Does a bicycle goes to heaven when it dies?
A few days ago, my bicycle broke down, literally, when the pedal 'broke' off. Seeing that trying to fix it will cost more resources than buying a new one ('He' was a Target bicycle that costed me $50 a year ago), I decided to say goodbye to my old pal. Quite cold-bloodedly, I bought a new bicycle and salvaged some parts (wheels, seats,...) of the old one that I can use. As I'm about to throw the frame away, I'm reminded of the Ikea Lamp commercial. Like the lamp, the frame is probably sitting out in the dark being covered by snow. A little, about 1 ppb, part of me felt guilty. I wish I didn't have to throw it away... but there's noway I can keep both my bikes in my apartment.. it'll be very awkward for the two them (since the can't "just be friends" now). In the end, I wonder if I made the right choice. What do you think?
P.S. May be it's some sort of karma, but I ended up damaging the bolts on my new bike when I tried to change the wheels. An advice on that would help too.
2.10.2007
Cont. discussion
One of the activities I wanted to do in class was distribute advertisements and talk about the fictional examples they might address as well as the underlying premises, whether they be positive or negative. A couple of ads in particular I wanted to talk about were a Joe Camel cigarette ad and a McDonalds ad. The book states that “Advertisers often use animals or fabulous human beings to sell their products. If everyone can remember the Joe Camel ads, he was always thought to be cool and popular whether he was playing pool or riding a motorcycle. Many adults, mostly parents were against these ads due to the camel itself. They feared the ads were trying to target younger generations by having a “fun loving” animal smoking.
Another ad, I wanted to touch on was a McDonalds ad that features two young black boys, maybe ages 6-8, having a discussion about something on some steps. Underneath the boys is the saying “The bigger we get, the bigger our dreams get. The problem is what they are wearing in my opinion. These young boys are wearing baggy clothes and baggy sweaters with their shoelaces untied. When I asked various family and friends if they saw anything wrong with ad, majority of them said, “Do they have to be in such baggy clothes, like little thugs?” The answer…of course not. McDonalds is no stranger to controversy though. A few years back, many African Americans were upset because the commercials for the food chain mainly focused on blacks either rapping or dancing. Many people thought, is this how they view us? I just happen to think that these two ads are great example ads having negative premises.
Another ad, I wanted to touch on was a McDonalds ad that features two young black boys, maybe ages 6-8, having a discussion about something on some steps. Underneath the boys is the saying “The bigger we get, the bigger our dreams get. The problem is what they are wearing in my opinion. These young boys are wearing baggy clothes and baggy sweaters with their shoelaces untied. When I asked various family and friends if they saw anything wrong with ad, majority of them said, “Do they have to be in such baggy clothes, like little thugs?” The answer…of course not. McDonalds is no stranger to controversy though. A few years back, many African Americans were upset because the commercials for the food chain mainly focused on blacks either rapping or dancing. Many people thought, is this how they view us? I just happen to think that these two ads are great example ads having negative premises.
2.08.2007
Aristotle's Rhetoric
I hope this clears some of this weeks logos up:
We persuade by the argument itself (logos) when we demostrate or seem to demonstrate that something is the case. For Aristotle, there are two species of arguments: inductions and deductions. Induction is defined as the proceeding from particulars up to a universal. A deduction is an argument in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the suppositions results of necessity through them or because of thier being ture. The inductive argument in rhetoric is the example; it does not proceed from many particular cases to one universal case, but from one particular to a similar particular if both particulars fall under the same class. The deductive argument in rhetoric is the enthymeme.
The Enthymeme:
The Concept of Enthymeme
For Aristotle, an enthymeme is what has the function of a proof or demostration in the domain of public speech. Since a demonstration is a kind of 'sullogismos.' The concepts 'proof' and 'sullogismos' play a crucial role in Aristotle's logical-dialectical theory. Properly understood, what people call 'enthymeme' should have the form of a sullogismos, i.e. a deductive argument.
Rapp, Christof, "Aristotle's Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=
We persuade by the argument itself (logos) when we demostrate or seem to demonstrate that something is the case. For Aristotle, there are two species of arguments: inductions and deductions. Induction is defined as the proceeding from particulars up to a universal. A deduction is an argument in which, certain things having been supposed, something different from the suppositions results of necessity through them or because of thier being ture. The inductive argument in rhetoric is the example; it does not proceed from many particular cases to one universal case, but from one particular to a similar particular if both particulars fall under the same class. The deductive argument in rhetoric is the enthymeme.
The Enthymeme:
The Concept of Enthymeme
For Aristotle, an enthymeme is what has the function of a proof or demostration in the domain of public speech. Since a demonstration is a kind of 'sullogismos.' The concepts 'proof' and 'sullogismos' play a crucial role in Aristotle's logical-dialectical theory. Properly understood, what people call 'enthymeme' should have the form of a sullogismos, i.e. a deductive argument.
Rapp, Christof, "Aristotle's Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=
Logos Historical Examples
In the Logos chapter, one of the concepts discussed is the idea of rhetorical examples and historical examples and how effective they can be when used to make an argument. To prove that point, the text brings up how that if you wanted to oppose the Iraq war, you could invoke memories of what happened in the Vietnam war by demonstrating similarities the two wars might have (obviously a historical example). Once you make valid comparisons of the two you can use the sentiment that people have of the Vietnam war to agree with you on your point about the Iraq war. Click the link below and watch the video!
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2006/11/21/hardball-vietnam-iraq-comparison/
*you have to click the video for it to play*
Did the clip do a successful job in establishing similarities through comparison of the two wars?
If it did (or didn't) why was it successful (or unsuccessful)?
What unsaid conclusions can you infer from the video?
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2006/11/21/hardball-vietnam-iraq-comparison/
*you have to click the video for it to play*
Did the clip do a successful job in establishing similarities through comparison of the two wars?
If it did (or didn't) why was it successful (or unsuccessful)?
What unsaid conclusions can you infer from the video?
Pathos?
When reading chapter 7 on the enargeia, the example of a rhetor who supports the regulation of hate speech fell short for me. Here it is listed below.
"A small child walks juantily home from school, swinging her backpack in time with her steps. Her eyes sparkle with hapiness-school is out for the day-and her smile indicates her sheer happiness at being alive on this beautiful autumn afternoon. Suddenly, three girls from her class at school appear on the sidewalk in front of her. Giggling, they point at her in unison and the tallest one yells "Fatso! Go on a diet." They run away.
This depiction is intended to elicit sympathy for victims of hate speech."
I for one am proud to be reading a book that addresses these issues. Even-though that during my youth PC was simply unheard of- simple politeness was the common line that we all walked on.
Anyway, I found that this Pathos example made me laugh and I don't like to admit it. I just see, something like this, on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps I am wrong, SNL never aired anything so horrible. I felt that this was a poor example of appealing to pathos because it made me laugh, or maybe that's the point...we are laughing (a colleague of mine and I).
After reading it the first time I thought, what mean girls!, without feeling empathy, sympathy, or identification with her. I heard no violin playing. Yes, I felt that justice needed to be done. Yes it was a rude comment. I thought to myself that I maybe either
A) not a good reader. Or
B) not aware of the times I live in.
Great, I'm glad that I am aware of my weaknesses. This segment could have been better if it would have described her struggle as being over weight instead of trying to establish the hate speech.
Maybe this might work better...
Janice peers over the desk that is too small to sit at and tries to take notes like everyone else. She spends half her time, throughout eight classes, juggling her notes and books from the table built into the chair that's too small for her . In frustration, she huffs and puffs about her weight. With great joy, the day in school ends and she leaves the classes feeling the steady eyes glare at her large physique.
Walking home alone, she meets eyes with a clique of girls from school. They glare quickly at her and gossip together as a group giggling. As Janice approaches them, her classmates smile politely and one says "Hey fatso!" laced with scorn, "Get on a diet!"
I don't see why the author made me laugh when I am supposed to feel some sort of emotion.
"A small child walks juantily home from school, swinging her backpack in time with her steps. Her eyes sparkle with hapiness-school is out for the day-and her smile indicates her sheer happiness at being alive on this beautiful autumn afternoon. Suddenly, three girls from her class at school appear on the sidewalk in front of her. Giggling, they point at her in unison and the tallest one yells "Fatso! Go on a diet." They run away.
This depiction is intended to elicit sympathy for victims of hate speech."
I for one am proud to be reading a book that addresses these issues. Even-though that during my youth PC was simply unheard of- simple politeness was the common line that we all walked on.
Anyway, I found that this Pathos example made me laugh and I don't like to admit it. I just see, something like this, on Saturday Night Live. Perhaps I am wrong, SNL never aired anything so horrible. I felt that this was a poor example of appealing to pathos because it made me laugh, or maybe that's the point...we are laughing (a colleague of mine and I).
After reading it the first time I thought, what mean girls!, without feeling empathy, sympathy, or identification with her. I heard no violin playing. Yes, I felt that justice needed to be done. Yes it was a rude comment. I thought to myself that I maybe either
A) not a good reader. Or
B) not aware of the times I live in.
Great, I'm glad that I am aware of my weaknesses. This segment could have been better if it would have described her struggle as being over weight instead of trying to establish the hate speech.
Maybe this might work better...
Janice peers over the desk that is too small to sit at and tries to take notes like everyone else. She spends half her time, throughout eight classes, juggling her notes and books from the table built into the chair that's too small for her . In frustration, she huffs and puffs about her weight. With great joy, the day in school ends and she leaves the classes feeling the steady eyes glare at her large physique.
Walking home alone, she meets eyes with a clique of girls from school. They glare quickly at her and gossip together as a group giggling. As Janice approaches them, her classmates smile politely and one says "Hey fatso!" laced with scorn, "Get on a diet!"
I don't see why the author made me laugh when I am supposed to feel some sort of emotion.
2.01.2007
On equality; a brief enargeia
You're in a cage. This cage is scarcely larger than your body and you find yourself immobilized within. You can't turn your head because it too is secured in place and so you wait...nervously, anxiously, all the while in a borderline state of panic. You hardly notice that the greater part of your head is positioned outside of the cage, but all too soon it makes sense. A person is approaching, they seem to be carrying a variety of medical-use items, and before you can reduce the complexities of the situation unfolding, a pair of forceps have forced one of your eyes wide open. The pain is aggressively terrible and you are terrified, "why," after all, "would I ever be in this position?," you ask. No more quickly than rendering yourself helplessly impotent, a syringe filled with some future cosmetic or toiletry chemical is deposited on your eye, the forceps are removed, and your eye is cinched shut with a clamp-like bandage, leaving as much of the chemical as fitfully possible. The pain is nothing like you've ever felt, nor have ever cared to imagine. In a cruel mix of fate the chemical not only dissolves your eye, rendering you blind, but sears the flesh off your face from the upper cheek to the brow ridge. In an exponentiation of terror and fear, the excruciating pain from the blistering chemical reaction combined with the total immobility of your head and body leave you in a psychological grab-bag of grief, misery, and suffering (little do you know that you may be in this position for the next ten days). Unable to move, urinating and excreting waste on yourself, contemplating the utter agony which you now find yourself in, welcome to the life of a rabbit who, ripped from her life of enjoyment of foraging and playing with other rabbits, is now having chemicals tested on her eye so that you, great consumers, may have your Revlon makeup, Chanel perfume, and Crest mouthwash without any worries.
I guess, and what I will argue at much greater length in another post, is that if the justification for (non-human) animal experimentation is premised on the idea that (non-human) animals are somehow different from human animals, then why do we continue to test a variety of chemicals on disparate members of the animal kingdom? For if the differences are as great as professed, then how could we possibly infer anything from these experimentations? In addition, the differences must be so great as to render the moral objections to such a practice moot, the fact that they do not should itself raise serious doubts as to the legitimacy of these claims. Subsequently, it is without doubt that the similarities between species must be so strikingly similar that we necessarily infer such claimed properties from these tests, such as how a splash of nail-polish remover in one's eye will not lead to blindness (which we know from testing absurd concentrations of it on different animals' eyes), for if we could not infer such properties what, outside the practice of sadistic cruelty, would be the purpose of performing such barbaric acts?
The purpose of this brief introduction to non-human animal rights argumentation was to present one of the unjustified, savage acts of cruelty that is perpetrated against are animal neighbors each day. The ignorance and indifference with which normal people view this is either an intellectual emergency or a moral atrocity, probably both. While "good" people are saving the world from African poverty or reminiscing over the lives lost in Iraq, there occurs a slaughter of Holocaust proportions each day. To somehow shed tears for the death of 3 thousand people in collapsed buildings, who arguably acted to perpetuate their own demise, and not blink an eye at the extinction of 10 billion sentient beings per year seems to me to be a moral outrage of epic proportions, though wholly unsurprising given the level of stupefying ignorance held by this country's members. -Michael Griffin
I guess, and what I will argue at much greater length in another post, is that if the justification for (non-human) animal experimentation is premised on the idea that (non-human) animals are somehow different from human animals, then why do we continue to test a variety of chemicals on disparate members of the animal kingdom? For if the differences are as great as professed, then how could we possibly infer anything from these experimentations? In addition, the differences must be so great as to render the moral objections to such a practice moot, the fact that they do not should itself raise serious doubts as to the legitimacy of these claims. Subsequently, it is without doubt that the similarities between species must be so strikingly similar that we necessarily infer such claimed properties from these tests, such as how a splash of nail-polish remover in one's eye will not lead to blindness (which we know from testing absurd concentrations of it on different animals' eyes), for if we could not infer such properties what, outside the practice of sadistic cruelty, would be the purpose of performing such barbaric acts?
The purpose of this brief introduction to non-human animal rights argumentation was to present one of the unjustified, savage acts of cruelty that is perpetrated against are animal neighbors each day. The ignorance and indifference with which normal people view this is either an intellectual emergency or a moral atrocity, probably both. While "good" people are saving the world from African poverty or reminiscing over the lives lost in Iraq, there occurs a slaughter of Holocaust proportions each day. To somehow shed tears for the death of 3 thousand people in collapsed buildings, who arguably acted to perpetuate their own demise, and not blink an eye at the extinction of 10 billion sentient beings per year seems to me to be a moral outrage of epic proportions, though wholly unsurprising given the level of stupefying ignorance held by this country's members. -Michael Griffin
the energia of enargeia.
i wish we would have gotten a chance to hear from more students yesterday during our enargeia-slam so if you're willing to break through your shyness, you can post your examples of enargeia here.
to kick things off, here's the vivid scene i came up with during class:
Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate. Turning over the events of the evening in your mind - how would Mayor Daley's speech have changed if he spoke to a more hostile audience? why does our crazy teacher keep trying to turn her invented ethos into situated ethos? can we ever really be outside of rhetoric? - you notice that you're now all alone, wandering down a particularly deserted street northwest of campus. "Why didn't I take that ride Caroline offered me on the back of her bike?!?" you curse. "Just a few more blocks," you think, but, secretly, you're terrified. You decide to make a risky choice, turning down a dark alley because it will get you home more quickly. Halfway down the alley, with the other end in sight, a man stumbles out in front of you. He's holding a knife. He looks drunk. He looks frightening. "Give me your money and your rhetoric textbook!" he yells. You begin to reach for your wallet and then decide you can't bear to part with your Crowley and Hawhee. You're scared but you realize your audience doesn't share that emotion. What's a rhetorician to do?!?!? "Listen mister," you begin, "Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate..."
to kick things off, here's the vivid scene i came up with during class:
Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate. Turning over the events of the evening in your mind - how would Mayor Daley's speech have changed if he spoke to a more hostile audience? why does our crazy teacher keep trying to turn her invented ethos into situated ethos? can we ever really be outside of rhetoric? - you notice that you're now all alone, wandering down a particularly deserted street northwest of campus. "Why didn't I take that ride Caroline offered me on the back of her bike?!?" you curse. "Just a few more blocks," you think, but, secretly, you're terrified. You decide to make a risky choice, turning down a dark alley because it will get you home more quickly. Halfway down the alley, with the other end in sight, a man stumbles out in front of you. He's holding a knife. He looks drunk. He looks frightening. "Give me your money and your rhetoric textbook!" he yells. You begin to reach for your wallet and then decide you can't bear to part with your Crowley and Hawhee. You're scared but you realize your audience doesn't share that emotion. What's a rhetorician to do?!?!? "Listen mister," you begin, "Picture yourself leaving campus late one evening after a particularly rigorous night of rhetorical debate..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)