Latest Entries »

This is a very interesting article. Someday I will need all of this advice, and when I need it I would read this article again and use some of this tactics to get some chicks. Sometimes we are really shy and we don’t know what to say, what to do or even how to act, so some advice will suit us well. Each girl is different, so you have to use different methods wich each one. Besides if you think on the consequences what is the worst thing that can happen to you? You will just probably get a big round NO from the girl and you can go to another girl. Because there are millions of fishes in the sea right?

Some of the advice in this article are kind of obvious and besides you should just follow your instincts and be yourself. Because if you pretend to be someone else you will have to pretend it for the rest of your life so this girl accepts you. Because if you pretend to be someone else and then you suddenly act like your real self she will notice and she will realize that you have been lying the whole time.

Maybe a girl likes you because of the messy disorder you are. I also can relate to this article because some of the things that are in there had already happened to me. The most important thing is to be yourself because a girl who loves you will like they way you are. A girl should understand how hard is to be perfect. I sometimes have a lot of trouble keeping it real, because girls have trouble accepting my perfection. No, but really a girl should understand that no one can be perfect and if they are still expecting the perfect guy or the prince to be with her they will wait all their live.




It would really suck if Rapture was the day of my graduation because all those 15 years of hard work, doing thousands of homework, surviving a whole year of british literature and keeping up with all this people would be wasted. Well at least I was able to complete school, and I would probably be celebrating and under the influence when Rapture happens. So maybe I would be able to enjoy Rapture and see it in a different way. I imagine Rapture as the movie 2012, like the world starts falling apart slowly and painfully. So Guatemala be flooded by tsunamis and we will die rather fast.

It would be nice if we knew when rapture is going to happen so we are able to organize a really huge-ass party and prepare to die. Maybe we even have time to build one of those big ships and we are able to save ourselves. If we get sentimental it would be awesome that Rapture happened on the day we graduated because I can’t imagine life without this people. Awww, how sweet I know. On the other hand I actually want to know what will I become when I grow up and what will my friends will become. I actually want to be there when I’m more succesful and them and I can laugh and gloat.

Response to “Older Me”

I have a lot of questions to ask myself when I grow up, this is probably because I have a lot of dreams and I want to know what happens to them? I know I should wait until things happen and try not to rush and enjoy my life step by step, but I am eager to know what I will become. I would like to know what right choices did I took, or what mistakes did I commit, but everything will come at its time.

First I would like to know if I study what I like in college? Does my career is interesting to me? This is probably because now I’m having a lot of trouble in deciding where I want to study, in the U.S. or in here. I want to know if the career
I followed was the right one? If the job I have is the job I always dreamed about? One of my biggest dreams is being successful in my job and work on a big company.

Some years from now this will just seem ridiculous because I will already know all the answers. For example when I was younger I always dreamed about my graduation and the famous “Semana de Graduandos” everyone talk about. Of course I don’t expect my life to be perfect and that I accomplish every dream I have. I want to work at something I really like and I want to be a successful professional. I also want to be able to provide everything my children require in order to make them as happy as I can.  I also wonder about my family. Will I get married to the girl that’s the one for me? Am I going to be happy with her? Are we going to be a united family? All this question will have the answer at its time, but for now, I just want to keep living my life.

There is no one single person who is perfect on the face of the Earth. We all have imperfections and made mistakes (some more than others) and as ugly as it seems it’s the truth. Perfection is a matter of perspective, because you can be perfect in somebody’s eyes but that same perfection can be a disaster in somebody else’s eyes. Perfection itself is imperfect. You can’t be perfect at everything you do, maybe you are really good at something but you will not be as good at something else. This quote perfectly explains what I’m saying; “If you try to catch two rabbits, they will both get away”. There are people who honestly try to be good and their only set back is temptation but at least they make an effort to be good. All of us display some degree of hypocrisy, after all, we do everything for our survival and own benefit, it is a basic instinct. The hardest thing isn’t trying to be perfect but to accept our imperfections. In this essay I aim to prove that in Albert Camus’ “The Fall”, the character of Jean-Baptiste Clamence wasn’t completely wrong when he affirmed that we all have some degree of hypocrisy and that we use it mostly for our own survival.

 Everyone has at some point done something that isn’t right in order to benefit from it. It’s not that everyone is a bad person and that everything they do is for their own benefit, but one has to admit that everyone makes mistakes. There are people who definitely make an effort to be better each day. We have to recognize that those people are the ones who progress and mature over time because at least they try to be better, not like Clamence who did not even tried to be a better person and to grow up. Instead he just tried to hide his mistakes with other actions and continued deluding himself. “To tell the truth, just from being so fully and simply a man, I looked upon myself as something as a superman.” When Clamence mentions that what makes him perfect is that he is “fully and simply a man” he also means fully flawed. This quote clearly shows that Clamence was satisfied with who he was, no matter if he was a good person or not, he was satisfied for whom he has. Clamence was obviously living a different life inside his head, he was living a lie and apparently he felt better knowing that the life he had inside his head suited him better than the real world. At first Clemence believes that the life inside his head is the real one, but later on as “The Fall” happens he realizes that his real life is a completely different one.

 On the other hand I also believe that we all have some hypocrisy in us. As Clamence suggests: “That’s the way man is. He has two faces. He cannot love without self-love.” For Clamence there is no other way of life, for him everybody is a hypocrite. He is using his case to make a generalization of the whole society. When the time comes and we are under pressure or in a difficult position we cheat, we lie, we do things we wouldn’t do in other circumstances. They say that only when we are really scared or about to face something that will change our lives dramatically, we show who we really are. Have you ever asked yourself why you are able to do such horrible things for your own benefit and then you completely regretted it? I have one simple answer: It is our basic instinct. That is, survive at all costs, do anything within your reach to survive and overcome the others. Why? Because we seek power and power transforms us; it makes us appealing to the crowd. As Albert Camus wrote “Power, on the other hand, settles everything”. So Clamence wasn’t completely wrong after all, “We are all hypocrites”.

 So what makes some hypocrites different from others? Well first is the things you lie about, because I truly believe in white lies. Then it comes the basic difference that separates hypocrites; the ability to accept your mistakes and realize that you are not perfect, that you are just like everybody else. As Winston Churchill once said: “The very perfection of a man is to find out his own imperfections.” Because the hypocrites who won’t accept their mistakes and keep lying to themselves and keep living in their own world just like Clamence did before he experienced “The Fall” are the ones who are standing the lowest in society. The types of hypocrites like Clamence, although they lived a lie their whole lives, they find out that they are not as perfect as they have thought and they slowly begin to realize who they truly are and eventually accept their mistakes and embrace their imperfections. “What does it matter, after all, if by humiliating one’s mind one succeeds in dominating everyone? I discovered in myself, sweet dreams of oppression.” This is one of the many turning points in The Fall, the moment when Jean-Baptiste Clamence accepts his reality. This is the spark that initiates The Fall, when he starts realizing what he really is and how the world he is living in is coming down. He realizes how deceiving himself is ridiculous but it works, he feels happy living the lie he built. After “The Fall” he accepts his reality and lives his real life.

 Jean-Baptiste Clamence wasn’t completely wrong when he said that everyone is a hypocrite. We all are at some point, depending on the situation, but most important is that the better hypocrite (if that can be) is the one who accepts and faces his mistakes and not the one who lives in his own world inside his own delusions and who would not accept his or her reality. There are all kinds of people and one might think someone is a good person, but you actually don’t know what’s going on with that person: if he is telling the truth, if he appears to be good but he only is that way with certain people, or maybe he is the opposite of what he appeared to be. Everybody lies. It doesn’t matter how you did it, when you did it, or why you did it, you lie. Clamence was a liar and a hypocrite but he was a good person because at the end, after “The Fall” he accepts his mistakes instead of ignoring them or hiding them. Sometimes a lie isn’t as bad as some people say. You can do a lot of good things by lying, like helping someone, or avoiding hurting someone. Let’s not forget that lying is a basic instinct and humans’ main priority is surviving. Someday the hypocrites who don’t accept their reality will be forced to face it and that’s when they will face The Fall and as they say “The higher you climb, the harder you fall”.

This was a very special article because I can totally relate to it. It is very funny because some of this strategies to procrastinate are the ones I use the most. I procrastinate a lot, believe me. When I have a lot to do like homework, big projects, etc. I love to procrastinate.  When I think on what I have to do I get worried because I realize that it is a lot! But then I suddenly get distracted. Because I get distracted really easy. I start by opening a new word document, I write on the heading and when it is time to actually start thinking and writing I do everything else but write. Everything seems more important that actually do my homework, also everything is way more interesting (unless it is a British Lit homework).

The paper is right when it says that everyone does it. Because I bet everyone does. Sometimes I feel better thinking on other people procrastinating because I’m sure there is people who procrastinate more than me, and this people is actually on the same class as me.  We are all lazy and I bet no one likes doing in homework (well, I hope so) and we make all kind of crap to avoid doing it.

I like this kind of articles, I know I say it every time but it is true. I guess you are good choosing interesting/funny/good essays.  This is very special because we can relate to it.  The only bad thing is that you now know the things we do to avoid doing our homework.

When I Grow Up

When I grow up I wanna be famous, I wanna be a star, I wanna be in movies. When I grow up I wanna see the world, drive nice cars, I wanna have doobies. When I grow up I want to be a really succesful businessman. I want to be the best stockbroker on Wall Street. I want to be able to stop working for a few weeks without any consecuences. When I grow up I want to travel and live in a lot of places like Casablanca or Paris or NYC or Guatemala. When I grow up I would like to receive my letter from Hogwarts, because it’s already 8 years late (maybe the owl service isn’t that good in Guatemala). When I grow up I would like to be discover by an NFL agent and get drafted to the Dallas Cowboys. When I grow up I want to marry Maria Sharapova and play tennis together.

When I grow up I want to discover my super power and start using it. When I grow up I also want to have better ideas and a bit of divine help to write essays and comments. (I could really use some muses right now). When I grow up I would like to discover or invent a web page that can put into words what are you thinking exactly. When I grow up I want to be an astronaut, a firefighter and a doctor and make my child dreams become true.

When I grow up I want to be a mature person that can distinguish the real world from the dream world and also be able to write a proper formal comment about a really serious topic.

Sometimes you have to say what you want to say when you have an opportunity because if you d0n’t you might never have the chance to say it again. “Speak now or forever hold your peace”. Maybe the things you hold to yourself would have made a difference if you actually said them. Your life might be different, for better or for worse.

I think that this type of reading is really sad and I don’t enjoy reading sad things. (I’m still a badass). What I enjoy reading are things that make you think. I would regret if I couldn’t say what I want and I die. This is really unfortunate because you really don’t know when are you going to die. So that’s what I think that you should say everything when you have the chance.

I have never been on the NYC subway but I’ve been on the Chicago Subway, maybe they are alike in some ways. When I rode it, it was sometime in mid-summer, I rode it in the middle of the morning so it was kinda empty. Luckily for me I got to sat on a one-person-seat instead of the big, long benches across the train. I got on the train a little far from the downtown, so the few people who were on it seemed normal. As the subway got closer and closer to downtown a lot of people start getting in. There were every kind of person you can possibly imagine, businessmen, tourists, homeless, black guys, white guys, normal guys, etc. For me it seemed pretty natural because after all, it is public transportation. When we were exactly in downtown Chicago I remember this guy who got in the train completely shirtless, just with his swimming suit, it felt pretty awkward because he was half-naked and we were all very close to each other. But then I thought about it and I would do it to, you know. Mid-Summer, 104°, vacations, and a train going to the lake, he just seemed smarter than anybody else.

The way the guy describes the subway on his story is very funny to me because I can imagine that besides the fact that I rode the metro just one time and I was able to see that kind of weird stuff, imagine riding it every day. I wouldn’t know what to do on  situation, so besides funny I think it will be very useful if I someday ride the train again.

The Fall

Through all the book I kept telling my self that I didn’t like it, that the plot was not interesting, that the characters were lame and I even started hating Jean-Baptiste Clamence. When I finished reading the book I it felt awkward because I realized that I had actually like it, maybe not all, but at least some parts. I think that Clemence is a very negative character, he thinks that everyone is two-faced and has bad intentions. He says everyone is like him, doing good things but only “for the audience”. When nobody is watching they get back to the state of evil and hypocrisy. A perfect example of his attitude is when he fights to help the blind cross the street. Everyone is watching, and when they had already crossed it he tips his hat even though the blind can’t notice that, but it was meant for the crowd to see that detail.

I think the fall refers to a specific period in the time of Clemence’s life. Before, he was a very succesful person, or that was the lie he was living in and believe it blindly. He help the needed often, of course for the audience but still he helped them, he pleased everybody else, he even said he was the best at everything, he was almost perfect. Then it came “the fall” and that’s when he realized that he is living a huge lie, everything he does has to have a double meaning. That’s when he starts imagining that the rest of the people already realized that also, he imagines that they trip him on purpose and they stared at him secretly laughing. After that he stops thinking that he was perfect and realizes that he has probably more flaws than the rest of the people. The most important thing is that he realized that he was doing everything right but from a wrong point of view.



Like “rationalism” and “empiricism,” “existentialism” is a term that belongs to intellectual history. Its definition is thus to some extent one of historical convenience. The term was explicitly adopted as a self-description by Jean-Paul Sartre, and through the wide dissemination of the postwar literary and philosophical output of Sartre and his associates—notably Simone de Beauvoir, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, and Albert Camus—existentialism became identified with a cultural movement that flourished in Europe in the 1940s and 1950s. Among the major philosophers identified as existentialists (many of whom—for instance Camus and Heidegger—repudiated the label) were Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, and Martin Buber in Germany, Jean Wahl and Gabriel Marcel in France, the Spaniards José Ortega y Gasset and Miguel de Unamuno, and the Russians Nikolai Berdyaev and Lev Shestov. The nineteenth century philosophers, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, came to be seen as precursors of the movement. Existentialism was as much a literary phenomenon as a philosophical one. Sartre’s own ideas were and are better known through his fictional works (such as Nausea and No Exit) than through his more purely philosophical ones (such as Being and Nothingness and Critique of Dialectical Reason), and the postwar years found a very diverse coterie of writers and artists linked under the term: retrospectively, Dostoevsky, Ibsen, and Kafka were conscripted; in Paris there were Jean Genet, André Gide, André Malraux, and the expatriate Samuel Beckett; the Norwegian Knut Hamsun and the Romanian Eugene Ionesco belong to the club; artists such as Alberto Giacometti and even Abstract Expressionists such as Jackson Pollock, Arshile Gorky, and Willem de Kooning, and filmmakers such as Jean-Luc Godard and Ingmar Bergman were understood in existential terms. By the mid 1970s the cultural image of existentialism had become a cliché, parodized in countless books and films by Woody Allen.

It is sometimes suggested, therefore, that existentialism just is this bygone cultural movement rather than an identifiable philosophical position; or, alternatively, that the term should be restricted to Sartre’s philosophy alone. But while a philosophical definition of existentialism may not entirely ignore the cultural fate of the term, and while Sartre’s thought must loom large in any account of existentialism, the concept does pick out a distinctive cluster of philosophical problems and helpfully identifies a relatively distinct current of twentieth- and now twenty-first century philosophical inquiry, one that has had significant impact on fields such as theology (through Rudolf Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and others) and psychology (from Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss to Otto Rank, R. D. Laing, and Viktor Frankl). What makes this current of inquiry distinct is not its concern with “existence” in general, but rather its claim that thinking about human existence requires new categories not found in the conceptual repertoire of ancient or modern thought; human beings can be understood neither as substances with fixed properties, nor as subjects interacting with a world of objects.

On the existential view, to understand what a human being is it is not enough to know all the truths that natural science—including the science of psychology—could tell us. The dualist who holds that human beings are composed of independent substances—“mind” and “body”—is no better off in this regard than is the physicalist, who holds that human existence can be adequately explained in terms of the fundamental physical constituents of the universe. Existentialism does not deny the validity of the basic categories of physics, biology, psychology, and the other sciences (categories such as matter, causality, force, function, organism, development, motivation, and so on). It claims only that human beings cannot be fully understood in terms of them. Nor can such an understanding be gained by supplementing our scientific picture with a moral one. Categories of moral theory such as intention, blame, responsibility, character, duty, virtue, and the like do capture important aspects of the human condition, but neither moral thinking (governed by the norms of the good and the right) nor scientific thinking (governed by the norm of truth) suffices.

“Existentialism”, therefore, may be defined as the philosophical theory which holds that a further set of categories, governed by the norm of authenticity, is necessary to grasp human existence. To approach existentialism in this categorial way may seem to conceal what is often taken to be its “heart” (Kaufmann 1968:12), namely, its character as a gesture of protest against academic philosophy, its anti-system sensibility, its flight from the “iron cage” of reason. But while it is true that the major existential philosophers wrote with a passion and urgency rather uncommon in our own time, and while the idea that philosophy cannot be practiced in the disinterested manner of an objective science is indeed central to existentialism, it is equally true that all the themes popularly associated with existentialism—dread, boredom, alienation, the absurd, freedom, commitment, nothingness, and so on—find their philosophical significance in the context of the search for a new categorial framework, together with its governing norm.

Albert Camus

Albert Camus  (7 November 1913 – 4 January 1960) was a French author, journalist, and key philosopher of the 20th-century. In 1949, Camus founded the Group for International Liaisons within the Revolutionary Union Movement, which was opposed to some tendencies of the Surrealist movement of André Breton.

Camus was awarded the 1957 Nobel Prize for Literature “for his important literary production, which with clear-sighted earnestness illuminates the problems of the human conscience in our times”. He was the second-youngest recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, after Rudyard Kipling, and the first African-born writer to receive the award. He is the shortest-lived of any Nobel literature laureate to date, having died in an automobile accident just over two years after receiving the award.

Although often cited as a proponent of existentialism, the philosophy with which Camus was associated during his own lifetime, he rejected this particular label. In an interview in 1945, Camus rejected any ideological associations: “No, I am not an existentialist. Sartre and I are always surprised to see our names linked…”

Specifically, his views contributed to the rise of the philosophy known as absurdism. He wrote in his essay “The Rebel” that his whole life was devoted to opposing the philosophy of nihilism while still delving deeply into individual freedom.