Two Things:

1. We often discuss individual responsibility, because what should we say about the responsibility of others? Consider this excerpt from Heller’s Catch-22:

“From now on I am only thinking only of me.”
Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile, “But Yosarian, suppose everyone felt that way?”
“Then I’d certainly be a—fool to feel any other way, wouldn’t I?”

One of the basic components that we often discuss in existentialism is that we must always be responsible for our actions. However, is it always in the best interest to always think only of your own duties? Would it necessarily follow that if you and every other individual thinks only of himself, that some form of order would be present? I am probably wrong to desire order, because it is an absurd notion. This present life is the only system that I have experienced, but I find it far-fetched that if we all function as individuals that we would be in the same situation as now (which may or may not be desirable). I feel like that if we are acting in a bubble of responsibility, we have reduced ourselves to a machine-like state. But man is unwilling to be reduced to a formulaic life (Dostoevsky), there that is why we feel needs to attach ourselves to group identities and assume responsibilities outside of strict individualistic goals like surviving. This is also at odds with Nietzsche, but so is my life in general (no apologies Fred). So where must we draw the line of the extent of our and others responsibility?

2. Do we really have anything to say to each other? This question is posed by Harold Pinter. The selection in the book is very short on page 372. When I consider the dialogue that I generate out of class, I find it meaningless at the core. It is about meaningless things like TV shows or how hungry I am, etc. These things are not only meaningless to me when I analyze them, but I can only imagine how worthless they are to an audience. I am not much for words anyway, but it seems that Pinter might have a point here. Not all conversation is necessary, but the social nature of human existence proves this wrong (at least in America). To me, conversation might fall along the lines of Kafka’s view of the absurd, but what are your thoughts?