This perception of differences was not forced onto people, wasn't created necessarily, or purposely. Rather, it was just there. Something that is just really an idea, or thought process had enough power to control how people saw themselves. Controlling such a personal matter.

So manipulation of feelings and mindsets? Showing that they were doing something but nothing took action. This didn't really happen but they depicted as if it did.Thats what they wanted us to believe. As if their words had more than just face value, sadly these words were just words.

There are two sides to dealing with racial scrutiny, one, you can let this be empowering. A constant reminder of what your unchosen place is in the world becoming your source of motivation. Two, letting hate for those who didn't choose their place either, overcome you. And eventually holding on to hate is like tying.

This to me is a realization that we all have to come to at some point in our life. Considerably the single most pivotal moment for a person, and I think its important to understand that most things in life have the ability to be a facade. To realize that not everything we experience is trustworthy. The reaction is a scary part, to realize everything that we have trusted fully without question has the possibility of being wrong. It is almost as if the foundation of this world being torn up and you having to start all over. It is a scary sense of insecurity and vulnerability.

I found this interesting, because to me it suggest that the more one thinks, and tries to explain what he does not understand the further away from the conclusion he gets. He must become active in the sense that he must use his already attained knowledge to 'verify' what is to be learned.

As Ranciere uses the audiences perception of theatre for example, being active in what we are learning, my claim not using just one sense, is the only way to beat ignorance. Being passive, just using one sense such as sight, is a passive way of learning and experiencing what is in front of you. Objects just as paintings evoke emotion and therefore create personal connections. Not just simply explained for you, theatre was suggested to go in the way that play writes did not explain it all in order to make the audience less passive and actually give the a roll in the interpretation of the play.

This theme has occurred for the entire length of human history, up until this very day. Encouraged to reveal our true selves, the different and strange were lead to believe safety and acceptance were awaiting them but judgement and intense discrimination followed instead. They were subjected to the thoughts that their 'true' selves were less than. Decided by individuals who created a universal judgement.

This is very familiar to relation to the Evil eye, the all seeing eye. Follows you everywhere, watches you constantly yet you are hardly ever aware of its presence. This is comparable to to the roll of our government tracking us through the little camera in our computers, following our car gps', tracking our back accounts...panopticism has not diminished but evolved

The assumption of truths in the past, clouds our judgment of the present/future, in the past we always relied so much on someone else's knowledge. It created an atmosphere for skepticism, and people were less inclined to debunk previous ideas. Even if these ideas were wrong, it clouded their current judgment. When the past should be used as stepping stone so to speak, a guidance in discovery.

This is purely interesting to me because I find myself people watching and I will think to myself, "if I can see them, they must be able to see me, I should stop staring". Also brings up and interesting conversation about perception, a difference in vision

A theme continuing from in my first essay, being how easily the eyes are tricked, and in this passage "confused". For prisoners who have spent time in the cave and above it, will question, and be suspicious all things now that they have two different experiences to pull from. Having a constant in ones mind, which one is the truth, which one ins'? This debate can go on and on and on, in every aspect of our world.

I think this says something about humans ability to adapt when most needed to, in the simplest of forms. More focused on sight, when we cannot see something we go for the next 'best' thing, in this instance touch. However I also think that certain times call for certain senses.

This is true, these inventions based off of our most basic senses, have unlocked many doors in science and have caused many revelations. That without understanding the basis of our senses in the first places would not have been imagined.

I found this word and its meaning, raising a lot of questions for me...For people who see but do not take advantage of the power that vision has, are deanthropomorhized. Sad to say that this is my claim for most of the world.

So do we "see" things before we really "see" them? Do we have these pre-existing thoughts that only become when we are faced with them involving our physical senses? and then only then do we recognize and understand them?

If it isn't what "they say" then it is wrong and holds no validity. You are not allowed to even have any opinion against "Holy doctrine"

Overall I thought this reading was interesting. Plato, gives the eyes a certain power that struck me really hard. You can look at these organs from many angles and on the surface, and biologically they are just organs but in this reading Plato's explanation dove deeper into the creation of our human bodies, subsequently giving them much more meaning. I really liked that specific angle.

Plato discuses the power of the eye, not only it being a "window of the world" but also a "mirror of the soul" but what is interesting is that Plato refers back to the biologically of everything stating above. Our human biology kinda gives us away.