In “Can the Subaltern Speak?”,  Spivak introduces the exploration of power dynamics and representation using colonial and postcolonial contexts. She critiques Western intellectual discourse for often marginalizing the voices of the marginalized, whom she refers as “subaltern.” Spivak argues that the act of speaking for the subaltern can inadvertently reinforce existing power structures rather than empower them. She elaborates on the complexities of representation and the challenges of giving voice to the subaltern with Western frameworks. This introduction lays the groundwork for Spivak’s analysis of the subaltern’s and the ways in which their voices are silenced or appropriated by dominant power structures. She states “I cannot entirely endorse this insistence on determinate vigor and full autonomy, for practical historiographic examples will not allow such endorsements to privilege subaltern consciousness”. In this quotation she is discussing the tension between the desire for clear, definitive narratives and the acknowledgment of the complexities and limitations of representing subaltern voices. Spivak cautions against fully endorsing the emphasis on depicting the subaltern with determinate vigor and full autonomy in historical terms. She highlights the practical challenges within historiography, such as incomplete historical records and the influence of dominant power structures, which complicate efforts to privilege subaltern consciousness. Spivak emphasizes the importance of acknowledging the complexities and limitations inherent in representing subaltern voices within dominant discourses while cautioning against simplistic or romanticized portrayals.” As for the receiver, we must ask who is ‘the real receiver’ of an ‘insurgency?’ The historian, transforming ‘insurgency’ into ‘text for knowledge,’ is only one ‘receiver’ of any collectively intended social act.” Spivak questions the identity of the true recipient of an “insurgency” and suggests that historians, who transform such acts into textual knowledge, are just one among many potential recipients. She emphasizes the other perspectives involved in interpreting collective social actions and highlights the role of historians in transforming these actions into knowledge, which stands out as it challenges another interpretation. 

In The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies, Roland Barthes focuses on the Eiffel Tower as a multifaceted symbol due to the status it holds in modernity and culture in France. He analyzes the tower through its construction and the view in the Parisian landscape, becoming a focal point in various interpretations. 

Barthes states on page 6,”Even before the Tower’s birth, the nineteenth century (especially in America and in England) had often dreamed of structures whose height would be as-tonishing, for the century was given to technological feats, and the conquest of the sky once again preyed upon human-ity.” Not only does this tower represent France’s historical parts, cultural aspects as well. Its structural attributes weren’t unique when it first came out, until years later the height and technological features were influenced and marked by significant advancements in innovation and science. The idea of conquering the sky was challenging for us to construct but in order to show progress and expansion that height symbolized. Barthes states “Whereas the Tower overlooks not nature but the city; and yet, by its very position of a visited outlook, the Tower makes the city into a kind of nature; it constitutes the swarming of men into a landscape, it adds to the frequently grim urban myth a romantic dimension, a harmony, a mitigation; by it, starting from it, the city joins up with the great natural themes which are offered to the curiosity of men: the ocean, the storm, the mountains, the snow, the rivers.” ,(page 8). Barthes is examining the transformative effects the figure has on the perception of the cityscape. He notes that the tower stands above the city, showing human ingenuity instead of reality. When we hear of France or anything French related , the Eiffel Tower is one of the first things that comes to mind, this landmark is used to represent France. Same way in New York , the Statue of Liberty or Empire State Building can be seen as this fantasy symbol that represents the state as a whole. This tower can also symbolize beauty , due to the way it elevates the cityscape into something more than just a collection of buildings and streets. Becoming a landscape in its own rights, which can invite people to explore and appreciate its architectural and cultural significance. Barthes suggests that the Eiffel Tower symbolizes progress and innovation in France due to its history and how we make this figure the face of Paris.

    In “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense ”, Friedrich Nietzche focuses on a provocative exploration of the relationship between the truth and language ,meaning how our perspective and interpretation are guided by our own interests. He states that there is a difference between the actual truth and a lie, if we’re lying that show how we’re trying to find some validity and forcing what we want reality to be rather than just letting it be. 

   The language being used can be subjective since reality is distorted rather than being accurately represented. Nietzhe states that “the liar uses the valid tokens of designation-words—to make the unreal appear to be real; he says, for example, ‘I am rich’, whereas the correct designation for his condition would be, precisely, ‘poor. “ on page 754. Us individuals use language as a medium for the truth. Like the word “liar” in this context is defining someone who distorts language to serve their own purposes disregarding the reality of what happens. Providing the “I am rich” phrase shows an example of how a liar uses language to create a false impression of reality, even though their financial situation says otherwise, using the word “rich” helps deceive others about reality.

   Nietzsche believes that society reacts strongly to deception due to people feared being harmed by deception, like if a person misuse their language for their “reasonable” explanation, society can lose trust in them which can exclude them from its rank. Nietzsche states , “Yet we still do not know where the drive to truth comes from, for so far we have only heard about the obligation to be truthful which society imposes in order to exist, i.e. the obligation to use the customary metaphors, or, to put it in moral terms”, on page 756. He’s explaining how society imposes an obligation to be truthful in order to maintain itself, or how digging deep in the truth can be seen in moral terms due to being sincere. The truth has it relationship to society, language, and morality, the author emphasizes his skepticism towards moral frameworks and his idea of truth as a complex concept by what society expects and our own interest.

  Overall, Nietzsche’s argument is to have us people reconsider our assumptions about language, truth , and morality, urging us to confront the complexities and ambiguities of human perception.