Eagleton

Since I was not part of the literary theory discussion on Thursday, I guess I can use this opportunity to say what I think. The most interesting idea from the passage on post-structuralism was the way a signified can only be described by what it is not. A “boat” is boat because it is not everything else, and because of this, you can never have the full meaning of a boat. This ides goes past objects, and into humans. Page 112 “I still need to use signs when I look into my mind or search my soul, and this means that I will never experience any ‘full communion’ with myself”. This quote is a very interesting idea to consider. The fact that the glass we use to see the world is flawed, and that same glass we use to see the world is what we use to see ourselves is something one does not really think about. Even though this is something to consider, I do feel that that does not change history. If for some reason we were seeing ourselves through a different medium than we see the world, then that would be a problem, but the fact that there is consistency makes the problem negligible. This problem goes back to the idea that as humans we see only 2 sides of a coin, and there are many more out there we cannot see, and do not even know exist. For example, we humans do not have the best eyes in the world at least compared to octopuses, so there are things right in front of us, details we cannot see or perceive, but should that necessarily mean our quality of life is diminished? Our quality of life might not change, but maybe if we can understand ourselves more, and the people around us, the world would be a more peaceful place.