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.

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.

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.