showed that humans are inherently good. The main character was vindictive but by the end of the book all the characters got along. It showed that people that are at one point enemies can come together and unite. The mere fact that they did this shows the good that humans bring about; despite all the differences that characters had they still managed to get along.

In relation to my big question I think that Oedipus does not give a good answer in relation to the question. Oedipus is a good leader and realizes that he must make up for what he has done in the past. In Playboy of the Western World we see that humans are inherently bad not necessarily evil. The reader must take into account that this is a satire and many of the characterizations are greatly over exaggerated.