Opportunitas is only present when we can identify and successfully utilize kairotic moments to our benefit.
hmmm...
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Rhetorical Activity Ch. 5
Some popular slogans are conclusions or premises of enthymemes. The statement that "Elvis has left the building" is part of a long enthymematic argument whose other premises are never stated. Can you articulate them?
‘Elvis has left the building’
Taking into account that this was actually said when the King left the building, I’ll start there. Clearly, at the conclusion of a set Elvis would leave and his fans (hearts still throbbing) would be alerted as to his departure so that they would calm down and leave as well. However, I have heard this phrase used to describe 2 distinct different enthymematic arguments that are quite a bit easier to understand in passing than they are to articulate.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion. Some would even go so far as to say DEATH. I like this one best because when I think of who Elvis was as the performer and I think of the enthymeme’s intent in this regard I am immediately reminded of a phrase that fits well with this one. It’s a little Shakespeare some of you may remember: ‘All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts…’ When we consider these two statements together we can paint a full picture, possibly, of the arguments major premise. Each person is an actor on the world’s stage, and guess what? Even if our audience isn’t left with hearts a throbbing we will certainly have to leave the building at some point.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is still an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion but rather than to go as far as death let’s just say FUN. I’m under the impression that when Elvis left and things calmed the cricket convention came out to harp a tune. Since it is quite hard to try and find a good literary example of this I actually turned to my mother’s opinion on the subject. According to her when the fun evacuates a time/place it leaves us with the same result as when Elvis actually left the building his concert was in. I know that at the end of a concert nowadays there is a routine party, but back then the concert was pushing the party line so when the show was over… so was the fun.
I think that the most sound and solid example is that of DEATH but only because it has the ring of utter finality that is in good keeping with the enthymeme. However, DEATH sucks and FUN is so much better so I had to include that assessment as well.
‘Elvis has left the building’
Taking into account that this was actually said when the King left the building, I’ll start there. Clearly, at the conclusion of a set Elvis would leave and his fans (hearts still throbbing) would be alerted as to his departure so that they would calm down and leave as well. However, I have heard this phrase used to describe 2 distinct different enthymematic arguments that are quite a bit easier to understand in passing than they are to articulate.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion. Some would even go so far as to say DEATH. I like this one best because when I think of who Elvis was as the performer and I think of the enthymeme’s intent in this regard I am immediately reminded of a phrase that fits well with this one. It’s a little Shakespeare some of you may remember: ‘All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts…’ When we consider these two statements together we can paint a full picture, possibly, of the arguments major premise. Each person is an actor on the world’s stage, and guess what? Even if our audience isn’t left with hearts a throbbing we will certainly have to leave the building at some point.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is still an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion but rather than to go as far as death let’s just say FUN. I’m under the impression that when Elvis left and things calmed the cricket convention came out to harp a tune. Since it is quite hard to try and find a good literary example of this I actually turned to my mother’s opinion on the subject. According to her when the fun evacuates a time/place it leaves us with the same result as when Elvis actually left the building his concert was in. I know that at the end of a concert nowadays there is a routine party, but back then the concert was pushing the party line so when the show was over… so was the fun.
I think that the most sound and solid example is that of DEATH but only because it has the ring of utter finality that is in good keeping with the enthymeme. However, DEATH sucks and FUN is so much better so I had to include that assessment as well.
Socrates Debate
Since I put so much effort towards this I felt like putting it up for display:
Aristotle’s Topical Method (shortened version dictated by necessity)
Conjecture:
• What Exists?
o A collection of dialogues by his student Plato
o A consistency in his tone and method throughout Plato’s dialogues
o A physical image that rarely varies from nothing less than ugly
o Mentions from numerous authors that throughout create a rather consistent image of Socrates as a being and a mind (Plato, Aristophanes… and Xenophon)
• What does not exist?
Any concrete evidence that indicates Socrates’ existence in the form of his own writings has been lost or never existed at all.
• What is the size or extent as to what exists?
o Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to Plato… many of which mention his admired teacher Socrates.
o Plato’s description of Socrates stands deliberately different from Aristophanes’ as it was that Plato himself was his teacher’s most successful pupil.
o Socrates was regarded as less than strapping no matter the occasion aside from a few paintings and statues where the maker could not bear the pain of destroying their conception.
o Although Aristophanes was a counterpoint figure (aka critic) he painted a picture of Socrates that fit with all of the others, although from a differing point of view than that of his admirers. In that time Socrates quick wit and deep thought could blow your mind with discussion, while Aristophanes could put your back in your seat or leave you hanging on the edge of your chair from the drama stage… thus they are two techniques for ‘battle of the wits’ in public forum Athenian style. Socrates’ students maintained a consistency that has passed down through the ages as a timeless method to accessing wisdom and greater understanding of our existence as a whole.
Degree:
• Putting into question the degree of likelihood that a real individual could make this sort of profound difference within society for so long versus the degree of likelihood that an imaginary individual could have this breadth of impact would lead one to believe that it is quite unlikely that Plato and Socrates were as one.
• The degree of likelihood would likewise help one surmise that during this time of intense social diversity 3 separate and equally abstract individuals could have never come to an agreement on an ‘ideal figure of philosophy’ (even a criticized ‘ideal figure of philosophy) to have written about, pondered upon, or discussed in depth.
• The degree of likelihood that Plato could be so profound in his own right as well as in ‘Socrates’ right would help one to conclude that no one man could possess such a powerful mind… especially given that no man before or since has achieved the level of influence as either individually.
Possibility:
• What is possible?
o It is possible that Socrates is a fictional character that embodies a ‘sign of the times’ however it is quite unlikely considering the various consistencies that paint a very deep picture (however unattractive) of Socrates.
o It is possible that Socrates indeed existed and due to some rather confusing writings from his student existed in both actuality and in literary occurrence.
o It is possible that the definition of existence is flexible enough that we could say he existed at all… even though he may never have been a human being.
o It is possible that Socrates was a healthy blend of how everyone described him and indeed existed as a man of flesh and blood.
• What is impossible?
o Unless some major archaeological find presents us with a vast amount of concrete evidence that Socrates existed as a man we will never truly know.
o It is impossible to conceive that in one form or another Socrates did not exist.
o It is impossible to devise a solution to a problem that offers no actual evidence except the kind that, when scrutinized, begins mounting the questions one atop the other. Therefore a logical point of stasis would be that IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER SOCRATES DID EXIST.
p.s. has anyone watched Bill and Ted...?
Aristotle’s Topical Method (shortened version dictated by necessity)
Conjecture:
• What Exists?
o A collection of dialogues by his student Plato
o A consistency in his tone and method throughout Plato’s dialogues
o A physical image that rarely varies from nothing less than ugly
o Mentions from numerous authors that throughout create a rather consistent image of Socrates as a being and a mind (Plato, Aristophanes… and Xenophon)
• What does not exist?
Any concrete evidence that indicates Socrates’ existence in the form of his own writings has been lost or never existed at all.
• What is the size or extent as to what exists?
o Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to Plato… many of which mention his admired teacher Socrates.
o Plato’s description of Socrates stands deliberately different from Aristophanes’ as it was that Plato himself was his teacher’s most successful pupil.
o Socrates was regarded as less than strapping no matter the occasion aside from a few paintings and statues where the maker could not bear the pain of destroying their conception.
o Although Aristophanes was a counterpoint figure (aka critic) he painted a picture of Socrates that fit with all of the others, although from a differing point of view than that of his admirers. In that time Socrates quick wit and deep thought could blow your mind with discussion, while Aristophanes could put your back in your seat or leave you hanging on the edge of your chair from the drama stage… thus they are two techniques for ‘battle of the wits’ in public forum Athenian style. Socrates’ students maintained a consistency that has passed down through the ages as a timeless method to accessing wisdom and greater understanding of our existence as a whole.
Degree:
• Putting into question the degree of likelihood that a real individual could make this sort of profound difference within society for so long versus the degree of likelihood that an imaginary individual could have this breadth of impact would lead one to believe that it is quite unlikely that Plato and Socrates were as one.
• The degree of likelihood would likewise help one surmise that during this time of intense social diversity 3 separate and equally abstract individuals could have never come to an agreement on an ‘ideal figure of philosophy’ (even a criticized ‘ideal figure of philosophy) to have written about, pondered upon, or discussed in depth.
• The degree of likelihood that Plato could be so profound in his own right as well as in ‘Socrates’ right would help one to conclude that no one man could possess such a powerful mind… especially given that no man before or since has achieved the level of influence as either individually.
Possibility:
• What is possible?
o It is possible that Socrates is a fictional character that embodies a ‘sign of the times’ however it is quite unlikely considering the various consistencies that paint a very deep picture (however unattractive) of Socrates.
o It is possible that Socrates indeed existed and due to some rather confusing writings from his student existed in both actuality and in literary occurrence.
o It is possible that the definition of existence is flexible enough that we could say he existed at all… even though he may never have been a human being.
o It is possible that Socrates was a healthy blend of how everyone described him and indeed existed as a man of flesh and blood.
• What is impossible?
o Unless some major archaeological find presents us with a vast amount of concrete evidence that Socrates existed as a man we will never truly know.
o It is impossible to conceive that in one form or another Socrates did not exist.
o It is impossible to devise a solution to a problem that offers no actual evidence except the kind that, when scrutinized, begins mounting the questions one atop the other. Therefore a logical point of stasis would be that IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER SOCRATES DID EXIST.
p.s. has anyone watched Bill and Ted...?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
4th Progymnasmata
Gay Marriage
Prologue: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship as defined in Wikipedia (not usually a source but it works for this definition). The cornerstone of marriage as an institution is based upon two people of differing lineages coming together and creating a collaboration that in essence unifies the two individuals and creates a family.
Contrary: Laws prevent same sex unions in this day and age for no clear reason other than the presumption that ‘same-sex’ anything is a slight on the natural and blight on piety as well as society in general.
Exposition: However the institution of marriage stands the same trial of time as everything else and must broaden its horizons in order to survive as important and necessary. Marriage’s survivability already has enough problems on its own, but to stifle future miracles is to devalue the institution as a whole… while successfully making it like an exclusive country club.
Comparison: Marriage is a joke anymore. People do it in Vegas after a 20 minute marathon… erm roulette game. People get married to doctor taxes, or pull benefits for kid. All the same, people rid themselves of marriage like they would a rabid monkey clinging to their back. Clearly neither the beginning nor end of marriage is taken seriously so why in this instance take what happens between so seriously?
Intention: Same sex marriages often come at great scrutiny and cost to the participants, but they want the union so they persevere. In this way same sex marriages are tempered even before they can happen, or be confirmed legally. How’s that for taking marriage seriously?
Digression: If marriage is not allowed to broaden its horizons and get with the day and age we are in then it may well continue to lose its value and truly become a husk of its former greatness.
Rejection of Pity: Perhaps it seems wrong to agree with the wishes of those who you cannot understand, and this is why we choose to deny the option of same sex marriage universally; alas it is not. It is never wrong to attempt to streamline and make the world a more understanding and inviting place for everyone who wishes to fall within the general flow of norms in our society.
Legality: If unification and kinship are the goals of marriage than anyone (within reason) who wishes to wed another should be allowed to at their own discretion, without sex of the opposing partner being a factor in the decision on whether or not it’s ‘allowed’.
Justice: It is clear that same sex marriage is not only beneficial but well over due in the court of marriage.
Advantage: The proposition to allow same sex marriage will rejuvenate the institution and truly allow everyone to participate.
Possibility: Not only can an institution be changed here folks, but the rust can be broken off of CHANGE and we can get on with progress and living happily while achieving it.
Prologue: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship as defined in Wikipedia (not usually a source but it works for this definition). The cornerstone of marriage as an institution is based upon two people of differing lineages coming together and creating a collaboration that in essence unifies the two individuals and creates a family.
Contrary: Laws prevent same sex unions in this day and age for no clear reason other than the presumption that ‘same-sex’ anything is a slight on the natural and blight on piety as well as society in general.
Exposition: However the institution of marriage stands the same trial of time as everything else and must broaden its horizons in order to survive as important and necessary. Marriage’s survivability already has enough problems on its own, but to stifle future miracles is to devalue the institution as a whole… while successfully making it like an exclusive country club.
Comparison: Marriage is a joke anymore. People do it in Vegas after a 20 minute marathon… erm roulette game. People get married to doctor taxes, or pull benefits for kid. All the same, people rid themselves of marriage like they would a rabid monkey clinging to their back. Clearly neither the beginning nor end of marriage is taken seriously so why in this instance take what happens between so seriously?
Intention: Same sex marriages often come at great scrutiny and cost to the participants, but they want the union so they persevere. In this way same sex marriages are tempered even before they can happen, or be confirmed legally. How’s that for taking marriage seriously?
Digression: If marriage is not allowed to broaden its horizons and get with the day and age we are in then it may well continue to lose its value and truly become a husk of its former greatness.
Rejection of Pity: Perhaps it seems wrong to agree with the wishes of those who you cannot understand, and this is why we choose to deny the option of same sex marriage universally; alas it is not. It is never wrong to attempt to streamline and make the world a more understanding and inviting place for everyone who wishes to fall within the general flow of norms in our society.
Legality: If unification and kinship are the goals of marriage than anyone (within reason) who wishes to wed another should be allowed to at their own discretion, without sex of the opposing partner being a factor in the decision on whether or not it’s ‘allowed’.
Justice: It is clear that same sex marriage is not only beneficial but well over due in the court of marriage.
Advantage: The proposition to allow same sex marriage will rejuvenate the institution and truly allow everyone to participate.
Possibility: Not only can an institution be changed here folks, but the rust can be broken off of CHANGE and we can get on with progress and living happily while achieving it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
