Oftentimes, one believes the idea of not being awake or aware of your surroundings is to be unconscious. But how would one know what exactly being unconscious is like if it is to be unaware of whatever is going on? Francoise Meltzer looks into this question in their essay “Unconscious” while looking into psychoanalysts Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan’s own definitions of unconsciousness. After reading Meltzer one can conclude that the term “unconscious” will always be up for debate on its meaning. In the end, unconsciousness is never something humans can really know or define, as it is part of the unknown.

One of the ideas of unconsciousness that is brought up is by Freud and Lacan. Freud, who is said to have really begun the conversation on unconsciousness, defines it as feelings or thoughts that we are unaware of, yet continue to influence the way we live life. Freud believed that although we are not fully aware of these unconscious thoughts, they influence us from behind. In other words, the unconscious is just as important as the conscious. For instance, Meltzer expands on how Freud believed the unconscious worked, and it would leak into our conscious. Meltzer states:

The major activity that characterizes the dynamic model is repression: the unconscious “contains” wishes and even information of which the Subject is unaware and which his “censor” (like the sentry at the door of the sitting room) strains to keep from the Subject’s consciousness) Occasionally (like water exerting pressure against a weak wall) some of this unconscious energy will leak through the “repression barrier” and thrust its way into consciousness. But unsconscious thoughts will always manifest themselves obliquely in consciousness…(Meltzer 151).

For Freud, in order for there to be conscious, there had to be the unconscious. Sometimes we will be unaware of what we are feeling or thinking and will just act impulsively. Many may wonder and think back to a time when this may have happened, but it will be quite impossible to remember. Again, unconsciousness is something we are meant to be unaware of, so how exactly would we be able to know this. A possible example of it may be when someone is jealous in a certain situation. Although they may realize after, at that moment they may act out of jealousy but be unaware of it until after time passes. These feelings of unconsciousness are “repressed” according to Freud because of how little we know of them. The less we know, the less present they seem to be.

Lacan takes part of Freud’s unconscious ideas and part of Saussure’s linguistics theory in order to combine them and form his own unconscious definition. Lacan believed that unconscious thoughts went hand in hand with those in consciousness. For Lacan everything seemed to be a sign of some sort, as Saussure thought. Yet Lacan argued that unconsciousness what the superior state, rather than consciousness. As Meltzer explains:

In the situation just described, the term “consciousness” can easily replace that of “master”; and that of “unconscious” can stanf in for “slave”. Consciousness in other words, appears to be the master of the psyche: it is that which is recognized and which seems to determine psychic activity. … The unconscious, further, will produce the materials which allow for the very existence and shape of consciousness…Without the material “goods” supplied to consciousness by the unconscious, the first has nothing by which–or with which — to function (Meltzer 158).

Lacan seemed to analyze the unconscious the way Saussure identified the signifier and signified. Both went together, and without one of them, the other would hold no purpose. While the unconscious is repressed and “not thought of” it is what produces our feelings in the background. The unconscious creates the feelings we often wish to repress or hide yet eventually come out through our consciousness.

Regardless, the real definition and theory of unconsciousness will never be able to be found. From what we know, the unconscious is an idea, something we accept. It is a made-up concept that humans have accepted and not questioned its existence but rather questioned the meaning.

Growing up I had always seen a replication of the piece by Van Gogh, “Starry Night” in my older brothers room. Before realizing what piece it was and by who it was made I had always enjoyed looking at every detail. Yet once I had realized it was “Starry Night”, one of the most famous artworks it made me realize how many more replications of this there are throughout the world. As Walter Benjamin explains in his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproduction”, with so many different ways of seeing different types of artwork without seeing its original diminishes the value of pieces overall.

As artwork or objects become more accessible to everyone around, such as in exhibitions or replications it lessens the value of artwork the same way supply and demand works. The more something is given or supplied the less people will want or ask for it. For artwork certain paintings will always be more known or popular than others yet the need to see the original is not as necessary if there are other options. As Benjamin states:

It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced. These two processes lead to a massive upheaval in the domain of objects handed down from the past-a shattering of tradition which is the reverse side of the present crisis and renewal of humanity (Benjamin 979).

As Benjamin explains, many different artworks are based on traditions. If replications exist for certain traditional objects it breaks the object away from “the sphere of traditions” . If someone is going to be able to see a replication almost anywhere they will never consider how important something may be as it is able to be found anywhere.

Continuing on, Benjamin also focuses on the idea of there being a mass existence of replications. Mass producing things such as art diminishes the work and authenticity of the object and creator. The creator has most likely spent hours, days, or months on a piece for it to either be passed around or to not have the original acknowledged. If a replication exist somewhere closer to someone they would rather see that one than the original, because at the end they are almost identical to most people.

Adding on to Benjamins explanation that is applicable to modern day, today the internet exists in which is another form of replications. The internet and social media allows for certain art objects to be seen in a different way. Now, and especially during the beginning of covid, many museums offered virtual tours where one could view art online. While it does give an opportunity to those unable to go in person to certain museums it still does apply the varies way in which the value of art is lessened.  People now can simply search up the name of a piece and find it online and there is no need to plan a trip somewhere else to see such amazing pieces. Someone can post a picture of a piece of art and everyone who sees that post will have now seen a replication of it rather than the original.

Growing up we are taught certain things, such as learning to look both ways before crossing the street. Yet there are also things we must learn alone through our own common sense. One of the beliefs that is part of everyone’s common sense is the idea that a judge is above politics, as they are the ones who decide on whether someone is guilty or innocent. Barbara Johnson challenges this idea in her essay “From Melville’s Fist: The execution of Billy Budd” and suggests that in reality judges are not “above politics” but still under control by them.

Throughout her essay Johnson deconstructs the novella “Billy Budd” by Herman Melville where she looks into the different interpretations of the novella and the characters. One of the characters she looks into is Captain Vere who seems to symbolize a judge like figure. Vere is the man who is left to decide whether or not Billy is guilty or innocent. Although many would assume for him to be able to choose on his own, Vere must consider many other aspects before making a decision.

In law there is always going to be someone guilty and someone innocent, as there is no other way around it. This already makes judges need to confine to politics as they technically need to choose one or the other for the person in question. Additionally, when deciding upon the criminal or victim judges must consider how they will be judged as their decision is still up for judgement afterwards. For instance, in today’s world the idea that everyone must be fairly represented no matter your identity has grown in awareness. Judges today will need to consider how their judgement will be criticized if they do the opposite of that, as they know that the public may rise up against it. Judges will never be above politics because the way politics works influences the judges, and even society.

Johnson’s explanation of this goes hand in hand with Nietzche’s belief that society does not allow one to create their own ideas as we are all influenced by everything around us in the end. Judges will end up being influenced by society or the politics around them, ultimately leaving them to never be above politics. Depending on where you are in the world the government may allow certain things while others do not. Regardless, there will always be someone above the judge whether that be politics, society, or the general public.

Whether in college or in high school everyone has experienced having to read and analyze a poem, which can possibly be considered as a dreadful task due to the “complicated” and “confusing” phrases used. But what if someone told you that our everyday use of language and linguistics is our own version of poems. As Roman Jakobson explains in his piece “Linguistics and Poetics”, poetics can be considered a foundation for linguistics as the structure for a poem is similar to the structure in which we communicate.

Poetics is often considered to be too complex to read and even to write. Jakobson offers a different look into this and explains how similar the process of writing a poem is to the process of writing a message to someone, even if we do not realize it. Jakobson states:

The addresser sends a message to the addressee. To be operative the message requires a context referred to (the “referent” in another, somewhat ambiguous, nomenclature), graspable by the addressee, and either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a code fully, or at least partially, common to the addresser and addressee (or in other words, to the encoder and decoder of the message); and, finally, a contact, a physical channel and psychological connection between the addresser and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter and stay in communication (Jakobson 1069).

When doing something so simple such as sending a message it requires one to think about what language we should use, how the addressee will interpret it, and what exactly we will say to them. This process and system of communicating with others seems to be non existent to us now only because of how natural and often we do it. Understanding and creating poetics requires just the same process, but we avoid it due to it being so abnormal for us. If it had been taught and explained to us as children it would not be considered to be so “non-casual”.

Jakobson is attempting to separate poetics from poetry and explain how it takes place in every mode of speech. Emotive, referential, poetic, phatic, metalingual, and conative all require a process to understand and do. A process that may only be associated with poetics. Where you must consider what you are saying, what words you will use for this form of speech, and finally consider the addressee. Each form of speech requires a part of poetics where you must evaluate every aspect before saying it out loud. For instance, when using the emotive form of speech one must pick out their words carefully in order to make the other feel a certain way. Poetics being a strong part of linguistics automatically makes it part of each form of speech.

As Nietzsche’s beliefs and ideas explained previously, we as a society accept everything that is told to us, we do not question why certain things are named as so or why 1 plus 1 equals 2. Society teaches us to do things without anyone realizing, which makes it impossible to create your own ideas without being influenced. In this case poetry in society is portrayed to be this intricate piece of writing filled with metaphors and similes. Poetry is poetry because that is what we are told. We do not question or consider more of what there is in communicating with others or the process of it. Leading us to miss out on the big portion of poetics there is in our daily communication with others.

As kids when growing up we are often told to always tell the truth, and are explained why dishonesty is wrong. As we get older these beliefs and morals stick with us forever and are almost never questioned. German philosopher Frederich Nietzsche offers a different perspective into truth and dishonesty in his essay “On Truth and Lie in a Non-Moral Sense” where he explains what being honest and dishonest may really be for humans. Nietzsche offers the idea that as a humanity we follow whatever is seen to be “acceptable”, such as being honest, and while most follow along there are others who create this new side of humanity.

Nietzsche argued that telling the truth is something humanity is taught to do from the very beginning, something that is what we all follow due to society. Nietzsche seems to go beyond honesty and tries to use it as a way to explain how humanity conforms to whatever is seen as acceptable in society. For instance, he describes how being truthful is a pact that we all make as humans yet it is alright to not be completely truthful in other cases. Nietzsche states:

But man has an invincible inclination to allow himself to be deceived and is, as it were, enchanted with happiness when the rhapsodist tells him epic fables as if they were true, or when the actor in the theater acts more royally than any real king. So long as it is able to deceive without injuring, that master of deception, the intellect, is free; it is released from its former slavery and celebrates it Saturnalia (Nietzsche 7).

Society is told that one must always tell the truth and if one does otherwise they will be perceived in a negative way, but yet there are exceptions that we must allow. In this case made up fairytales, fables, or other stories are allowed to lie to us and create false realities because they are not necessarily “injuring” humans. How Nietzsche seems to want to explain this is by saying that overall “truths”, “lies”, and “injuring” are concepts humanity has made up and because no one really questions it it continues to happen. That does not mean that all humans conform to these ideas as he goes on to explain.

Near the end of his essay Nietzsche divides humanity up into two different groups because of this concept of “truth” and “lies”. He believes that there is the group of humanity that does not question society but follows along and does as told, as like in a simulation. While the other group of humanity eventually breaks out of these norms and creates their own concepts and beliefs where they can govern themselves. Those who continue inside of these societal norms forever, when falling, will struggle much harder than those who break out of the norms and learn how to think for themselves where they will grow and become even stronger. Nietzsche states:

To be sure, he suffers more intensely, when he suffers; he even suffers more frequently, since he does not understand how to learn from experience and keeps falling over and over again into the same ditch. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the stoical man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortunes! (Nietzsche 8).

Nietzsche while referring to truths and lies throughout his essay seems to be rather focusing on societal norms as a whole. He attempts to give examples with the truth and lie concepts, yet gives readers more to wonder about. What other concepts have been created in society yet never question?