Reply to comment

I remember that I started out very contentious- the premise of the underlying connections between science and literature, between evolution and stories, felt like a challenge, and it was one that I took up with interest. Determining what the differences actually were, to what extent they were negative and contrived and to what extent positive or inherent (is it right for me to connect natural with "good" there? I still don't know) was a mental task I worked through for much of the beginning portion, and it was an interesting one. In looking at the interplay between religion and science in my first two papers, I tried to work through what contributions the "factual" and the "faith-based" make to each other and evolution of thought as a whole, and I found that philosophical reflection worthwhile. Looking at the similarities was productive for me because, among other things, it encouraged me to see what the distinctions actually were instead of just taking for granted that they existed. 

I was surprisingly dissappointed then, actually, when moving into the more literary portion because it meant a loss of competing theories. (surprising as I am, after all, an english major). While doing Whitman, I never found the personal mental space I needed to have my thoughts on his piece evolve because of the work we did with it in class. Ideas from different people can of course, in many cases, be helpful to growing and expanding your own without the competitive atmostphere I felt during the first half, but for some reason I never found that space during our discussions. Maybe I wasn't listening well enough to what others were putting on the table. I will try to pay closer attention this upcoming week to what everyone else has found important throughout the semester- maybe it can help me see the text in a new light.