I’ve finally caught up on all of the readings…. Yay!
Both Nye and Grassi mentioned that the rhetorical experience works with things like images, metaphors and pathos unlike logic. Logic includes rationality, facts and objectivity. One thing I noticed upon completing Nye was that I think that rationality and reason are just ideological constructed points of view. The ideology of logic can never be an actual pure point of view because people who pursue logic are still interacting with other people in order to acquire their knowledge. In other words, how can one hope to achieve the absolute truth if the truths they are receiving are through the conversations with other people in their various discourse communities? Without interacting with people on some level (whether written or spoken), how can they achieve their absolute truth?
When people try to be objective, they have no pathos because they’re emotionless. However, if they believe in what they say or do, how can they be passionless? I say this because at one point in our readings (I dunno which one), it was mentioned that if you are feeling emotional, then you cannot think rationally/logically. However, based on my own experience, I would argue that logic can never be in a pure form. Whenever I’m analyzing or thinking deeply about what I’m reading, I am being logical in my pursuit of knowledge. However, when I’m feeling anxious (as I did last night and this morning in an attempt to get this reading done), I don’t analyze nearly as well or come up with any connections/ideas. When I push aside those emotions to concentrate, I am still using pathos because if I didn’t have passion for what I am reading or what I am doing, than what is my purpose? Why does pursuing or thinking about knowledge even matter?
I think logic is damaging when we say it is how a person should behave or act in a given instance. For example I think it can damage women and/or put them at a disadvantage as Nye pointed out. One thing that stood out to me was that women are tied to the concept of “feminine” and how no matter how hard they try to imitate men in terms of masculinity, they will never achieve the equality they desire because logic is a concept that is created and used dominantly by men.
And I was thinking, if women truly wanted to be equal to men, I think it has to start with the language and how we interact with each other. Interactions/activities with other people is how we create meanings in words & ideas, including the concept of logic and its tie to rationality. If we find some way to change that language and how we define the words, then we can perhaps reach equality/take away the masculinity within logic.
A-logical reasoning I think (but not sure) would look like facts, objectivity, reasoning, rationality, dialectical, mediating and demonstrative. Also, I was thinking that it would not be conversational. While I was catching up on my readings, one of them (Aristotle, I think) seemed to point out a distinction between dialect and rhetoric. I wondered if maybe what makes rhetoric, rhetoric is if there is purpose, intention and argument. If there isn’t a conversation between texts, there would probably not be a purpose or an argument in those texts between two or more people. If I were to choose an example of what this would look like, I think maybe it could look like a conversation (or a dialect, rather) between two furbies because there is not mutual understanding or a purpose between the two creatures.
Both Nye and Grassi mentioned that the rhetorical experience works with things like images, metaphors and pathos unlike logic. Logic includes rationality, facts and objectivity. One thing I noticed upon completing Nye was that I think that rationality and reason are just ideological constructed points of view. The ideology of logic can never be an actual pure point of view because people who pursue logic are still interacting with other people in order to acquire their knowledge. In other words, how can one hope to achieve the absolute truth if the truths they are receiving are through the conversations with other people in their various discourse communities? Without interacting with people on some level (whether written or spoken), how can they achieve their absolute truth?
When people try to be objective, they have no pathos because they’re emotionless. However, if they believe in what they say or do, how can they be passionless? I say this because at one point in our readings (I dunno which one), it was mentioned that if you are feeling emotional, then you cannot think rationally/logically. However, based on my own experience, I would argue that logic can never be in a pure form. Whenever I’m analyzing or thinking deeply about what I’m reading, I am being logical in my pursuit of knowledge. However, when I’m feeling anxious (as I did last night and this morning in an attempt to get this reading done), I don’t analyze nearly as well or come up with any connections/ideas. When I push aside those emotions to concentrate, I am still using pathos because if I didn’t have passion for what I am reading or what I am doing, than what is my purpose? Why does pursuing or thinking about knowledge even matter?
I think logic is damaging when we say it is how a person should behave or act in a given instance. For example I think it can damage women and/or put them at a disadvantage as Nye pointed out. One thing that stood out to me was that women are tied to the concept of “feminine” and how no matter how hard they try to imitate men in terms of masculinity, they will never achieve the equality they desire because logic is a concept that is created and used dominantly by men.
And I was thinking, if women truly wanted to be equal to men, I think it has to start with the language and how we interact with each other. Interactions/activities with other people is how we create meanings in words & ideas, including the concept of logic and its tie to rationality. If we find some way to change that language and how we define the words, then we can perhaps reach equality/take away the masculinity within logic.
A-logical reasoning I think (but not sure) would look like facts, objectivity, reasoning, rationality, dialectical, mediating and demonstrative. Also, I was thinking that it would not be conversational. While I was catching up on my readings, one of them (Aristotle, I think) seemed to point out a distinction between dialect and rhetoric. I wondered if maybe what makes rhetoric, rhetoric is if there is purpose, intention and argument. If there isn’t a conversation between texts, there would probably not be a purpose or an argument in those texts between two or more people. If I were to choose an example of what this would look like, I think maybe it could look like a conversation (or a dialect, rather) between two furbies because there is not mutual understanding or a purpose between the two creatures.
The last question of the prompt asked what stacks the deck to favor logical responses. I feel like this goes back to my previous idea that reason/logic/rationally is an ideological construct created by society. In other words, I feel that depending on a person’s view, the logical response is whatever the person (audience/writer/speaker) wants it to look like in a given situation. I think that there really is no “pure” logical response, but I think that maybe the ideological logical/rational traits can be more acceptable/appropriate in certain situations (like figuring out a problem) than more metaphor/pathetic type responses and thus, I think maybe what stacks the deck to favor logical responses depends on the purpose and the argument of a given situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment