Words

So I should totally be getting ready for bed right now or already asleep, but my brain is going "pssh, sleep? you want to sleep? what. ever." Stupid brain.

Spent who knows how long (hour? hour and a half?) at work reading Foucault. Maybe understood, um, 1/32 of what I read. What is with philosophers and words, huh? Although, all in all I like, no, I love philosophers and their words. They have word respect. They are precise in their word choice and make every word count. Basically it can be shown in the professors's reactions to unknown words. Today in Philosophy, Dr. Berry gave us a mini-lecture about looking up words we don't know because words are important. Heard (again) how much she hates whoever started telling people to figure out the word in context. (IMPOSSIBLE to do in Philosophy. OMG. Words.) A couple of weeks ago in English, we ran across a word in class and Dr. Smith said "Look at it in context." Which, okay, you should do if you don't have a dictionary. Do your best to muddle through and figure it out. But when you have the time and inclination, you should also look it up. By looking at the word in context and not inquiring into its actual meaning and purpose in the sentence, Dr. Berry thinks we are learning to be "comfortable with our own mediocrity."

I have a tiny notebook that is partially filled with words listed by book with the page number they were found on and their definitions. Because I hate not knowing what a word means and I can never remember when I do look it up. Sometimes I get a little obsessive-compulsive though and start marking all sorts of words for defining at my earliest convenience. This gets me into trouble because than there are too many words and I don't have time to look them up/I'm lazy.

I told some of this to Mom and we got to talking about why English teachers would tell you to pay attention to context instead of taking the time to find a definition and why philosophers may need you/rely on you to look up that definition. I think that with philosophy, everything is so out there that the language has to be that much more precise to convey an idea. Whereas in English things can be a little more creative and a sentence can be interpreted several different ways. And in some ways, English can be more about sound and rhythm and feeling. I keep going back to T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land," which I still do not really understand. But part of the whackiness of it, at least from what I understood in Intertextuality, was that it wasn't necessarily about the words that Eliot chose, but about the feelings they excited within the reader/listener, that it was about the sound of the words as a whole. This I can understand, because while I was reading it the poem didn't make a great deal of sense to me, but I got the feeling of it because of the language.

So, yeah. That's all I've got to say and I wasn't even planning on saying all of that because it's, like, 1:30 in the morning. In summary? Words. They're neat. I like them. When you don't know what one means you should *look it up*. (I sometimes even keep a dictionary page open on my computer when I'm reading fanfiction. I don't like not knowing!)

I totally want a snazzy little electronic dictionary for Christmas.

And, since I've talked so much about liking words, I'll bring up one I love to use in insults. Because no one can spell it. In high school they'd try looking it up after I'd used it on them and then be all "You made that up! Liar!" and I'd be all ::smug:: "You're spelling it wrong." And to this day, I still get a tiny kick every time I see or hear the word "puerile" used in a sentence.

Bed now.

tee-hee

I'm doing research for my Philosophy final paper, which I think is going to be fun, and I came across this book Erotic Universe: Sexuality and Fantastic Literature by Daniel Palumbo.

Yet the K/S zine reader feels that Kirk and Spock deserve to be loved, but only by their equals. And while there can be no woman to equal them, their own equality is a basic premise. Whereas Kirk, as the captain, has greater authority and does insist on Spock's obedience on occasion, he does not appear to dominate Spock for two important reasons: Spock, as a Vulcan, is physically stronger and is also more knowledgeable and analytical; thus, Kirk must often rely on Spock's attributes in lifethreatening situations and in order to make important decisions. This insistence on equality between lovers is reminiscent of novels by Charlotte Brontië in which equality is imposed by the author on her male and female characters: in Shirley, for instance, the woman is given wealth, and in Jane Eyre the man, Rochester, is blinded and maimed (Palumbo 240).

I'm giggling like a fool over here. Because, *come on*, comparing Kirk and Spock to Jane and Rochester? That's pretty funny. I totally understand it, but it's still hilarious.

Any research that gives you comparisons between Star Trek and Jane Eyre has got to be good, right?

::crosses fingers::

eta:

You know you've been writing too much when you keep writing "attack" instead of "attic."

But my English paper is at five pages! Barely. It was supposed to be a full four. Take *that*! No "Needs to be full four pages" this time. Except that the paper's mostly crap, but whatever. Too late now!

Philosophy proposal done, though. Didn't do the reading for tomorrow, though. Whoops. Or type up questions.