Achmad Ridwan Noer - 180410100225 response for the discussion in week 2 Regarding Plato's "Ion" and Horace's "Art

of Poetry", it is true that one may argue about the fuction of literary works for the society. However, it is also essential, in my opinion, for the society to think what they want the literary works do for them. Come to think of it, the answer for the question "what is the fuction of literary works for the society?" is not that simple since there might be two different point of views seeing that question. One is l ooking at the question as the society and the other one is looking from the pers pective of the creator(s) of the literary works, in my opinion. Those viewers, however, could not be perceived as two very different perspectives as one is constrained to the other as well as the other one. I thin k of a literary work as something the society create, even if only one person of t he society does such thing. As for the society, I see them as the creator of every literary work, even when they do not realize they are working on one every singl e moment. Also, talking about the two perspectives, Horace and Ion were simply s uggesting that every person in every society IS an author of something which in the end will result in (a) literary work(s). In Horace's "Art of Poetry", the most notable thing for me is the idea suggesting "who you really are" point. Horace said that a published word cannot be canceled, ever. My first thought after I read this was that an unliving man f rom a very different era had spoken about copyright. Then, I come to an understandin g which suggests the idea that every work caused by every person in every societ y will make one thing in particular that differs one person to another and the others: originality. Also, by commenting that publishing whose what, I believe Horace wa s trying to say "be original, because people will acknowledge one for what one has done." Thus, the idea of becoming originaly is getting harder to perceive day b y day, for example me when I was writing this piece of response. I know that I tho ught about this stuff when I read that the third time, but I have no idea whethe r this idea has been published before or it has not. Cleary, originality is somewhat ex clusive for us these days, perhaps, since everything possible to copy is finally able to be copied. Returning to the question about the function of work for the society, I have come to an understanding that,once again, works are stuff making the creator(s) different from one to another and the others.