Response to Zane's Post

I agree with Zane, in that this weeks reading has made Phaedrus seem more human. As I said in my post, this week has caused me to relate more to Phaedrus because he seems to have just as much trouble as I do with the horrifying unanswerable questions that plague philosophy. Phaedrus’ troubles make him seem more human and for that I am happy because it makes me feel less stupid while trying to understand this novel because, like Zane, I simply cannot understand all that the author mentions.

What I found interesting about Zane’s post this week is his mention of how, in being Phaedrus’ opposite, DeWeese, may give us a clearer understanding of Phaedrus. While reading about DeWeese and his relationship with Phaedrus I had not considered the insight that this character may bring us into Phaedrus’ character. DeWeese has the potential to answer many questions about Phaedrus and why our narrator seems to believe that he would have some reason to believe that DeWeese would think he is Phaedrus. In answering why a scientifically reasonable man like Phaedrus would be such good friends with an abstract painter, DeWeese is character could also bring to light more reasons for Phaedrus’s instance on answering the unanswerable questions. I think that Zane has the right idea about DeWeese’s character though I may have to disagree with him about enjoying this novel.