you are only what you write

[cacian]

if I write someone is a jerk then the person who reads will end up one.
are we the product of what we write?
are we writing ourselves off?

please discuss

[Poetaster]

... eh?

Is there something I'm missing? How can we be the product of what we write if what we write affects someone else? :confused5:

[cacian]

well we write stories and we are stories. life is the background and we are the characters.
could a book meet someone's story a real life story?
in other words are we writing people's lives without knowing? is the question.
they say we are only what we say we are.
I say
we are what we write we are.

[2X2E5]

Are you familiar with existentialism and/or Jean-Paul Sartre, if so and if you don't mind, could you ask your question using their terminology because I'm not entirely sure what you are saying...and if you are not familiar with them, check them out, I think you are asking the questions and making the statements that they discuss.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

Yes we are the product of what we wrote, because simply the word, the verse, the clause, the sentence, the paragraph you wrote, aren't mine, and indeed what someone writes, it is probably reflexes his personality and will reveal his deep conscience, his ideas, his doctrines, his philosophy in life whether it is idealism, materialism, realism or so on...
Indeed, we are responsible about what we wrote.
Many problems were set about because people incautiously steal others words...
Just it is my way, my personal way not to blame others...
For what I call someone "jerk" then I excuse...
Yes we write stories and we are ourselves stories...Why not? For instance, we consider others of dated history or even now to be our witnessed story, the contemporary story,to make them symbols, characters, in our acted stories, and perhaps we shall be the symbol one day....
Sometimes I consider literature as a message conveys the "realism" but sometimes it combats against this realism then it will be changed to sarcastic literature, which the last literary style sometimes has advantages in some societies even though, thus the last can be classified under the "realism" in some circumstances...
However, the message of literature will not end and will continue...Yet I have more to declare about, but let it for future....
The very question is ready in my mind always is:
For what is the message of literature then?
For what is the morality of literature then?

[Delta40]

If I smoke pot will my story about entering this thread be different?

[cacian]

Are you familiar with existentialism and/or Jean-Paul Sartre, if so and if you don't mind, could you ask your question using their terminology because I'm not entirely sure what you are saying...and if you are not familiar with them, check them out, I think you are asking the questions and making the statements that they discuss.

Sartre and this topic?
existentialism tackles an ideology that I have tried to get into but fail miserably. I do not get what they are talking about. perhaps you could explain.
I am suggesting that writing is an analogy that we may be writing each other's lives.
I may not see a common ground between the two.

[Mohammad Ahmad]

If I smoke pot will my story about entering this thread be different?
Hi Delta
Why do you smoke marijuana then? you ought to use different thread without smoking any, you are always ready to perform.

[2X2E5]

Sartre and this topic?
existentialism tackles an ideology that I have tried to get into but fail miserably. I do not get what they are talking about. perhaps you could explain.
I am suggesting that writing is an analogy that we may be writing each other's lives.
I may not see a common ground between the two.

Sartre talks about the look of another and the struggle between two people to be acknowledged as subjects and not objects. The other important idea he talks about is "existence precedes essence", which means unlike a fork, which we conceptualize and then give a definition/meaning/purpose to it and has structural characteristics to it (to be used as an instrument for food), human beings do not have an essence, instead we create one for ourselves based on our actions. This implies we are free to choose who we become and how we want to be defined, because at any given moment we are free to change if we will ourselves to change. Ex. I've acted like a selfish ashole, but I don't want to be a selfish ashole, well I can change if I want to be a selfless person instead, the choice is my choice and I have power over myself, no one else, and therefore I am also responsible for my actions. However, because our identity is to a large extent dependent and defined by relationship with others, this becomes difficult because we want others to perceive us in a certain way. Therefore, if I choose to be a student or accept my role as a son (no man is an island), then I need to consider what does it take to be authentic to myself and to be a "good" student or son, which depends on the opinion of others because we grant certain people authority to define us and our actions. In that sense, other people do "write" us because we allow them to define us to some extent, and we write other people because we define them and comment on their actions. I think an ubermensch would be one of the only ones who does not allow others to write them, because although the ubermensch is open of the criticism of others and encourages it, the ubermensch writes himself based on his physical experiences...as I've understood Nietzsche and Sartre. Oh yeah, and the other and the look...because we live in a civilization with so many people, who's names or lives we are not familiar with, in order to preserve our subjectivity (sense of self and subjective responses), we objectify other for the reason of not being reduce to an object ourselves. When we pass by a person on the street their look recognizes our existence but may also reduce us into an object, and therefore in certain cases we try to convince the others (in love) to acknowledge our subjective through some "battles". Im not entirely sure how well this theory/philosophy reflects reality, and since I'm still a student trying to understand myself, society, and others I dont want to care to make a stubborn statement, but it seems it does describe something which relates to your question and observes through some psychoanalytical lens something true about our identities and how we perceive others.

and...Do you mean that we write the destiny of others in a physical kind of way (butterfly effect) or how they see themselves, and therefore will act according to how they see themselves as a result of our statements?

[cacian]

hey thanks for the post. there is a lot to read there and so I will try :)

what I mean is that by writing a story any story we may well be setting the path for someone's real life.
every story we write will somehow come true. I am a believer in that. a book is not just a book it is someone's destiny and so I think we ought to be more aware of what we put in a story just in case we are doing's someone's life a disastrous favour.

[PeterL]

what I mean is that by writing a story any story we may well be setting the path for someone's real life.
every story we write will somehow come true. I am a believer in that. a book is not just a book it is someone's destiny and so I think we ought to be more aware of what we put in a story just in case we are doing's someone's life a disastrous favour.

That is an interesting idea, but I don't think that by "by writing a story any story we may well be setting the path for someone's real life." It is more likely that everything that we write has already been done by someone, or that our story and someone's life may have causes in common.

If you enjoy thinking that your writing will create the course of someone's life, then keep thinking that, but your story would be a small additive to that person's total experience.