Blog Post 1: Eliot

In “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, Eliot explains his view on the role of poetry and how it really has nothing to do with the poet’s thoughts and feelings. I, for one, have always seen poetry as a way to symbolically portray what one is feeling. According to Eliot, the function of the poet is not to express his own feelings and emotions in his poems, but to make pieces of literature that reflects what came before it and can be integrated in the history of literature. He feels poetry should be impersonal to the poet, and for it to mean nothing emotionally to them. I have always seen poetry as an outlet to portray one’s emotions, in almost a secretive way.

Eliot begins to speak of the word “tradition”. He explains that this word is not a positive term in the history of criticism. Critics would use it as an adjective describing works and it was awful if your work was described as “too traditional”. He found it ironic, as the majority of literary works did not contain tradition and because of this he wanted to create one. He explains that critics look for things in writing that differentiates them from other writers; some kind of uniqueness and individuality. Eliot thinks that the best part of a writer’s work is the section that pays tribute to those who came before him, by praising their literary works. These tributes allow poets to be immortal. Eliot believes that the sections that poets assert their immortality robustly are where their individuality can be distinguished.

Eliot does not support “repetition just for repetition” and recognizes that originality is better than something that has been done before. This concept is very relatable , because stories and literary works that are original and unique are far more intriguing to me than something that I have heard before. He feels innovation is better than repetition and those who keep rewriting stories from the past will get lost in translation. He believes that in order for a poet to be unique he must combine tradition and modernity, in which both influence each other. I agree with this kind of logic because historical sense in a literary work is important but is the most interesting when combined with personal experiences or compared to things of the present. Almost like allowing the past and present to live together in existence instead of two separate entities

Blog Post: Saussure

Language is used to express thought. In actuality language consists of sounds (words) that portray a thought. Without language explanations would be very broad and vague. Saussure explains how language works. You have a concept thats connected to sounds which are called the signifiers and the signified. Saussure believes that language has value in and of itself and is not random sounds that create an image or idea. I believe that there is unlimited amounts of ways to express an idea. Language is not limited. Saussure says that the system of language is created by differences in sounds and differences in ideas. This concept was a little difficult to grasp but I have concluded that language and what it consists of does not have one concrete meaning.

I found it very interesting to learn about the Syntagmatic Relations. The placement of words in a sentence can determine the meaning of the thought. A sentence is never concrete. If you rearrange the words and emphasis on words in the same sentence, you could end up with a different meaning entirely. This ties back to my belief that language is never concrete and there is an unlimited amount of words to create ideas. Saussure also explains Associative Relations and how words with similar sounds are linked together. This is completely different from linguistic structure and falls under a symbolic expression. I was always under the impression that language and linguistics were pretty concrete but after reading this article it seems as if language is a very vague concept. So many theories are linked to but its functions are quite specific.
I like that Saussure refers to language as a chess game. According to him language is separated into two parts, langue and parole. Langue is the utterances and words. It is the part of language that has rules and is limited in numbers. Parole is compared to the moves in chess. There are an infinite amount of moves in chess and it is a concept that it more free and infinite. Language speaks you, you don’t speak language. Langue is learned and absent while parole is something that cannot be seen but could be heard and we could learn from it. This was a difficult topic to grasp, so the analogy was perfect. Grammar is an example of language but ways to express concepts is an example of parole. Saussure is known for this theory, and it is a valid one at that.

Blog 4 Gramsci Prison Notes

In Antonio Gramsci’s “The Formation of the Intellectuals” he describes what an intellectual is and what it means to be one. He describes the different types of intellectuals there are and each of their functions in society. He begins to speak about the traditional intellectuals, which was the easiest to understand from the reading. We associate lawyers, scientists, philosophers, doctors, and scholars as traditional intellectuals. Gramsci feels that these types of intellectuals are independent of the dominant social group and self-governing because they feel that they’re group is essential to social and political change. These are the type of careers that even people now are trying to get into because they hold such a prestigious reputation amongst society. You must obtain special qualifications as well as talents to have such a title, and that in and of itself is reputable.

Gramsci mentions the organic intellectual, and it is quite different than the traditional. He explains that this intellectual has created and organized production instead of participating in it. He explains that they are organizers in different areas of society who are tied to economic production. These include entrepreneurs who create their own businesses rather than be a part of one. After reading this I could definitely acknowledge the difference and why they have different purposes in society.

Aside from describing these intellectuals, he also mentions that even men who have physical based jobs also utilize their intellect. He feels that no matter how mechanical a job is, any type of work requires some kind of creative intellect. He feels every individual uses their intellect in different ways but that does not mean they are not an intellectual. Society makes us believe that intellectuals are philosophers and scientists and all those cliché “smart” careers, but in reality everyone is an intellectual in their own right.

Gramsci believes that the degree of intellectual activity varies within every individual and that however this intellect is distributed will determine their place in society. Their function in society will also be discovered from their intellectual activity. This plays a role in how culture is formed and how society is organized. I wouldn’t have thought of it that way, especially now in the modern times. I feel as if I’m living life for me and choosing my career for some kind of fulfillment in my life but little did I know that no matter what I choose, I will be serving a purpose in society.

In Antonio Gramsci’s “The Formation of the Intellectuals” he describes what an intellectual is and what it means to be one. He describes the different types of intellectuals there are and each of their functions in society. He begins to speak about the traditional intellectuals, which was the easiest to understand from the reading. We associate lawyers, scientists, philosophers, doctors, and scholars as traditional intellectuals. Gramsci feels that these types of intellectuals are independent of the dominant social group and self-governing because they feel that they’re group is essential to social and political change. These are the type of careers that even people now are trying to get into because they hold such a prestigious reputation amongst society. You must obtain special qualifications as well as talents to have such a title, and that in and of itself is reputable.

Gramsci mentions the organic intellectual, and it is quite different than the traditional. He explains that this intellectual has created and organized production instead of participating in it. He explains that they are organizers in different areas of society who are tied to economic production. These include entrepreneurs who create their own businesses rather than be a part of one. After reading this I could definitely acknowledge the difference and why they have different purposes in society.

Aside from describing these intellectuals, he also mentions that even men who have physical based jobs also utilize their intellect. He feels that no matter how mechanical a job is, any type of work requires some kind of creative intellect. He feels every individual uses their intellect in different ways but that does not mean they are not an intellectual. Society makes us believe that intellectuals are philosophers and scientists and all those cliché “smart” careers, but in reality everyone is an intellectual in their own right.

Gramsci believes that the degree of intellectual activity varies within every individual and that however this intellect is distributed will determine their place in society. Their function in society will also be discovered from their intellectual activity. This plays a role in how culture is formed and how society is organized. I wouldn’t have thought of it that way, especially now in the modern times. I feel as if I’m living life for me and choosing my career for some kind of fulfillment in my life but little did I know that no matter what I choose, I will be serving a purpose in society.

In “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, Eliot explains his view on the role of poetry and how it really has nothing to do with the poet’s thoughts and feelings. I, for one, have always seen poetry as a way to symbolically portray what one is feeling. According to Eliot, the function of the poet is not to express his own feelings and emotions in his poems, but to make pieces of literature that reflects what came before it and can be integrated in the history of literature. He feels poetry should be impersonal to the poet, and for it to mean nothing emotionally to them. I have always seen poetry as an outlet to portray one’s emotions, in almost a secretive way.

Eliot begins to speak of the word “tradition”. He explains that this word is not a positive term in the history of criticism. Critics would use it as an adjective describing works and it was awful if your work was described as “too traditional”. He found it ironic, as the majority of literary works did not contain tradition and because of this he wanted to create one. He explains that critics look for things in writing that differentiates them from other writers; some kind of uniqueness and individuality. Eliot thinks that the best part of a writer’s work is the section that pays tribute to those who came before him, by praising their literary works. These tributes allow poets to be immortal. Eliot believes that the sections that poets assert their immortality robustly are where their individuality can be distinguished.

Eliot does not support “repetition just for repetition” and recognizes that originality is better than something that has been done before. This concept is very relatable , because stories and literary works that are original and unique are far more intriguing to me than something that I have heard before. He feels innovation is better than repetition and those who keep rewriting stories from the past will get lost in translation. He believes that in order for a poet to be unique he must combine tradition and modernity, in which both influence each other. I agree with this kind of logic because historical sense in a literary work is important but is the most interesting when combined with personal experiences or compared to things of the present. Almost like allowing the past and present to live together in existence instead of two separate entities.

Over the summer, I nannied a two month old child, and one of the first things I can remember doing when I held him for the first time was walking in front of the mirror and trying to get him to recognize himself. After reading Lacan’s “The Mirror Stage”, I know why he failed to recognize himself. It’s interesting to me that infants who still are unable to recognize themselves in the mirror are nevertheless fascinated by the image they see; they can’t possibly conceive of it only being a reflection, when they realize it is them between fifteen and eighteen months.

Lacan argues that once a child recognizes their own reflection, it transforms their understanding of themselves from a being that is locked within the view of the first person to an object that can be seen outside of itself. The realization that the child is an object that can be witnessed aids in the formation of the child’s knowledge of self. To further complicate this, although the child is able to recognize a cohesive corporeal being that is themself, this physicality is in conflict with the level of motor skills the child possesses when they are able to recognize themself. Because the child has such little control over their body but can recognize their physical being as whole, Lacan suggests that the irreconcilable differences between the Ego (which is formed by the child’s identification of their own image) and the body cause the child existential turmoil until their motor skills match the whole being they see in the mirror. The child sees their reflection as a rival, because they cannot reconcile the wholeness of the image with their fragmented sense of self.

Now, to bring this topic to more recent times as far as what we’ve been doing in class (since this post is embarrassingly late), I’d like to investigate Kaja Silverman’s take on “The Mirror Image” and the implications of the child’s recognition of self. In The Threshold of the Visible World, Silverman states that the Ego is derived from the body as well as from outside the body. Lacan states that the happiness the child gets from the illusion of wholeness is from the mirror stage, whereas Kaja Silverman argues that the experience is not because of the bodily wholeness of the child’s image but because of the integration of the visual self-image with the internal sense of self. Furthermore, Silverman disagrees with Lacan in that she theorizes that the child seeks wholeness not because it sees itself as fragmented, but because culture avows the importance of wholeness and unity, which gives the child a fragmented sense of self.