Hacking and Freud

I would first like to say that this book, although long, is quite interesting. I really felt like I was intrigued by it, and the idea of multiple personalities is quite fascinating.  I never would have made the connection between child abuse and MP before, but now that the book has shed some light on it, I can see clearly how those things go together quite well (I mean, it’s not GOOD that they do, but they do).

I wanted to bring up something I found interesting in regards to Freud. Now, I may be the only one, but I felt that Freud and the therapists who deal with MP are a tad similar. The book discusses the fact that the therapists maybe “plant” the idea to their patients that they had been abused, or even just a memory, regardless if they had or not. I find this a bit similar to how Freud puts the idea of sex into his patients minds. It is a little different however, as Freud pushes the idea onto his clients, and the therapists almost talk theirs into the idea. However, is anybody else seeing this connection? Maybe I have just been reading too much Freud.

I want to talk about the fact that the name was changed from Multiple Personality to Dissociative Identity. I though it was was weird that thye changed the name until at lecture, it was said that we weren’t moved by the whole idea of different personalities, but more so something like an “altered state”. Although it is just a name, I feel I get a different picture of what MP’s are when talking about them in a state form. It is quite interesting how the name can make all the difference.

Lastly, I just want to mention the Action Under Despcription. Is what the lecture was saying, that we have one physical action, and the way we describe it is what sort of “labels ” it? For example:

1.the action of throwing a basket ball.

2. throwing a basket ball to hit somebody

3. throwing a basketball to hit a teacher

4. throwing a basketball to hit a teacher so she cannot go to class the next day.

My question is, is the only action “the throwing of the basketball”? and the rest is description or is their multiple actions being shown?



Are we all under Freud masks?

I would actually like to discuss the points brought up in the lecture for my blog post.

I thought the idea of “We are all Freudians now” really stuck out to me. I had never really thought about freud having that much of an effect on my life, because I thought he was absolutely ridiculous. I still think he is, but this lecture actually got me thinking about him (WHICH is weird according to freud because i should only be thinking about aggression, death and sex I guess……hahahah ). The whole idea about talking about something to get it off your mind just came as a natural solution to me and I actually forgot that is was related to freud, or that he was the reason people do that. So I guess I do agree that we are all freudians now. We put on the mask of freud and pretty much do what he said we would do.  What I even further enjoyed was talking about the different types of Freud. I think it made me hate him less hahaha. We may put on a mask of him to go see what he was like and go back to the roots of freud. Or maybe we do that to see how we can use him against himself. I just think it is very interesting to thin of him in many different ways.

Love is all good… right? A note on Northanger Abbey

First of all, I am a huge Jane Austen fan. Even though today in lecture I found out she was not the NICEST person….. I don’t care. Her writing, (as quotes by somebody I do not recall in the lecture today) was not just stylish, but style itself. I fell in love with Pride and Prejudice  when I first read it, and I knew that reading more of Austen’s work, I would equally fall in love. Now, this whole post actually is going to be all about love.

In most happy endings, we see that the girl and the guy get together. Cinderella and Prince Charming, Rapunzel and that guy that saves her (haha), and various other lovely couples all have that fairytale ending. Even in Pride and Prejudice, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy get together, and it is lovely. However, the ending to this novel is a little bittersweet. I have to say that  I am a little confused on seeing this as an exactly “happy” ending. Catherine is “delighted” to marry Henry. He marries her because he love the fact that she is in love with him. My question is; is this considered a happy ending? Or was it just so Austen could end the book on a bit of a better note for Catherine?

The Kingdom of This World

I actually enjoyed reading this weeks book, as it was a novel. Since master and margarita was the only other novel we have read so far, it was nice to take a break from all the philosophy and dry history readings. I mean don’t get me wrong, I have enjoyed all of the readings, i just enjoyed this one.. more :).

Now I kind of feel a little weird enjoying this novel. The fact that it had to do with slavery, and poison, and death and rape all negative things, it was was weird that i kept on being like “you know this book isn’t half bad”. However, I think that maybe I found this book most interesting because it reminded me of all the historical events that happened that I have forgotten about. I mean, of course I was aware of slavery and what not, but reading about it kind of just puts it back into my mind. And it kind of makes me feel bad. I felt the same way when I read The Book Of Negroes.

On another note, the magic realism in the book was interesting. I don’t think that I really understand fully why magic is put into novels and what not (unless it’s like harry potter, then I TOTALLY get it). But I enjoyed the concept of it all, and it added to the book. When I started to read it, I just felt bad within the first couple pages. It was all depressing, and it still is, but it is a part of history and I think the book was definitely a good choice.


First off, I would like to say that I actually really enjoyed this weeks reading. It was far more interesting than Hobbes, but I will respect both of them equally. There was one thing tho that really confused me:


The fact that Rousseau always talked in paradoxes. I found it real hard to understand the concepts he was saying because they would always contradict themselves. I really don’t know what to make of certain things because they would end up not making sense. Although I did enjoy reading the book, i found myself unclear to what he was getting at sometimes. Maybe it is just how he is, but I wonder if anybody else was kind of having troubles with the clarity?

The Master and Margarita

I have to say that I really enjoyed this novel that we read. It was actually pretty nice to finally read something that was not a play, or like, the bible. It was easier to read as well, because the story moved along and was interesting. However, I have to say that the whole devil theme we are going through in Arts One right now is creeping me out a little. Every time he showed and people died, I was like oh crap……..


While reading the novel, I found myself sometimes wondering “Who is Satan hiding in this time?”. After I picked up on the trend that he is always a mysterious foreigner, I began to understand where and who he was.  I also loved how in the text, they would say things like “what the devil are you talking about “, but not being aware, that the actual devil was with them at the time.


One thing brought up in the lecture today was how Margarita sold her soul to the devil. I actually never even thought that anybody did, and so I would love to here more on that topic and see what everybody is saying about it!!



Im sorry Judith, what?

So I will not lie, reading Antigone’s claim was such a tough experience for me. I don’t even know if I really consider it reading, because I was honestly lost the WHOLE TIME. However, the lecture did brighten my horizons, and I have managed to get a grasp a bit of what this is all about. I have to say though, that my blog post will mostly be on the lecture, as I will probably use the rest of this week to re-read Antigone’s claim with a whole new view…. Sorry Christina……. 🙁

So I thought I would talk about the whole idea of what exactly Antigone is claiming. I found that today in the lecture, it was very interesting because when I was reading Antigone, I thought she 100% stood for family (kinship) and feminism. However, now Judith has kinda said that she doesn’t stand for any of that at all! It really does confuse me . Although I understand  that Antigone doesn’t exactly fall into the feminine norm like Ismene, I don’t really know if that means she is actually masculine. She is referred to being a “king” in the book, but I don’t really feel that it makes her fall into the masculine norm more than Kreon. He was vulnerable ONCE against her when he felt she could defeat him, but Anitgone usually was never winning. So I think I need somebody to explain this whole thing about Antigone not being Feminine a little better…. I have to say I am pretty confused.

I did enjoy hearing about the Kinship factor, and completely agree with it. I loved that she is supposed to stand for all of this Kinship, yet her family is very messed up. I didn’t even think about it that way until it was explained in todays lecture.


Lets be honest tho, this whole book was very darn confusing. Trying my best! 🙂


So this week we read Plato’s Gorgias. I must say that throughout the whole read, I was going through different emotions towards Socrates. I found that every time he would challenge Gorgias, Polus and Callicles, I would start to get very annoyed. Most of the points that Gorgias, Polus and Callicles were making seemed logical, and it annoyed me that Socrates would always try and question them. However, once Socrates would prove his point,  I began to like him, and found him less irritating. It was sort of a cycle for me; Annoyed, impressed, annoyed, impressed. Finally though I did eventually feel impressed with him.

Now, in terms of the arguments that were being said, I found that the first debate between Socrates and Gorgias was actually quite ironic. Socrates was trying to understand what craft an orator possesses, and at one point, it was said oratory is a producer of persuasion. Being that Gorgias is an orator, I found it ironic in how Socrates was the one persuading Gorgias to change his opinion on many things being said. Now, of course that is how Socrates always plays his game, it was just comical to me that an orator himself was getting played by him.  Even Callicles calls out Socrates in saying that Socrates persuades and tricks the person he is discussing with, into being ashamed of their own thoughts.

Another part I really enjoyed was the conversation between Polus and Callicles discussing whether if someone who is unjust and doesn’t pay their dues is happier than someone who is unjust and gets punished. At the beginning of the argument, I found myself not really being able to understand how Socrates was going to get out of this one and prove his point, that someone who is unjust and doesn’t pay their dues (i.e gets away with whatever they were doing) is actually doomed to be more unhappy. When it comes down to it, I always thought that getting away with something was the easier road, but not the higher road. What really struck me, was when Socrates said “the happiest man, then, is the one who doesn’t have evil in his soul”. When I processed that, I realized that he is saying that no matter what we do in life that is bad, it must be balanced, and we must pay our dues. Otherwise the evil won’t leave us and we are bound to make the mistakes again. I really enjoyed that section and felt that I actually learned from it.

About me!

Hello there Arts one,

My name is Afrothiti Constantina Yannitsos, but I also go by Afrodite or, as many people call me, Afro. I am very excited to begin this Arts One journey, but also a little nervous. All in all, we will all come out better writers!

A little bit about myself; I have been immersed in the performing arts ever since I was the mere age of 3. Dancing, singing and acting my way through life,  I am at UBC hoping to continue by going into the BFA acting program. I love to travel around the world and have been to Europe 25 times. Being a greek, I have tons of family and a house in Greece! So one day I will cook greek food for all of us 🙂

Can’t wait for a great year!