In Interpretation of Dreams and “The Uncanny”, Sigmund Freud discussed the Oedipus complex where it is a common occurrence for an individual to be in love with one parent—who’s the opposite sex typically and to hate the other—typically the parent of the same sex of the individual. I’ve always found the complex highly unsettling and disturbing. Dreams were a very important part in Freud’s studies. He described dreams as a picture puzzle because in order to extract meaning out of dreams they need to be connected to make sense. Dreams are not to be just taken at face value. He also uses the term “dream thoughts” and again emphasizes they are not a complete material. Being a psychology major, there’s always been a lot of question and skepticism to Freud’s studies and conclusions, and its validity and reputability. I definitely agree that interpretations can be made of dreams. It often feels like there’s a meaning to dreams despite the scenarios often being nonsensical, random, and strange. The current consensus of dreams is that their purpose is for the brain to work through problems faced in real life. There’s definitely meaning that can be extracted from dreams. But many of the dream interpretations and symbolic meanings claimed have no substantial backing. Interpretations are inherently subjective and there are many that contradict each other. Freud in this text continuously makes claims of understanding dreams and their function. In reality,  we don’t understand dreams entirely, still. I definitely see the importance in learning about Freud’s theories such as, id vs ego. Many of his theories are famously known and for good reason. Dream thoughts fall under id while ideas of repression and encoding fall under the ego. These theories are very important because psychologist have used Freud’s theories as a foundation to build more developed, complex, and accurate theories. Freud discussed condensation which is the idea that people can’t handle the whole truth so the brain enacts censorship. Freud suggests condensation is one of the reasons why dreams aren’t fully remembered or make sense. I definitely see how the idea of censorship to avoid the truth plays out in life. There is sayings like, you can’t handle the truth for a reason. There are avoidant behaviors that are exhibited in human nature all the time. People avoid arguments and conflict, or avoid acknowledging times when they are wrong. I think Freud is very interesting to learn about because his studies were very revolutionary and shocking for the time, and has provided as stepping stones in psychology.

In “Formation of the Intellectuals”, Antonio Gramsci asks the question: are intellectuals there are own group, or are they a part of every social group? In order to understand intellectuals’ role it is important to define hegemony as: social control through social and economic systems. Intellectuals help uphold hegemony and civil society. I found it very interesting learning about intellectuals being broken down even further into traditional and organic. Lawyers, educators, and doctors fall into traditional because they follow a structure put in place by society for their profession like the BAR. While artists and musicians fit into the organic category because they are their own boss essentially and don’t adhere to a higher up company or business.  Learning about this perspective on artists felt really inspiring. I think it’s almost ideal for many people to be their own boss and create something that is entirely their own. In many ways the organic path seems more based in passion rather than about making money or climbing the corporate ladder. To have that kind of career seems really liberating but of course taxing in its own ways. I think the fact that they’re not exactly contributing to society in the traditional way of like how a doctor would leads the organic professions to be less respected. Also with the idea that they don’t have a boss, have a seemingly less structured and rigid life leads people to perceive their profession to not be hard and in turn less respected. Therefore, I really like Gramsci’s idea that everyone is an intellectual but not everyone fulfills the function of an intellectual while feeding into hegemony. I really respect the artists and musicians because they’ve forged their own path. And I think a lot of people almost envy their lives but don’t follow that path because there is a high risk of failure while also it’s hard to break out of the social/economic system discussed. That’s also why a self made entrepreneur or millionaire is so respected because they almost seemingly defied all odds. There is an aspect of Gramsci’s argument that a disagreed with. Gramsci claims education systems are important because their social function is to include many intellectuals for a complex society. I think it’s ideal for schools to be inclusive of many intellectuals but they often end up being narrowminded in their approach and attitudes. Schools often starting in high school and earlier are constantly trying to push STEM fields onto students while losing the sense of importance and respect for the literature and arts. I have personally felt this emphasis throughout my educational years. It feels like society is pushing for a certain kind of intellectuals—those who are STEM focused. Society is pushing this through they education system but also through a general consensus of what is a respectable profession. So I wish Gramsci’s vision of the education system’s purpose was upheld but often I feel like it isn’t.

In “Melville’s Fist: The Execution of Billy Budd, Barbara Johnson offers a simple plot that covers innocent vs guilty, and good vs bad. Billy Budd is wrongfully accused of mutiny by Claggart, whom he ends up killing. The tale ends with Billy being hung. One aspect I’d like to focus on is the contradicting characteristics of the characters. The characters seem pretty straight forward in how they can be perceived by the readers—at least in the beginning. But Billy Budd who seems innocent, kills. Claggart who is evil, dies a victim. Vere, who is depicted as responsible and reasonable, convicts a man who he believes to be innocent. These actions contradict the way the characters have been depicted by Barbara, which adds a layer of moral dilemma for us, as the reader while giving us the opportunity to be the judge of right and wrong.  I believe ones’ actions are what one should be judged for rather than their claimed morals and character. Actions over words. Therefore, I believe all the characters are at fault in some way or another. This view point is discussed directly in the text when said, “the relation between human ‘being’ and human ‘doing’” (2261) are at opposition. I believe it’s also  important to look at the accumulation of actions vs one out of character action too. So Claggart is still conniving in nature but he does die in the role of a victim. But dying a victim does not absolve him of the label of evil he gets since up until the majority of his actions have been bad. Billy’s stutter is an important element to the story as it highlights how each of the characters are flawed. A lot of interpretations could be made on Billy’s stutter, such as, a stutter hinders the ability for one to communicate themselves accurately and clearly. In turn, Billy’s stutter aligns with the fact that his character is misunderstood and misjudged when he is wrongfully accused for a crime he didn’t commit. And how his good nature can be disregarded for a crime he didn’t commit. Also it’s important to note how Billy’s stutter is not something he can control. In the same way, Billy involuntarily gets involved in a crime when accused and then delivers a blow. Billy’s fate seems out of his hands just as his stutter was a faulty trait that he could be misjudged for. But more so, I think the biggest takeaway from Billy’s stutter is the importance of how we are perceived and that each of the characters reveal a major flaw that can be seen as their moral downfall.

Upon starting “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”, I was a bit skeptical of Nietzche’s take on people. He starts off by discussing how we’re insignificant based on how short of a time we’ve existed in the universe (764). He continued on almost a tangent, a rant, or almost just hating on humans, which felt a bit much. He called the creation of our existence the “most mendacious minute in the ‘history of the world’” (764). His view on people seemed quite harsh and pessimistic. He continued to say how people thought so highly of themselves: “The arrogance inherent in cognition…contains within itself the most flattering evaluation of cognition” (765).  After learning the context and time period Nietzche writes this, I can now understand where he is coming from—during a time of a lot of innovations. But when I first read this I strongly disagreed. I think people nowadays are constantly acknowledging what we don’t know and that a lot of things need to change. To change it takes an awareness from people that we are very flawed and don’t understand/know everything and as a result are ever evolving. In present day I find that people are questioning a lot of the traditional methods and ways of thinking. Many people, especially younger generation are challenging big companies, the expected 9-5 jobs, and addressing issues of climate change/ social justice/ racial issues…etc. There’s a lot of turmoil and change in the air. The fact that innovation, self awareness, and self growth is very prevalent right now–challenges Nietzche’s idea that we are arrogant. I think he owes people more credit. We’re definitely flawed and of course have times of arrogance, but if one really considers the human thinking it is very fascinating and impressive, which Nietzche is able to admit. Nietzche says that people create “infinitely complicated cathedral of concepts on moving foundations, or even, one might say, on flowing water” (769). I really liked how Nietzche phrased how people create concepts and ultimately attempt to find/create their truth. I also agree with the idea that to come to a consensus of truth and thinking is very difficult and almost can feel impossible like building on moving water. Moving water also implies that truth and concepts are in constant change because the definition of truth and our language is on a shaky foundation. Because we created our own definition of truth it can easily come toppling down if we decide it’s wrong or simply if we have a change of heart.

The Linguistics and Poetics definitely felt dense and confusing in the beginning. But it felt a lot more accessible and graspable when the parts of poetics and language were broken down and discussed in clear factors and their relationship to each other. Jakobson started off with the question, what makes a verbal message a work of art (1145). I felt that this was not really the main focus of argument. It didn’t seem like the idea of art and what makes art, art was discussed. The reading felt more like a discussion of how poetic function goes beyond poetry (1150) and encompasses verbal communication. Solely identifying poetic function to poetry is a very narrow minded way of seeing things. Then he further delves into the parts of language that are important to consider in our understanding of linguistics and poetics. I liked how he started off by listing and unpacking the arguments against the claim that a verbal message is a work of art. This is very gutsy approach because he isn’t shying away from opposition but rather addressing it head on. Addressing the counter argument makes for a stronger case on his end because it leaves little room for casting doubt on his argument so I’d admire the approach he takes in the paper. He acknowledges that many people approach poetry as having a purposeful structure while other forms of language are more casual (1445). I have to admit this was my own take on poetry compared to other forms of writing. Jakobson breaks down the major functions of language being: focused on the speaker, focused on the reader, the method/channel of communication, explanation of code—message behind the language, context, and contact: the way in which speaker and reader connect (1147). He also breaks down the traditional models of language: emotive—speakers attitude towards what he’s speaking about, referential, conative—which I understood to be the grammar and orientation towards the reader (1150-1151). I found it real interesting when Jakobson talked about meta language. He defined it as simply speaking about language (1150). I realized how metalanguage doesn’t always have to be something so complex and full of analysis of language and communication. Rather metalanguage can be as simple as asking what did you mean. Or as simple as a baby trying to learn the language (1150). It was funny considering how meta it was that Jakobson was discussing about metalanguage. And just taking a step back and realizing how reading/discussing/analyzing metalanguage feels like going down a rabbit hole.