It is interesting how well established the concept of personal ownership is in the human experience. Even as far back as the writing of the Sheppard’s second play and before the concept that an individual can arbitrarily claim ownership of an object seems to be unquestionable. They treat the thief as if he has less right to an object that in reality no one owns. It’s interesting how humanity often seeks to reject reality. Ownership in all forms makes absolutely no sense. Beyond the objects that you physically hold, and beyond your ability to defend what you desire, there is no means of enforcing ownership. The convention is perhaps so old that it has never been thought about. So long as any individual attempts to assert ownership of any object, such as how Coll, Gib, and Daw claim to own these sheep. Mak is looked at as the theif through the views of society, where in reality thief is a false concept of the human psyche, and Mak is fully entitled to any sheep Coll, Gib, and Daw can’t physically prevent him from obtaining. Naturally they do attempt physical force, but out of anger and disgust, and not out of a utilitarian interest in protecting their sheep. There is no philosophical justification for the concept of personal ownership, nor will the world ever be at peace so long as quarrels over the illogical matter continue to pursue.
By the time we were assigned the fourth reading assignment whose name belonged to who became so confusing that it is nearly impossible to distinguish who is who in what piece of literature. The roles of the various characters are so close that without analyzing their differences not much will be retained long term. The overwhelming number of assignments per day actually hinders the ability to learn anything important about any particular piece; or even truly begin to understand the development of literature in the British culture. However the course description doesn’t mention that our studies of British literature actually involve spending any time on the literature itself. The information contained in the literature from a historical stand point is only a small portion of what is actually involved in a study of literature. It is difficult to attempt to analyze the syntax and diction for deeper clues about the societies we are supposed to be studying when there isn’t’ time allocated for a deeper read. The general consensus amongst the population seems to be that very little is actually being learned and retained past test time in this environment.