The Catholic University of America

 

Natasha Wiltz's Response

Questions on "Language Through the Lens of Heraclitus' Logos"

 

Question #1

If you could highlight just one piece of evidence from your essay (whether it be a passage, primary source, excerpt from a song, or architectural structure) which would you choose and why?  

 

I would choose the fragment by Heraclitus that I used throughout my essay. I like this fragment because although it is short (a sentence) and seems insignificant, there is an immense depth and richness discoverable by every reader. At first, the fragment does not seem to say anything unique. Indeed, if read quickly, the fragment may even seem unintelligible. Yet, this is not a sign of a poorly written idea. I imagine Heraclitus’ fragment as having an imaginary lock, which requires the reader to pause and understand that his ideas are comprehended best when thoughts turn away from pure sense-perception. Once Heraclitus is read in this way, the reader can appreciate his fascinating insight into reality and being.

 

 Question #2

What first motivated you to submit to Inventio, and having gone through the process as an author has your perspective on academic writing changed in any way, if so how?

I submitted the Heraclitus piece to Inventio for two reasons: I had thoroughly enjoyed writing this piece and I wanted to share it.

My perspective has changed a bit, mostly because I learned about the process. For example, when I submitted the paper, I was not aware of the amount of time editing and re-editing takes. Now, I know. It is a long process, but one that enables you to become a better writer.


Question #3

In your paper, you talk about howcommissions from the Catholic Church were the pinnacle of architectural exploration and innovation.” What do you think is the Catholic Church’s lasting contribution to architecture from the middle ages?

The Pre-Socratics paved the way for Plato and Aristotle. Though Plato and Aristotle were certainly unique, we cannot forget that they descended from the tradition established first by the Pre- Socratics. How can we claim to understand Plato and Aristotle (in their entirety), if we neglect to study their philosophical foundations? For instance, Plato’s conception of mathematics is only fully understood by referring to the Pythagorean school of thought. Plato’s theory is unique in many ways, but also encompasses many borrowed ideas that necessitates an understanding of the Pre-Socratics. Finally, Plato and Aristotle are among the most brilliant people in history. It is difficult to truly appreciate the genius of Plato and Aristotle without knowing what came prior to them.