Can't we all be critics?

I was posting a comment on another blog and my ending sentence was: Can't we all be critics with valid points? And that got me thinking.
I argued that critics, in a way, take away the opinion of the readers, because they tell you what to think and what to pull out of a text. There is no room for interpretation and the reader is stuck "learning" only within the abilities of the teacher or critic. What if we gave everybody a clean slate with no critic and let people think what they want about a certain text? If a 100 people read it then we would have 100 different veiw points. And that is beauty. With the various opinions couldn't we exaust most, if not all, the possible meanings of a text? Of course we could. Take for example a high school classroom where a teacher presents a novel and then explains what the author meant, the point, and the significance of each chapter. No group discussions, no room to argue, just taking notes and memorising of the information. Or, we could enter a graduate class where everyone is given a topic and are free to express whatever they got out of it, turning it into a discussion or debate among classmates. There is so much more to learn and accomplish in this setting. This point, is what post-structuralists were trying to make. Barry talks about Roland Barthes' essay The Death of the Author: "...the essay makes a declaration of radical textual independence: the work is not determined by intention, or context. Rather, the text is free by its very nature of all such restraints. Hence, as Barthes says in the essay, the corollary of the death of the author is the birth of the reader" (pg 63-64). Clearly the "professional" critic is the reader, which leads me back to my ending and then beginning question: Can't we all be critics?

The Debate Over Free Will

I find Luther and Erasmus' view points over free will to be insightful. Luther states free will is, "an empty name... a fiction and a label without reality" (Conley 122). As Americans we will fight and die for the freedom to do what we want. But, do we really have complete free will? One could argue that we are able to express ourselves freely and essentially do whatever we want to do, and the restrictions are nessasary in order to prevent chaos. However, the correct answer is no. In certain circumstanses our first amendment is taken away from us. We have laws to abide by. This is Luther's point. No one can fully, completely and entirely be completely free to do whatever they want. In a working society it is not plausible. The best the government can do is give people the essentials, and try to maintain order.

Erasmus, though correct in his analysis, takes a way out of the argument by seeing both sides. He states, "It is not that man's will really is free, but that the only way to arrive at a tenable position is by subjecting it to the skeptical methods of controversia" (123). What? I don't even know what this means. But I'm pretty sure he is taking a semi-middle stance, leaning more toward there being free will. He criticises Luther for being extreme, but all he is doing is choosing a side. He says there is no free will. Luther is not saying: well, there is free will but not always. Anyone can argue that.

History Repeats Itself... maybe

The thing I found interesting about this reading as well as the last reading is how their ways are similar to our own. Yes, there are clear differences but it is clear that some culture has maintained from these previous time periods.

For example the lessons required for rhetoric students in the Roman era are the same lessons I went throught for my undergraduate classes. There is a lot of emphasis put on the way teachers were suppose to teacher rhetoric and different styles and Diodorus argues that speech (logos) is what made people superior to others (Conley 31-32). I can't help but to think that I would be considered inferior for my lack of practice as an orator.

This made me wonder why throughout my education why I only had one communication class. Are we expected now to learn speech as a lesser form of writing? And why does it play such an insignificant role in schools? Now, after my undergraduate education I am looking at the the other side of the education process: how teachers are being taught to teach students and where rhetoric is suppose to take place. Cicero argued that students should be taught rhetoric instead of relying on natural talent. Now it seems that we are more reliant on our own speech skills to lead us through life.