First Saussure summarizes the characteristics of language stating it is “where an auditory image becomes associated with a concept… [that] we easily assimilate their linguistics organisms: dead languages, a union of meanings and sound-images and is concrete” (pg. 850).

According to Saussure, “language is a system of pure values consisting of two elements, ideas and sound” without language thought would be very vague (pg. 856). Language is a structural system of linguistic unit that organize the mass of confused thoughts that filled our minds. There are two parts, like Saussure states, “…an idea becomes fixed in a sound and a sound becomes the sign of an idea,” the concept (meaning) and sound-image (signified and signifier). Meaning you cannot separate the thought from the sound nor the sound from the thought.  I may or may not be correct but, the nature of linguistics sign is basically tied between the signifier and the signified. Based on what I’ve read, Saussure’s idea on the nature and value of the linguistics sign disapprove on the belief that things come first then words follow after, to replace actual referential reality with the signified. What the signifier points to is not only something that exists outside of language, but maybe to a meaning that is limited within our human minds. In other words Saussure main idea is that everything gains its meaning out of being entirely placed opposite to its relations.

By being arbitrary, the lingual sign shows that different languages have different signs for the same explicit meaning, but according to Saussure, language is not just a random naming scheme, the signs also have values. Language does not simply describe what you see as in reality, but is in fact something separate and independent from it. Saussure in a sense probably meant that anyone can make up words but signs are all conventions that are within society, or the linguistic sign is arbitrary but is not open for refills, its meaning is forced on us by the linguistic environment.

As Saussure wrote, it is as in any system of signs; the linguistic system is consisting of strings of differences in sounds put together with differences in ideas. The difference that distinguishes one sign from the others, “create the character and the value of the unit,” as a result composes the system. The overall value of the linguistics sign is based on its concept and sound within the language, the combination with other words in linguistic way and its differences and similarities to other language signs.

Another note that I was very interesting was the Syntagmatic and Associative Relations. The Synatagmatic Relations is based on the placement of the words; it links each word to each other like chains. It is a linguistic structure whereas the associate relations link words based on similar association.  For example the word purification and any other word that ends with ‘-tion’ or associated with it, like cleansing, sanitation, etc. is attached to it. If you pull purification out of a basket the other words associated with it will follow. The associate relations break the whole grammatical relations and open the door for a more symbolic/metaphoric expression.

Deception is intertwined in our very being, both biologically and mentally in almost every way. Our cognitive ability begins its deception early on during the very act of processing the information which we receive. As we take in stimuli it passes through many different conversions until it finally reaches our body through the many channels we use to absorb information, ie. Our eyes, ears, nose, mouth and finally our brains. The final product our bodies create for us and finally feed to our brains is merely a form that we can understand not what the thing originally is, in and of itself, and that is deceptive. Calling what we see and hear deceptive might sound like a far-fetched and highbrow understanding of the world but a conclusion like that is the very reason why Nietzsche’s observations are true. We constantly re affirm our perceived superiority to everything around us and refuse to accept any form other than the one we see, we are stubborn, and limited when it comes to our understanding of the world around us.

The mental picture of a rock is the best possible version of the image of a rock our eyes can make. A rock is insignificant and hard, it is cold and only a small part of our existence. Though what we understand to be a rock is only a concept of a thing that exists in our world, not what it truly is, and sadly we will never know what a rock, and all things that exist in this world truly are because we can only perceive it as a human. This argument to me is about as frustrating as the concept of omnipotence. Because it is all encompassing and almost impossible to grasp because it reveals the very limitations of what we are (not who we are). (P.767 Note 1) (P.767 Note 2)

Truth is an army of metaphors and anthropomorphisms, in other words: truth is what we as humans have created through using our methods of filtering out what we cannot see or understand and simplifying reality and existence into a human concept that we can all understand. This seems almost a joke to me, it is almost as if Nietzche is saying that truth is what we choose to be the simplest and easily digestible form of what we see. My conclusion is that truth is the lowest common denominator of understanding that we have come to accept as the ultimate form of what we see, and we run with. 

What Nietzche observations tells us may at first seem rather depressing and would even make some feel small but it is rather a beautiful way to look at things. I see this as a tool to understand what it is we see and how we can look further into what we perceive as real and take in even more than we ever could by truly appreciating the world around us. If one can truly appreciate the limited world we can see through our eyes, then we can move further and understand it on a deeper level as well.

After reading Terry Eagleton’s “The Rise of English” I can clearly see that yes it is true that the article tends to explore an outside view of the the relationship between Literature and Religion. However, to my understanding after reading your response I believe you have failed to explain the connection between these two entities. Allow me to help you understand the article a bit more clearly. What Eagleton is trying to tell us, is that Literature by the 1900s had become a weapon, a massive destructive weapon that threaten governments and religions alike. Middle class working individuals, who had the capability to read and educate themselves, became more engage in Literature, opening their eyes and mind to a whole different world and perspective. This perspective (Literature) they have learned would allow many middle class individuals to challenge their own government, by question their authorities; they would also challenge and question their own religion, the very same religion that they saw as a law and or ideal model to follow in their lives. The model (Religion) however, was a model used to control the people, as Eagleton clearly mentions that “Religion is for all kinds of reasons an extremely effective form of ideological control”, this can clearly be seen a form of propaganda used by the Victorian ruling class, the Victorian upper class used religion to maintain order in their towns and to create submission, fear and acceptance of their laws. The Victorian class created a form of “social cement” as Eagleton says, cement that holds people together under fear and submission. But when people started to see the true reality, the religion form of fear used by the Victorian upper class started to fall apart in pieces; it had spread from town by town. Society as a whole was moving outside of the religion realm. The best solution to this problem was to introduce the English literature, like religion, “[literature was] a suitable candidate for this ideological enterprise” Eagleton says because English Literature would introduce a new set of “human values”. Through the many forms of literature, the people would experience a better quality of life. English subject was once considered simply a “Gossip” subject but it became an important academic subject to study in many universities and colleges; it became an arena, an art that would change people’s perceptions through the imagination and teaching of English studies. So when religion was no longer a tool to use to control and have power over the people, the Victorian society introduced the Ideology of literature, a substitution for Religion. The predictions or hopes by George Gordon, became a reality “England is sick and…English Literature must save it. The churches (as I understand) having failed, and social remedies being slow, English Literature has now a triple function: still, I suppose, to delight and instructs us, but also, and above all, to save our souls and heal the state”. England was sick and the rapid expansion of English Literature saved the country from the chaos. I personally question myself, how can the world possibly survive without an English subject? How would people operate without the many fantastic fiction and nonfiction stories written for our pleasure? After all I believe English Literature helps us become a better individual, it helps us spread kindness, love, respect, and most of all unity, it instructs nations to become better allies.

At the very beginning, Eagleton attempts to convince readers of the relationship between literature and ideology, which he believes that literature “is an ideology.” Eagleton begins by talking about how religion, in the past, successfully acted as a unifying social ideology for people of all nations. Religion, throughout the world, had the ability to bring people of all ages, gender, and social classes together. Unfortunately, human development had put a halt on religion’s role as the unifying ideology, and English literature has taking its place.

I can’t disagree that English literature may be the ideology that can completely replace religion, but I believe that religion isn’t out of the game just yet. Eagleton implies that religion is no longer a viable ideology, and it can no longer serve that role with respect to the changing time and society. I cannot completely agree or disagree, but I’d like to say that religion is still strong as an ideology. Religion, I would say, is still held strongly in many parts of the world today, even (especially) in the United States. It is without a doubt that the number of followers of religion has decayed since the prime at which religion stood, but its influence still remains strong. I say so because religion, without a doubt, plays a significant role in the United States’ presidential elections. The United States have yet to have an atheist president, and the likely reason is that, as a presidential candidate, it is advantageous to have a group of religion affiliates to vote for him. Simply by declaring himself to be of a certain religion, he will gain supporters from that religion. I can’t provide any statistics regarding the role of religion in presidential elections, but I’m certain that it is relevant enough to impact the outcome of an election. Simply put, religion still has the ability to unify different groups within a nation.

On another note, English literature is broad and has a wide range of applications. Eagleton supports its flexibility and how it appeals to all types of people, whether it be people of different social classes, a man or a woman, even people of different religions; literature is for everyone. That is precisely why English literature has the potential to replace religion as the ideal ideology.

In concurrence to Eagleton, I would like to emphasize the versatility of literature. Religion, unlike literature, follows monolithic values which will (probably) remain static till the end of time. On the other hand, literature continues to expand, change, adapt, improve over the course of time. With sheer flexibility, as well as mobility, literature will, perhaps, continue to dominate religion as an ideology.

Notes on T.S. Eliot’s Tradition and the Individual Talent

T.S. Eliot argues a very interesting point in his piece Tradition and the Individual Talent. Tradition, T.S. Eliot mentions, is defined as something that has a historicial significance to it. It involves the writing of his own generation and the historical writings throughout all of Europe. He speaks about “simultaneous order” as something that includes the writing of the past but also his own writing which together make tradition, but also allows the writer to become more aware of his modernity. What I believe T.S. Eliot also means by simultaneous order is that, in short, the new affects the old completely readjusting the past and completely joining the new and old ideas. T.S. Eliot
What interests me the most is this idea of “consciousness” and “depersonalization”. This consciousness Eliot speaks of is the awareness in which his mind develops with the art of Homer or Shakespeare and intertwines with his own. I can’t quite grasp this idea of the consciousness of the past within itself. When developing the consciousness of the past, the writer “surrenders himself” by detaching his personality. When you detach your personality from your art as you continue to develop consciousness, you allow the readers to see ‘impersonal poetry’ that speaks for itself without having to go into great depth or show any emotions. “the business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones and, in working them up into poetry, to express feelings which are not in actual emotions at all” (Eliot, Pg. 8). When you detach yourself from creating personal writing, you escape from the emotions. There is great difficulty understanding this idea of the “present moment of the past”, but throughout this passage T.S. Eliot clearly argues for the impersonal writing (and detachment from poetry) to create a greater piece of work. Poetry should be impersonal rather than a mix of emotions and experiences.

First, let us start with a basic question. What is theory? According to Culler, theory is comprises of four things.

1. “Theory is interdisciplinary – discourse with effects outside an original discipline.”
2. “Theory is analytical and speculative – an attempt to work out what is involved in what we call sex or language or writing or meaning or the subject.”
3. “Theory is a critique of common sense, of concepts taken as natural.”
4. “Theory is reflexive, thinking about thinking, enquiry into the categories we use in making sense of things in literature and in other discursive practices.”

What exactly does all of this mean? I will be honest and say I’m not quite sure, but I interpreted all of this as theory requires thinking critically of literature, linguistics, and writing in a way that I have never thought of before. I agree with Culler when he says that theory “is not something that you could ever master.” It’s not a set amount of books or readings that you can read and analyze to know theory. Theory is unbound and infinite and you will never be quite sure if what you are doing is leading you towards your regrettably unattainable want to know theory. You can never know whether or not you should read Jean Baudrillard, Mickail Baktin, Walter Benjamin, etc. or whether you could disregard them.

Most humans have an innate desire to master whatever they set as their goal, but theory is one of the many things that a person cannot master. Theoretical readings may give you knowledge on concepts to understand and organize whatever you may be researching, but in the case of theory there will always be more to know. This is because theory is essentially the questioning of results that have already been made and the assumptions of which they are based off of.

Many may feel that this inability to master such a thing as theory to be disheartening. However, I have accepted this and actually appreciate it. To me, not being able to master it means that there is always more that I may be able to learn throughout my life. If I was able to master theory once I am done I would be satisfied and accomplished for a brief moment, but would then become a little lost because I will no longer have something to strive for. It is similar to my feelings on reading. I tell people that I have over two hundred books to read and they look at me and tell me that I am never going to finish. You know what I tell them? I tell them I am glad that I will never reach the end of the long list of books I wish to read because I know that if I ever run out of books to read I will be left with a vast emptiness within me. I have been a reader for all of my life and I will continue to do so for the rest of my life so that I may keep that part of me filled to the brim. To me learning theory is a similar concept and I being unable to completely learn theory gives me a sense of fulfillment like reading.

-Belinda Chon 

       In T.S. Elliot’s essay “Tradition and the Individual Talent”, he discusses the concept of literary tradition. He immediately criticizes English speakers/writers for not acknowledging a literary tradition, pointing out that “you can hardly make the word [tradition] agreeable to English ears…”. Elliot defines tradition as a complex concept. It is not just a matter of “following the ways of the immediate generation before”. He admits, that would be repetitive and dull. Tradition instead involves having a “historical sense”. That is, one must understand that the past is still relevant to the present. In this way, a writer is expected to produce literature “with a feeling that the whole of literature of Europe from Homer…”. Elliot speaks of a “simultaneous order” which basically means that all literature, from the past and present, exist simultaneously so that there is a historical timelessness. The way I see is that instead of existing on a timeline, all of English literature would exist on one plane.

         Elliot’s view on how a critic or reader should judge literature is very interesting. He feels that the only way to judge a piece of work is to put it side by side with past works. However, you would not be holding the past works as a standard, in fact, your opinion on that might change as well. I’m not sure how I feel about this yet, to be completely honest. It is something I never considered.

          In the essay, Elliot makes an interesting analogy involving the mixing of a filament of platinum with oxygen and sulfur dioxide. When these three substances are mixed, a reaction occurs and sulfuric acid is produced. Notice, the platinum is not present in the final product. In fact, the platinum is simply a catalyst that allows the reaction to occur. I think that Elliot is trying to convey the concept of impersonality in literature. The poet would be the filament of platinum and the reaction would be the production of a literary work. I could extend the metaphor and say that the oxygen and sulfur dioxide are elements of past literary works and the sulfuric acid is the poet’s piece. The poet is there to simply create a work of art, and according to Elliot, the poet should not leave any part of himself in his writing. I disagree with this concept. I think that a piece of art feels most relatable to me on an emotional level when the artist includes their own personal emotions. I wonder what Elliot would say about different genres of literature like memoir.  

In the essay “The Rise Of English”  Eagleton, speaks of the origin and relationship between English literature and religion. This relationship is certainly new to me as this is my first time learning of the roots of English studies. As it is expressed in the essay, the decline and loss of faith in religion towards the later part of the nineteenth century paved the way for the rise of English studies and literature.
One particular thing that truly grasps my attention and allows me understand the concept of literature as a substitute for religion is the different aspects of human “experience and emotions” that literature focuses on. In his essay Eagleton explains, “Like religion, literature primarily works by emotion, and experience and so it was well fitted to carry through the ideological task which religion left off” This refers to the similarity that literature shares with religion in terms of reaching and connecting people through experiences as well as feelings and emotions they feel. Literature’s  ability to bond people together proves to be of deep significance during the nineteenth century as religion fails to keep bringing people of different social classes together under one big concept as it once did. This inability to join or “cement” the classes together as Eagleton puts it, is one of the major reasons why literature is considered an appropriate and adequate substitute for religion.

Another important reason Eagleton sees English as a valuable substitute for religion is the way in which literature expresses and deals with moral values. According to Eagleton in religion, moral values are demonstrated and enforced in a direct and explicit way. However, in literature he explains, moral values are no longer a sort of “code or ethical system” but something much more subtle and flexible. This is certainly a very appealing characteristic of literature because through personal experience I can say that many times, people shift away from religion because of the very strong moral values attached to following religion, whereas in literature, many of these moral values are brought down to a more real and palpable level where people can relate and identify themselves easier to how they want to live. This particular reason makes me think of a very popular topic in today’s society which is the debate between the church and society of whether people should use birth control and protection when having intercourse or just completely abstaining from sex until they’re ready to settle and have a family. This example illustrates perfectly, the ease with which literature and turn a complex religious debate into a much more practical aspect of society because through books, articles, and other types of literature, people are often encouraged to use condoms, and other methods of birth control to prevent a pregnancy that in “practical terms” can make life much more difficult to a couple. Therefore the ability of literature to be flexible and much more practical than religion also served as motive for it (literature) to substitute religion as a driving force in the world.

Throughout much of Eliot’s essay, he seems to be focused on the basic truths that are experienced by all humans – young and old – regardless of place or time.  He says, “Tradition is a matter of much wider significance.  It cannot be inherited… It involves, in the first place, the historical sense,…a perception, not only of the pastness of the past, but of its presence… a simultaneous existence…” (956).  I believe that his point is that literature puts a mirror up to the reality that is shared by all of humanity:  love, loss, suffering, growth, etc.  These experiences as had by ancient caveman were no different than they are for today’s modern man.  Though the specific circumstances encountered by these people are worlds apart, the very human truth of their experiences lie in the same world.  It’s like a shared collective memory that is passed down through our DNA.

Eliot goes on to illuminate his theory of “simultaneous existence” when he suggests that the past is “altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past” (957).  I believe that he is talking about our constant changing perspective here.  The fact is that the Roman Empire no longer exists.  That is a fact of the past.  But is it really?  Isn’t this just a matter of perspective?  If I were to spend the next hour pointing out all of the remnants from the Roman Empire that still exist in our lives today, from social and political practices to engineering and construction techniques, would that not prove that the empire still exists in a form?  Thus, the past is in the present and our understanding of the present causes us to alter our view of the past.  {And this is why time travel gives me a headache.}

Eliot applies this idea of a shared memory amongst humans to the authenticity of art, specifically literature.  He acknowledges the fact that as a human being the poet will experience many aspects of life that may inspire or inform a poem, but in his view, neither those experiences, nor the final product (the poem) are the actual work of art.  What is to be revered is the act of making the art, the journey, the process.  Eliot uses the metaphor of a chemistry experiment to highlight his point, claiming that like the platinum piece that is used to make sulfurous acid, the poet is merely “the catalyst” that helps to bring the poem or art to life.  Thus, the “man who suffers” is the liver of life’s experiences, who will “digest” the knowledge attained.  However, it is “the mind” or the metaphysical poet which will “transmute the passions” into true art (958-959).

In fact, Eliot demands this complete separation in the “perfect  artist,” claiming that “the bad poet” makes his work too personal, when “the emotion of art is impersonal” (961), but like all things “perfect”, I believe his standard to be unrealistic and unattainable.  Sure, we can attempt to achieve this duality with some success.  But to be perfectly honest, I just do not see how anyone could achieve what Eliot is requiring of our poets without going mad at some point.  What I mean is:  How can we completely separate ourselves from… well, ourselves?  If Eliot were alive today, this is something I would very much like to ask.  On the other hand, perhaps, the biography on Eliot that appears in our text before “Tradition and the Individual Talent” answers my question well enough.  Prior to writing The Waste Land, “work and worry brought Eliot near a nervous breakdown and to recuperate he went… to a sanatorium in Lausanne, Switzerland” (952).

What really confounds me about Eliot’s essay though is his discussion of emotions.  He makes a distinction between emotions and feelings that I just can’t wrap my head around.  The best I can guess is that it is like the difference between hearing and listening, the former being a mere biological act and the latter requiring a more refined and active undertaking.  I’m really not sure if this analogy works though.  I don’t feel that Eliot’s take on the matter was clear enough.  I guess I’m just not the perfect reader.