The Relevance of Hierarchy in Society Through the Eyes of Shakespeare's Working

     A day of lectures has left me with one particular thought in mind. Shakespeare inadvertently instilled religious beliefs into his plays, which instilled religious beliefs in his audience. This was discussed during one of our periods today with an English teacher, on behalf of preparation for English Scholarship Pathways in our near future. 

    We attended four of these sessions, however, the discussion about Shakespeare was the most interesting to me. This may be because of my previous involvement in performing his plays as a regular member of the Shakespeare performance team, however this time around, my interest was piqued by the discussion of the hierarchy that was discussed using the examples of Shakespeare's plays. When the hierarchy was upset, the play descended into chaos. This hierarchy did not feature man at the very stop, instead, it held God as the figure at the top. This heavily aligns with the Christian or Catholic beliefs from Shakespeare's time period.

    During the era in which Shakespeare existed, God's existence was not questioned. It was simply a fact. Shakespeare, who was religious to my knowledge, wrote stories using existing stories and turned them into plays anyone could understand. Religion is mostly not explicitly discussed, besides in the Merchant of Venice, only the speculation of God's actions is discussed in detail. This can be taken into account on many occasions when side characters who are not even written into the play with names allude to situations and wrongdoings. Several occasions have characters alluding to these through the actions of those not human. The roosters crowed through the night, not at dawn. The crops died of disease. The waters are no longer safe to drink. And finally the ever famous line, a storm is brewing. Each of these sayings alludes to something out of the control of any of the characters and is instead believed to be the result of God's punishment of sinners. The worse the outcome, the worse the crime.

    This clearly displays the relevance of hierarchy, and religion, within Shakespeare. God is not a wholly loving being and will punish those who have done wrong, no matter who they are. This hierarchy that was created picturing God at the very top within Shakespeare's plays may not have been as relevant to us now as it previously was among religious Europe, but now with the surge of varied religious people having access to Shakespeare's work, we can now assess it through a non-religious perspective or assess how the people of Britain particularly perceived God. 

Personhood?

    The definition of 'human' is having the qualities, faults, and feelings that people have, as opposed to gods, animals, and machines. This complicates the idea that 'human' is a species, where it is more defined as a title that could be given on the behalf that something is 'human' enough. This leads to what and who can be defined as a 'person.' A person is a being that has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness. This again complicates the idea that a 'human' or 'person' is simply a matter of being a species that is held in higher regard because of the consciousness or intelligence held. 

    Both of these definitions lead to the idea that one could be 'human' or a 'person' without being biologically human. This has led to an animal being given the title of personhood. An orangutan named Sandra was granted 'personhood' in 2014 by a judge in Argentina. She was termed by the court as a 'subject of rights' and later a 'non-human person.' This allows freeway where the term 'person' is loose and only requires certain capacities.

    When an animal can gain personhood, why can't artificial intelligence gain the same right? In the near future, where artificial intelligence can develop emotions and have advanced cognitive processes, would we be able to consider artificial intelligence 'people?'

Identity Questions

 In researching the identity as a whole and as humans, we have been asked about the theory surrounding the ship of Theseus. The theory questions if every part of a ship is replaced, is it still the same ship? This question relates to the idea of human identity and how it exists. It poses the question of if there is an answer at all. In human biology our cells are replaced and recycled regularly, does that mean we are the same person with the same identity?

I believe the answer is that identity is ever-changing within all people, but as a whole, we are the same person as long as we retain parts of our identities we have had over time. This can relate to the memory theory in a way but is more similar to being able to recount how we once were and remembering it instead of it letting our identity as a whole.

The memory theory is the idea that memories we retain create and influence the identity we hold. As long as we remember something, there is some way we are influenced by it. This is obviously flawed with circumstances of incorrect memorisation of things or amnesia. There are many questions that can be offered along with this. Would you still hold the same developed fears and trauma? How would mental disorders affect you? Would you retain mannerisms, vocal tics, and accents?

Multiple Intelligences and Growth and Fixed Mindsets

 What does multiple intelligences mean, and how do they tie into growth and fixed mindsets?

The idea of multiple intelligences proposes the idea that there are more facets of intelligence rather than the standard ability. As defined by Gardner, there are eight (sometimes nine) facets of intelligence such as:

1. Kinesthetic
2. Interpersonal
3. Visual
4. Linguistic
5. Mathematical
6. Naturalistic
7. Intrapersonal
8. Musical
9. (And occasionally) Existential

This is highly different than how people usually categorise intelligence. To others, intelligence is reading and writing, maths, and science. While being intelligent can include this, it is not the only form of intelligence, especially since reading and writing, and maths are not even categorised as the same form of intelligence.

Personally, I find that after a self-reflection and three different quizzes, linguistics is my highest level of intelligence. I also found intrapersonal, existential, and mathematical to rank high. Two of my lowest ranking intelligence types are naturalistic and musical. 

If an aspect is low ranking, it does not mean that you cannot improve upon these skills. This is where the idea of growth and fixed mindsets. A growth mindset is where someone is willing and capable of developing talent through practice and can acknowledge that failing is a step to success. A fixed mindset is where someone believes that talent is something you are born with and that cannot be changed, most often these people are scared of failure so they do not try or attempt new things.

By having a growth mindset, one can acknowledge what they are bad at and practice to improve themselves. This is why it is better to have a growth mindset. Someone with a growth mindset can set to improve themselves and see failure as something good; with failure comes the knowledge of what not to do when you try again. Having a growth mindset allows someone to be capable of improving at what they are bad at without the fear of being bad or needing to improve for the sake of others, like how someone with a fixed mindset may feel.