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.