My first definition of composition was a little too stupid for me to feel comfortable sharing with other people without fear of being thought a complete idiot. Hopefully my second attempt won’t be so sad, although I feel I can hardly do the term justice in 600 words as we’ve spent an entire semester trying to accomplish the task. Nevertheless, here I go.
On the last day of class I wrote: “composition is a way to create, define, and argue one’s opinions and ideas of and to the world.” However, I’ve decided now, after taking 3360, after discussing and perusing the idea of composition from all sorts of angles, that this definition also falls short. Composition means something more personal to me, something that I struggle for words to explain. To compose is to attempt to sway another individual, or perhaps the rest of the world, to your point of view. It is to define yourself, to stake a claim, to question, agree, refute, describe, and craft. Essentially, I suppose I feel that composition, any composition, is rhetoric, an attempt by an individual to make his or her mark and change something about the world, whether that thing be something as grand as moving a country to fight a war, or as small as reaching out and sharing emotions with a friend.
I arrive at this conclusion by combining the thoughts of many higher authorities on the subject than myself. I will collect a few of these ideas here in this blog so that perhaps my meaning may be better understood.
My absolute favorite scholarly definition of rhetoric is that given by Plato: Rhetoric is the “art of enchanting the soul.” Many ancient Greek philosophers pondered discourse. Aristotle described rhetoric as “the faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the available means of persuasion,” and went on to identify three types of rhetorical proofs: logos, (the use of reasoning) ethos, (character and credibility of the speaker) and pathos (emotional appeals). All rhetoric, and therefore all composition, utilizes one or more of these proofs to gain credibility or power.
Toulmin’s argument structure shows us exactly how to break down an argument, and basically how persuasive language works. In sophisticated arguments, we make claims and provide data which implies some sort of warrant based in logos, ethos, or pathos. Using his structure, we can break down the language of Swift’s A Modest Proposal. We should eat babies, proposes Swift, because they taste good. He gives his audience data: one of his friends ate a baby and confirmed that it did indeed taste good. This implies that people will always eat things that taste good, regardless of any other moral beliefs they might hold in regards to the substance of their lunch.
In Seeing Voices Sacks presents us with the case of Joseph, a boy born deaf with no language. The article seemed to highlight the power of language and its importance in how we as human beings separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. From language comes developed abstract thought and empathy.
In Mile’s Born Cannibal it is suggested that human beings, in spite of our “unexamined consensus in popular biology that our species managed to out-evolve the four billion-year pattern of the rest of nature,” are still cannibalistic beings. The only reason, proposed by Garrison, that we do not eat one another under normal circumstances is because through language, and ultimately through composition, we gain morality. Abstract language is what makes us “human.” It becomes unsettling for us to eat another thinking, feeling creature like ourselves.
The value of teaching composition, then, would seem obvious, for only through composition may an individual be so empowered and civilized. Without knowing how to effectively express him or herself, a person is at an incredible disadvantage. Without understanding the power of words, a student may frequently say things which they did not truly intend to say, or seem to promote ideas that he or she had not though deeply about. This was made most evident to me through the article presented to the class by Kelly, “I Thought Composition was about Commas and Quotes, Not Queers.” It illustrated perfectly the necessity of encouraging students to analyze more critically their choice of words. It is crucial that educators in the field of composition pass on what they know so that future generations can continue to grow and develop as human beings.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
#10 Synthesis
I honestly enjoyed this class.
Every Tuesday and Thursday on my drive home from campus I would turn off my radio and just go over the ideas we discussed in my head, and maybe think about things to blog about (whether or not I actually got around to posting them on time... X_X). I think that it really says something positive about a class when a student leaves, still pondering the material covered for a long while afterward.
And it got me to turn off my radio. I'm a loud rap music and techno kind of girl. I get my kicks vibrating other people's car windows with my factory speakers and screaming about how stud, studdin' is a habit...pimp like me....Nothing will get your day going better than yelling about how bitchin' and rich you are...and how haters just don't know a thang.
Anyway...I think that one of the most important things I'll take from this class is basically a different attitude about approaching the idea of teaching, the job, the expectations. It seems much more like I have a hand in matters of the profession. It certainly made me consider shaking up traditional assignments.
I'd like to incorporate technology into my classroom, but after doing the MOO, I don't believe that that's what I would use, if for no other reason that, in a secondary class, there wouldn't be much of a practical point. What are the chances that you'll actually need to use computers to connect? You'll be in the same room.
I do think I might do blogs (or journals, if you don't have access to a computer). They give you a chance to flesh out your ideas more, and they allow shyer students to express themselves.
Every Tuesday and Thursday on my drive home from campus I would turn off my radio and just go over the ideas we discussed in my head, and maybe think about things to blog about (whether or not I actually got around to posting them on time... X_X). I think that it really says something positive about a class when a student leaves, still pondering the material covered for a long while afterward.
And it got me to turn off my radio. I'm a loud rap music and techno kind of girl. I get my kicks vibrating other people's car windows with my factory speakers and screaming about how stud, studdin' is a habit...pimp like me....Nothing will get your day going better than yelling about how bitchin' and rich you are...and how haters just don't know a thang.
Anyway...I think that one of the most important things I'll take from this class is basically a different attitude about approaching the idea of teaching, the job, the expectations. It seems much more like I have a hand in matters of the profession. It certainly made me consider shaking up traditional assignments.
I'd like to incorporate technology into my classroom, but after doing the MOO, I don't believe that that's what I would use, if for no other reason that, in a secondary class, there wouldn't be much of a practical point. What are the chances that you'll actually need to use computers to connect? You'll be in the same room.
I do think I might do blogs (or journals, if you don't have access to a computer). They give you a chance to flesh out your ideas more, and they allow shyer students to express themselves.
#9 Final Essay Ideas
Alrighty, so here's what I have so far as an idea for my final essay. Sometimes I'm just bad at coming up with topics...so feel free to rip this apart...or suggest something better.
In another class we're basically covering adolescent psychology. One of the theories that we discussed recently was Erikson's "eight psychosocial crises". Basically it's a stage theory which states that, at eight different points in your life, you will be concerned with eight different crises. As an infant, it's whether to trust or mistrust the world. Later, inferiority versus industriousness. As an adolescent, you are concerned mainly with your identity. Will it be well formed? Will you have a good sense of who you are? Will you be confused? What will be important to you and how much will certain things be a part of "you."
I'm going to combine this with the stuff we covered in class about Jim Berlin. I'll argue that, in secondary school it would be most beneficial to teach with using emphasis on a writer/subjective style in combination with rhetoric. What do you think, what do you feel, how do you interpret this, which is your favorite character, which is your favorite book. why?
Writing can be a way to develop an identity. Or! It would be very beneficial for writing and reading to become a part of their identity in one way or another.: I am a person who enjoys reading. I am a person who can write competently. et. cetra et. cetra.
I'll have to come up with some strategies to get students to actually start and get interested...maybe I'll have to chunk this idea altogether. Who knows!?
Want to see the outline I made during work? I was written up for doing it...oopsie. It almost wasn't worth it. My initial ideas are always so nebulous...it takes a lot of going in circles and running on tangents to form a coherent idea. This is my outline. Verbatim:
3360 Ideas 1 Epistemology
-style? Rhetoric? Writer/subjective
-developing identity
-way to get students interested
-Appeals to them (Pathos?)
-Jim Berlin
- "I am a person who enjoys writing."
Eventually this will all turn into something that makes sense.
In another class we're basically covering adolescent psychology. One of the theories that we discussed recently was Erikson's "eight psychosocial crises". Basically it's a stage theory which states that, at eight different points in your life, you will be concerned with eight different crises. As an infant, it's whether to trust or mistrust the world. Later, inferiority versus industriousness. As an adolescent, you are concerned mainly with your identity. Will it be well formed? Will you have a good sense of who you are? Will you be confused? What will be important to you and how much will certain things be a part of "you."
I'm going to combine this with the stuff we covered in class about Jim Berlin. I'll argue that, in secondary school it would be most beneficial to teach with using emphasis on a writer/subjective style in combination with rhetoric. What do you think, what do you feel, how do you interpret this, which is your favorite character, which is your favorite book. why?
Writing can be a way to develop an identity. Or! It would be very beneficial for writing and reading to become a part of their identity in one way or another.: I am a person who enjoys reading. I am a person who can write competently. et. cetra et. cetra.
I'll have to come up with some strategies to get students to actually start and get interested...maybe I'll have to chunk this idea altogether. Who knows!?
Want to see the outline I made during work? I was written up for doing it...oopsie. It almost wasn't worth it. My initial ideas are always so nebulous...it takes a lot of going in circles and running on tangents to form a coherent idea. This is my outline. Verbatim:
3360 Ideas 1 Epistemology
-style? Rhetoric? Writer/subjective
-developing identity
-way to get students interested
-Appeals to them (Pathos?)
-Jim Berlin
- "I am a person who enjoys writing."
Eventually this will all turn into something that makes sense.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
(8) MOOOOOOOO!
I thought the MOO was GREAT! That was probably the most entertaining thing I saw all week.
Of course...I also have the tendency to cackle maniacally when WoW has server downtime and thousands of gamers run around wreaking havoc on temp servers to sate their boredom. Maybe I just have a thing for chaos. Probably. It was most definitely liberating. I felt like the class went by super fast. I didn't experience the headache that quite a few complained of.
Of course, I've been practically living online since the age of 12, so I can understand that I'm probably not in the majority.
Oddly enough I can recall having much more organized and deep conversations with online friends in randomly thrown together chatrooms. We even did a sort of round robin story a few times. That was fun.
We wrote stories. Just because. About whatever we wanted and submitted them to eachother for comments.
Not everyone had the same level of skill, but nobody complained. Everyone contributed and had fun with it. I believe someone edited the format later on.
Our guildmaster (we all met in a game) posted the stories on our guild website along with interesting conversations...not all of which were mature and academic in nature. The longest round robin we ever produced was called Aspentopia... which was full of inside jokes and nerdtastic references...
But it was FUN. And! Of those 10 I know at least 4 plan on being English teachers.
2 are graphic artists. One joined the army. One is studying theatre/acting. And...I haven't talked to the others in about 5 years.
However, I think that THAT worked because we were all very used to sitting in front of the computer for hours and we all knew eachother really well. We were all about the same age with similar interests. We all enjoyed writing. And there weren't as many of us. Probably about 10.
Of course...I also have the tendency to cackle maniacally when WoW has server downtime and thousands of gamers run around wreaking havoc on temp servers to sate their boredom. Maybe I just have a thing for chaos. Probably. It was most definitely liberating. I felt like the class went by super fast. I didn't experience the headache that quite a few complained of.
Of course, I've been practically living online since the age of 12, so I can understand that I'm probably not in the majority.
Oddly enough I can recall having much more organized and deep conversations with online friends in randomly thrown together chatrooms. We even did a sort of round robin story a few times. That was fun.
We wrote stories. Just because. About whatever we wanted and submitted them to eachother for comments.
Not everyone had the same level of skill, but nobody complained. Everyone contributed and had fun with it. I believe someone edited the format later on.
Our guildmaster (we all met in a game) posted the stories on our guild website along with interesting conversations...not all of which were mature and academic in nature. The longest round robin we ever produced was called Aspentopia... which was full of inside jokes and nerdtastic references...
But it was FUN. And! Of those 10 I know at least 4 plan on being English teachers.
2 are graphic artists. One joined the army. One is studying theatre/acting. And...I haven't talked to the others in about 5 years.
However, I think that THAT worked because we were all very used to sitting in front of the computer for hours and we all knew eachother really well. We were all about the same age with similar interests. We all enjoyed writing. And there weren't as many of us. Probably about 10.
(7) The Internet and Composition
=( I got confused...I thought EVERYTHING concerning the blogs were due on Monday now... oh well. Here it is anyway!
Let's see...what do I think about the potential of the internet and technology in terms of revitalizing composition? (I tried writing a poem but it was terrible)
I love the internet. I love online games and text messaging and AIM and e-mail and facebook. I would like to believe that it's going to do something major for education in composition. However, in all of my online experience, I'm going to have to say that from a English teacher's presecriptive grammer point of view I've seen nothing to brag about. For the most part, people seem to completely forget anything they knew about grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc. as soon as they log on. Economy is valued. Chat rooms...nothing intelligent goes on in chat rooms.
In online games misspelling things is pretty much the cool thing to do. I had a friend once whose screen name was Muro. It was frequently typo'ed as Murp. So he became Murp. Murpy. Murple. Nurp. etc.
Thanks to the internet, I have learned such eloquent phrases as: Stop pwning my doodz noobtard!!!!1111oneoneone ur mom is ftl
I don't think online classes (especially online composition classes) are very helpful or conducive to any real learning. I've taken a few, and because I'm fairly technologically literate, (at least moreso than my professors) I wizzed through them without ever actually reading any material or considering any of the assignments in depth. It was easier, and I was working 40 hours a week.
Which brings up another issue. I think that, as education moves online, people expect things to be done faster. People expect that more of the work will be done 'on your own time.' And because of this, everyone fills up more of their 'work' time...leaving a lot less time to consider any educational material...if that makes any sense at all. I'm feeling a little dazed.
From a more scientific, linguistic standpoint, on the other hand, the internet has some fascinating stuff to offer!
Let's see...what do I think about the potential of the internet and technology in terms of revitalizing composition? (I tried writing a poem but it was terrible)
I love the internet. I love online games and text messaging and AIM and e-mail and facebook. I would like to believe that it's going to do something major for education in composition. However, in all of my online experience, I'm going to have to say that from a English teacher's presecriptive grammer point of view I've seen nothing to brag about. For the most part, people seem to completely forget anything they knew about grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc. as soon as they log on. Economy is valued. Chat rooms...nothing intelligent goes on in chat rooms.
In online games misspelling things is pretty much the cool thing to do. I had a friend once whose screen name was Muro. It was frequently typo'ed as Murp. So he became Murp. Murpy. Murple. Nurp. etc.
Thanks to the internet, I have learned such eloquent phrases as: Stop pwning my doodz noobtard!!!!1111oneoneone ur mom is ftl
I don't think online classes (especially online composition classes) are very helpful or conducive to any real learning. I've taken a few, and because I'm fairly technologically literate, (at least moreso than my professors) I wizzed through them without ever actually reading any material or considering any of the assignments in depth. It was easier, and I was working 40 hours a week.
Which brings up another issue. I think that, as education moves online, people expect things to be done faster. People expect that more of the work will be done 'on your own time.' And because of this, everyone fills up more of their 'work' time...leaving a lot less time to consider any educational material...if that makes any sense at all. I'm feeling a little dazed.
From a more scientific, linguistic standpoint, on the other hand, the internet has some fascinating stuff to offer!
(6) Berlin
First, I'd like to say that I skimmed the reading (because the instructions were to skim) and if we hadn't gone over it in class I would have no idea what I'm talking about.
When we broke into groups today in class my group talked about the fact that, although rhetoric seems to be the most appealing way to discuss, create, and teach composition, the other theories are very necessary. They're almost like stepping stones. Albiet stepping stones that you'll still need in the future over and over again.
Rhetoric wouldn't be very effective if no one understood basic rules of composition...In fact, I actually think rhetoric works better and better the more that everyone is on the same page with a good, solid basis of knowledge about how writing in English should be structured. This isn't to say that norms shouldn't be broken, but rather that no one will know that they're being broken (intentionally or not) if they're not familiar with them.
My favorite though, I guess, was the subjective. And that's probably just because that's the way I enjoy writing. It personalizes it more...makes it more interesting.
And I think that this style of teaching is probably going to be pretty important for me in the future, as I plan on teaching at the secondary level. In theory, my students should at leask know the basic objective style. Hopefully, allowing the addition of personality and opinion and such will increase their willingness to participate.
When we broke into groups today in class my group talked about the fact that, although rhetoric seems to be the most appealing way to discuss, create, and teach composition, the other theories are very necessary. They're almost like stepping stones. Albiet stepping stones that you'll still need in the future over and over again.
Rhetoric wouldn't be very effective if no one understood basic rules of composition...In fact, I actually think rhetoric works better and better the more that everyone is on the same page with a good, solid basis of knowledge about how writing in English should be structured. This isn't to say that norms shouldn't be broken, but rather that no one will know that they're being broken (intentionally or not) if they're not familiar with them.
My favorite though, I guess, was the subjective. And that's probably just because that's the way I enjoy writing. It personalizes it more...makes it more interesting.
And I think that this style of teaching is probably going to be pretty important for me in the future, as I plan on teaching at the secondary level. In theory, my students should at leask know the basic objective style. Hopefully, allowing the addition of personality and opinion and such will increase their willingness to participate.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Humanism
This lecture brought to mind Pangloss from Candide. (It took me like...forever to remember what the title of the story was).
Pangloss teaches the philosophy of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-boobology. He continues to argue, no matter what happens to him, and quite a lot of bad stuff happens to him, (contracting STDs, being beaten in front of a crowd, etc etc) that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Everything bad that happens, happens for what will ultimately be a greater good.
"'It has been proven,' he used to say, 'that things cannot be other than what they are, for since everything is made for an end, everything is necessarily for the best end. Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs are patently devised to be breeched, and so we have breeches.'"
Pangloss is certainly not a humanist. I say this because according to the little tree model from my notes in class, humanist falls under the 'no' answer to the question of 'is this the best of all possible worlds' while Pangloss obviously falls under the 'yes' column.
I'll be honest and say that I've never encountered the term before Tuesday.
So, what is a humanist? According to dictionary.com it is a person having strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. That seems to mesh pretty well with what we were going for in class.
Although, I think we were all leaning toward the idea that being a humanist requires that one care about people as individuals, be anti-killing folk, pro end world hunger.
I am about to stop making sense if I haven't done that already.
It seems to me that humanism isn't necessarily all about caring about helping the people around you live happier lives. I mean, it is if you think that that's what is best for humanity. Maybe I'm stretching it or maybe I'm confused, but I think that you might even be able to call Pangloss a humanist.
It's kind of like talking about good and evil.
Can a person be concidered a humanist if they are more concerned with humanity as a whole than humans as individuals?
If you ignore a few people's wants to promote more general happiness, are you humanist?
I think I need to read up on humanism some more.
Pangloss teaches the philosophy of metaphysico-theologico-cosmolo-boobology. He continues to argue, no matter what happens to him, and quite a lot of bad stuff happens to him, (contracting STDs, being beaten in front of a crowd, etc etc) that this world is the best of all possible worlds. Everything bad that happens, happens for what will ultimately be a greater good.
"'It has been proven,' he used to say, 'that things cannot be other than what they are, for since everything is made for an end, everything is necessarily for the best end. Observe that noses were made to wear spectacles, hence we have spectacles. Legs are patently devised to be breeched, and so we have breeches.'"
Pangloss is certainly not a humanist. I say this because according to the little tree model from my notes in class, humanist falls under the 'no' answer to the question of 'is this the best of all possible worlds' while Pangloss obviously falls under the 'yes' column.
I'll be honest and say that I've never encountered the term before Tuesday.
So, what is a humanist? According to dictionary.com it is a person having strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. That seems to mesh pretty well with what we were going for in class.
Although, I think we were all leaning toward the idea that being a humanist requires that one care about people as individuals, be anti-killing folk, pro end world hunger.
I am about to stop making sense if I haven't done that already.
It seems to me that humanism isn't necessarily all about caring about helping the people around you live happier lives. I mean, it is if you think that that's what is best for humanity. Maybe I'm stretching it or maybe I'm confused, but I think that you might even be able to call Pangloss a humanist.
It's kind of like talking about good and evil.
Can a person be concidered a humanist if they are more concerned with humanity as a whole than humans as individuals?
If you ignore a few people's wants to promote more general happiness, are you humanist?
I think I need to read up on humanism some more.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Hooray for Toulmin!
Firstly I have to say that I was amazed by the analysis we did in class over Swift using Toulmin's argument structure! Maybe this is silly, or it makes me sound stupid...but I just thought it was so interesting to break down the sarcasm so scientifically! I mean, I've always understood sarcasm; I use it all the time. I've just never really thought about why it worked the way it did. Then it all just clicked in class while talking about warrants and I got all giddy for a minute.
I definitely think that Toulmin's argument structure can be used in all sorts of different ways in my life when I really want to make a point. Convincing your boss to give you a better raise, for instance, could be a lot easier if you take the time to think about the warrants you're implying in your argument. If you know what's important to your audience, it's easier to find apropriate data.I realize the following is a little unrealistic, but I don't really feel like begging for a raise right at the moment...so I can't come up with any great reasons for getting one.
Claim: Giving me a raise is important for you.
Data: If you don't I'll quit, and training new employees takes time and money.
Warrant: Time and money are very important to my employer.
More importantly, Toulmin's structure can give me the tools I need to really burn some dude I disagree with on a forum with my awesome argumentative skills.
Claim: Final Fantasy 8 is superior to Final Fantasy 7.
Data: Because I said so.
Warrant: I am always right.
I definitely think that Toulmin's argument structure can be used in all sorts of different ways in my life when I really want to make a point. Convincing your boss to give you a better raise, for instance, could be a lot easier if you take the time to think about the warrants you're implying in your argument. If you know what's important to your audience, it's easier to find apropriate data.I realize the following is a little unrealistic, but I don't really feel like begging for a raise right at the moment...so I can't come up with any great reasons for getting one.
Claim: Giving me a raise is important for you.
Data: If you don't I'll quit, and training new employees takes time and money.
Warrant: Time and money are very important to my employer.
More importantly, Toulmin's structure can give me the tools I need to really burn some dude I disagree with on a forum with my awesome argumentative skills.
Claim: Final Fantasy 8 is superior to Final Fantasy 7.
Data: Because I said so.
Warrant: I am always right.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Dr. Pepper can
Well...I'm going to try to describe a mundane object now....I don't know how well it'll work out. I've chosen the Dr. Pepper can I'm currently drinking out of. Dr. Pepper is pretty much all I drink.
Logos:
I suppose it could be appealing to a person's logic because, on the outside of the can it says "est. 1885," perhaps suggesting that because they have been around a long time...although that might be more of an appeal to ethos. Another example of logos might be the nutrition facts on the back, since that's definitely factual data. Also, maybe the fact that it claims to have "23 flavors."
Ethos:
Yeah, the "est. in 1885" definitely goes under Ethos, since it's establishing their reliability as a company. Maybe also suggesting that it means they're good, and popular since they're still around.
Pathos:
This particular can is decorated like a football. I guess that's trying to call upon emotions stirred about the superbowl, get you excited and all that. Yayyyy Dr. Pepper = superbowl. Superbowl= exciting and fun!
And from this analysis I don't think that the advertising on the can has anything to do with my choosing it... I don't like football. I didn't even watch the superbowl. I think the "23 flavors" commercials are silly, and I can't personally distinguish between any individual flavors myself.
Logos:
I suppose it could be appealing to a person's logic because, on the outside of the can it says "est. 1885," perhaps suggesting that because they have been around a long time...although that might be more of an appeal to ethos. Another example of logos might be the nutrition facts on the back, since that's definitely factual data. Also, maybe the fact that it claims to have "23 flavors."
Ethos:
Yeah, the "est. in 1885" definitely goes under Ethos, since it's establishing their reliability as a company. Maybe also suggesting that it means they're good, and popular since they're still around.
Pathos:
This particular can is decorated like a football. I guess that's trying to call upon emotions stirred about the superbowl, get you excited and all that. Yayyyy Dr. Pepper = superbowl. Superbowl= exciting and fun!
And from this analysis I don't think that the advertising on the can has anything to do with my choosing it... I don't like football. I didn't even watch the superbowl. I think the "23 flavors" commercials are silly, and I can't personally distinguish between any individual flavors myself.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Persuasion
Prepare to have your pants bored off.
I'm going to say that I agree with the idea that language is innately a means of persuasion. Although, it does sound strange to say it like that, don't you think?
It makes it sound like human beings are indeed selfish and manipulative creatures. Be like me! Think like me! My way is the best way! I keep trying to think of an example of language that ISN'T persuasion, though...and I just can't do it. Maybe I just don't want it to be true because the word 'persuasion' just has this negative aura floating around it in my mind... Of course, you can always be persuasive in a positive way.
In spite of this, i think it's an incredibly interesting way to think about language!
During the lecture I just couldn't stop thinking about this section from Pride and Prejudice. I know that Mr. Darcy isn't specificly arguing for the thesis proposed in class today, but I do think it fits in really nicely. Sorry if this is kind of long...If you've read the book you probably remember the scene. If not, I'll just summarize what's been happening. The party has been sitting around entertainging themselves in various ways. Mr. Darcy is writing a letter. Miss Bingley, who has the hots for him, basically tries to flirt with him by telling him how well he writes letters. He brushes her off. Then there is a conversation between Mr. Bingley, Miss Bingley, and Elizabeth about how a person OUGHT to write a letter and how Mr. Bingley himself writes one. I'll just insert stage-directionesque names to indicate who's talking because it can be confusing sometimes:
Mr. Bingley: "My ideas flow so rapidly that I have not time to express them; by which means my letters sometimes convey no ideas at all to my correspondents."
"Your humility, Mr. Bingley," said Elizabeth, "must disarm reproof."
"Nothing is more deceitful," said Darcy, "than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes, an indirect boast."
Bingley: "And which of the two do you call my little recent piece of modesty?"
"The indirect boast; for you are really proud of your defects in writing, because you consider them as proceeding from a rapidity of thought and carelessness of execution, which, if not estimable, you think at least highly interesting."
I just always thought that was so funny...and true. Bingley, in his conversation, tries to persuade his audience that he's interesting. In a very humble, subconcious way, I think, but persuade he does nonetheless. He does succeed. (With everyone except Darcy, of course.)
I think everyone does the same thing Mr. Bingley just did every day. With everything they do. With varying degrees of success, subtelty, awareness, consequence, and importance.
Right now, it's pretty obvious that I'm trying to persuade someone...anyone...that my opinion is correct.
Yesterday, my boyfriend was talking to his friend...the way so many guys do...in a neverending stream of movie quotes. I believe, subconciously, they were both trying to persuade anyone listening that they were:
1) funny
2) people with great recall abilities
3) cool and perhaps non-conformists, because the subject material being quoted was slightly non-mainstream
4) great friends
They succeeded only in making me believe they were both unoriginal weirdos who hang out with eachother all the time.
I don't usually put on makeup in the morning, persuading people to believe that I am a late riser. I don't think this is a great thing to be, but like Bingley, I do find it to be an interesting personality quirk, and perhaps a conversation starter. I.e. 'Boy oh boy, I sure am tired! Wish we didn't have to be in class today. Share with me, fellow classmate, your similar story of how you too did not enjoy waking up this morning!'
I chose black for the background color of this blog because it reflects my dark and miserable soul in order to persuade everyone that I am different and no one can understand me! lol jay kay.
I'm going to say that I agree with the idea that language is innately a means of persuasion. Although, it does sound strange to say it like that, don't you think?
It makes it sound like human beings are indeed selfish and manipulative creatures. Be like me! Think like me! My way is the best way! I keep trying to think of an example of language that ISN'T persuasion, though...and I just can't do it. Maybe I just don't want it to be true because the word 'persuasion' just has this negative aura floating around it in my mind... Of course, you can always be persuasive in a positive way.
In spite of this, i think it's an incredibly interesting way to think about language!
During the lecture I just couldn't stop thinking about this section from Pride and Prejudice. I know that Mr. Darcy isn't specificly arguing for the thesis proposed in class today, but I do think it fits in really nicely. Sorry if this is kind of long...If you've read the book you probably remember the scene. If not, I'll just summarize what's been happening. The party has been sitting around entertainging themselves in various ways. Mr. Darcy is writing a letter. Miss Bingley, who has the hots for him, basically tries to flirt with him by telling him how well he writes letters. He brushes her off. Then there is a conversation between Mr. Bingley, Miss Bingley, and Elizabeth about how a person OUGHT to write a letter and how Mr. Bingley himself writes one. I'll just insert stage-directionesque names to indicate who's talking because it can be confusing sometimes:
Mr. Bingley: "My ideas flow so rapidly that I have not time to express them; by which means my letters sometimes convey no ideas at all to my correspondents."
"Your humility, Mr. Bingley," said Elizabeth, "must disarm reproof."
"Nothing is more deceitful," said Darcy, "than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes, an indirect boast."
Bingley: "And which of the two do you call my little recent piece of modesty?"
"The indirect boast; for you are really proud of your defects in writing, because you consider them as proceeding from a rapidity of thought and carelessness of execution, which, if not estimable, you think at least highly interesting."
I just always thought that was so funny...and true. Bingley, in his conversation, tries to persuade his audience that he's interesting. In a very humble, subconcious way, I think, but persuade he does nonetheless. He does succeed. (With everyone except Darcy, of course.)
I think everyone does the same thing Mr. Bingley just did every day. With everything they do. With varying degrees of success, subtelty, awareness, consequence, and importance.
Right now, it's pretty obvious that I'm trying to persuade someone...anyone...that my opinion is correct.
Yesterday, my boyfriend was talking to his friend...the way so many guys do...in a neverending stream of movie quotes. I believe, subconciously, they were both trying to persuade anyone listening that they were:
1) funny
2) people with great recall abilities
3) cool and perhaps non-conformists, because the subject material being quoted was slightly non-mainstream
4) great friends
They succeeded only in making me believe they were both unoriginal weirdos who hang out with eachother all the time.
I don't usually put on makeup in the morning, persuading people to believe that I am a late riser. I don't think this is a great thing to be, but like Bingley, I do find it to be an interesting personality quirk, and perhaps a conversation starter. I.e. 'Boy oh boy, I sure am tired! Wish we didn't have to be in class today. Share with me, fellow classmate, your similar story of how you too did not enjoy waking up this morning!'
I chose black for the background color of this blog because it reflects my dark and miserable soul in order to persuade everyone that I am different and no one can understand me! lol jay kay.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Blog numero uno
I have a tendency to talk in wobbly ovals so...if I don't make sense I'm terribly sorry =) Also, my examples are ridiculous.
I think that it is impossible to say that humans are innately good or evil objectively. And because of this I don't think you can say that language has the ability to make people (objectively) good or evil.
For instance, if I was a great orator and an excelent writer I could concievably start a cult and convince masses of people that it was evil to have a pinky finger. The pinky is the source of all evil. We would chop off our pinkies and those of our offspring at birth.
So, my little cult of wierdos would certainly believe that the great majority of people are indeed born with malice in their hearts. I convinced them that to be born with a pinky was to be born sinful and inclined to do dastardly deeds.
In my theoretical cult it is considered noble to cannibalize and a great honor to be thought worthy of being eaten by another human being.
Eating popsicles on days when the temperature is below 35 would also be evil.
So would changing the channel on tv as soon as the commercials came on....and then changing it back every few minutes only to find that you've missed part of the stinking show. Erratic channel changers would be punished severely....But I digress....
I guess what I'm trying to say here is once again, that language doesn't give humans the ability to do good or evil, but it DOES give us the ability to think in those terms. Our mental capacities give us the ability to reason and judge and decide and convince.
Language allows us to CREATE good and evil, to create the idea of selfishness or selflessness, to consider it and decide whether or not one or the other is an acceptable or unacceptable thing.
So, I guess I do agree that composition is the ultimate human endeavor =)
And just to clarify in case I scared anyone, no, I do not actually want to start any freaky cults or cut off anyone's pinky. My personal definition of evil includes dismembering other people.
I think that it is impossible to say that humans are innately good or evil objectively. And because of this I don't think you can say that language has the ability to make people (objectively) good or evil.
For instance, if I was a great orator and an excelent writer I could concievably start a cult and convince masses of people that it was evil to have a pinky finger. The pinky is the source of all evil. We would chop off our pinkies and those of our offspring at birth.
So, my little cult of wierdos would certainly believe that the great majority of people are indeed born with malice in their hearts. I convinced them that to be born with a pinky was to be born sinful and inclined to do dastardly deeds.
In my theoretical cult it is considered noble to cannibalize and a great honor to be thought worthy of being eaten by another human being.
Eating popsicles on days when the temperature is below 35 would also be evil.
So would changing the channel on tv as soon as the commercials came on....and then changing it back every few minutes only to find that you've missed part of the stinking show. Erratic channel changers would be punished severely....But I digress....
I guess what I'm trying to say here is once again, that language doesn't give humans the ability to do good or evil, but it DOES give us the ability to think in those terms. Our mental capacities give us the ability to reason and judge and decide and convince.
Language allows us to CREATE good and evil, to create the idea of selfishness or selflessness, to consider it and decide whether or not one or the other is an acceptable or unacceptable thing.
So, I guess I do agree that composition is the ultimate human endeavor =)
And just to clarify in case I scared anyone, no, I do not actually want to start any freaky cults or cut off anyone's pinky. My personal definition of evil includes dismembering other people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
