Lacan brings to us a really interesting conversation with his essay “The Mirror Stage”. Lacan explores the development of the human psyche and its relation to the external world. This stage is important as it marks the point at which the child first becomes aware of itself as an independent entity separate from the world around it.

Lacan argues that the mirror stage occurs around the age of six months when the child first recognizes its own reflection in a mirror. When a youngster recognizes its own picture, they feel joy and satisfaction, and this experience serves as the catalyst for the development of the ego, or concept of self. Lacan points out that the picture the kid sees in the mirror is not a true reflection of their physical selves, but rather a gestalt, a more complete view than the child’s own fragmented perception of themselves. In this context, the mirror stage indicates a point of mistaken identity or the development of an imagined bond between the infant and its reflection. I find it really interesting that we can get past that idea as we’re so used to our reflection at an older age, but as a younger human with no answers, that’s what we perceive.

One of the most interesting aspects of Lacan’s theory is his account of the “scission” or split that occurs in the mirror stage. Lacan believes that the separation between the “I” and the “me,” between the subject who sees and the observed picture, results from the child’s experience of its own reflection. As the subject realizes that its image is not truly this but rather an outside object, this split makes the subject feel alienated.

Overall, Lacan’s idea of the mirror stage provides an argumentative explanation of how the human psyche grows and how the ego is formed. His focus on the significance of early childhood events in forming our sense of self is generally acknowledged and continues to have an influence on modern psychology.

Freud is a very popular name in psychology and as students, we remember his work very well over the years. In The Interpretation of Dreams, he builds arguments on his theory of dreams and how significant they are. According to Freud, dreams are “the royal road to the unconscious” and they provide insight into our wishes, fears, etc.

Freud believed dreams were a manifestation of an unconscious mind and they reveal hidden conflicts and emotions that we hold. In a way, it creates a simple connection between the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. In this process, the thoughts and desires turn into some sort of symbolic images and events that our mind creates as a visual and supposedly, these things disguise the true meaning of a dream.
One of the main concepts is the topic of manifest and latent content as a central idea for dreams. Manifest content consists of actual content in a dream and the rest is meant to be symbolic or with a deeper meaning. Manifest content may be used to hide the symbolic meanings laid out throughout the dream. I have looked up the meaning of many types of common dreams that people have and I’ve personally experienced a lot of them. Some of these may be teeth falling, suddenly dropping on the ground, seeing blood, encountering snakes, etc. They all relate to negative emotions like stressful moments, enemies, betrayal, anxiety, and usually when the mind is calm and not worried, they don’t seem to occur as often. Sometimes it can be a really messy dream with no visible message or sense, which may also be interpreted as some sort of reason as to why our mind would make that up.
A lot of people or critics may argue on the validation of these theories, whether the concept of latent content is subjective and open to interpretation, but they still have an influence over our psychology. Freud’s theory of dreams as a manifestation of the unconscious mind, and his ideas about the dream-work and the latent and manifest content, have helped to shape our understanding of the complex inner workings of the human mind.  While we still don’t have a true answer to the questions surrounding dreams, they still continue to be studied and discussed.

In his Prison Notebooks, Gramsci distinguishes between two types of intellectuals: the “organic” and the “traditional.” The traditional intellectual is someone who is trained in the humanities and social sciences and produces abstract knowledge. They are often associated with the academic establishment and are removed from the everyday struggles of working-class people. They tend to see themselves as objective observers of society, instead of as dynamic members in social and political battles. The organic intellectual, on the other hand, is someone who is rooted in the working-class community and who develops a theoretical understanding of the world through their experiences and struggles. They see themselves as dynamic members within the battle for social equity. They are often associated with social movements and popular education.

For Gramsci, the social function of the traditional intellectual is to maintain the status quo and reproduce dominant cultural and political values. The organic intellectual works on the interests of the working-class community and they develop an understanding of the struggles. An example of traditional intellectuals in our own time might include university professors who produce abstract knowledge for the sake of professional advancement. Organic intellectuals can include community organizers, educators, etc. Education and educational institutions are crucial to modern society, according to Gramsci, because they play a key role in the reproduction of cultural and political hegemony. He argues that working-class people must develop their own educational institutions and methods. Something I agree with Gramsci is when he talks about education not being just a matter of transmitting knowledge and skills, but is also a site of struggle over ideas and values.

In conclusion, Gramsci’s distinction between organic and traditional intellectuals highlights the importance of developing a critical understanding of social and political struggles and using that knowledge to mobilize and organize working-class communities. He focuses on education and institutions relating to the importance of developing alternative forms of providing knowledge.

Reading “The German Ideology” by Marx and Engels takes you on a different perspective of the idea of ideology. It lays out many foundational ideas of their theory of historical materialism. Marx and Engels used the term ideology to refer to the system of beliefs and ideas that are used to justify and maintain the existing social, economic, and political order. They argued that ideology is not a neutral or objective reflection of reality, but rather a distorted view of reality that serves the interests of the ruling class.

Marx compares ideology to a camera obscura, an early device used to project images onto a screen. He argued that just as a camera obscura distorts the images it projects, ideology distorts our understanding of reality. According to Marx, ideology presents a distorted view of social reality that hides the true nature of power relations and class conflict. Marx and Engels also argued that ideology is shaped by the material conditions of society and is used by the ruling class to maintain their power and privilege. They noted that different social groups have different perspectives on the world, depending on their position within the social hierarchy. The ruling class, for example, sees the world from the perspective of their own interests, while the working class sees the world from the perspective of their own exploitation.

Once we understand how ideology works, we can critique cultural products and practices for their underlying ideological assumptions and values. Our job as critics of culture is to analyze and question the dominant cultural narratives that shape our understanding of the world. We must examine how cultural products and practices. We must be willing to listen to and engage with diverse voices and perspectives, recognizing that different social groups may have different experiences of and responses to cultural products. By exposing the way ideology works in cultural production, we can challenge and help change the power relations in our society.

The German Ideology lays out many of the foundational ideas of Marxist theory, including the concept of ideology, the importance of material conditions in shaping ideology and social relations, and the centrality of class conflict in historical development. These ideas continue to influence social and political thought to this day, and remain an important contribution to the study of ideology and power.

As we are reading more about Friedrich Nietzsche and his critiques, writing and ideas about the concept of “truth”, I am learning more about how to view many aspects of history in a different perspective. Like in many languages, writing is also influenced by traditional morality and religion and history has affected that a lot.

There is a part where Nietzsche mentions truth is subjective and is also influenced by our experiences, cultural backgrounds and our own point of view. Understanding this truth is not always the best possible option when it comes to individual opinions. Therefore, just because we claim something to be the truth, doesn’t mean it necessarily is, because it may have been shaped in some way by our personal experiences or purpose to hide certain actions. I find this to probably be a smart approach to many arguments that are thrown around on important topics such as politics, historical events, crime, certain behaviors. That is because I believe everyone has the right to double check how valid this information is and whether it’s good enough to allow a bigger group of people to believe a single person.

Nietzsche described perspectivism as an idea without an objective truth, but with multiple interpretations on the world. He believed that this diversity of thoughts and perspectives was to be embraced and appreciated for what it was. New ideas and ways of understanding our world are some good aspects of people being open enough to accept this kind of diversity. I noticed reason and logic being two of the things that could possibly limit these perspectives, however, he tells us that we shouldn’t be limited to those when trying to understand the environment around us or people speaking about a certain experience. Our own feelings, the unexpected standards of beauty and more things about our world can be a good source to get started when looking for the truth. There are a lot of things that us as humans can’t give an answer to. I feel like this can be one of the reasons why not everything deserves to have a truth to them, but yet to remain a mystery among us, so that we can explore the possibilities of something being true through our expression of emotions and good or bad experiences throughout life.

In conclusion, writing about the truth is a big challenge to the traditional idea of truth and gives us an opportunity to look at the world in a new perspective. Nietzsche believed that embracing the multiple perspectives of seeing something, a piece of information, a part of our life, etc. is essential to us if we want to get closer to accessing that truth.

We recently learned about Saussure’s explanation of linguistics, the value of words and signification too. He is considered to have played a very important role in linguistics as a field. His theories are well thought and organized to be able to notice that kind of impact on the language studying.

One of these explanations is the way we perceive words, how we understand them, and theorizing over the reasons why different languages have separate sounds and words about the same things. There really isn’t a known truth or fact behind them, but the fact that the meanings are socially agreed upon. In the book we read about the signifier, which is the physical aspect of the sign and the signified, which is the meaning that is related to the signifier. There is no natural connection between the sound of a word and its meaning. An example of that is how there is no reason why a word like “owl” should refer to a creature with feathers.

One of the other points he makes that I find very interesting is the idea of not looking at words as just labels to put on certain things. Instead, Saussure describes them as vehicles for thought, in the sense that they can shape our perception of these objects in different ways. The concept of time can be taken as an example. Time is seen as a progress from the past to the present, and then to the future. We use words such as “yesterday”, “today” and “tomorrow” to define them. I do believe there can be a lot more psychological connections to these “tools” of communication.

Saussure’s conclusions are good enough to influence the reader’s  perspective and impact the way we think about language. The importance of understanding language as a system is brought up multiple times, because it gives more meaning to the perception of words as part of a bigger group, rather than a single thing that has no relation to other parts of the language. This way our thought process is also driven to connect the dots on how there’s a lot of things that affect the language.