Barthes - The Death of the Author

In his text, “The Death of the Author”, Roland Barthes describes an author’s work as an extension of his/herself. Barthes then continues to personify the work of a writer. He explains the an author lives through there work and that they are born with the text inside of them. This text is conceived when the writer is conceived. He goes on to say “he pre-exists it, thinks, suffers, lives for it; he maintains with his work the same relation of antecedence a father maintains with his child.” This refers to his thoughts about a writer and his/her work. These claims he makes or very strong and he does not provide a whole lot of proof. 

I do not agree with Barthes because he makes it seem like a writer’s work is of a divine nature. He stretches the simplicity of words on a page into this mysterious and philosophical meaning which quite frankly is not there. I do not believe in anything that does not make sense and/or does not have proof behind it. Barthes makes wild accusations about the true symbolic mean behind something that is in my mind really simple. I admit that a part of a writer lives through his work in the sense that the reader maybe able to understand a writers state of mind and psych. However, I do not see this expanded explanation of the relationship between the two as being correct.

Overall I enjoyed reading this text because it allowed me to try to understand another viewpoint, particularly one that is so far from my own. Roland Barthes is a good writer with some great ideas. He did not seem to talk down to the reader as much as some of the other writers we have studied. I liked this worked may continue to read more of his texts, though in this case I cannot say I agree with him, it was still not a bad read.

Hofstadter- On the Unpopularity of Intellect

Hofstadter was an extremely interesting man and had a great mind.  He was very philosophical in his writings, particularly on his work “On the Unpopularity of Intellect”.  Hofstadter is a man who knows he is smarter than you but at the same time puts the effort into explaining his view point in easy to understand and well thought out way.  His ability to analyze his topic on a higher level and then explain it in a language that most anyone one can understand is impressive.

I agree with Hofstadter’s idea that intelligence and intellect are two totally different beast.  Intelligence is knowledge based and is a capacity of one’s ability to learn information. Intellect, on the other hand, is the ability for one understand and interpret that information as well as to apply what they know to a situation. Intellect is the ability to discern information and ultimately be able to explain the topic/information to someone else.  A person does not truly understand something unless they are able to explain it.  This is the most complex mechanic of the human mind. It is the fundamental thing that separates humans from the rest of the animals in the world. Our ability to understand things is like no other. Almost every animal can learn information, however few, if any, can understand and apply a concept to a situation.

Along with the ability to understand and interpret information, Hofstadter also explains that the life of an intellectual is not logic, but experience.  This idea could not be truer, although, I do not feel it is the defining fact of an intellectual.  I cannot say it is unimportant, but it is not the most important thing when it comes to defining an intellectual.  Experience in my mind makes the intellectual more effective.  If they have knowledge from experience it makes things easier but it is not entirely necessary. All in all, I feel this was a great piece to read and examine further.

Bruner Blog Post

It seemed from my prospective that this text “The Proper Study of Man” by Bruner was a complex document. It used overly complicated wording to convey its ideas. This is fine, however, it greatly restricts its own audience by doing so to a professional or academic one. I'm also a man of math and science and sometimes I find it hard to follow things that are of the psychological and philosophical variety. These are more often than not theoretical or hypothetical in nature. When dealing with topics that are hypothetical or theory based, the lines between yes or no and true or false become blurred and sometimes hard or impossible to define. Its not that these types of topics are too hard to understand but, more so that they are much more open to interpretation. Any topic is easier to understand in my opinion when dealing mostly or strictly with facts because there is a right and wrong answer in most cases.

 Bruner’s book seemed to have focused mostly on how psychologist, anthropologist, behaviorist, mentalist, etc. reacted to the main topic and the way they were trying to refine terms and ideas. The main topic seemed to be open to interpretation rather than restricted to facts. The way cognition works in the human mind and cognition verses computation is described almost an opinion. However, from what I can tell, it basically boils down to the difference between knowing something and understanding it. It was obvious that there were a few agreed upon ideas about cognition vs. computation but, not one clear central idea which the majority agreed with. 

Top Three Topics and Summary of an Article

Top Three Topics

-Food:
I'm interested in food as topic because who doesn't love food. Since I was little I have been helping my family cook meals. Whether it be dinner during the week or a feast for a holiday party. I love food and I'm a pretty good cook.

-Robotics, Computing, Artificial Intelligence:
I'm personally a huge gamer. I play most of the big titles in the industry. A large part of any game is an A.I. interface. It would be cool to research what goes on behind the scenes of the A.I. development. Sci-fi robots are also really cool and a joining of the two topics would be very interesting.

-End of The World:
Obviously the world is not ending any time soon that we know of (accidents/disasters may occur). It would be interesting to look into what would actually cause the world to end (sun burning out, etc) as well as investigate the "prophecies" that never came true.




GMO products are becoming more and more integrated into agriculture. There has been a steady adoption in the past few decades of GM in countries all around the world. A main argument is that GM products need less insecticides when, in fact, they need thirteen times more to resist the new pest that they have created. There are many hidden cons to using GM products. For the companies making these GM seeds, they do not care about the problems only that it makes them money.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126862629333762259

Wittgenstein "Philosophical Investigation"

After reading Wittgenstein’s “Philosophical Investigation”, I was left confused. Wittgenstein has a writing style that is all his own to say the least. It is partially cryptic and laid out in a moderately hard to understand format. At first it made sense and seemed to have a point but soon turn into a almost unreadable mess of examples and definitions. I was never much into philosophy and I cannot say that this text has helped that. This text left me with way more questions than answers and I found myself trying to decipher what I had read hours after completing it. It made me think and it showed me a different view point entirely while confusing the hell out of me.

Its is extremely difficult to write even a short essay (a paragraph or two) about something that you didn't understand. The little bit I did understand talked about relationships between words and objects. To me it seemed that Wittgenstein was trying to communicate that it isn't just a relationship between a word and object but also how it maybe used. “Meaning” is not defined as a connection between objects but more so how the word is used. There are no boxed out, rigid definitions of words. Everything is relative to one another and a language is dependent on itself not objects. 

Wittgenstein used an example about tools to help drive his viewpoint home. He states “all tools serve to modify something.” I agree that tools modify things however “tools” can not all be grouped together. Wittgenstein state no definition is not cut and dry. It can't be, tools can be generalized together but there are no defined commonalities. “Tools” is too broad of a term and although it can be used to vaguely describe something it has no definitive characteristics.

Overall it was a relatively good read but it was too cryptic and difficult to understand to be something I would take a second look at.

Balinese Cockfights

The Balinese culture is really quite amazing. It is surprising to me how complex and intertwined a less modern culture such as itself can be. I was completely uniformed and ignorant to the Balinese culture. I did not realize the scale of Cockfighting and how it was such an integral part of their society and daily lives. After reading Geertz’s paper I am better informed not only of other cultures but also of the fact that studies about modern topics (Discourse Communities) can be applied to older cultures just as easily.

Balinese Cockfights through the experiences of Geertz, encompass the essence of a discourse community. It not only meets the requirements of a discourse community but rather illustrates a complete comprehensive example of one. The Balinese culture shows that over many generations they have formed a language, system, and attitude all their own. They have rules and regulations that although not centralized to any one source, are understood by all participants. These cannot just be read and memorized form a sheet of paper or a website. They are ingrained in the culture and lifestyle of these people. They are also completely respectful of one another and those who are in charge of the fights. No one is questioned or argued with and only under extreme circumstances is anyone accused of cheating. This is very unlike any modern culture.

It is expressed by Geertz that he and his wife were not initially accepted by the Balinese people. Only after they had fled like everyone else form the police at the illegal Cockfights were they accepted into the community. This illustrates the cultures attitude toward outsiders. The Geertz couple were not illy treated but rather entirely ignored. As far as the Balinese were concerned the Geertz couple did not exist. They began to believe it themselves, that is, until the police raid. Once accepted they were met by extreme generosity and kindness. The Balinese are very hospitable people however, to a new comer, it may not seem so.

The Balinese culture is not just a minor example of a discourse community, they are the meaning and definition of a discourse community.