1. what are the benefits of good rhetoric to a politician? the limits?
In terms of pathos, logo, and ethos, a politician could use these to pull ppl to agree with them. Good rhetoric gets peple to listen to a politicins speech and agree with them. Politicians who know how to use good rhetoric can get voted into office simply on this. Rhetoric apppealing to the values and needs of the ciitizens can be used by politicians to basically get voted into office.
Used to get elected and stay elected
appeal to the people
But, good rhetoric can be used for bad things. Like, manipulating people to believe in something thats false or believe false things about something. Limits to what people will be persuaded to do.
aka : hitler
2. what do you already know about the 3 remaining candidates for President in terms of rhetoric?
obama: uses past speeches info from powerful figure in history (MLK)
uses "we"
personable
clinton: good in debates-relaxed
dodge around questions
answers questions she wanted to be asked not the real one at hand
mcCain: straight talk
scary- no smilehis experience comes through (referencees it)
acknowledge the fact that he isn't funny/ entertaining
Monday, February 25, 2008
why i want a wife
1. What was your first reaction to the article?
My first reactionwas rage at the stereotyping present in the article. I couldn't believe all of the annoying and offensive things said about women.
2. What has changed (if anything) in terms of gender equality in our country? Would Sykes’s criticisms still be relevant today?
Women are becoming more corporate leders and there are less only stay at home moms. In the 50s women tyically ONLY stayed at home, but now its less common. It still happens though, like my mom only stayed at home when i was a kid. So, Sykes criticism would still be slightly relavent today.
3. Do you feel that women are discriminated against in our society and if so how? If not, what has changed?
I feel women aare definitely still discriminated against today because women make less women and are given lower jobs. Since teaching is typically a "woman's job," teachers make very little money. If it was mainly a guys job, they would probably make more. It's changed because now there you do see more women in ceo positions and there are laws protecting gender discrimination.
4. Could an equivalent essay entitled “Why I want a husband” be written? If so, what would it contain and what points would it make?
Yes, but the main thing it would contain is financial reasons for wanting a husband. The point of security through financial support, protection, and also having a husband's last name to promote yourself through society.
My first reactionwas rage at the stereotyping present in the article. I couldn't believe all of the annoying and offensive things said about women.
2. What has changed (if anything) in terms of gender equality in our country? Would Sykes’s criticisms still be relevant today?
Women are becoming more corporate leders and there are less only stay at home moms. In the 50s women tyically ONLY stayed at home, but now its less common. It still happens though, like my mom only stayed at home when i was a kid. So, Sykes criticism would still be slightly relavent today.
3. Do you feel that women are discriminated against in our society and if so how? If not, what has changed?
I feel women aare definitely still discriminated against today because women make less women and are given lower jobs. Since teaching is typically a "woman's job," teachers make very little money. If it was mainly a guys job, they would probably make more. It's changed because now there you do see more women in ceo positions and there are laws protecting gender discrimination.
4. Could an equivalent essay entitled “Why I want a husband” be written? If so, what would it contain and what points would it make?
Yes, but the main thing it would contain is financial reasons for wanting a husband. The point of security through financial support, protection, and also having a husband's last name to promote yourself through society.
feminine mind 2
Read the whole thing and in a 300 word blog post explain whether you agree, disagree, or qualify the main point Mencken is making about sex differences.
i agree ith any of the points that Mencken makes in his piece. I specifically agree with a few and they are as follows:
section 1. "She may envy her husband, true enough, certain of his more soothing prerogatives and sentimentalities. She may envy him his masculine liberty of movement and occupation, his impenetrable complacency, his peasant-like delight in petty vices, his capacity for hiding the
harsh face of reality behind the cloak of romanticism, his general innocence and childishness. But she never envies him his puerile ego; she never envies him his shoddy and preposterous soul."
There are qualities of males that women may envy, but above that she will never envy his ego and soul for she knows it is only troublesome
section 2. ""Human creatures," says George, borrowing from Weininger, "are never entirely male or entirely female; there are no men, there are no women, but only sexual majorities."'
no one is ever entirely male or female but a combination of the both with one side showing more favorably than the other
section 3. "What men, in their egoism, constantly mistake for a deficiency of intelligence in woman is merely an incapacity for mastering that mass of small intellectual tricks, that complex of petty knowledges, that collection of cerebral rubber stamps, which constitutes the chief mental equipment of the average male. "
Males mistake a lack of intelligence in women because she cannot do someone of the tasks an petty accomplishments males can.
I agree with each of these points being made. Mencken, i believe, supports his points well ith examples and does a thorough jo of convincing the audience to see and believe what he does. He has definitely convinced me, but iwas a little biased to begin with ;-)
i agree ith any of the points that Mencken makes in his piece. I specifically agree with a few and they are as follows:
section 1. "She may envy her husband, true enough, certain of his more soothing prerogatives and sentimentalities. She may envy him his masculine liberty of movement and occupation, his impenetrable complacency, his peasant-like delight in petty vices, his capacity for hiding the
harsh face of reality behind the cloak of romanticism, his general innocence and childishness. But she never envies him his puerile ego; she never envies him his shoddy and preposterous soul."
There are qualities of males that women may envy, but above that she will never envy his ego and soul for she knows it is only troublesome
section 2. ""Human creatures," says George, borrowing from Weininger, "are never entirely male or entirely female; there are no men, there are no women, but only sexual majorities."'
no one is ever entirely male or female but a combination of the both with one side showing more favorably than the other
section 3. "What men, in their egoism, constantly mistake for a deficiency of intelligence in woman is merely an incapacity for mastering that mass of small intellectual tricks, that complex of petty knowledges, that collection of cerebral rubber stamps, which constitutes the chief mental equipment of the average male. "
Males mistake a lack of intelligence in women because she cannot do someone of the tasks an petty accomplishments males can.
I agree with each of these points being made. Mencken, i believe, supports his points well ith examples and does a thorough jo of convincing the audience to see and believe what he does. He has definitely convinced me, but iwas a little biased to begin with ;-)
Feminine mind
1st paragraph graff
The general argument made by H.L.Mencken In his work, "The feminine mind," is that women are smarter and more aware than men. More specifically, Mencken argues that, women posses a higher intelligece and therefore regard men wih pity because of their brutish and arogant ways. He writes, "Women, in truth, are not only intelligent; they have almost a monopoly of certain of the subtler and more utile forms of intelligence." in this passage, Mencken is suggesting that Women are not only more intelligent than men, but contain a more useful forms of intelligence as well, like Gardner theories on multiple intelligences. In conclusion, Mencken's belief is that women are superior to men intelligentally because male arrogance gets in the way.
The general argument made by H.L.Mencken In his work, "The feminine mind," is that women are smarter and more aware than men. More specifically, Mencken argues that, women posses a higher intelligece and therefore regard men wih pity because of their brutish and arogant ways. He writes, "Women, in truth, are not only intelligent; they have almost a monopoly of certain of the subtler and more utile forms of intelligence." in this passage, Mencken is suggesting that Women are not only more intelligent than men, but contain a more useful forms of intelligence as well, like Gardner theories on multiple intelligences. In conclusion, Mencken's belief is that women are superior to men intelligentally because male arrogance gets in the way.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Listening to khakis article
I liked the article! I think that the writer did a good job getting his points across and i totally agree. I like the folowing quote of..."Needless to say, it came from a men's magazine. "With men, you don't want the fluff," she said. "Women, though, participate a lot more in whatever they are processing. By giving them more cues, you give them something to work with. You don't have to be so literal. With women you can be more allusive, so you can draw them in. They will engage in elaboration, and the more associations they make the easier it is to remember and retrieve later on." He's saying that Women pay more attention to details and And actually like the details but guys don't want any details. It seems like men get bored with details, and i toally agree!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
creative class dismissed
But first, read this article called, “Creative Class, Dismissed.” about a teacher and her efforts to teach Rousseau. In a short blog post, summarize what Rousseau seems to be saying according to the teacher and how her students react to his argument. Then, compare and contrast that with your understanding of “The Creed of the Priest of Savoy” (Book 4 — scroll down to section 943).
"Rousseau has an overarching thesis that considers people to be good by nature but corrupted by society. My students like that, since it reassures them that it's not entirely their fault every time they do something bad, but rather that some larger social force "made me do it." And Rousseau articulates the longings in my students for more of a reason to live than competing for who's the best looking and smartest, or who ends up with the most toys."
The teacher is statig that Rousseau is explaining human fallicy by showing societies pressure upon them creating and adding to human fallicies.
"Many students tell me that reading Rousseau makes them conscious of the fact that ineluctably fascinating human wrongdoing almost always trumps the dullness of virtue, and that people who cheerily trumpet art (especially that which showcases bad behavior as entertainment) are blind to both art's power and its peril. One of my former seminar members recently wrote me that he was glad he'd read Letter to d'Alembert because he'd learned from it that, in the end, he prefers being miserable and loving art to his earlier childhood state of being happy and ignorant of it. This student was clear, at least: He was choosing art over virtue."
Students feel that they are more aware of their wrongdoings and the actions they commit against the arts.
"Whatever their ultimate opinions, I like to think Rousseau's essay humbles my students just a little, in just the right way, and at just the right moment in their lives. It reminds them that the kind of moral person they are becoming will never, ever hinge on the fact that they're getting a college degree. "
The teacher feels that students are more humbly aware of themselves and their actions from Rousseau's writing.
My understanding of "creed of priest Savvoy" is that the teacher in book 4 is telling students to have conscine on their actions of morality. Rousseaus work deals more with the arts and nature that the creed foes. Both do, however deal with the issue of morality and how best to act upon it.
"Rousseau has an overarching thesis that considers people to be good by nature but corrupted by society. My students like that, since it reassures them that it's not entirely their fault every time they do something bad, but rather that some larger social force "made me do it." And Rousseau articulates the longings in my students for more of a reason to live than competing for who's the best looking and smartest, or who ends up with the most toys."
The teacher is statig that Rousseau is explaining human fallicy by showing societies pressure upon them creating and adding to human fallicies.
"Many students tell me that reading Rousseau makes them conscious of the fact that ineluctably fascinating human wrongdoing almost always trumps the dullness of virtue, and that people who cheerily trumpet art (especially that which showcases bad behavior as entertainment) are blind to both art's power and its peril. One of my former seminar members recently wrote me that he was glad he'd read Letter to d'Alembert because he'd learned from it that, in the end, he prefers being miserable and loving art to his earlier childhood state of being happy and ignorant of it. This student was clear, at least: He was choosing art over virtue."
Students feel that they are more aware of their wrongdoings and the actions they commit against the arts.
"Whatever their ultimate opinions, I like to think Rousseau's essay humbles my students just a little, in just the right way, and at just the right moment in their lives. It reminds them that the kind of moral person they are becoming will never, ever hinge on the fact that they're getting a college degree. "
The teacher feels that students are more humbly aware of themselves and their actions from Rousseau's writing.
My understanding of "creed of priest Savvoy" is that the teacher in book 4 is telling students to have conscine on their actions of morality. Rousseaus work deals more with the arts and nature that the creed foes. Both do, however deal with the issue of morality and how best to act upon it.
animal liberation
Read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer in 50 Essays and write a 2-paragraph Graff template post.
the general argument made by singer in his work, "Animal Liberation," is that animals should have equal rights as humans do. More specifically singer argues that animals shouldn't be disregarded when it comes to suffering (in animal testing) because they don't speak english, commujnicate as we do, and have a lower IQ than humans do. He writes that, "behavioral signs and knowledge of the animals biological similarity to ourselves together provide adequate evidence that animals to suffer." In this passage Singer is suggesting that we can tell by the actions of animals (that are similar to our own) and see that animals are suffering because no words are needed. In conclusion, Singers belief is that animals do suffer and shoud be given equal right to humans.
In my view Singer is right becausewords are ot the only awy to let someone know that you're in pain. More spedcifically i believe that language is a tool in letting otghers be aware of ones suffering, but behavioral sogns are a bigger clue. For example, young children (and babies), do not often use words to show that they are in pain, but we know tat they are because of the noises they make and the cringing and anguished actions they exhibit. Although Singer may object that other people may say that animal suffering is less than human suffering, I maintain that this is not so. Therefore i conclude that animals and humans sufer and feel pain in th same way.
the general argument made by singer in his work, "Animal Liberation," is that animals should have equal rights as humans do. More specifically singer argues that animals shouldn't be disregarded when it comes to suffering (in animal testing) because they don't speak english, commujnicate as we do, and have a lower IQ than humans do. He writes that, "behavioral signs and knowledge of the animals biological similarity to ourselves together provide adequate evidence that animals to suffer." In this passage Singer is suggesting that we can tell by the actions of animals (that are similar to our own) and see that animals are suffering because no words are needed. In conclusion, Singers belief is that animals do suffer and shoud be given equal right to humans.
In my view Singer is right becausewords are ot the only awy to let someone know that you're in pain. More spedcifically i believe that language is a tool in letting otghers be aware of ones suffering, but behavioral sogns are a bigger clue. For example, young children (and babies), do not often use words to show that they are in pain, but we know tat they are because of the noises they make and the cringing and anguished actions they exhibit. Although Singer may object that other people may say that animal suffering is less than human suffering, I maintain that this is not so. Therefore i conclude that animals and humans sufer and feel pain in th same way.
socratic dialogue
Write a Socratic dialogue in which you discuss with a Crito-like figure about Animal Rights. Use some of Socrates’s techniques of asking questions and leading his interlocutor to see an issue the way he sees it. He gets Crito to accept a general principle and then shows how his action fulfills that action.
C: why do you fight so hard for these anikmals who cannot speak as we do? There is no reason to believe hey feel as we do when they cannot communicate in our same manner
W: Crito do animals not make sounds of anguish when struck or beaten?
c: they do make sounds
w: are those sounds no painful to the ear?
c: they are
w: humans make paiknful sounds to hear when in pain as well
c: that i agree to
w: the who is to say that animals are in lesser pain becaus they do not speak when the sounds they make are in mirror to tthe sounds we make to let others know we are in pain. no words are needed to let someone know we are in pain. they need simply to look at our face andour eyes and hear the oujnds we make
c: that which you sayis true
w: what then do you have in rebuttle?
c: i have nothing to say
w: then i will continue to fight for these creatures for they too live, breathe, suffer, and die as we do.
C: why do you fight so hard for these anikmals who cannot speak as we do? There is no reason to believe hey feel as we do when they cannot communicate in our same manner
W: Crito do animals not make sounds of anguish when struck or beaten?
c: they do make sounds
w: are those sounds no painful to the ear?
c: they are
w: humans make paiknful sounds to hear when in pain as well
c: that i agree to
w: the who is to say that animals are in lesser pain becaus they do not speak when the sounds they make are in mirror to tthe sounds we make to let others know we are in pain. no words are needed to let someone know we are in pain. they need simply to look at our face andour eyes and hear the oujnds we make
c: that which you sayis true
w: what then do you have in rebuttle?
c: i have nothing to say
w: then i will continue to fight for these creatures for they too live, breathe, suffer, and die as we do.
exerpt from the coquest of happiness
Questions
1) Explain the first sentence.
a. By todays standards, being happy and being “good” are one in the same. It assumes tat by being “good” you are happy.
2) Explain what Russell means by “In fact the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world, which is implied in the doctrine of self-denial, disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves.”
a. When we become interested not in ourselves but in helping those around us, then the whole conflict between ourselves and the world is useless and therefore disappears. There is no antithesis needed when we give up selfishness of our own accord
3) How effective is Russel’s simile of the billiard ball? Would he be better without it? A different metaphor?
a. I think it’s effective because most people in America that I assume he’s writing to, are accustomed to what a billiard ball is and therefore understand the metaphor. If he was writing to people inrural India he would need a different metaphor. But for the adience and oint to prove I think it works. It gets his point accros efeectively and simply.
4) Explain what Russell means by a “citizen of the universe.”
a. By not forcing one to choose between oneself and the world, a person is no longer limited to being a citizen of a nation but a citizen of the entire universe. They realize and receive a greater glory.
5) How is this essay like/unlike Singer’s Animal Liberation in style, tone, and content?
a. Singe uses more metaphors to explain his meaning I fel. He uses metaphors (references) to ifferent cultural struggles, people’s intlelligences, animal actions all vs. animal rights. I think his tone is much more “this is wrong,” where Russles tone is more, philosophical and “this is how I think it would help people to live.” Style is different with the pathos used in singer’s essay to get people to feel a certain way and then act on their felings. Russle uses more pathos in that it recognizes how people feel when they do certain actions for themselves and not, and then to get people to come together on common ground feelings. Content is widly diffeent because singeris discussing animal rights and their treatment by us, while Russell is trying to get people to feel differently abou how they act of selfishness towards people. Both deal with selfishness and conving someone to fel a different way about each of their subjects, but the more sspecific subjects are different between the pieces and how people are convinced each way.
1) Explain the first sentence.
a. By todays standards, being happy and being “good” are one in the same. It assumes tat by being “good” you are happy.
2) Explain what Russell means by “In fact the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world, which is implied in the doctrine of self-denial, disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves.”
a. When we become interested not in ourselves but in helping those around us, then the whole conflict between ourselves and the world is useless and therefore disappears. There is no antithesis needed when we give up selfishness of our own accord
3) How effective is Russel’s simile of the billiard ball? Would he be better without it? A different metaphor?
a. I think it’s effective because most people in America that I assume he’s writing to, are accustomed to what a billiard ball is and therefore understand the metaphor. If he was writing to people inrural India he would need a different metaphor. But for the adience and oint to prove I think it works. It gets his point accros efeectively and simply.
4) Explain what Russell means by a “citizen of the universe.”
a. By not forcing one to choose between oneself and the world, a person is no longer limited to being a citizen of a nation but a citizen of the entire universe. They realize and receive a greater glory.
5) How is this essay like/unlike Singer’s Animal Liberation in style, tone, and content?
a. Singe uses more metaphors to explain his meaning I fel. He uses metaphors (references) to ifferent cultural struggles, people’s intlelligences, animal actions all vs. animal rights. I think his tone is much more “this is wrong,” where Russles tone is more, philosophical and “this is how I think it would help people to live.” Style is different with the pathos used in singer’s essay to get people to feel a certain way and then act on their felings. Russle uses more pathos in that it recognizes how people feel when they do certain actions for themselves and not, and then to get people to come together on common ground feelings. Content is widly diffeent because singeris discussing animal rights and their treatment by us, while Russell is trying to get people to feel differently abou how they act of selfishness towards people. Both deal with selfishness and conving someone to fel a different way about each of their subjects, but the more sspecific subjects are different between the pieces and how people are convinced each way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)