A Composition of Interchangeable Body Parts

by Marina Smeltzer

In yesterday’s lecture I learned more about “close reading,” and I learned that it is something I practice often without even noticing it. I find that it is much more difficult to close read when reading a novel or a ten page article because of the length and time it takes to read it without dissecting every few words. It was quite interesting seeing how different people came to such different conclusions about the same exact text. I think the activity we did in the zoom lecture not only demonstrated an application of “close reading” where we are already comfortable, but it also demonstrated the importance of diversity. Since we had a variety of different people commenting on their interpretation of the text messages, I feel that we were able to view the messages from multiple different perspectives which we may not have considered individually. This activity demonstrated how bringing people from different backgrounds with different experiences can bring ideas and interpretations to the table that would have been left out if the group all had the same exact experiences. Someone with no relationship experience versus someone with a lot of experience would see the messages differently and someone who has been in a toxic relationship would see it differently than someone who has only been treated well. We also learned that it is helpful to know more information about the context and situation to be able to better interpret the messages. We can take this and apply it to the novels and philosophical papers we are reading.

From yesterday’s lecture discussion on Manjula Padmanabhan’s play, Harvest, I gained a new perspective on organ donation and transplant. When I turned 15 and a half, I went to the DMV to get my driving permit and when it came to marking the box to be an organ donor I immediately marked yes because I would not want any perfectly good organs to go to waste when there are so many people in need of an organ transplant. Being so young and eager to be driving, I did not consider any of the philosophical ideas about organ donation and what it might mean for someone else to be walking around with my heart. Something that stood out to me in the conversation on organ transplantation was the idea of a “universal human.” I honestly really like the idea because to me it shows how we are all connected despite our differences. It is weird to talk about humans as a collection of body parts, and it almost makes us sound like machines that are just made of fleshy tissue instead of metal, but I really liked how Professor Donig mentioned that we are more than our heart or our brain. It is crazy to think about having someone else’s heart beating inside of you but still being your own person. This shows, as Professor Donig put it, “self is greater than the collection of its parts.” I think that our individual personalities and beliefs are what make us different, but we are all brought together and connected by our composition of interchangeable body parts.