Samantha Shepherd
English 103
Cerritos College
Post #3
After getting a stern talking to from Mr. H, instead of going home and knocking out on my day off because I've been running on a few hours sleep from earlier this week, I dragged myself to the computer lab to get the first half of my homework out of the way. I looked over all the poems, and I believe the one that stuck out to me the most (in other words, the easiest one to write about because I am running on no sleep here) was The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost. In the poem he talks about how the protagonist was wandering around in the woods and that he came to a fork in the road. There was a divergence of two different roads and they both looked beautiful to him, but one seemed to be traveled on more. He decided then to go down the road "less traveled" because he felt that it had the "better claim" (in other words looked more appealing). He walks down the road and he says that all the difference was in taking the road less traveled by people.
I believe that this poem can be applied to the many things that we were discussing today regarding Homonyms. We talked about how there are many classifications that we, as human beings, place ourselves and other people in, but how in reality, we would find it much better if we didn't have any classifications, if we didn't label which would be the road less traveled. How much better would our lives be, how free could we be if we didn't label ourselves. Labeling, stereotypes, classifications and any other synonym that you can come up with just provides us with yes, organization, but limitations as well. I'd rather be chaotic in mind and be free to be any kind of person that I want to be, without being judged by society because of the certain specific classifications that I am placed in. Yes, I know that that sounds hypocritical because the other day I mentioned that I label myself as a good (for the most part), Catholic girl, but those are just limitations that I put on myself because I believe that they can make me a better person. The limitations that I am speaking of that relate to this poem are those that are of race, intelligence, school, friends, personality traits such as being nice, bitchy, stupid, etc. and even where one lives.
I think that if we find ourselves in a position where we can choose not to be judgmental and if we could take the road less traveled, it really would "make all the difference."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Shoes & Umbrellas
Samantha Shepherd
English 103
Cerritos College
Post #2
After reading Homonyms, by Giorgio Agamben, I felt there was a correlatio between what he wrote and The Allegory of the Cave. I felt that like The...Cave, Homonyms was talking about how there are varying realities for one idea or object. As I discussed in my last post, I mentioned the differences in realities that one may have through their experiences whether they are raised in a suburban city or a violent one. I feel that Agamben took this idea of varied realities and applied it to a specific word. For example, Agamben explains that the word red can be more than just its definition: a color. It can also signify blood, Christmas or even an emotion like anger. One of the things that struck me as being the most similar idea between the two pieces of literature was that I wrote down in my notes (pertaining to the seventh paragraph of Homonyms) was that you can't distinguish an object because of its place in "reality". Someone in class demonstrated this concept to me by mentioning how the word "shoe" will always consist of the same letters s-h-o-e, but the meaning can change. Just how word meanings develop and change over time, the same can be applied to the simple noun "shoe". Now how does this relate to The Cave? Well, the many prisoners were not able to distinguish objects that passed by them because of their place in their reality-their chains and imprisonment. They were only confined to seeing the shadows of objects. You can take an object like an umbrella and it will create its own shadow. Now, you can also get construction paper and cut it out to look like an umbrella and placing it in the light it can create the same shadow shape. No matter what the object truly is, as long as the shadow is the same that is its reality, that is its truth. That shape of the shadow of an umbrella will always be the same, but how you got to that shape can always be changed as well.
English 103
Cerritos College
Post #2
After reading Homonyms, by Giorgio Agamben, I felt there was a correlatio between what he wrote and The Allegory of the Cave. I felt that like The...Cave, Homonyms was talking about how there are varying realities for one idea or object. As I discussed in my last post, I mentioned the differences in realities that one may have through their experiences whether they are raised in a suburban city or a violent one. I feel that Agamben took this idea of varied realities and applied it to a specific word. For example, Agamben explains that the word red can be more than just its definition: a color. It can also signify blood, Christmas or even an emotion like anger. One of the things that struck me as being the most similar idea between the two pieces of literature was that I wrote down in my notes (pertaining to the seventh paragraph of Homonyms) was that you can't distinguish an object because of its place in "reality". Someone in class demonstrated this concept to me by mentioning how the word "shoe" will always consist of the same letters s-h-o-e, but the meaning can change. Just how word meanings develop and change over time, the same can be applied to the simple noun "shoe". Now how does this relate to The Cave? Well, the many prisoners were not able to distinguish objects that passed by them because of their place in their reality-their chains and imprisonment. They were only confined to seeing the shadows of objects. You can take an object like an umbrella and it will create its own shadow. Now, you can also get construction paper and cut it out to look like an umbrella and placing it in the light it can create the same shadow shape. No matter what the object truly is, as long as the shadow is the same that is its reality, that is its truth. That shape of the shadow of an umbrella will always be the same, but how you got to that shape can always be changed as well.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Post #1
Samantha Shepherd
English 103
Cerritos College Post 1
Upon reading The Allegory of the Cave, written by Plato, I discovered that Plato was trying to emphasize that one's truth may not be another's. He describes the upbringing of prisoners that are only allowed to see shadows of objects, but not the objects themselves. This being the only thing that they are being subject to, their reality becomes something that those who aren't prisoners take no notice of. He then explains that if we were to take each one out of their element then they would not prosper as well as if they were to stay where they were accostomed to. This can be applied in the everyday world with the differences of circumstances with people that live in the ghetto and those of ordinary, middle-class. The reality of those that live in very violent cities is that they have to be very wary of their surroundings so that they have a better chance of survival from gangs, etc even if they are taking a stroll in the park. Anyone else that lives in a less violent city do not have to always be on alert when they take the same kind of walk through the park because their reality is that they live in a safe zone where no harm can be done. If you were to take a gangster and place them in a more violent city, they would "be ridiculous", as Plato puts it, walking through the park looking over their shoulder ever minute because that is what they know to be the truth of survival.
English 103
Cerritos College Post 1
Upon reading The Allegory of the Cave, written by Plato, I discovered that Plato was trying to emphasize that one's truth may not be another's. He describes the upbringing of prisoners that are only allowed to see shadows of objects, but not the objects themselves. This being the only thing that they are being subject to, their reality becomes something that those who aren't prisoners take no notice of. He then explains that if we were to take each one out of their element then they would not prosper as well as if they were to stay where they were accostomed to. This can be applied in the everyday world with the differences of circumstances with people that live in the ghetto and those of ordinary, middle-class. The reality of those that live in very violent cities is that they have to be very wary of their surroundings so that they have a better chance of survival from gangs, etc even if they are taking a stroll in the park. Anyone else that lives in a less violent city do not have to always be on alert when they take the same kind of walk through the park because their reality is that they live in a safe zone where no harm can be done. If you were to take a gangster and place them in a more violent city, they would "be ridiculous", as Plato puts it, walking through the park looking over their shoulder ever minute because that is what they know to be the truth of survival.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
