In Sianne Ngai’s “From Ugly Feelings”, it examines the conflicts that exist between societal issues within aesthetically pleasing literature and exemplar literature that describes ongoing issues without a layer of ambiguity. Ngai challenges the manners in which traditional literature for the “privileged” is not meant to hold moments of uncomfortability so as to not generate any emotions but instead formulate opinions. And while this may be useful when distinguishing between life saving advancements in medicine or law, the same does not apply when referencing social manners in society. Ngai is emphasizing that literature has the potential, like art, to invoke emotions, even the emotions that make us uncomfortable. It is important to sit in those emotions in order to allow ourselves the ability to self reflect and perhaps sit with any “guilt” that surfaces. 

“Aesthetic autonomy in Aesthetic Theory suggests that literature may in fact be the ideal space to investigate ugly feelings that obviously ramify beyond the domain of the aesthetic proper, since the situation of restricted agency from which all of them ensue is one that describes art’s own position in a highly differentiated and totally commodified society.” (2642) Ngai is describing the ways in which  literature should be used as an outlet to discuss “feelings” or difficult conversations in order to generate thinking.  What can be fundamentally difficult could be the ways in which society responds to uncomfortable situations that involve intertwining feelings with reality. Having to describe or view an event or conversation as difficult pushes away from the “aesthetically” pleasing aspect of being in complete agreement with a topic. Sitting with the uncomfortable truth of other issues happening in society and not the commodified versions given in order to keep the image of a well structured living is uncomfortable. While topica may not be structured or fit to the social norms currently instilled in societal expectations of aesthetically pleasing, these “ugly feelings” are a representation of real issues that occur that can not and should not be masked as art in order to be important or relevant. Ngai is describing how the ability to view past this “commodified society” is needed urgently for societal issues to be viewed and taken seriously. Looking beyond what is considered “aesthetic” and more into how it is a part of society and how it impacts lives that do not conform to the typical norm.

In “Society Must Be Defended” by Michael Foucault he describes an interesting perspective on life and death. Specifically, “The right of life and death is a strange right” (pf.1440) and “In one sense, to say that the sovereign has a right of life and death means that he can, basically, either have people put to death or let them live, or in any case that life and death are not natural or immediate phenomena which are primal or radical, and which fall outside the field of power.” (1440) leaving a wonder of who then has the say if someone were to live or die. Considering life or death a strange right would then be put into conversation then who has this right to decide who is born or who is not. Would then hierarchical beings be put at the forefront of these decisions, and who assigned them this role? Theoretically speaking, the “theoretical paradox” (1440) would then fit the discourse of the unbalanced nature that would arise in front of his logic. 

Foucault goes on to discuss the ““biopolitics” of the human race” and the ways in which the “technology of power” (1442) has impacted how science has involved itself with the human race and the autonomy of the human body. Measuring the demographics of the human body and controlling the ways in which reproduction takes place feels almost oppressive. Mirroring how the control of life and death and the control over reproductive rights in womens seems like science’s way of controlling the human population’s way of living. While biopolitics is also concerned with other aspects of life, its precise confirmation over controlling the birthing rate is questionable. Additionally, Foucault explains, “Death was no longer something that suddenly swooped down on life– as in an epidemic. Death was now something permanent, something that slips into life, perpetually gnaws at it, diminishes it and weakens it.” (1443) describing the vast ways in which death is around us all and definite. The definiteness that is both life and the surety of death is what makes “biopower” all the more complex. If humans are not the deciders of their own fates based on choices, then wouldn’t life in itself be chosen for you? Such as death being the consequence or finite line between a life chosen or a life not. In a way we are all brought to life outside of our knowledge or willingness, yet choose to continue living, the only other decision being to not. Foucault is discussing whether we have the ability to make those choices with or without outside influences to alter or solidify.

In Antonio Gramsci, “Formation of the Intellectuals” what is constantly being reiterated is the concept of what it means to be considered a “traditional intellectual” (931). This led me to reflect on what I as a person use to consider someone as being an intellectual as well as how the education system sets up students to become intellectuals based on state standards. The concept of being considered intellectual being formed as an “organic”(930) construct was impactful, leading me to wonder if intelligence in itself is already pre decided based on your genetic makeup or ancestral history. The capacity in which a person is able to store their knowledge and has access to certain knowledge could evidently influence the amount of intellectual information a person obtains.
While the term “intellectual” holds various meanings as far as what as a society considers a person to need in order to be considered an intellectual person, it leads me to wonder who then ultimately is correct? Is it the educational system that is flawed which creates the standards that we received and must pass in order to obtain a diploma or certification ? Or the intellectuals themselves who create the criteria for whom is considered an intellectual?
Gramsci states, “And we have already observed that the entrepreneur, by virtue of his very function, must have to some degree a certain number of qualifications of an intellectual nature although his part in society is determined not by these, but by the general social relations which specifically characterise the position of the entrepreneur within industry.” (932) in this moment Gramsci is discussing the means in which an entrepreneur must go through in order to be considered an intellectual person. The assumption being that if the entrepreneur is successful this would mean they are an intellectual because they had the ability to make educated decisions that positively affected their business of entrepreneurship. While this is true, I agree with an entrepreneur having intellect in their speciality and their choice of profession. It does take a certain skill set in order to master a trade and execute it along with other concepts that are in the foreground such as balancing expenses, taxes, insurance etc. that comes with a business. My wonder then is, would the intellect of the entrepreneur be put into question if their business or deal does not hold a positive outcome? Would the entrepreneur then not be considered an intellectual?

Nietzsche “On truth and Lying”, devotes an ample amount of energy on how the reader is meant to feel when experiencing a text. The theme of “deception” at the heart of language and cognition is seen throughout the reading. This could be done for a variety of reasons, perhaps, for the reader to feel a sense of how language and words can hold different meanings and emotions. It could also be to describe how reality and the feeling of being deceived can be tied to language and the manner in which people interact with one another. Throughout the reading Nietzsche holds a melancholy tone reflecting also the art of “deception” and how it can impact the manner in which information is received. When he states “Even on this level they do not hate deception but rather the damaging, inimical consequences of certain species of deception.”(754) it lead to reflecting what the reader can consider the highest form of “deception” the answer varying from person to person adds to the complicated nature. A question that arises from this is Nietzsche attempting to demonstrate the untrustworthy perception seen in writing or perhaps the manner in which being deceived is far worse? Would knowing you’re being deceived be worse than the deception itself?

Saussure from Course in General Linguistics speaks on a slightly different topic, with a focus on how words and meaning work together to create better understanding. The problem with thinking of language as a process of giving names to things can cause a misinterpretation of what language is and it’s only attainable through words. An example of this is seen through the images used on page 826 of the “Arbor” followed by an image of a tree, and on the following page “Arbor” is placed underneath the word “tree”. The placement of the image of the tree above “Arbor” also provides a distinction between what is visible versus what is not. While the word “tree” is part of a way to define “arbor” there are varying interpretations of what that image will be to the reader. Saussure does this to focus on how words can also work with creating meaning in order to form a way of understanding outside of typical norms. This led me to wonder if other countries or languages experience this same form of language? How images and words create a larger meaning but can vary between person to person as well as between languages.